13 January Update

Early Bird summary
Tuesday’s Early Bird leads with three stories – from the New York Times, Miami Herald, and Wall Street Journal – detailing how President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
Also high in today’s Early Bird are two stories – from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- about how Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that senior officers must work to prevent the militarization of American foreign policy. Mullen urged generals and admirals to tell civilian leaders when they believed the armed forces should not take the lead in carrying out policies overseas.
Other noteworthy stories in today’s EB:
§ The Washington Post reports that President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
§ The Christian Science Monitor reports on how thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed since the start of the war in 2001, caught in the crossfire or in Taliban suicide attacks – but also, increasingly, victims of US airstrikes gone wrong, a fact that has precipitated a backlash against America and its partners. According to Human Rights Watch, 540 civilians lost their lives during the first six months of 2008 alone, a full 173 of them during coalition attacks – an outcome the coalition desperately wants to avoid.
§ McClatchy Newspapers reports that The men of the 3rd Batallion, 8th Marine Regiment, based at Camp Lejeune, are discovering in their first two months in Afghanistan that the tactics they learned in nearly six years of combat in Iraq are of little value here — and may even inhibit their ability to fight their Taliban foes.Their MRAP mine-resistant vehicles, which cost $1 million each, were specially developed to combat the terrible effects of roadside bombs, the single biggest killer of Americans in Iraq. But Iraq is a country of highways and paved roads, and the heavily armored vehicles are cumbersome on Afghanistan's unpaved roads and rough terrain where roadside bombs are much less of a threat.Body armor is critical to warding off snipers in Iraq, where Sunni Muslim insurgents once made video of American soldiers falling to well-placed sniper shots a staple of recruiting efforts. But the added weight makes Marines awkward and slow when they have to dismount to chase after Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan's rough terrain.
§ Navy Times reports that Navy Secretary Donald Winter has agreed to stay in his post after the inauguration of President-elect Obama, Winter said Monday, and is planning to remain until March 13, unless a replacement arrives before then.Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Winter, the secretaries of the Army and the Air Force, and a number of other top Defense Department officials to stay on with him into the Obama administration, Winter said, but he would not comment on reports about any other official staying or going.
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The New York Times leads with word that President-elect Barack Obama will issue an executive order in his first full day of office that will order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantamo Bay, Cuba. (Slate Magazine)
2. Trautman: Marines can bridge strike fighter gap with A-D Hornets: Service life extensions of the Marine Corps’ fleet of legacy F/A-18A-D Hornets along with some mitigation measures should allow the Marines to bridge a projected 56-aircraft strike fighter gap in the coming years, and buying newer Super Hornet aircraft is not an option, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, said in an interview. (Inside Defense Weekly)
3. Afghan conflict to be reviewed: President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years. (Washington Post)
4. The Afghan puzzle – Adm. Mike Mullen on the way forward: President-elect Barack Obama's national-security team is studying several options for improving the situation in Afghanistan, including the military's plan to nearly double troop levels there. But assessments of the seven-year-old war are mostly grim. (Newsweek)
5. Attacks renewed on NATO supplies: A Nato supply depot in north-west Pakistan has been attacked by suspected militants, the first such raid since a major army offensive against them. (BBC)
6. Israelis strike 60 Gaza targets: Israeli planes have attacked more than 60 targets in Gaza as its offensive against Hamas entered its 18th day. (BBC)
7. Russian gas to Europe ‘blocked’: Russian gas giant Gazprom says Ukraine has blocked gas deliveries to Europe, dashing hopes of ending a row which has hit several countries' supplies. (BBC)
Leading newspaper headlines
The New York Times leads with word that President-elect Barack Obama will issue an executive order in his first full day of office that will order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantamo Bay, Cuba. The Wall Street Journal, which goes inside with the news, says the order will come within Obama's first week in office. The detention facility won't close right away as some estimate it could take up to a year to figure out what to do with the remaining 248 prisoners. The Washington Post and the WSJ's world-wide newsbox lead with President Bush officially requesting the second half of the $700 billion bailout package on behalf of Obama, who began an aggressive lobbying campaign yesterday to convince skeptical lawmakers to give him access to the funds. Obama is calling key members of Congress vowing there will be more oversight on how the money is spent and promising a renewed focus on helping homeowners avoid foreclosure.
