Video and Transcript: President Obama on Pakistan-Afghanistan (29 March 2009)

Watch CBS Videos Online

HOST BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on “Face the Nation” from the White House, it’s Obama’s war now, and he talks about that in our exclusive interview.

Mr. President, thank you for joining us. This economic crisis has been so severe that it has literally pushed all the other issues off the television, out of the newspapers. But as -- when you outlined your program for Afghanistan and the new strategy, it really underlined in the starkest terms that we may not be talking about these serious issues, but there’s some very serious things going on out there. So I’d like to start there.

OBAMA: Please.

SCHIEFFER: If I could. This is a hugely ambitious plan -- 22,000 more troops. You’re going to increase spending by 60 percent. You said in your announcement, we must defeat Al Qaida.

OBAMA: Right.

SCHIEFFER: This has really now become your war, hasn’t it?

OBAMA: I think it’s America’s war. And it’s the same war that we initiated after 9/11 as a consequence of those attacks on 3,000 Americans, who were just going about their daily round, and the focus over the last seven years I think has been lost.

What we want to do is to refocus attention on Al Qaida. We are going to root out their networks, their bases. We are going to make sure that they cannot attack U.S. citizens, U.S. soil, U.S. interests and our allies’ interests around the world.

In order for us to do that, we have to ensure that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan can serve as a safe haven for Al Qaida. And unfortunately, over the last several years, what we’ve seen is essentially Al Qaida moving several miles from Afghanistan to Pakistan, but effectively still able to project their violence and hateful ideologies out into the world.

SCHIEFFER: You talked many times during your -- as you outlined this strategy about Al Qaida in Pakistan. You talk about safe havens in Pakistan.

OBAMA: Right.

SCHIEFFER: Are you giving our commanders now in Afghanistan the green light to go after these people even if they’re in what used to be safe havens in Pakistan?

OBAMA: Well, I haven’t changed my approach. If we have a high- value target within our sights -- after consulting with Pakistan, we’re going after them. But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists.

Now, one of the concerns that we’ve had building up over the last several years is a notion, I think, among the average Pakistani that this is somehow America’s war and that they are not invested. And that attitude, I think, has led to a steady creep of extremism in Pakistan that is the greatest threat to the stability of the Pakistan government, and ultimately the greatest threat to the Pakistani people. What we want to do is say to the Pakistani people, you are our friends, you are our allies. We are going to give you the tools to defeat al Qaeda and to root out these safe havens, but we also expect some accountability, and we expect that you understand the severity and the nature of the threat.

In addition, what we want to do is to help Pakistan grow its economy, to be able to provide basic services to its people, and that I think will help strengthen those efforts.

If the Pakistan government doesn’t have credibility, if they are weakened, then it’s going to be much more difficult for them to deal with the extremism within their borders.

SCHIEFFER: But you’re talking about going after them. Are you talking about with American boots on the ground, pursuing these people into these so-called safe havens?

OBAMA: No. Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government. We need to work with them and through them to deal with Al Qaida, but we have to hold them much more accountable and we have to recognize that part of our task in working with Pakistan is not just military. It’s also our capacity to build their capacity through civilian interventions, through development, through aid assistance.

OBAMA: And that’s part of what you’re seeing both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think, is fully resourcing a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t just rely on bullets or bombs, but also relies on agricultural specialists, on doctors, on engineers, to help create an environment in which people recognize that they have much more at stake, in partnering with us and the international community, than giving in to some of these extremist ideologies.

SCHIEFFER: Help me out here. How do you -- what if they can’t do it? What if they won’t do it?
I mean, we have reports now about members of Pakistan’s intelligence service actually actively helping the Taliban and Al Qaida.

OBAMA: Well, some of those...

SCHIEFFER: What if they don’t do it?

OBAMA: Some of those reports aren’t new. There are a whole host of contingencies that we’ve got to deal with. I mean, this is going to be hard, Bob. I’m under no illusions. If it was easy, it would have already been completed.

So we’re going to have to go with a strategy that is focused, that is narrowly targeted on defeating Al Qaida. We think that, if you combine military, civilian, diplomatic, development approaches; if we are doing a much better job of coordinating with our allies, we can be successful.

But we recognize there are going to be a lot of hurdles between now and us finally having weakened Al Qaida or destroyed Al Qaida to the point it cannot -- it doesn’t pose a danger to us.

And we will continue to monitor and adjust our strategies to make sure that we’re not just going down blind alleys.

