in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 7/11 OR BUST - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 12/7/09 — Tuesday, December 08, 2009 —  Q Robert, on troops, I want to talk about the U.S. forces. Admiral Mullen a short time ago was making public comments and said that July 2011 is not a deadline. Do you agree with that statement? MR. GIBBS: I think Secretary Gates said that yesterday and then followed that by saying, what that is, is the date by which -- the date on which a transition will begin of our forces handing security responsibility over to the Afghans. Understand, July 2011 comes from the Pentagon and Admiral Mullen. So I think the Pentagon gave to, as part of the process that concludes, gave to the security team a series of ideas that included July 2011 as the transition date. And I'll tell you this -- I talked to the President as recently as this morning on this -- as the Commander-in-Chief, he's clear about what July 2011 means. That is the point in which we will transition handing the security responsibility for Afghanistan to the Afghans, understanding that, as the President said a little under a week ago in West Point, the trajectory with which that withdrawal will happen will be based on, appropriately, conditions on the ground, as has happened in Iraq. Q Then why, if it's clear, did General Jones yesterday say that this is a ramp and the troops start coming off -- MR. GIBBS: That's exactly what I just said. Q Right, but then General Petraeus was asked that and he said it's not a ramp. And he said -- MR. GIBBS: I think it may be a difference in -- no, no, no, I think -- I think, having been in these meetings, I think maybe the word "ramp" has tripped people up, because we talked about the deployment off- or on-ramps, which, again, I -- the ramp I think that General Jones was discussing -- I talked to General Petraeus about this on Air Force One both to and from the West Point speech. I think the ramp that he's referring to, that we're all referring to is, from that July 2011 date that the President has made clear that there will be a transition, there is a ramp at that point where, based on the conditions on the round, will decide the pacing for the thinning of American forces. But, again, Ed, the President has been crystal clear on this. That date of transition in July 2011. [...] MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Q Thank you. On July 2011 -- first of all, I understand it was a date picked by the Pentagon, but, still, doesn’t -- I think the reason people seem to be struggling with it and why so many people were talking about it on the shows yesterday is it just feels so arbitrary. I mean, what if June 2011 turns out to be a better time, or August turns out to be a better time? Will the President say, doggone it, I said July 2011 and that's it, we're not changing that date. Q Without getting into your arbitrary hypothetical, again, I'd point you to -- this wasn't arbitrarily picked by the Pentagon. This was a decision based on what the strategy that the President had settled on and what had to happen between now and whatever date in order to ramp up the training of the army and the police that comprised the national security force of Afghanistan, at a point in which they're capable of taking over that responsibility. The Pentagon determined that that date was July 2011. Q Which could change if they do better than we think. MR. GIBBS: Well, that would be a nice problem to have. Understand that what happened -- Q But it could change. MR. GIBBS: No, it could happen earlier, sure -- Q But it won't happen later. MR. GIBBS: It won't happen later. The President is quite clear on this. Understand what happened between the meeting by which this date was originally discussed, what happened in the process moving forward was the ramp up of troops actually happened faster than the original chart that the Pentagon had. So what that means is our forces, under the President's mission, will in fact get there faster, therefore be there longer in order to help accomplish the goals necessary for that thinning to take place. That date starts in July of 2011. Q What if the Pentagon comes to him and says, we're not going to be ready July 2011, is he going to say, too bad, that's the date I set. MR. GIBBS: Well, we are going to have assessments throughout this process that will measure us attaining the goals leading up to that point. The President, though, Chip, has been clear: The transition point begins on July 2011 because the Pentagon says that's the point in which the mission will be able to do that. Q That's what they say now. But if they change what they say is the point, then the President would change with them? MR. GIBBS: Well, you're discussing what is being discussed now and I'm telling you the President is clear on July 2011. [...] Q Okay. Picking up on what Admiral Mullen said today, he referenced when he was talking to the Marines at Camp Lejeune about July 2011, he said "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. Is that accurate, and does that -- MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look through -- Q That's exactly what he said. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what the context of the surrounding -- Q He said -- MR. GIBBS: I understand, I'm sure that's -- I'm sure he said more than that at Camp Lejeune. It's a nice flight to get there. I'm sure he had more than six words to -- Q No, I know. He said, I know you Marines are interested in the 2011 July deadline, and I want to tell you, there is no deadline, which is what Ed asked about. Right after that, the very next phrase: "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what he meant. I can simply -- I can simply, again, reiterate what I did at many points last week and in discussions with the President this week: July 2011 is the transition date, the date -- Q The date when forces begin to come out. MR. GIBBS: -- the date by which our forces will be thinned and responsibility for Afghan security will be the responsibility of the Afghans. Now, again -- Q Can you define "thinned"? What does that mean? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, what I've said and what the President has said -- Q (Inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, that we will begin, based on conditions on the ground, to make decisions about the pacing for that. Q Not whether it begins. MR. GIBBS: I think there have -- not whether it begins. That has been determined. Look, there were erroneous reports the day of the speech that somehow the President was going to say everybody involved would be out of Afghanistan in three years. That wasn't true then and it's not true now. The President doesn't envision, like is happening -- similar to what's happening in Iraq, where there's a drawdown based on what General Odierno says are conditions on the ground. The same will take place in Afghanistan. There's not going to be some drop off of a cliff. But, again -- and I think, quite frankly, look exactly at what was said yesterday by Secretary Gates. That's the date in which the transition will begin. I can't be any clearer than that; the President can't; I doubt Secretary Gates could. [...] Q What happens to the 2011 July date if President Karzai's government simply proves unable to address corruption and they're just unable to train a significant number of soldiers in time? MR. GIBBS: Well, suffice to say we won’t figure that out in June of 2011, that and I think the President addressed a series of steps that would be taken at both that level and underneath the national government level as to how to address the delivery of basic services without corruption. There will be a month-by-month assessment on -- on our training. This isn't going to be a surprise. But what's important is we create an incentive with the government to take the actions that are ultimately necessary to improve their own security situation. The President believed that was important. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought providing those incentives were important. The Pentagon came up with that as a day -- as a date, and the policy and the strategy fit all of that. Q Do you think the Afghans want to do it? MR. GIBBS: I do. They've said that. The proof is in the pudding. And we'll hold them to that, and take whatever steps are necessary to meet those goals if they're unable or unwilling to do so. 7/11 | Afghanistan | Military | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: 7/11, Afghanistan, Military, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:39:00 PM  President Obama's West Point Speech on Afghanistan, or There And Back Again 12/1/09 — Wednesday, December 02, 2009 —  THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people. Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world. But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies. So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.) As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Military | Pakistan | President Obama | Speech | War on Terror Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Military, Pakistan, President Obama, Speech, War on Terror >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:03:00 PM Under Pressure To Do More Sooner - Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the President's West Point Speech on Afghanistan 12/1/09 — Tuesday, December 01, 2009 —  Q Thank you very much. Two quick questions, related. One, on the issue of the timetable, I know you want to make sure this is not misinterpreted, but even the July 2011 timeframe there have been arguments that setting up any date just encourages the Taliban, the insurgents to lay low and to wait people out. Can you address that criticism? And point two, the ability to get to 30,000 into theater by the summer -- there's been some noise already out of the Pentagon this morning that that may be logistically impossible. Can you address that? Is it actually doable to get that many troops into an infrastructure-free country that quickly?SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me, again, take them in reverse sequence. As for the deployment timeline, first of all, this is, as you know, an imprecise science in terms of exactly which units flow when based on the infrastructure available and so forth. So I think the best -- as precise as we wish to get here, and we refer you to the Pentagon for greater precision, is that the 30,000 troop surge is due to arrive in Afghanistan in the summer of 2010. For additional precision you'll have to go to the experts in the Pentagon. I'm sorry, the first point had to do with? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Taliban -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, yes. Well, remember what July 2011 represents. It represents the beginning of a process which will be conditions-based. So if the Taliban thinks they can wait us out, I think that they're misjudging the President's approach. On the other hand there's a value in setting a date like this as a sort of strategic inflection point because it does put everyone on pressure -- under pressure to do more sooner. And that pressure of the timeline begins with the U.S. government itself, but also extends to our allies and our Afghan and Pakistani partners. So, you know, it may be misinterpreted, but the Taliban will do that at its own risk. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me add to each of those just real quickly, again in reverse order. Let me simply say what I think you've seen administration officials say today. The force option that the President has chosen gets more troops into Afghanistan faster than any option that was previously presented to him. That's point number one. By the way, that's more U.S. troops faster and more NATO troops faster than any other option presented. Secondly, the logic of the Taliban waiting anybody out would subscribe to the logic that we will all be there forever. And the President's viewpoint on that is, as you've heard my colleague say, this is not an open-ended commitment on behalf of the President. Afghanistan | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:36:00 PM Some New Wrinkles - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 11/30/09  MR. GIBBS: We'll go to Chuck, and maybe somebody will -- Q Let me start with Afghanistan. This is what in the March 27th speech -- some of this -- some of the things he said in the March 27th speech sound like what you're previewing now. He said, "On benchmarks for Afghanistan, we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. We will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance." He said, "Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course, instead we will set clear methods to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable." How much -- how much is that March 27th speech going to end up being very applicable to what we hear tomorrow? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we were asked in the lead up to a security forces decision in March about whether there would be benchmarks. That answer then was yes, and the answer now is yes. Obviously, as it relates to -- Q The benchmarks are changing, essentially, or did we not finish setting the benchmarks? MR. GIBBS: No, no, we finished setting the benchmarks. But, again, we're -- again, not to get ahead of what the President announces, but I think there will be some new wrinkles to what we're doing. Q There have been benchmarks this whole time? MR. GIBBS: Yes, as reported to Congress, absolutely. In terms of the corruption and the governance, obviously when you mention -- Q This is a free election, I understand that. MR. GIBBS: Right, and obviously -- Q It's the same government, though. MR. GIBBS: Well, somewhat up in the air, as of the middle of August, right. Q But I guess the thing is that how -- what is going to be different about what he says than from what he said on March 27th? It's just, like you just said, "new wrinkles" to some of this stuff? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm going to let the President outline what the mission is going forward and discuss in depth the benchmarks that will go along with it. Q And can you get into the -- I mean, is the President going to try to simultaneously assure folks that we're going to withdraw troops in a timely fashion and let allies know we're there for the long haul? I mean, is -- how do you -- I mean, is that a balance he's going to try to strike? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think nobody should underestimate the commitment of a President that has thus far doubled the number of American men and women on the ground in Afghanistan. I don't think anybody could look at themselves in a mirror with a straight face and say that this President hasn't in any way been anything but resolved to doing what has to happen in Afghanistan to make this country safe. Afghanistan | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:39:00 AM The Transcript Should Include Me Laughing - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 11/10/09 — Wednesday, November 11, 2009 — Q The stories about Afghan troop numbers -- does the President find it troubling that this kind of information, even if it's not final, is leaking out? Does it bother him, and does it make him concerned? And is he done with his decision?MR. GIBBS: I think you may have summed up my answer in your question. I will say this -- I will tell you what General Jones said and I think we said to a few of you last night: The President will have an opportunity to discuss four options with his national security team tomorrow. Anybody that tells you that the President has made a decision or -- what was the artfully used term last night, "tentatively agreed to" -- doesn't have, in all honesty, the slightest idea what they're talking about. The President has yet to make a decision. I would counsel you all to -- I got asked on Saturday about a story of approving 34,000 troops, only to be asked yesterday about a story of approving nearly 40,000 troops -- this all two weeks after being asked about whether or not we were coalescing around an entirely different option. I don't know that it's annoying as much as it is generally amusing to watch somebody or some group of people decide they know what only the President knows. You know, it keeps me busy and it's in some ways fun to watch two reports that contradict each other be reported virtually simultaneously. Q Does it bother him, though? Does it bother him? MR. GIBBS: He hasn't let me know that. Q -- presented him with the four options -- is that the four options by General McChrystal or -- MR. GIBBS: The four options that his national security team, including the Pentagon and General McChrystal, that the President will discuss with the team tomorrow. Q Can you describe those just real briefly, or -- MR. GIBBS: (Laughter.) See my previous answer. And please note that the transcript should include me laughing. No, I'm not getting -- I appreciate the opportunity to get into -- Q Wanted to give you every opportunity. MR. GIBBS: You know, and I -- Bloomberg is always fair like that. Q Well, just to follow up on that, in all seriousness, from your perspective, so you want us to know that he's considering four options, but don't want us to know what they are? What's the White House -- MR. GIBBS: With all due respect, you guys reported last night with some degree of certainty that the decision had already been made. Am I sensing from your follow-up question that you don't think the story that you wrote last night on the AP wire was accurate? Q I have every reason to think it is. I'm trying to -- MR. GIBBS: Maybe we should ask you questions. (Laughter.) Q I'm trying to figure out what the White House thinking is about saying there's four options -- MR. GIBBS: -- I said yesterday, I'll say what I said last night after, with some certainty, AP and CBS reported a decision had been made, and I'll tell it to you now: The President hasn’t made a decision. Now, I don't expect that will change the AP wire; it didn’t this morning. Q I understand your point. I'm trying to move on, which is why -- MR. GIBBS: I am -- Q I have no personal animus with you -- MR. GIBBS: I don't either. You have to understand my somewhat -- my surprise that you'd ask a follow-up based on what you reported. Q I'm following up on your specific point of telling us tomorrow in this council meeting they'll discuss four options. I'm asking, why are you telling us that fact and not others? MR. GIBBS: Because, honestly, Ben, we've been -- I think we've been very transparent throughout this process. We've let you all know when these meetings are; we've let you know who's in these meetings; we've put out pictures of these meetings. The President is doing this in a very purposeful and deliberate way to get the best decision. And I promise you that