USA Today leads with a look at how many states continue to spend money as if the recession had all been a bad dream. As revenue continues to decrease, this unabashed spending means that many state budgets will fall deeper in the red over the coming months as most state leaders appear to be waiting to see how much they'll receive from Washington as part of the planned stimulus package. A lot of states "haven't really 'fessed up yet in terms of how bad it is," said the executive director of the National Governors Association. The Los Angeles Times leads locally with a look at how fire chiefs across Southern California are debating whether, in some situations, residents should be allowed to stay and defend their homes from a wildfire. Some fire chiefs believe it could be an efficient way to deal with a lack of resources during a time of lean budgets, but others say it could unnecessarily put lives at risk.
Obama's plan to make a strong statement about Guantanamo on Jan. 21 is seen as a way to signal that the new president will quickly work to undo one of the most controversial chapters of President Bush's tenure. The NYT also notes that transition officials appear determined to order "an immediate suspension" of the military commissions system to try detainees. Transition officials appear to have rejected a Bush administration push to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The WSJ hears word that Obama also plans to issue an executive order regarding interrogation methods.
Over the weekend, Obama told an interviewer that closing Guantanamo is "going to take some time" because it is "more difficult than I think a lot of people realize." By leaking word of the executive order, Obama's team may be seeking to quiet critics who complained that the president-elect's comments suggested that the detention facility wouldn't' be at the top of his priorities list. But while the announcement may show that Obama is serious about closing Guantanamo, some have complained that the president-elect hasn't provided details on how he intends to achieve that goal.
As the WSJ details, Bush's request for the second-half of the bailout package came at a time of "mounting concern" over the health of some of the big U.S. lenders that have already received cash infusions courtesy of Uncle Sam. Bank shares were down yesterday after news got out that Citigroup, which received $45 billion of taxpayer money, will likely report a loss of $10 billion for the latest quarter. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed frustration over the rescue package, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, because many of the financial institutions that received government cash have failed to resume lending.
Obama said he asked Bush to request the money because he doesn't want to be left without funds if something happens in the financial markets. But lawmakers said Obama has so far spoken in general terms and has failed to provide details (are you sensing a pattern?) about how the money would be used. While the NYT is optimistic that lawmakers would ultimately approve the request, the Post says that several members of Congress said they would vote against the move unless Obama is more candid about how he plans to use the money. But, really, there seems to be little chance that lawmakers will say no. After all, if they do it would mean they would be handing Obama an important defeat before he even takes office, and it's hard to imagine that Democrats would want that.
In a move that could both be seen as a sign that Obama is willing to listen to critics and that his team failed to think through the consequences of his proposals, it looks like the president-elect will nix a campaign promise to provide a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire made by businesses. The Post directly states that Obama will drop the proposal, while the WSJ says it will likely be scaled back and could be completely erased from the stimulus package. The measure had come under heavy criticism from economists of all political persuasions as well as Democratic lawmakers who said the tax incentive would be easy to abuse since companies would likely claim the credit for hires they would have made anyway and could lay off workers just to rehire them and claim the tax break. The WSJ says Obama will offer up bigger tax breaks for renewable-energy development and production instead.
The WP off-leads word that while Obama plans to approve a plan to send as many as 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, he doesn't think that will actually create a decisive shift in a conflict that has been worsening over the past year. The incoming administration sees the extra troops as a stopgap measure that will give the new president enough time to develop a new strategy. Although Obama once vowed to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, that is starting to look more like a pipe dream and everyone seems to accept that compromises will have to be made. It's likely that the incoming administration will have a new strategy ready to present at a NATO summit in April, where Obama will try to cash in on his popularity in Europe to ask allies for an increased military and financial commitment to the Afghanistan operation.