SCHIEFFER: Are you concerned at all -- because some people say the more troops you put in, it’s just going to inflame the situation; it’s going to make it worse. What do you say to them?

OBAMA: I’m very mindful of that. Look, I -- I’m enough of a student of history to know that the United States, in Vietnam and other countries, other epochs of history have overextended to the point where they were severely weakened. And the history in Afghanistan obviously shows that that country has not been very favorably disposed towards foreign intervention. And that’s why a central part of our strategy is to train the Afghan National Army so that they are taking the lead, increasingly, to deal with extremists in their area.

That’s been one of the few success stories we’ve seen over the last several years, is the Afghan National Army actually has great credibility. They’re effective fighters. We need to grow that. And that’s part of the reason why we want to make sure that there are trainers there.

But the last point I would make, you know, a request was made for increased troop levels in Afghanistan. I have already authorized 17,000. We’re now adding 4,000 trainers, specifically designed to train Afghan security forces.

But what I’ve also said to the Department of Defense and what I will say to the American public is that, you know, we now have resourced properly this strategy. It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources. We’ve just got to make sure that we are focused on achieving what we need to achieve with the resources we have.

SCHIEFFER: What you seem to be saying is we have to win; there’s no choice here. So does that mean, if more is needed; if the commanders come back to you and say, we may need more troops, Mr. President, to do this, you’re going to be ready to do that?

OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always results in an improved situation.
I think there was a good argument, after us scrubbing this very hard and talking to a lot of our allies in the region, including the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments, the Europeans and our other NATO allies, that this was the best strategy.

But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.
There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.
And, so for example, in the budget that I’ve presented to Congress, I’ve said we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Afghanistan and we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Pakistan. And I’m going to be really pushing Congress, because sometimes foreign aid is a, you know, juicy target, particularly during tough times.
I’m going to tell them, this is central to our strategy. And it can save lives and troops if we properly execute it.

SCHIEFFER: But you described this in very dark terms. I mean, and there’s no question that things are worse than ever in Afghanistan. You would agree with that?

OBAMA: I do.

SCHIEFFER: But you’re saying...

OBAMA: Let me make sure I’m clear. They’re not worse than they were when the Taliban was in charge...

SCHIEFFER: Yes.

OBAMA: ... and Al Qaida was operating with impunity. We have seen a deterioration over the last several years. And unless we get a handle on it now, we’re going to be in trouble.

SCHIEFFER: You said the other day in the “60 Minutes” interview that you would not have thought at this point in your presidency that Iraq would be the least of your worries, something to that effect.

OBAMA: Right.

SCHIEFFER: Are things going well enough there now that you may consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq?

OBAMA: No, I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is let’s have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq. There’s still work to be done on the political side to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil, around issues like provincial elections. And so we’re going to continue to make progress on that front.

I’m confident that we’re moving in the right direction, but Iraq is not yet completed. We still have a lot of work to do. We still have a lot of training of Iraqi forces to improve their capacity. I’m confident, though, that we’re moving in the right direction.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about something closer to home, and that is Mexico. You talked about sending more aid to the Mexican government, but things down there are really serious, as you well know. It’s my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they’re getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. We don’t seem to be doing a very good job of cutting off the gun flow. Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?

OBAMA: I think the main thing we need is better enforcement. And so this week, we put forward a comprehensive initiative to assist those border regions that are being threatened by these drug cartels to provide assistance to the Mexican government, to make sure that on our side of the border we’ve got more personnel, more surveillance equipment.

SCHIEFFER: Why are we having so much trouble with that? I mean...

OBAMA: Well, what’s happened is that President Calderon, I think, has been very bold, and rightly has decided that it’s gotten carried away. That the drug cartels have too much power, are undermining and corrupting huge segments of Mexican society, and so he is taking them on, in the same way that when Eliot Ness took on Al Capone back during Prohibition, oftentimes that causes even more violence. And we’re seeing that flare up.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think it’s a threat to the United States security?

OBAMA: I don’t think that it is a -- what would be called an existential threat, but it is a serious threat to those border communities, and it’s gotten out of hand. And so what we have to do is to recognize that, look, this is a two-way street. As Secretary Clinton indicated, we’ve got to reduce demand for drugs. We’ve got to do our part in reducing the flow of cash and guns south.

SCHIEFFER: Are we anywhere close to putting U.S. troops on the border?