when he makes that decision we'll let you know. And as I've said before, the President will take the time to explain that decision and its reasoning to the American people. Q That's still weeks away? You would still say weeks? Weeks or -- Q Any more decision about how he would do that? MR. GIBBS: No, not yet. Afghanistan | Air Force One | Haha | Military | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Air Force One, Haha, Military, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:14:00 PM The Beginning Of A Process For Making Some Eventual Determinations - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/28/09 — Monday, September 28, 2009 —  Q Robert, a couple of topics, first Afghanistan. Tomorrow you guys are having a meeting -- the President is meeting with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, General Petraeus obviously on Afghanistan. Is that where he's going to at least lay out a timetable for making his strategy review decision, sort of saying --MR. GIBBS: No, I think I'll leave it at it's a number of weeks. Q Can you lay out a little bit of -- is tomorrow's agenda just hearing ideas? Is the President going to be talking? I mean, what is -- can you give a little more description? MR. GIBBS: We're not going to have a meeting to set a meeting agenda. We're going through the process of assessing where we are, what's changed, what needs to happen, where we need to go. This isn't going to be finished in one meeting, it's not going to be finished in several meetings; it's not going to be finished in several meetings. But this is the beginning of a process for making some eventual determinations -- understanding that, as we've said before, the President came into office, he asked that our policy be reviewed; in late March, in the lead up to elections the President requested 21,000 additional troops be sent to Afghanistan. The end of that number is beginning to get to Afghanistan now. But I think, again, as you heard Secretary Gates say over the weekend, in that time period we've had an election that has thus far been inconclusive and the United States does not pre-determine who that winner might be. And secondly, Secretary Gates said that the assessment of conditions on the ground were worse than previously assumed. Q So citing the -- the President cited the election, the uncertainty surrounding the election, can you do -- can you fully carry out or at least roll out a new strategy before there's certainty? MR. GIBBS: Well, that's one of the things that's going to be discussed over the course of the next several weeks. Q Is this a change you might wait to see -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about what may or may not. I think that's what the meetings are for. Afghanistan | Defense Secretary Robert Gates | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:39:00 PM A Wholesale Reassessment Of The Strategy - Waldorf Astoria New York, New York Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/23/09 — Friday, September 25, 2009 —  Q Can I follow up on Afghanistan? In March, the President laid out a comprehensive strategy that was in part based on a civilian surge and new money for training. Is that now being reevaluated?MR. GIBBS: The President said in that speech that we would constantly assess and evaluate where we were in achieving the defined goal that he laid out in that speech in March. That's -- I think we've all, in the past several years, watched conflicts that we didn’t assess where we were and how we were getting there and where we were trying to go. In many ways, that's why we find ourselves where we are in Afghanistan. The President is determined not to repeat that, and instead, to assess constantly where we are. I think the President understands that decisions like this put our men and women in harm's way. And I think he owes it -- as he said over the weekend, he owes it to the parents of the men and women that we put in harm's way to constantly assess and evaluate where we are. I would point out a few things. The effort in Afghanistan continues robustly. The very last portion of the additional resources that the President okayed in March are beginning to arrive in Afghanistan. I think obviously this administration has taken our efforts against al Qaeda and extremist allies -- has taken the fight to them on many fronts, be it in South Asia, be it in the Indian Ocean area, be it in addressing threats with state and local authorities in the United States. So I sometimes get the feeling or the notion that because of this discussion and this assessment that somehow everything is on hold, and I think obviously that's not the case. Q If I could just follow up, I mean, it's one thing to reassess tactics, but this sounds like it's a wholesale reassessment of the strategy -- MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no -- Q -- the military thought they were -- understood what it was, European allies thought they understood what it was. MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- well, first of all, understand this is also being done in conjunction with European allies. Right? I mean, NATO is briefed on and working through the McChrystal assessment just as the national security team in the United States are. So the notion that somehow this isn't being done in conjunction with all of those that have equities or troops in the area I think is inaccurate. The President has, and continues to have, a defined goal for our mission in this region, and that is to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. There is an evaluation and assessment of the best tactics -- the best way tactically to achieve that, again, taking into account the assessment of where we are on the ground with a new commander, as well as different things like, as we mentioned, the outcome of recent elections -- all of which -- again, I think the President believes strongly we have to take into account moving forward and assess where we are, rather than simply continue in many ways as we did to get us where we are today. Afghanistan | NATO | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, NATO, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:46:00 AM We've Seen That Movie Before - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/17/09  MR. GIBBS: Suzanne, do you have one?Q Yes, on Afghanistan. Our Pentagon team has learned that General McChrystal made a decision in terms of the resources, the U.S. troops, that would be necessary in Afghanistan, but that he hasn't communicated that to the White House. Do you know if, for any reason, that he's been asked not to yet give that information to the White House at this point? MR. GIBBS: No, I don't think that -- best to my knowledge, that's not been also communicated to the Pentagon, and this would go up through the normal chain of command. I'd reiterate exactly what I said yesterday and what, quite frankly, the President said far more eloquently than I: We are going to take a broad assessment and review of where our policy stands in Afghanistan, and that we are going to assess and get that strategy right and use that strategy to make those resource decisions. We have all seen -- both in the somewhat short term and in the longer term -- what happens when one makes resource decisions and then looks for a strategy. I think there's some -- we've seen that movie before. The President is determined not to repeat that movie again. Afghanistan | General McChrystal | Military | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, General McChrystal, Military, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:10:00 AM Our War On Terror - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/31/09 — Wednesday, September 02, 2009 —  Q I believe it was March when the President announced his new strategy in Afghanistan and since then things have only gotten worse. This July and August I believe have been the two worst months in terms of U.S. fatalities. Obviously it takes a long time to implement a military strategy, but after six months not only are things not stabilized but they're worse -- they've gotten worse during that period of time. Is this an early sign that his strategy is not working?MR. GIBBS: No, Chip, we under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of a decade. Okay? Q But now he's sending in additional troops and it's getting worse. MR. GIBBS: Well, and not all those additional troops are there. The assessment that is coming back is part of what a new commander does when they go to a region when they're newly assigned, as the President has General McChrystal to this region. But understand, Chip, we are not -- the President, whether it's the economy, health care, or anything, isn't going to -- we're not going to make -- we're not going to see the entire thing turn around in a few months, after years and years of neglect. You can't under-resource the most important part of our war on terror, you can't under-resource that for five or six or seven years -- whether it's under-resourced with troops, whether it's under-resourced with civilian manpower, whether it's under-resourced with economic development funding -- and hope to snap your fingers and have that turn around in just a few months. I think that what the President enunciated throughout the campaign and actualized as part of this administration was to change our direction in Afghanistan, to understand it was the central focus; that in Afghanistan and in the hills separating