Meanwhile, though, Obama will have to decide where these additional troops are going to go within Afghanistan, and that has sparked an intense debate within the Pentagon, reports the LAT. Some military officials insist that the troops need to focus on guarding the border with Pakistan, while others say that the number one priority should be to protect Afghan cities and towns from Taliban extremists.
Most of the papers give big front-page play to President Bush's valedictory news conference that he jokingly referred to as the "ultimate exit interview." While the NYT, WP, and LAT all front a montage with several photographs of Bush's facial expressions during the news conference, the WSJ puts a picture taken yesterday next to one from Jan. 2001 that poignantly illustrate how Bush has aged over the past eight years. Bush was introspective during the conference, admitting to some mistakes and disappointments, but he also vigorously defended his administration and said people should avoid making snap judgments about his legacy. "There is no such thing as short-term history," he said. Unlike four years ago, Bush was clearly ready when asked about mistakes he made while in office. For the first time, he said he should have pushed for immigration reform after his reelection instead of focusing on trying to change Social Security. He recognized that hanging the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign was a "mistake," and added that "some of my rhetoric has been a mistake." He also said he had "thought long and hard about Katrina" but didn't say what could have been done differently beyond perhaps "land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge."
Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary, points out to the LAT that Bush didn't concede any actual substantive mistakes and merely chose to focus on how he could have improved his public relations strategy. "The one thing missing was candor," McClellan said. "Until he acknowledges a single policy mistake, I think it's going to be hard for him to get people to tune in and pay attention to some of the notable policy achievements."
As the WP's Dana Milbank points out, Bush even managed to eke out what may be the final Bushism of his presidency when he tried to wish his successor well. "I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."









Top of the Document

Super Hornets ‘absolutely not’ an option
TRAUTMAN: MARINES CAN BRIDGE STRIKE FIGHTER GAP WITH A-D HORNETS
_______________________________________________
Date: January 12, 2009

Service life extensions of the Marine Corps’ fleet of legacy F/A-18A-D Hornets along with some mitigation measures should allow the Marines to bridge a projected 56-aircraft strike fighter gap in the coming years, and buying newer Super Hornet aircraft is not an option, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, said in an interview.
The Navy is weighing its options for dealing with a shortfall of about 125 aircraft -- 69 for the sea service and 56 for the Marine Corps -- peaking around 2017 as legacy Hornets begin retiring and the follow-on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters start entering service. Some lawmakers are pushing the Navy to buy Super Hornets to fill the gap, but that will not be necessary for the Marine Corps, Trautman told Inside the Navy in a Jan. 9 interview at his Pentagon office.
“The strike fighter shortfall is a challenge, and we’re trying to bridge that with aging AV-8 [Harriers] and aging legacy Hornets to F-35,” he said. “What this nation needs to do is keep F-35 on track. All indications for me both fiscally and technically are that it is on track.”
The Marine Corps made a decision more than a decade ago not to seek Super Hornets and instead wait for the fifth-generation F-35 JSF because “it is a game-changing technology that is worth waiting for,” Trautman said.
The three-star general said he expects the service life extension program to adequately bridge the gap, and there is no reason to believe the aircraft cannot reach 10,000 hours of service life.
“There has been no new data that tells me that it is going to be harder than we ever thought it was going to be,” he said. “We’re going to carefully pick, bureau number by bureau number, the legacy airplanes that have to be and should be receiving a service life extension program in order to make this bridge.”
Trautman said the aircraft can do this without losing any capability, pointing to CH-46 helicopters that are being extended out to 53 years of service life while maintaining the best readiness in the Marine Corps at 90 percent. The program has upgraded the aircraft with new cockpits, better survivability and improved engine reliability among other upgrades, and there is no reason to think the same cannot be done with legacy Hornets, he argued.
The service has also taken some mitigation measures to help deal with the gap by making do with less.
Trautman said the Corps usually wants to have 21 active squadrons and three Reserve squadrons, or about seven active and one Reserve for the three Marine Expeditionary Forces. In light of the coming gap, the total has been reduced by two active and two Reserve squadrons, and there have been cutbacks in the number of aircraft per AV-8B squadron as well.