OBAMA: You know, obviously, there have been calls to increase National Guard troops on the borders. That’s something that we are considering. But we want to first see whether some of the steps that we’ve taken can help quell some of the violence. And we want to make sure that we are consulting as effectively as we can with the Mexican government in moving this strategy forward.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let’s take a break here and we’ll come back and talk about some domestic issues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, you’re scheduled to announce on Monday what you plan to do with the auto industry, as they’re asking for more federal money.

OBAMA: Right.

SCHIEFFER: You’ve told them they’re going to have to cut back, present a different business plan. Our sources tell us that, as far as the White House is concerned, they’re not there yet.

Do they have to do more in order to get this money?

OBAMA: Yes. They’re not quite there yet. There’s been some serious efforts to deal with a combination of long-standing problems in the auto industry and the current crisis, which has seen the market for new cars drop from 14 million to 9 million.

Everybody is having problems, even Toyota and other very profitable companies.

And so what we’re trying to let them know is that we want to have a successful auto industry -- U.S. auto industry. We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it’s got to be one that’s realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge at the other end much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is.

And that’s going to mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved, management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers. Everybody is going to have to come to the table and say it’s important for us to take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road.

SCHIEFFER: But they’re not there yet?

OBAMA: They’re not there yet.

SCHIEFFER: You campaigned on cutting taxes for the middle class. And yet, lately, I don’t see any middle-class tax cut in the version of the budget that’s going through the Senate right now.

You have suggested that maybe you’d let the tax cuts you put for the middle class in the stimulus bill run out next year.

Can you tell us, are you still pushing a middle-class tax cut? I know you said you want the Congress to follow the principles you set out, your priorities: education...

OBAMA: Health care.

SCHIEFFER: ... reducing the deficit, health care and so on -- and education. But have you abandoned the middle-class tax cut?

OBAMA: Absolutely not. Now, first of all, let’s understand, Bob, I’ve delivered that middle-class tax cut for two years, in the stimulus package. So people will be getting...

SCHIEFFER: This year and next year?

OBAMA: That’s right.

SCHIEFFER: But are you going to let that run out?

OBAMA: Hold on a second. They’ll be seeing their tax cuts in their -- their paychecks starting on April 1, for 95 percent of working families, just as we promised.

I strongly believe that we should continue those tax cuts. We should make them permanent because the average worker out there, the average family, saw their wages and incomes flatlined, even during boom times, over the last decade.

And there’s been a huge growth in income at the very top echelons but not for average American workers. They’ve been losing ground. So I think it’s the right thing to do. What I’ve also said, though, is we’ve got to pay for it.

Now, in my original budget, we had a way of paying for it. And some of the proposals that we have made, members of Congress have said, well, we’re not quite comfortable with that.

So what I’ve said is, if you don’t want to pay for it in those ways, let’s find another way to pay for it. I think it’s still the right thing to do. And I’m going to be pushing as hard as I can to get it done in this budget.

If it’s not done in this budget, then I’m going to keep on pushing for it next year and the year afterwards, so that we don’t see a drop-off after the two-year tax cuts...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: So what you’re saying is that the Congress may want to find a different way to pay for it but you’re going to insist on...

OBAMA: Absolutely. That’s still...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: ... a middle-class tax cut? I want to ask you, also, about these bonuses and all that on Wall Street. Congress expressed outrage. You seemed outraged. And then after the Congress -- the House passed the bill to get that money back with some kind of taxes on those people, you seemed to throw a little cold water on that. You said we shouldn’t legislate out of anger.

Have you now, on reflection, decided that maybe you let that go a little too far?

OBAMA: Oh, no. I think that the anger was justified. And had we not seen some healthy expressions of anger, we wouldn’t have gotten $50 million of those bonuses back that had been sent to AIG.
But what I consistently said -- and I said this even on the first day, when I announced that, in fact, we were going to do everything we could to get some of those bonuses back.

OBAMA: I said at the time that it is important to keep our eye on the ball. My most important job is to get this economy moving again, to get credit flowing again, so that businesses, large and small, can start rehiring, open their doors, and we can start seeing economic growth again. That’s my most important job.
What I don’t want is that larger project to be threatened by short-term gratifications of our legitimate frustrations with some of the behavior that we’ve seen on Wall Street. And I met with bankers, some of the...

SCHIEFFER: Did you talk about that in your big meeting with the bankers at the White House?

OBAMA: I did. I talked to them. And what I said was, look, first of all, there are a lot of bankers that are doing good work in the community, that are acting responsibly, that haven’t taken huge risks. I understand that. But understand that for the average single mom who is just barely struggling to pay her mortgage or medical bills for her kid, who is paying her taxes, who is playing by the rules, and then finds out that a taxpayer-assisted firm is paying out multimillion-dollar bonuses, that’s not just not acceptable.