Afghanistan and Pakistan were those again plotting to do us harm, and that for far too long we've ignored that with the resources that were necessary to deal with the size and the scope of the problem that existed there. Q But as bad as it was when he came into office, it has become significantly worse since he announced his plan. MR. GIBBS: It is a challenging place. We are forever indebted to the men and women who serve there, and particularly those who sacrifice and make the ultimate sacrifice. I think the General's -- we'll see the General's assessment when it gets here. The President is focused on ensuring that we meet measurable benchmarks and that we disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. It's going to take some doing. It's going to take more resources, which the President has dedicated to this problem. But understand, Chip, this was under-resourced, under-funded, under-manned and ignored for years and that's not going to change overnight. Q Is it possible that you're simply losing control in Afghanistan and it's going to continue to spiral out of control? MR. GIBBS: I think based on reports from what General -- based on some initial reporting that I've seen of General McChrystal's report, he says the situation is quite serious but the war is indeed winnable. Afghanistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:29:00 PM We Obviously Are The Enemy - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/31/09 — Monday, August 03, 2009 —  Q July was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began there, and I was wondering if you could convey what's being accomplished in exchange for this loss of treasure?MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously let me begin by doing what the President would do, which is to honor and laud the sacrifice of men and women serving overseas, and to their families, especially to those who have paid such a tremendous price to protect our freedom. You heard the President throughout the campaign and throughout the first six months here talk about the fact that for quite some time we'd taken our eyes off of the ball in Afghanistan; that we needed to improve the security situation, particularly as we led to elections there in the next month. We reviewed the policy and made some initial adjustments in forces. General McChrystal is in Afghanistan and is continuing to review our policy. I think what's also important -- you've heard the President discuss, Jake, that progress in Afghanistan -- and what we want to do obviously is destroy and defeat those that are plotting terror against our country and others -- that we're not going to be successful simply by military means alone. We have to increase our focus on development, on agriculture, on civil society. Only through both means are we going to see progress. I will say -- I think the President understands this -- that it's going to take quite some time to change the focus of what we have been doing over the course of many years there against the enemy. Q Can you elaborate just on what specifically has been accomplished in the last month? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think we are making progress in the security environment, understanding that it is still an exceedingly dangerous place. We have benchmarks to measure progress. And, Jake, we'll continually review the policy in order to make a determination that we're seeing the progress the President wants in destroying and defeating the enemy there. Q Are the Afghans meeting the benchmarks? MR. GIBBS: We're satisfied with the progress that they're making. We also understand -- much as was the case in Iraq, and I've think you seen this as a big focus in what General McChrystal is doing both now and planning for in the future, and that is to strengthen and fortify the Afghan security forces. Much like Iraq, we cannot be there forever. Afghans are going to have to provide a measure of their own security, much as we're asking Iraqis to do and that they're doing in their own country. But, you know, look, I think there's no doubt that for a long time the President believed we did not have the manpower and the resources that were needed to make progress and we're certainly hopeful that we're on track to doing more -- Q Don't you have things turned around? We're the invader of this country. They're the enemy? When we invade their country and destroy everything? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to -- I can't agree with much of the -- Q Who's the enemy? We obviously are the enemy if we invade a country. MR. GIBBS: I think there are Afghans that wish to be free, that don't view the American and multinational forces that are coming from other countries as the enemy. I think we've seen the brutality of the Taliban and we've seen what -- Q Are we brutal when we bomb them? MR. GIBBS: Let me finish my first answer. Obviously we've seen the brutality of the Taliban and what the plotting of al Qaeda can do. I think you've heard the President, I think you've heard General McChrystal, and our ambassador discuss the care that has to be taken to ensure the protection of civilians while we make the country more secure. Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:41:00 PM Miranda Rights Read To Detainees - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs — Wednesday, June 10, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.Q Robert, something completely different. Mike Rogers is a member of Congress, Republican from Michigan, has come back from Afghanistan and he tells our network that while he was there he witnessed U.S. military personnel reading Miranda rights to high-value detainees at Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. He said this -- was informed by the military there that this is a common practice now to, upon their capture of these high-value targets, read them the Miranda rights. And he considers this a significant policy change, one that suggests to him, at least, that the administration has changed the orientation in Afghanistan from war fighting to law enforcement with this use of Miranda rights read to detainees. Would you care to comment on any of those observations? MR. GIBBS: I think I'd need a little bit more information. Q Do you know if that's true or untrue, that the Miranda rights are read? MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it. Q Would it come as a surprise to the White House that that's what would be happening? MR. GIBBS: It's not a surprise to me, but again, I think I'd need a little bit more information to begin to surmise some of what the Congressman has -- I don't know if he spoke with commanders on the ground, I don't know if he saw General McChrystal or -- Q In general does the White House think that's a good idea? MR. GIBBS: Major, let me get a little bit -- I'm happy to look at whatever longer-form information and get someone at NSC also to look at it. I hate to speculate on four sentences off of a report. Q Okay. Just so I understand what you're saying, when you said it wouldn't come as a surprise to you, what did you mean by that? MR. GIBBS: I'm not surprised by a lot in this town anymore. Let me look at what you're talking about -- Q You're not contesting that that's a policy that's being used? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. MR. GIBBS: I feel like you should be reading me my rights. (Laughter.) That's why I'm hoping to get my lawyer. Again, I'm happy to look at whatever you have and try to give you an informed opinion based on somebody who's got greater jurisdiction over detainees at Bagram. That's outside of my portfolio. Afghanistan | Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:20:00 PM Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09 — Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —  Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control. So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda. The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made. The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case. Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday. Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops. MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it. Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria. MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops. Q Was he pressured by the military? MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision. Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release. Q Did they make it known to him? MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly -- Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive? MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation. These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate. Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds. MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense. Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base. MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not. Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here. MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm. Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made -- MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling. Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say -- MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers. Q And when did all of that take place? MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office. Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications? MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit. Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless. MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security. Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out -- MR. GIBBS: No -- Q They've made the same argument about them. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you? Q No. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing -- Q But you all are saying -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that -- Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo. Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway. MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made. But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN? Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what -- MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism. Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't -- MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made. (Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.) Q I'm sorry. MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right. Q -- time it happened. MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day. Go ahead. Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present? MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.) Q He threw your phone. MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States. Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.) (Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.) Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.) Q No favoritism. Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus. The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay. Q With the Supreme Court? MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate. Yes, go ahead. Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court. Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument. Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Q Thank you. Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity. Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago. Q We covered it, but -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it. Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice. Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be. Yes, sir. Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations. MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive. On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the -- Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.) Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so." MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back. Q What did I miss? (Laughter.) Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court. Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters? MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that. Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding. Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government. Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary -- MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive. Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that. Yes, sir. Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team. Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it -- MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check. Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down? MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security. Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument? MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made. Q The argument being made is his? Okay. Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that? MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that. In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern. Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen? MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica. Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures? MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them. Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far? MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself. Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have. Jeff. Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody? I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos. Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left. MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there. Afghanistan | Interrogation | Iraq | Legislation | Obama Administration | Photos | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31:00 PM Conjoined Twins - White House Press Briefing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 5/6/09 — Wednesday, May 06, 2009 —  Q Madam Secretary, as this plan was being developed, the U.S. believed that a lot of the insurgency issues were going to be in eastern Afghanistan. Obviously the problem has now emerged more heatedly in Pakistan. How has that affected this strategy of the U.S. as this summit came together?SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, I think that the wisdom of the approach that we took even before the President was inaugurated has been borne out by the events of the last months. We were determined to see Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, as two countries that were dependent upon each other, influenced each other, and needed to figure out a way forward together. So, if anything, the fast-moving conflict and, frankly, the adaptability of the enemy that we are all fighting has demonstrated clearly the wisdom of that approach. One of the other comments that was made today is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are conjoined twins -- and, in effect, they are. But they were never treated that way. They were kind of one-off: What are we going to do about Afghanistan, and, oh, by the way, what are we going to do about Pakistan? And we have a history there, as you know. We have a history of having been deeply involved and then having withdrawn. And so I think seeing the two countries as connected geographically as they are, and in this common struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies, has given us the flexibility to be able to move more agilely than we did before. Q Madam Secretary, President Zardari said the following yesterday. He said -- on the U.S. relationship -- "I think it needs more effort; I think it needs more understanding on both sides." What is your understanding of his greatest concerns, from his point of view, that you picked up on in these meetings today -- on the U.S. relationship? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I think that's a very fair statement. I think that it does require more understanding on both sides. One size does not fit all. You don't take a strategy from one part of the world and impose it on another part. You don't look at each country just through the prism of the terrorist threat and expect to really understand what's the best way to combat that, and also to begin removing conditions that gave rise to it. And I think that in my conversations with President Zardari -- whom I've known a very long time and was a great admirer and friend of his wife -- if you talk with him, as I have, about what he faced coming into office -- he's been President for less than eight months, and he inherited a very difficult and unmanageable situation. We have a pretty well functioning government. We've changed directions policy-wise, but you don't have to start from scratch -- and so I think a little more understanding on our part about what he confronted. You know, he has successfully navigated some real crises. He made a very brave decision when he first came in to raise the price of wheat. Might not sound like a big deal, but it was a huge political challenge. But by doing so, Pakistan is now self-sufficient in wheat again. You know, you have to look at what he was facing: an economic crisis, a military-terrorist crisis, a legitimacy crisis -- just an enormous array of challenges. And I think if you're more understanding of both the history and the conditions, you not only can perhaps empathize a little bit, but be smarter in the suggestions you make, understanding what the consequences will be. And that's what we are trying to do through this process. Q What are his asks? What are his asks specifically of us? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know. They're very public: more economic aid; more assistance with the military and police in terms of what they need to now go after this new enemy; what I just sort of read off in response to an earlier question about the sort of assistance we're going to offer, from agriculture to the economy to intelligence. That's what they're looking for. Q Madam Secretary, a couple of questions. One, the Zardari government said it wanted time to have this negotiated arrangement in Swat Valley to see what would happen. They've now seen what has happened and are responding militarily. There are some reports in the region that the civilians on the ground now see the government in a different light, and saw that they tried to negotiate, saw what the Taliban did, and there's a backlash against the Taliban. Do you believe that was an inherent wisdom that maybe the U.S. did not detect before in the strategy? And number two, with the sense that the refugee crisis in that area -- now that the Pakistan government has asked civilians to try to leave -- is that going to be something the U.S. and both these nations are going to have to confront in the very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm sorry, say that again. Q Well, the military's advice being to try to exit parts of the Swat Valley because of a assumed military offensive -- will that create a humanitarian issue that all three of these countries are going to have to deal with in a very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Major, I'm not going to second-guess the approach that was taken by the government of Pakistan vis-à-vis the Taliban in Swat Valley. Whatever the motive behind it might have been, the reality on the ground soon proved otherwise; that one had to confront the increasing influence and geographic spread of the Taliban. There aren't that many Taliban fighters, but they are so intimidating and they are so ruthless that a very few can control a large swath of territory, which is something that I think everybody learned in watching this unfold. So the other point to remember -- it goes back to Chuck's earlier question -- is there have been areas of Pakistan that have been ungoverned for a very long time. The British Empire did not govern them; no Pakistani government, civilian or military, attempted to govern them; and they were basically left alone, and they left the central government alone -- it was kind of a unspoken agreement. But what nobody bargained for was foreign fighters and foreign money and a foreign ideology that would in some way link up disparate elements within these regions into a network, a syndicate, if you will, of extremist groups. And I think that has changed -- that's another one of the paradigm shifts. You know, you could leave those folks alone and they took care of their own business, but that was fine, we were okay in Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi and other places. But as they became more aggressive, and as they kind of broke out of the traditional model of how they had stayed close to home and basically controlled their own surroundings, that produced a new challenge. And I think that it's part of the change in attitude that we're seeing in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, and in the civilian government. Q And the issue -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we're obviously concerned about that. We're going to watch it and see what we can do to help. MR. GIBBS: She's got a couple of important meetings she's got to get to, so we're going to let her go. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert. MR. GIBBS: Thank you for coming. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, everybody. Q Come again. (Laughter.) Afghanistan | Hillary Clinton | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:09:00 PM The Pakistanis Are Nervous - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/5/09 — Tuesday, May 05, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Helen.Q Does the President have congressional approval to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan? And what does he mean that extremists are a direct and general threat to us? Can you explain that? MR. GIBBS: Sure. I presume that the authorization for increased troop activity in Afghanistan goes back to 2000 -- I don't know exactly when the vote was, late 2001. I think the President outlined a strategy to deal with this region and to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding that al Qaeda and its extremist allies operated in these two countries. I think it is clear from their actions that they pose a threat not only to those countries, but also to the United States. And I think we saw that -- Q Are they a threat because we're there intervening in their civil war? Or are they going to come here? MR. GIBBS: I think it was pretty apparent the threat that they posed and the destruction that they ultimately caused in 2001, and that the President will take action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Q Robert, what is the President going to do to reassure Zardari in Pakistan when he comes here tomorrow that this growing opposition on Capitol Hill or sort of reticence opposition on the Hill is from reticence about providing aid to the country -- how is he going to reassure him that he can guarantee the money, that the money is going to come, that Congress will be able to get this done? MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me the reticence a bit. Q I guess that it seemed to be -- Chairman Obey today saying that he -- on sort of a stricter basis, he's not going to have an -- sort of an unfunded aspect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there's clearly -- the Pakistanis are nervous that they're not going to get the same amount of aid that they've seen in the past. MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple different things. Understand that nobody is more impatient in seeing progress on a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan than the President of the United States. He has talked about this for several years. These meetings over the course of the next couple of days make good on the promise of being engaged in this region actively. As I said to Helen, there is a shared threat from al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and the best way to confront that threat is through an alliance and cooperation with both of those countries. Q You say al Qaeda, but then is it the Taliban, or do you call al Qaeda -- the Taliban one of al Qaeda's allies in this case? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd say al Qaeda's -- I think I said al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Obviously that denotes al Qaeda, and in specific instances, the Taliban. Q Who Pakistan is, at one hand, at war with; on the other hand, negotiating with. MR. GIBBS: I think they can speak to the danger of doing that. Q Well, I understand it, but I guess, going back to the funding -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- back to your funding, I mean, understand that we organized -- helped organized a donors conference in Japan that brought forward $5 billion worth of assistance to help with this problem in Pakistan. But, Chuck, as I said here yesterday, and I think the President has said on numerous occasions, there shouldn't be and there won't be blank checks; that the President supports the building in of accountability measures to ensure that we're making progress and that if progress isn't made that we'll readjust our strategy. He said that in ordering and conducting the review of our strategy in this region, and in the delivery of that review just a little while ago. Q Disengagement could be a possibility here? That seems to be what some on Capitol Hill are saying -- hey, if progress can't be seen in a year, then why should we keep throwing more money at it; in fact, we should back off. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has made clear the priority in ensuring that we're addressing this extremist threat. Nobody is more impatient than the President in seeing that succeed as quickly as possible, and if, for whatever reason, parts of, or aspects of the strategy aren't succeeding as well as we'd like, then those will be changed in order to succeed. But again, Chuck, we have a threat, the Pakistanis and the Afghanis have a threat that has to be addressed and that's what the President intends to do. Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Congress | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Congress, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05:00 PM Shirking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/3/09 — Saturday, April 04, 2009 —  Q Does the President think -- General – excuse me, Secretary Gates said something about this over the weekend -- does the President think that leaders of NATO countries need to do more to convince their publics to contribute more troops? And how will he be communicating that?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ll hear some of this, quite frankly, in his speech today in Strasbourg because, as I outlined earlier, I think he will talk about a strong partnership with Europe, but in that partnership, there have to be mutual responsibilities. Q This is the town hall event? MR. GIBBS: Yes. That we have -- in those mutual responsibilities that we have to understand there are real threats out there in this world. You’ll hear the President obviously outline those -- Afghanistan and Pakistan make real the threats that we have -- and that in understanding that this is more than just the concern of the United States but rather the concern of the world, that, yes, the responsibility is there for Europe to step up. Q So we should read that language in the speech today as an effort to motivate and convince the governments to do more? MR. GIBBS: Yes, I mean, I don't -- and I guess I'd phrase it partly this way -- you know, the criticism of the United States for the past few years was a go-it-alone diplomacy, but if you -- Q And you guys made that criticism during the campaign. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I may have read that in a few of your publications or seen it on a couple of your news channels, but I appreciate your simply regurgitating what I say on such an easy basis. But with -- with a partnership, again, there have to be those shared responsibilities and you can't just have -- you can't have just one person bearing the entire load or responsibility in a partnership. Q Does that mean that the United States -- MR. GIBBS: And I think that's the importance, quite frankly, of NATO. I think we've seen that over -- you know, tomorrow we celebrate the 60th anniversary of NATO. The whole idea of that was shared responsibility. Q But does that assume then that the United States' position is that to date the other countries have been shirking that responsibility? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think that will be the tone. I think, again, we've only -- the strategy that we've outlined is only a little less than a week old. And, again, I think our process is to build an agreement on that strategy and then to meet that strategy with the appropriate resources, focusing, as I said, on -- partly on trading and partly on security around these elections. Afghanistan | Air Force One | NATO | Pakistan | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Air Force One, NATO, Pakistan, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:30:00 PM Why No Timeline? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 03/27/09 — Friday, March 27, 2009 —  Q The President really had the focus, in terms of the threat, on Pakistan. And we see the buildup, the troop buildup, for Afghanistan. But what is the U.S. planning to do to go after this threat? If the terrorists are hiding out and currently planning to strike us, what is being done to cut that off?MR. GIBBS: In Pakistan? Q In Pakistan. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into operational details -- Q Is there something being done? MR. GIBBS: Is there something being done -- Q To go after the threat in Pakistan? Because there's $5 billion a year in humanitarian, but nothing -- we haven't heard anything at all about some active engagement to go after that threat if we know the threat is there. MR. GIBBS: I think it would be wise for us not to lay out in front of the world the plan -- that plan of attack. Q Well, I'm not looking for the plans. Is there something that is ongoing to go after that threat? Because he stated the threat is there; they're planning to attack us. MR. GIBBS: I think you can be very assured that we're taking the steps necessary to address the threat and to protect the American people. Q In terms of the timeline, no timeline to extract troops out of Afghanistan. The President I believe in the past has talked about wanting to have a timeline. Why no timeline? Why not sort of set some sort of mark and say, we need to be out by this time? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did state quite clearly that the policy would be reviewed and evaluated as we go. Obviously if you add in the increase in the number of troops that were added in -- before the President took office, in addition to the 17,000 that the President ordered previously, and the 4,000 trainers today, you're looking at an expansion of roughly 30,000 American troops. So we have important elections coming up in Afghanistan in a deteriorating security situation, and I think -- first of all, I think the President wants to evaluate what -- and the security team want to evaluate what that increase means for the situation in the region. Obviously the announcement today is to build the capacity of the Afghan army to ensure that ultimately that responsibility of rooting out extremism and protecting the democratically elected government can be done by the Afghans. And also the President will look to evaluate the policy as we move forward as we increase our diplomacy, as we increase the number of civilians that are there to do what the President talked about in terms of the delivery of services without corruption, and for developmental aid. And so I think that the President will have said and set forward -- and I think you guys heard last night about a flexible strategy that allows the team to evaluate whether the goals are being met and whether the benchmarks are being met, so that we can determine the progress toward making that region of the world safe and stable. Afghanistan | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:51:00 PM Lessons from Alexander the Great - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/25/09 — Wednesday, February 25, 2009 —  Q Has the President learned any lessons from the past? What makes him think he can prevail in Afghanistan after Russians, the British, Alexander the Great could not?MR. GIBBS: Good question. (Laughter.) You had me -- I had you up until you said Alexander the Great. (Laughter.) Q Genghis Khan -- Genghis Khan. MR. GIBBS: -- Alexander the Great -- (laughter.) No, I -- Q It's under -- (inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: Unfortunately, it's not. No, I'm kidding. (Laughter.) No, the President -- again, the administration is undergoing a review as it relates to our policy there. The President's decision in the interim to send additional forces in the spring and in the summer related to a sharp deterioration that we've all seen in the security situation; that General McKiernan had long requested additional troops -- Q Why are we there? MR. GIBBS: Why are we there? Because that's the part of our planet that is exceedingly dangerous, and saw on September 11th the root cause of attacks that resulted in the death of more than 3,000 Americans -- the deadliest attack on American soul. The President has, I think, stated clearly and forcefully last evening -- Q Were they all Afghans on 9/11? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know what their citizenship were. I know where they were when they planned the attacks. I think the American people do, too. But the President said clearly and forcefully last night that, under his watch, we're not going to have safe havens in the country of Afghanistan that are planning a next series of attacks on our citizens. Afghanistan | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:38:00 PM Prejudging the Deteriorating Situation - Joint Press Conference by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada 2/19/09 — Thursday, February 19, 2009 —  Q Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister. I have Afghanistan questions for you both. Mr. President, General McKiernan requested 30,000 extra troops; your new order calls for 17,000. How likely is it that you will make up that difference after the review you've mentioned? And more importantly, how long can we expect all U.S. combat troops to be in Afghanistan?And, Mr. Prime Minister, based on your discussions today, are you reconsidering the 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal, and are you also thinking about increasing economic aid to Afghanistan? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, David, the precise reason that we're doing a review is because I think that over the last several years we took our eye off the ball, and there is a consensus of a deteriorating -- that there is a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. I don't want to prejudge that review. I ordered the additional troops because I felt it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up. But we have 60 days of work to do. They -- that review, which will be wide-ranging, will then result in a report that's presented to me. And from -- at that point, we will be able to, I think, provide you with some clearer direction in terms of how we -- how we intend to approach Afghanistan. In terms of length, how long we might be there, obviously that's going to be contingent on the strategy we develop out of this review. And I'm not prejudging that, as well. I should mention, just to preempt, or to anticipate Prime Minister Harper's -- the question directed at him, that I certainly did not press the Prime Minister on any additional commitments beyond the ones that have already been made. All I did was to compliment Canada on not only the troops that are there, the 108 that have fallen as a consequence of engagement in Afghanistan, but also the fact that Canada's largest foreign aid recipient is Afghanistan. There has been extraordinary effort there, and we just wanted to make sure that we were saying thank you. PRIME MINISTER HARPER: Just very quickly, as you probably know, it was just last year that we were able to get through Parliament a bipartisan resolution extending our military engagement in Afghanistan for an additional close to four years at that point. As we move forward, we anticipate an even greater engagement on economic development. That was part of the strategy that we adopted. I would just say this -- you know, obviously we're operating within a parliamentary resolution -- I would just say this in terms of the United States looking at its own future engagement. We are highly appreciative of the fact the United States is going to be a partner with us on the ground in Kandahar. The goal of our military engagement, its principal goal right now, beyond day-to-day security, is the training of the Afghan army so the Afghans themselves can become responsible for their day-to-day security in that country. I'm strongly of the view, having led -- you know, as a government leader, having been responsible now for a military mission in Kandahar province, that we are not, in the long term through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan; that that job ultimately can be done only by the Afghans themselves. So I would hope that all strategies that come forward have the idea of an end date, of a