In the meantime, Trautman said he is watching the development of the Marines’ short-take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF closely, because the aircraft must stay on time in order to avoid worsening the gap.
The first STOVL test aircraft, BF-1, had its first flight in conventional mode last June. Marine Brig. Gen. David Heinz, deputy JSF program manager, told ITN last month that the aircraft will begin phasing in its lift fan during test flights in April. Initial operational capability for the aircraft is set for late 2012.
Trautman acknowledged delays on the aircraft, but said he was confident about keeping the current schedule.
“They’ve been flying their avionics test platform, they’ve got millions of lines of code written, we’ve invested $6 billion up front to make this different from any other program ever, and it is different,” he said. “They’re gathering a lot of knowledge, and every day they get more knowledge, I get more confident.” -- Dan Taylor




Top of the Document



Afghan Conflict Will Be Reviewed
Obama Sees Troops As Buying Time, Not Turning Tide
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 13, 2009; Page A01
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
With conditions on the ground worsening by nearly every yardstick last year -- including record levels of extremist attacks and U.S. casualties, and the expansion of the conflict across Pakistan and into India -- Obama's campaign pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with more troops, money and diplomacy has encountered the daunting reality of a job that has barely begun.
Since the November election, Obama has been flooded with dire assessments of the war. A National Intelligence Estimate warned that a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership, dug into the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border, continues to plan attacks against the United States and Europe. The Bush White House delivered a major review of Afghanistan last month that echoed that judgment, acknowledged that a modern Afghan democracy -- stable and free of extremists -- may be both unattainable and unaffordable, and said that the United States may have to accept trade-offs among priorities.
“We have no strategic plan. We never had one," a senior U.S. military commander said of the Bush years. Obama's first order of business, he said, will be to "explain to the American people what the mission is" in Afghanistan. The officer is one of a number of active-duty and retired officers, senior Obama team members and Bush administration officials interviewed for this article, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the presidential transition.
The military is as concerned about the mission of additional troops as it is about the size of the force and is looking for Obama to resolve critical internal debates, including the relative merits of conducting conventional combat vs. targeted guerrilla war. With limited resources, should the military concentrate on eliminating a Taliban presence -- a task for which most think the United States and its allies will never have enough troops -- or on securing large population areas?
What is the plan for training an Afghan army expected to double in size -- from 84,000 troops -- in the next few years, when less than half of current U.S. trainer slots are filled? How will resources be shifted to the State Department and civilian development experts Obama has said must assume more responsibility? Can the new president do what his predecessor could not and impose order and a shared strategy on the 41 nations and countless international and nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan? Will he follow through on pledges for more diplomacy with Iran, to the west of Afghanistan, and a more aggressive plan for Pakistan to the east?
"This is not a Shinseki versus Rumsfeld debate between 125,000 or 500,000 U.S. troops," a Pentagon official said, referring to the differing views of then-Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before the Iraq invasion in 2003. "It's a real debate about what the correct answer is."
Obama has offered few public comments on Afghanistan since the election. "We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements; we haven't seen the security improvements; we haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking; we haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can, in fact, deliver on its promises," he said last month on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We've got to ramp up our development approach," he said, without providing details.
The president-elect set out a "very limited" objective of ensuring that Afghanistan "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States." He cited the need for "more effective military action" -- even as he warned of fierce Afghan resistance to the presence of foreign troops -- and said the "number one goal" is to stop al-Qaeda.
In the current vacuum, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made their own assessments and recommendations, as has Gen. David D. McKiernan, the commander of both U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the Central Command chief, who has regional responsibility for the Middle East and much of South Asia, has set up what a Pentagon official only half-jokingly described as a "shadow government," assembling a team of more than 200 military and civilian experts to supply him with a comprehensive plan for the region by mid-February.
The Army is already spending $1.1 billion to provide facilities for additional troops in Afghanistan and plans to start an additional $1.3 billion in construction next year. But it remains unclear what kinds of forces, with what assignments, will be sent beyond the 10th Mountain Division's 3rd Combat Brigade, departing this month. Smaller "enabler" units with helicopters and other equipment are also readying for deployment, and significant training must begin soon for other units selected to go during the spring and summer. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, has pressed for a major Marine presence in Afghanistan once the Marine force has drawn down substantially from Iraq.