Show some restraint. Show some -- show that you get that this is a crisis and everybody has to make sacrifices.

SCHIEFFER: So what did they say?

OBAMA: They agreed. And they recognized it.

Now, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I expect to see that restraint operate. Another way of putting it is I said to those folks, let me help you -- help me help you. It’s very difficult for me as president to call on the American people to make sacrifices to help shore up the financial system if there’s no sense of mutual obligation and mutual help.

Now, the flip side is I have got to explain to the American people we’re not going to get this recovery if we don’t see a recovery of the financial sector. And there’s no separation between Main Street and Wall Street. We’re all in this together. And it’s my job to help keep that focus as we move forward.

SCHIEFFER: One more question, Mr. President. This week, I went down to Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home, where they have this wonderful new visitors’ center. And one of the historians down there reminded me that Thomas Jefferson once said the presidency is a splendid misery. But at the end of his term, he also said, quote, that the presidency had brought him nothing but increasing drudgery and a daily loss of friends.
I just wonder, have you lost any friends yet?

OBAMA: I don’t think I’ve lost any friends. But I’m sure I’ve strained some friendships.

And look, this is an invigorating job. In some ways, I feel incredibly fortunate to be in this job at a time where the presidency really matters. This is not a caretaker presidency right now. Every decision we’re making counts, and my team understands that.

You know, if I had my preferences, would I love to deal with one of these at a time? Deal with Afghanistan now and maybe put off banking until later, or deal with health care three years from now? That would be great.

I don’t have that luxury because the American people don’t have that luxury. They need to be kept safe now. They need health care assistance now. They need this economy back on track now. They need to educate their kids now. And given that they’re having to make a lot of difficult choices, it’s important for us to work as hard as we can to help them live out their American dream.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Great to talk to you, Bob. Thank you.

Transcript: Secretary of Defense Gates on Fox News Sunday (29 March)

HOST CHRIS WALLACE: This week, President Obama took ownership of the war in Afghanistan. Here for an exclusive interview on the new strategy as well as other tough challenges around the world is the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

And, Mr. Secretary, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday.”

GATES: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Let’s start with President Obama’s mission statement Friday on the new strategy in Afghanistan. Here it is.



OBAMA: ... that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Bush used to talk about building a flourishing democracy. Has President Obama narrowed our mission and, if so, why? GATES: I think the -- the near-term objectives have been narrowed. I think our long-term objective still would be to see a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan.

But I think what we need to focus on and focus our efforts is making headway in reversing the Taliban’s momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and -- and really going after Al Qaida, as the president said.

WALLACE: Yeah, I’m going to pick up on that. The president said that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks against the U.S. homeland. Does Al Qaida still have that kind of operational capability to plan and pull off those kinds of attacks?

GATES: They certainly have the capability to plan, and in many ways they have metastasized, with elements in North Africa, in the Levant, in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere, and they aren’t necessarily directly controlled from Al Qaida in western Pakistan, but they are trained there. They often get guidance from there and inspiration from there.

So I think they do have those capabilities. They clearly have been inhibited by all the things that have been done over the last six or seven years.

WALLACE: When you say they still have those capabilities to pull off an attack on the U.S. homeland, do you still regard them as a very serious threat?

GATES: I still regard them as a very serious threat, yes.

WALLACE: U.S. commanders in the field wanted more combat troops than the 17,000 that President Obama committed.

Why did he decide against committing all of those additional combat troops? And will there be enough for the kind of counterinsurgency, living among the population, protecting the population, that was so key to the success of the surge in Iraq?

GATES: Well, let me be very clear about this. The president has approved every single soldier that I have requested of him. I have not sent any requests for units or troops to the president so far that he has not approved.

Now, the reality is I’ve been at this a long time, and I don’t think I’ve ever in several decades run into a ground commander who thought he had enough troops. That’s probably true in all of history.

But we have fulfilled all of the requirements that General McKiernan has put down for 2009, and my view is there’s no need to ask for more troops, ask the president to approve more troops, until we see how the troops we -- he already has approved are in there, how they are doing, what the Europeans have done. And we will be reviewing that come the end of the year.

WALLACE: And are there enough for the kind of counterinsurgency tactics -- living in the population, protecting the population -- that we saw so successful in Iraq?