transition to Afghan responsibility for security, and to greater Western partnership for economic development. Afghanistan | Canada | President Obama | Presidential Press Conference | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Canada, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:46:00 PM The More Things Change... - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/26/09 — Tuesday, January 27, 2009 —  Full 1/26/09 Press Briefing Transcript GIBBS: Helen?Q: [Helen Thomas] Why is the President sending more troops… wants to send more troops to Afghanistan to kill people? GIBBS: In the campaign, the President talked about the fact that we'd largely taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and moved direct resources to Iran – I'm sorry, to Iraq, to fight there. We've seen in that intervening time a significant deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan and along the border. I think the President has said that many of the people, or the same people that planned terror attacks in this country, are alive and well, likely, in those hills, planning more. And that if... Q: Do you – how do you know that? GIBBS: That's told to me and told to many of the American people through intelligence reports and good reporting. The President has started a process, with Secretary Gates, with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with military commanders in the individual countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the wider region, to evaluate our posture as it relates to Afghanistan. He said during the campaign that we ought to move additional troops to Afghanistan... Q: [Helen] Why? GIBBS: Because we have a very dangerous situation there. Because we've got, as I said, terrorists that planned horrific acts here in 2001... Q: [Inaudible] come here and bomb us? GIBBS: ...likely planning – likely planning again. We're going to ensure the safety of the American people and make sure that Afghanistan doesn't deteriorate any further. Afghanistan | Helen Thomas | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Helen, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:58:00 PM Afghanistan Press - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/18/08 — Thursday, December 18, 2008 —  Q My name is Nazira Karimi, correspondent for Ariana Television from Afghanistan. This is the first time that I've been here. MS. PERINO: Welcome. Q Thank you. Women in Afghanistan -- I am a woman, I know the situation, women feeling out of the (inaudible) but still they are worried about the Taliban. And they say, why the Taliban get more power and we are (inaudible) power. So what is going to be the next policy of the United States? MS. PERINO: Well, you'll get to hear from the President soon. He's having the event today. The President was just in Afghanistan this weekend, and I had the pleasure of being able to be there. There's remarkable changes that have taken place since 2001. The fact that you're here today I think is a testament to that. And we have all of NATO agreeing to be a part of a effort to try to beat back the Taliban. I think that one of the things that we need to remind people of is that Afghanistan is the fourth poorest country in the world. They have a 78 percent illiteracy rate. When we go to try to train their troops, it's not like you can hold a class. You have to go out in the field and do a lot of repetition. And they're good soldiers and good fighters, but they just need a slightly different type of training than you could maybe do in someplace else like Iraq. So there's a lot to be done, but we've come a long way, especially when it comes for little girls being able to go to school. And the President and Mrs. Bush have both said in recent days that they plan to remain involved in Afghanistan. And Mrs. Bush in particular has a soft spot in her heart for the women of Afghanistan, and she'll continue to work on their behalf. Afghanistan | Dana Perino | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Dana Perino, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:15:00 PM Press Gaggle by Tony Fratto 4/17/08 (British Prime Minister Gordon Brown) — Thursday, April 17, 2008 —  MR. FRATTO: Any other questions?Q Yes, the Gordon Brown. So last time the President told us, no, he's not angry at Gordon Brown for pulling troops out of Iraq; Gordon Brown has since said, since the fighting erupted around Basra, the clampdown on the Shiite militias -- attempted clampdown, he's going to put those withdrawal plans on hold. Is the President going to say "I told you so" today? MR. FRATTO: No, look -- we think that the British have been very responsible -- (Announcement interruption.) MR. FRATTO: Maybe someone could tell our staff that a gaggle is still ongoing. (Laughter.) No, look, we have a -- we think the British have been very responsible in their operations in Basra. Their support for the Iraqi-led operation a couple weeks ago was impressive, even heroic, flying helicopter runs evacuating injured soldiers from the fighting, was -- under fire -- was very impressive. They're performing their overwatch mission we think with great courage and distinction. And of course we expect that Iraq, Afghanistan and other operations that we're involved with with the U.K. will be discussed today. And so you'll have a chance to hear from the President and the Prime Minister this afternoon on that. Q Does the President have any feelings about Gordon Brown meeting with the -- his would-be successors this morning? Does he feel that's good, a problem? What's his reaction to that? MR. FRATTO: We don't think it's a problem. I haven't asked the President on that, but I can tell you, you know, generally we think it's probably a wise move by the Prime Minister to get to know who -- one of the individuals who will likely be President in a year from now. So it makes sense. We think it's -- we certainly have no objections to it at all. Afghanistan | Gordon Brown | Iraq | President Bush | Press Gaggle | Tony Fratto | United Kingdom | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Gordon Brown, Iraq, President Bush, Press Gaggle, Tony Fratto, United Kingdom, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:37:00 PM Press Briefing by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley 4/3/08 (NATO Summit Results) — Thursday, April 03, 2008 —  Q With these decisions today by NATO, do you think that President Bush and President Putin will be able to settle their differences this weekend on missile defenses, or do you think it could be more of a broad, strategic statement that they're going to come to?SECRETARY RICE: Well, I certainly think that there will be a -- we expected that there would be a strategic framework about which we've talked. And a part of that has to be some discussion of missile defense. We are hopeful that Russia will take the opportunity to express the views that have actually been expressed to us about the usefulness and the importance of the measures that the United States has been willing to take, concerning the third site in the Czech Republic and Poland, that are meant to allay Russian concerns that somehow this missile defense system, the nine interceptors and radar sites, are somehow aimed at the Russian deterrent. And so that opportunity obviously arises, and already when we were in Moscow the Russians said that these were useful and important. We hope that we can move beyond that to an understanding that we will all have an interest in cooperation on missile defense, but we will see. Yes. Q As far as Afghanistan is concerned, are you -- you said you're satisfied with the result. But is this the end of your pressure of the other allies to provide more commitment, more troops, and I think about Italy, Germany and Spain, or you just satisfied with this result, and that's the end of it? MR. HADLEY: Well, interesting your question is -- "the end of our pressure." I think one of the things that was interesting about that meeting today was the NATO allies are all putting pressure on themselves. And NATO ally after NATO ally said, we have got to succeed here; it is important for the credibility of the Alliance; more to the point, it's important for the security of our people, and we need to succeed and we need to do more. This isn't just President Bush's line. This is now the line of everyone there. It's what we heard of President Karzai: a lot of progress was made; we all have to do more. Same thing from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: progress -- need to do more. And as you know, the United Nations is stepping up. So I think everyone recognizes we need to do more. And it's not like we're going to come to a level and that's it, success is around the corner. This is going to be a long commitment. This is a hard fight. We are going to have to assess our requirements, modify our forces, modify our tactics and strategy, and do it over the long term. So I think what you are seeing is a much more focused engagement in Afghanistan, and a commitment that we cannot fail, and therefore are going to have to, in a very focused way, do more, and work more effectively with the forces that we have, both military and civilian. Afghanistan | Condeleezza Rice | NATO | President Bush | Press Briefing | Stephen Hadley | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Condeleezza Rice, NATO, President Bush, Press Briefing, Stephen Hadley, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:00:00 PM
|
|