On the civilian and economic development front, Obama officials have been noncommittal about a $2.5 billion supplemental spending plan for 2009 that the State Department hopes the new administration will quickly submit to Congress for approval. Although Obama co-sponsored a Senate bill to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years, introduced last summer by his vice president-elect, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the proposal never left the chamber.
"At some point," said a retired senior officer with long Afghan experience and ties to the Obama team, "this is going to have to converge into a set of options and a decision on a strategy instead of 40 different ones. . . . It's going to require a much more complex assessment by Obama. One of the problems is you don't really know what kind of forces, and how many, until you know what strategy you're going to have."
With its "Day One" plate already overflowing with the economic crisis at home, the Hamas-Israel war in the Gaza Strip and Obama's stated goal of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, the new administration says it will not be rushed on Afghanistan. "We are taking a long, hard look at these issues now," a transition adviser said.
The parameters of a new strategy are unlikely to emerge before early April, when Afghanistan and Pakistan will top the agenda at a NATO summit in France. By presenting its NATO allies with a comprehensive plan and demonstrating the leadership to implement it, Obama hopes to capitalize on his overwhelming popularity in Europe with requests for increased military and financial contributions.
What they've got to say is 'Okay, if you love Obama, show us how much,' " said another retired senior military officer.
Some senior members of the new administration are already deeply knowledgeable about Afghanistan and Pakistan, including holdover Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, Obama's national security adviser, commanded NATO when it took over the coalition of international forces in Afghanistan in 2003 and last year chaired a major Atlantic Council study that concluded that "the international community is not winning in Afghanistan."
Jones remains committed to the study's recommendation of a complete reappraisal of the war; a campaign plan that integrates all security, reconstruction and governance efforts; and a regional approach that includes diplomatic collaboration with Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China.
But other designated policymakers have been less intimately involved with the issue, including Secretary of State-designee Hillary Rodham Clinton; retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the nominee for director of national intelligence; and Leon E. Panetta, Obama's choice to head the CIA. There is a deep-seated belief among Obama advisers that no matter how many pre-inauguration diplomatic, military and intelligence briefings they receive, they will not have a full picture of the depth of the problems in Afghanistan or the options for fixing them until Obama reaches the Oval Office.
Top of the Document

William John Kipp / U.S. Navy-AP
Adm. Mike Mullen (far left), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani (center), Pakistani Army chief of staff, last summer.
CAPITAL SOURCES
The Afghan Puzzle
Admiral Mullen on the way forward.
By Dan Ephron Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 12, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama's national-security team is studying several options for improving the situation in Afghanistan, including the military's plan to nearly double troop levels there. But assessments of the seven-year-old war are mostly grim. A report issued last month by the International Council on Security and Development said the Taliban now holds a permanent presence in 72 percent of Afghanistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said 2009 could be the toughest year the United States has faced since start of the war. "I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan," he told Congress in September. Mullen, who was appointed by President Bush and has met at least twice with Obama since the election, ordered his staff late last year to conduct a strategy review for Afghanistan. He recently returned from a trip to the region where he met with, among others, Pakistan's military chief, Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani. On the plane ride home, Mullen spoke with NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You've met Kiyani eight times in the year or so that he's been head of the Pakistani military. What kind of job is he doing?Mike Mullen: From a leadership standpoint, the military … I don't know of a guy that's in a tougher spot. And I think he's the right guy at the right time. He's very professional, I think he's a courageous leader, and he listens. He's also not afraid of making hard decisions. He's told me he would do certain things and he's done them. He's moved forces to the west to fight the insurgency. He's got some 10,000 or more forces this year in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] and North-West Frontier province than he had last year. He's fought in Bajaur, where no Pakistani military has ever fought. He's assigned a leader to the Frontier Corps who is a Pashtun and who has done things for the Frontier Corps in the last two or three months that nobody would have imagined.