GATES: Well, based on the requirements that have been levied by General McKiernan for 2009, that would be his view, I think.

And the reality is there already are a lot of troops there. This will bring us, when all is said and done, to about 68,000 troops, plus another 35,000 or so Europeans and other partners.

WALLACE: What kind of long-term commitment has the president given you? Has he promised you that he will stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban, in fact, are -- and Al Qaida are defeated?

GATES: He has clearly -- he clearly understands that this is a very tough fight and that we’re in it until we’re successful, that Al Qaida is no longer a threat to the United States, and that -- and that we are in no danger of either Afghanistan or the western part of Pakistan being a base for Al Qaida.

By the same token, I think he’s been clear -- and frankly, it was my view in our discussions -- that we don’t want to just pursue -- settle on this strategy and then pursue it blindly and open-endedly.

And that’s why I felt very strongly that toward the end of the year or about a year from now we need to reevaluate this strategy and see if we’re making progress.

WALLACE: But the strategy is subject to review. The commitment to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaida -- is that subject to review?

GATES: I don’t think so.

WALLACE: That is the commitment.

GATES: Certainly, to defeat Al Qaida and -- and make sure that Afghanistan and western Pakistan are not safe havens for them.

WALLACE: There were reports this week that elements of Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, are providing the Taliban and other extremists with money, supplies, even tips on allied missions against them. One, is it true? And two, if so, can we stop it?

GATES: Well, the way I would answer is to say that we certainly have concerns about the contacts of -- between the Pakistani intelligence service and the -- and some of these groups in the past.

But the reality is the Pakistanis have had contacts with these groups since they were fighting the Soviets 20 or 25 years ago when I first was dealing with the Pakistanis on this, and I must say also helping make sure that some of those same groups got weapons from our safe haven in Pakistan.

But with people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haghani [Haqqani] network, the Pakistanis have had contacts with these people for a long time, I think partly as a hedge against what might happen in Afghanistan if we were to walk away or whatever. What we need to do is try and help the Pakistanis understand these groups are now an existential threat to them and that we will be there as a steadfast ally for Pakistan, that they can count on us and that they don’t need that hedge.

WALLACE: There’s a NATO summit coming up next week in Europe. Have we given up on the idea of getting our allies to send more combat troops to fight alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan?

GATES: No, we haven’t. And in fact, I think some of our allies will send additional forces there to provide security before the August elections in Afghanistan.

But I think what we’re really interested in for the longer term from our partners and the allies is helping us with this civilian surge in terms of experts in agriculture, and finance, and governance and so on, to help us improve the situation inside Afghanistan, give a sense of forward progress on the part of the Afghan people.

Also, police trainers -- you know, the Caribinieri, the Guardia Seville, these various groups in Europe are really very good paramilitary-type police, and I think they could do a good job in the police training, so those will be probably the principal focus of our requests.

WALLACE: New subject. North Korea says that it will launch a communications satellite sometime in the next few days. They have, in fact, even moved a missile out to the launch pad. Several questions. Why are we so troubled by an activity that the North Koreans say is civilian?

GATES: Well, I think that they’re -- I don’t know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

WALLACE: Do we believe that they now have the ability to put a nuclear warhead on top of a missile, as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Maples, suggested?

GATES: I think that we believe that that’s their long-term intent. I personally would be skeptical that they have the ability right now to do that.

WALLACE: The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Keating, says that we are, quote, “fully prepared” to shoot down this missile. Are there any circumstances under which we will do that?

GATES: Well, I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it. But I don’t think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point.

WALLACE: What if it were headed for the West Coast, for Alaska?

GATES: Well, we -- I don’t think we believe this missile can do that.

WALLACE: And what about the Japanese? Obviously -- would -- they have some of our technology. Do we believe they’re going to -- prepared to shoot this down?

GATES: Well, again, based on what I read in the newspapers, what the Japanese are saying is that the -- if that missile fails, and it looks like it’s going to drop debris on Japan, that they might take some action.

WALLACE: You’re basically discussing this, Mr. Secretary, as if it’s going to happen.

GATES: The launch?

WALLACE: Yeah.

GATES: I think it probably will.

WALLACE: And there’s nothing we can do about it?

GATES: Nope.

WALLACE: And what does that say to you?

GATES: Well, I would say we’re not prepared to do anything about it.

WALLACE: There are reports -- well, let me -- I want to stay with that. What does that say to you about the North Korean regime, that -- that we and the rest of the world can all say that this is -- you know, a provocative act, an unlawful act, and they thumb our noses and we’re not going to do anything about it?

GATES: Well, I think it’s very troubling. The reality is that the six-party talks really have not made any headway any time recently.

There has certainly been no -- if this is Kim Jong-il’s welcoming present to a new president, launching a missile like this and threatening to have a nuclear test, I think it says a lot about the imperviousness of this -- of this regime in North Korea to any kind of diplomatic overtures.

WALLACE: There are reports that the Obama White House has asked you to cut $2 billion from the next budget for missile defense, roughly 20 percent. Is this president less committed? Is he less convinced that this program will work than President Bush was?

GATES: Well, I don’t know about the comparison. I would say -- I would tell you that I have not received any specific requests from the White House in terms of our budget. We’ll be talking about that. We have the top line number.

We receive what we call a pass-back from the Office of Management and Budget, but I considered the suggestions that they made simply those, suggestions. I’ve taken some of them and some of them I haven’t.

WALLACE: But do you regard there is a new skepticism in the part of the White House towards missile defense?

GATES: I think that -- I think one of the things that we need to do is sit down and go through the capabilities that we have, the tests that we’ve been through, and -- and focus on where -- where we need to sustain development, where we need to sustain a commitment to have a capability.

WALLACE: So it sounds like that’s under review.

GATES: I think so.

WALLACE: There are so many trouble spots around the world, but I want to do a lightning round tour of the horizon. I know this is not your thing, Mr. Secretary, but let’s try to do quick questions, quick answers.

Iraq -- do you see any developments so far that might cause you to have to slow down President Obama’s time line to pull out of the major cities by this summer and to get our combat troops out by August of 2010?

GATES: I haven’t seen anything at this point that would lead me to think that there will be a need to change the time lines.

WALLACE: Iran -- you said recently -- you said recently that they are not close to a nuclear weapon. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says that they have enough material to make a bomb. Is there a contradiction there?

GATES: No. What they have is -- is probably enough low-enriched uranium from their centrifuges at Natanz to give them the capacity should they then enrich it more highly to proceed to make a weapon. They don’t have the capability at this point to enrich. We were suspicious they may be building one clandestinely.

We do not believe they are doing enriching beyond a low level at Natanz, and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is in there, so we will know if they tried to do that. So I guess the point -- the bridge between what Admiral Mullen said and what I’ve said is they do have enough low-enriched uranium that if they should then proceed to enrich it more highly, they could build a weapon.

WALLACE: You expressed, I think it would be fair to say, extreme skepticism about the ability of diplomacy to alter the behavior of the North Koreans. Do you feel the same way about the Iranians?

GATES: Well, I think -- I think, frankly, from my perspective the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy.

Diplomacy -- perhaps if there is enough economic pressure placed on Iran, diplomacy can provide them an open door through which they can walk if they choose to change their policies, and so I think the two go hand in hand, but I think what gets them to the table is economic sanctions.

WALLACE: A couple of more questions for the lightning round. Mexico -- the Pentagon issued a report in November on the growing drug violence there that said this, “An unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States.”

Mr. Secretary, how likely is that scenario, that the Mexican government loses control of part of the country?

GATES: I don’t think that’s a likely scenario at this point. I think that a lot of the violence is -- is among or between the cartels as they strive for control of certain areas in Mexico.

I think President Calderon has acted with enormous courage and forcefully in sending troops in to try and get control of that situation.

And I think that -- as I think Admiral Blair testified just in the last couple of days, I think that the chances of the Mexican government losing control of some part of their country or becoming a failed state is -- are very low.

WALLACE: In January, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a one-word answer, “yes,” when asked if this president is going to end the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for gays in the military.

Where does that stand? And why is there currently money in the 2010 budget to keep enforcing that policy?

GATES: Well, it continues to be the law. And any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law, whatever it is.

That dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now, and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.

WALLACE: And finally, and we have just a minute left, President Bush used to talk about the global war on terror. This administration, this White House, seems to steer away from that.

In fact, in his speech on Friday, President Obama talked about a campaign against extremism. Beyond the words, is there a strategic difference between the way these two presidents see the fight?

GATES: I think that they -- they both see Al Qaida as a threat to the United States, Al Qaida and its extremist allies. And I think they both have made clear their determination to go after it.

We have the opportunity now that perhaps we did not have before to apply the kind of resources, both military and civilian, against it and a broader kind of strategy that we did not have before.

WALLACE: But a difference between saying war on terror or campaign against extremism...