How has he handled the Mumbai attack and the aftermath?I have seen him in this Mumbai crisis as a man of restraint and a leader who wants this to be resolved peacefully. He recognizes the threat from the insurgency and the threat from LET [the Pakistani military group Lashkar-e-Taiba] who executed this Mumbai terrorist act. So given the severity of the challenges, the constant engagement I think is a requirement. Obviously, we in the United States have great interest there. I think it's important we expand the relationship to a comprehensive relationship.
How is the United States perceived by Pakistani military leaders?Our ambassador here [Anne Patterson] had me at her residence on my second or third visit speaking to 30 or 40 Pakistani officers or college students. These were commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains, colonels—and I spoke for a few minutes and took questions for about 45 minutes … Half of the questions were about India. Now this doesn't surprise me. These were officers who are successful at what they've done, they've been promoted because they have succeeded in that—being stationed on that border and commanding at that level.
And the other half of the questions?I would summarize the other half by saying that in the Pakistani military there's not one junior officer who doesn't know who Sen. [Larry] Pressler is. In the United States military, there isn't a junior officer who has a clue who Senator Pressler is. Pressler, of course, is the senator who gave us the Pressler amendment, which essentially sanctioned Pakistan for 12 years.
Over the nuke issue?Over the nuke issue. And in that sanctioning, and I'm not being critical about it, but one of the effects of that was to disestablish the military relationship between the Pakistani mil and the United States military. So from the rank of major to one-star general, we have no relationship, no trust. We are now filling up that trust deficit, you know, one day at a time, one meeting at a time.
At one of your recent addresses, you said that 12-year absence of interaction had led people within the Pakistani military to harbor misperceptions about the United States. What kind of misperceptions?They don't know anything about us. It's not their fault. Just like if I hadn't been to Pakistan in some time, I wouldn't know anything about them except how I'm informed. So how do you break that down? Before I came to this job, years ago we had a course up in the War College … for captains and colonels. And we bring in one or two U.S. Navy officers, and other than that it's typically captains or colonels from navies and marine corps around the world. And the number of those guys that end up leading their navies or leading their marine corps is extraordinary. So living together in Newport, Rhode Island, with their families for a year they become lifelong friends … And if you haven't had a Pakistani military officer in a school, you've got no relationship. But the problem with Pakistan is not just a lack of relationship. It strikes me that there are core issues where U.S. interests collide with Pakistani interests.
Like?Operating in the tribal areas. We're encouraging them to do it because it makes our troops in Afghanistan more secure and maybe helps prevent future terrorists attacks. But for Pakistan, it amounts to stirring the hornets' nest.
Terrorism is their problem too. They've lost hundreds of Pakistani citizens to suicide bombers. It is marching closer to their cities, out of the FATA, the North-West Frontier. They know these leaders: Hakani, Basu, Hekmatyar, Nazir, the LET, Latvi, this guy they just wrapped up. And that threat is syndicating now and is becoming more of a threat to them. We didn't have to push very hard. I mean the Marriott bombing really got their attention. And you know, as President [Asif Ali] Zadari has said, they killed his wife. So there's not much pushing [by the United States] that goes with that. There is the freedom in the FATA which has permitted the Taliban to train there. They have a rich relationship with the Taliban … This is the safe-haven issue, and it's got to go away. And in that regard I've pushed him and other leaders very hard, and I'll continue to do that. Then there's the third, and for us, I think the most important threat, which is the freedom to Al Qaeda to live there. Al Qaeda leadership lives there. And we need to continue to exert great pressure there and create as much difficulty for Al Qaeda in that safe haven as possible.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
You were in Israel in July. Tell me about that.I've seen [Israeli Army Chief of Staff Gabi] Ashkenazi a lot. We're very close; it's a key relationship. I also have a great relationship with the Navy chief. He gave me a helicopter ride a couple of years ago. I'm always reminded when we go to Israel how small the country is. [It's] in a tough neighborhood, not a lot of friends, and the timelines are very short so that it doesn't take me long in a helicopter to go from Gaza to the border in Lebanon or Syria.