GATES: I think that’s people looking for differences where there are none.

WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you so much for coming in. We got through everything. Thank you. Please come back, sir.

GATES: My pleasure. Thank you.

US General: We Might Stay in Iraqi Cities For A While

President Obama has been a bit preoccupied with Afghanistan and Pakistan this past week, but he might want to take note of the words of Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin (pictured), the senior commander of US ground forces in Iraq, about the American intervention.

It ain't over.

Austin told The Christian Science Monitor that US troops are likely to remain in Baquba and Mosul after the deadline for redeployment to major bases outside the cities. Senior military commanders added that US troops will probably remain in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.

Austin said, "In Mosul and Diyala [Province, north of Baghdad], as we do a combined or joint assessment of the situation on the ground, I have every expectation that both sides will say we need to stay with this a little bit longer until this improves."

Austin played now-standard double military-speak with the Monitor. On the one hand, there had been a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq since 2006. On the other, because it had to be "sustainable and lasting", American troops might still be needed past the deadlines agreed with Iraq last December and reiterated by President Obama last month:

At the end of the day, what I'm trying to create is sustainable security, and sustainable security to me doesn't look like just a couple of good indicators – attacks being down, numbers of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] being down. That's part of it. What it really is is the Iraqis having the capability to do this on their own when we leave so we are focused on creating that capability with them.

Why cast scepticism on Austin's assessment, questioning whether he is offering an objective reading of both military and political situations? Possibly because of his reading of the history of America's grand victory in Iraq:

I think it was one of the most incredible things our military has ever done. With literally two divisions – an Army division and a Marine division – we fought our way forward and liberated a city of 6 million people. If you lay that out and asked someone to talk about whether that's possible, most folks would tell you that's not possible.

Mr Obama's Doctrine: Josh Mull on US Grand Strategy in Pakistan and Beyond

Related Post: Mr Obama's War - Pakistan Insurgency "Unites" (You Heard It Here First)

"The 'Obama Doctrine' looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between 'walk softly and carry a big stick' and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror."

Yesterday Scott Lucas, in “Mr. Obama's War: The Fantasy of the Pakistan Sanctuaries”, analysed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' appearance on Meet the Press, pointing out the cognitive dissonance in Gates' assertion that the US understands safe havens in Pakistan because it has previously used those same Pakistani safe havens so effectively. Lucas also raises some very interesting questions, particularly over Gates' apparent non-answer to the question of the consequences for Pakistan of the US campaign. This is my attempt to answer those questions, as well as a proposal to parse out a broader US “grand strategy” from Gates' appearance.

Host David Gregory asked Gates on Sunday, “The trouble and consequences of jihadists making significant gains in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is perhaps more acute in Pakistan given its nuclear potential. True?” In reply, Gates' offered this:

Well, as long as we’re in Afghanistan and as long as the Afghan government has the support of dozens and dozens of countries who are providing military support, civilian support in addition to us, we are providing a level of stability in Afghanistan that at least prevents it from being a safe haven from which plots against the United States and the Europeans and others can be, can be put together.

The key is this: Gates isn't answering the question about Pakistan to David Gregory. He's answering the question about Pakistan directly to the Pakistanis.

I decoded Gates' reply as: "Well, as long as I can go on a Sunday morning Prime Time talk show and say 9/11, Taliban, and Osama bin Laden and as long as my Commander-in-Chief can draw crowds of 200,000 screaming Europeans, Pakistan can suck it up and deal with whatever we want to do, including destabilizing or overthrowing their corrupt government and/or stealing or destroying their illegal nuclear weapons, which by the way, I already have the authority to do from a little thing called the Lugar-Obama bill to secure weapons of mass destruction."

In short, it's not the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to keep Pakistan stable, it is his responsibility to attack extremist safe havens in Pakistan in order to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack against the US, Canada, or the European Union. President Obama, and by extension the plans of his Secretary of Defense, enjoys bipartisan political support as well as stable international credibility. Accordingly the US will act, as Lucas said in his article, as if “there are no consequences whatsoever for the internal Pakistani situation" or, more appropriately, without regard to these consequences.

But there is more we can glean from Secretary Gates' interview than it appears. Beyond the purposes Lucas pointed out --- pitching Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan and articulating US Afghanistan policy --- it's possible Gates was offering us, and the international audience, insight into the broader strategic calculations of the United States, particularly the role of the Department of Defense and US military power abroad.