If U.S. diplomacy fails to stop Iran from moving ahead with its nuclear program, how do you think Israel will respond — and what can it do militarily on its own?I don't want to get into the question of whether will Israel go it alone; that's all just way too sensitive. But … I believe that Iran achieving nuclear status will be incredibly destabilizing in a part of the world that is pretty unstable already. And I worry a great deal about a strike in and of itself and its effects. I also worry about the unintended consequences of a strike on Iran. That's the danger in this.
How do you defuse all that?There is a full range of options. My strong belief is we need to do it diplomatically, to bring as much international pressure on Iran so that they become a responsible country with respect to the region and modify their behavior accordingly.
© 2009


Top of the Document

Attacks renewed on Nato supplies
Pakistani troops have tried to crack down on the militant attacks
A Nato supply depot in north-west Pakistan has been attacked by suspected militants, the first such raid since a major army offensive against them.
Several rockets were fired at the terminal on the outskirts of Peshawar, damaging a number of trucks.
Last month authorities suspended the supply route in an offensive involving ground troops, helicopters and tanks.
The route carries about 75% of the supplies needed by the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan.
Alternative routes
A senior police officer, Fida Mohammad, told Agence France-Presse news agency: "The militants fired six rockets on a Nato terminal during the night. One truck was hit and it caught fire, while three other vehicles suffered minor damage."
He said there was a brief exchange of fire with police but the attackers fled.
Last month the military launched a major operation against militants in the Khyber region in response to a wave of hijackings and attacks on vehicles carrying supplies into Afghanistan.
Dozens of people were arrested and a number of suspected militant houses and camps were destroyed in the operation.
The offensive led to the closure of the crucial overland supply route. It was later reopened for day deliveries.
The international forces in Afghanistan praised the offensive saying it was necessary to "clear out these trouble spots".
There have been reports Nato and the US are trying to find alternative routes through central Asia.


Top of the Document

Israelis strike 60 Gaza targets
Israeli planes have attacked more than 60 targets in Gaza as its offensive against Hamas entered its 18th day.
The strikes came as Israeli troops advanced into the suburbs of Gaza City.
The head of the Red Cross accompanied a convoy of aid into Gaza during a three-hour ceasefire, during which witnesses said there was increased shelling.
Palestinians say more than 90,000 people have left their homes to escape the bombing. Militants, however, have kept up rocket attacks on Israel.
Thirteen rocket or mortar attacks were launched from Gaza on Tuesday, Israeli police said. No-one was hurt.
Jacob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, was expected to go to the main Shifa hospital in Gaza City to see patients and medical teams.
He also intended to hold talks with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials.
Last week the ICRC accused Israel of failing to fulfil its duty to help wounded civilians in Gaza, and said it was a "full-blown humanitarian crisis".
Explosions
The BBC's Aleem Maqbool, on the Israeli-Gaza border, said shelling had continued, including air and land attacks, throughout the morning ceasefire, which began at 0900 local time (0700 GMT).
Earlier, one Israeli officer was critically wounded when a bomb exploded in a booby-trapped house, the Israeli military said.
It denied a claim by Hamas that the militant group had destroyed two Israeli tanks.
Western areas of Gaza City also came under shellfire from Israeli gunboats.
Human rights group al-Mizan in Gaza said more than 90,000 people had fled their houses during the violence.
About 31,000 of them were staying at UN-run schools in Gaza City, which are full, in Jabaliyah camp and Shati camp. The other 60,000 were staying with neighbours and relatives.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is due in the region on Wednesday to push for a truce.
He has implored Israel and Palestinian militants to halt the fighting in Gaza immediately.
Mr Ban said too many people had died and there had been too much civilian suffering.
"My message is simple, direct and to the point: the fighting must stop," Mr Ban told a news conference in New York ahead of his departure on Tuesday for the Middle East.
"In Gaza, the very foundation of society is being destroyed: people's homes, civic infrastructure, public health facilities and schools."
His diplomatic tour will see talks with the leaders of Egypt, Israel and Syria as well as the Palestinian president in Ramallah.