President Obama has shown himself to be somewhat of a Centrist, if only in regard to his desire to hear from all sides of an argument or debate. One thing all foreign policy and national security analysts, from the Conservative "Fall of Rome" crowd to the Realist "Second World" types all the way to the Neoconservative "Team America" folks, can agree on is this: the United States of America is now and will continue to be Earth's preeminent military force, at least for the foreseeable future.

There is a saying amongst foreign policy elites:  "Who has the world's largest air force after the US Air Force? The US Army."

With Pakistan, Gates is essentially saying that, as long as the US, Canada, and Europe are threatened by extremist attacks from Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US will continue to act aggressively with its military force. It will do so in any manner and on any territory of its choosing, provided it has the support and cooperation of Europe and NATO (whose members will suffer from terrorism long before the US).

What's absent is any mention of India, which implies the support of India in Afghanistan and protection from Pakistan-launched, "Mumbai-style" attacks are not part of the US calculation. ("Your problem, not ours.")

It may seem like Gates casually forgot to mention India and Mumbai in his response on Pakistan. After all, "AfPak" is an extremely complicated subject, and it's easy to leave things out or get things mixed up. At least, that will be the talking point if this becomes an issue. However, we know two things: first, India and Pakistan are inextricably linked together in any strategic calculus, and second, that this wasn't just a casual visit to Meet the Press by Bob Gates. It was the public coming-out ceremony for George W. Bush's former and now President Obama's current Secretary of Defense, civilian leader of the United States Military.

The importance of this public appearance can't be understated. It was not necessarily designed for the domestic audience of NBC viewers, but rather was aimed at a more global audience and, directly, to the Pakistanis. This is what makes the apparently deliberate absence of India from the “AfPak” equation so significant. The absence, the answer, and the entire interview together could lead us to presume that Gates is articulating the prototype for what will later be called “the Obama Doctrine”.

The “Obama Doctrine” looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between “walk softly and carry a big stick” and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror.

The India-Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh) conflict is the perfect illustration. Under the old rules of the Bush Doctrine, the response to something like the Mumbai attacks might be airstrikes, special forces, or some other combination of clandestine military force. Under the “Obama Doctrine”, the Defense Department under Gates, and thus the US military, are not responsible for the India-Pakistan conflict. Rather this would fall under the portfolios of US Attorney General Eric Holder and his FBI as well US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her cadres of ambassadors and envoys,with support and cooperation from that throbbing heart of diplomacy in Brussels (the European Union), law enforcement agents with Interpol and NATO, and the mediation and oversight of the United Nations.

Obviously it's an extreme departure from George W Bush's radical Napoleonic-cum-Bolshevik strategy of the Global War on Terror, but that doesn't necessarily mean the “Obama Doctrine” will turn out any more successfully than the Bush Doctrine. In fact, the strategy is brimming with vulnerabilities.

The US may be the most powerful military, it is not the only military on the planet. In the fall of 2007 as civil unrest was broiling in Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf, then-Senator now Vice President Joe Biden campaigned in the Democratic Party primaries on a promise to pull strategic military aid from Pakistan, that is weapons used against India, to pressure Pakistan to focus on the insurgency rather than more ethereal, strategic conflicts. In response, however, the Chinese offered to sell Pakistan a new fleet of MiG fighter jets, similar to the American planes Biden was threatening to withdraw. Now, as then, there is a constant danger that any diplomatic “sticks” threatened by the US can simply be neutralized by other international actors willing to take its place.

Furthermore there is the problem caused by the global financial meltdown and the massive economic depressions it is causing. While Secretary Gates may have it in his authority to bomb Pakistani safe havens as well as police the Straits of Malacca, the United States may not ultimately be able to afford the high price of imperialism. And if the US is forced to cut back on its imperalist designs, it will create some extremely uncomfortable strategic questions for policy makers. For example, what is the higher priority between preventing a bus bombing in London or preventing a missile exchange between Korea and Japan when you can't afford both?

So we don't end on such a morbid tone, let me point out that this prototypical “Obama Doctrine” has some very powerful advantages over the Bush Doctrine, the Global War on Terror, and the so-called Long War/Great Game theories. The most important advantage is that it is absolutely conscious of and constructed on the idea of a “Multi-Polar” world. Even though the US seeks to dominate international affairs, it acknowledges and plans for the participation of other actors, states, or non-states. By allowing for participation, it allows for competition, and as President Obama displays with his choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, competition has both winners and losers who can still join together for a common purpose. There is no absolute victory or defeat of good and evil, but rather a competition among partners.