However, UN officials say he will not be meeting representatives of Hamas, and it is not clear whether he will go to Gaza itself during his week-long trip.
Also on Tuesday, the Israeli army said one of its patrols in the West Bank had come under fire from inside Jordan. No-one was hurt in the incident and the patrol returned fire.
However, the Jordanian Armed Forces General Command has denied there was any shooting from Jordan.
An army spokesman called the Israeli military report "categorically baseless."
"An investigation showed there was no shooting at the border into Israel," he said in the statement.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Palestinian militants would keep on feeling Israel's "iron fist" as long as Hamas fired rockets at Israel.
But a senior Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, said the group was "approaching victory".
Both Hamas and Israel rejected last week's UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Palestinian medical sources say 920 people have been killed in Gaza so far, of whom 292 were children and 75 were women. Israeli officials say 13 Israelis, including three civilians, have been killed.
Israel is preventing international journalists from entering Gaza, making it impossible independently to confirm casualty figures.
Top of the Document
Russian gas to Europe 'blocked'
Russia has accused Ukraine of stealing gas meant for Europe
Russian gas giant Gazprom says Ukraine has blocked gas deliveries to Europe, dashing hopes of ending a row which has hit several countries' supplies.
Gazprom deputy head Alexander Medvedev said Ukraine had failed to carry the gas westwards to Europe after it resumed pumping it across their border.
Kiev said it could not pump the gas as Russia had switched the transit route.
Hundreds of thousands of Europeans have been without gas since Gazprom cut supplies nearly a week ago.
Moscow has been unable to resolve differences with Ukraine over debts and pricing.
See map of affected area
The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, at a pumping station on the Russian-Ukrainian border, says the latest twist in the dispute is symptomatic of the total lack of trust between the two countries.
'Limited' supply
European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso phoned Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to express disappointment at the low levels of gas flowing from Russia and at the apparent lack of access to dispatch centres for EU monitors, EU officials said.
Mr Barroso said he would also discuss the problem with the Ukrainian leadership.
Russia shut off the gas to Europe last Wednesday, accusing Kiev of stealing gas meant for other European customers.
Ukraine didn't open the route for gas transit - if the system is closed, we can't provide gas
Alexander MedvedevGazprom deputy chairman
Russian gas ignites tensions
Cold comfort for Europe
Q&A: Europe needs Russian gas
Ukraine's domestic supply was cut a week earlier.
However, in a deal reached on Monday, Russia agreed to resume supplies if Russian and EU observers were allowed to monitor their transit through Ukraine.
The move was designed to calm Russian fears that Ukraine was siphoning off gas for its own use.
Russia said gas started flowing from the Russian pumping station at Sudzha at 1030 local time (0730 GMT) on Tuesday.
This was later confirmed by EU monitors, although the amount of gas, they said, was "very limited".
Mr Medvedev said Gazprom had informed the European Commission it was unable to supply gas through Ukraine because Kiev had not opened any export pipelines.
"Ukraine didn't open the route for gas transit...," he said.
"If the system is closed, we can't provide gas. The Ukrainian side cynically informed us that the gas transport system had been reoriented to domestic consumers.
"We don't know what to do at the moment."
After the gas was switched on at Sudzha, Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz demanded "the immediate resumption of even supply of gas along all transit routes", saying the amount and direction of the gas had not been agreed by the two sides.
Major shortages
Russia cut gas supplies to Ukraine on New Year's Day, saying it would pump only enough for customers further down the pipeline.
Thousands of Europeans have been left without gas in freezing temperatures
But then Moscow accused Ukraine of siphoning off gas intended for third countries and it restricted supplies even further.
Ukraine denied the claim, but the flow of Russian gas ceased completely on 7 January, leaving many European countries with major shortages.
The EU gets a quarter of its gas supplies from Russia - 80% of which passes through Ukraine - and more than 15 countries across central Europe have been hit by the shutdown of Russian supplies.
Serbia and Bosnia-Hercegovina are among the worst hit as many homes rely on heating stations that only run on gas.

Reported shortages Wider gas network
Back to top

Top of the Document