Transcript: Gates-Mullen Briefing on US Command Change in Afghanistan

SEC. GATES: First, I would like to express my horror and deep regret over today's shooting incident at Camp Liberty in Iraq. I offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of those who were killed. We are still in the process of gathering information on exactly what happened, but if the preliminary reports are confirmed, such a tragic loss of life at the hands of our own forces is a cause for great and urgent concern, and I can assure you that it will get this department's highest-priority attention.

As you know, I just returned from a trip to Afghanistan, where I met with our troops and commanders in the field. My purpose in going was to see firsthand the preparations and plans under way to execute the president's strategy for the region, especially as significantly more American troops begin arriving in country. I thought it critically important to get a sense from the ground level what needs -- what the needs are, what the challenges are and what the solutions to some of the problems are.

As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone. And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better. We have not been able to fully resource our military effort in Afghanistan in recent years, but I believe, resources or no, that our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders. Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed.

After consultation with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of Central Command, and with the approval of the president, I have asked for the resignation of General David McKiernan. He will remain in command of both ISAF and U.S. Forces Afghanistan until such time as a relief can be nominated and confirmed.

I am today recommending to the president that Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal be nominated to replace General McKiernan as commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan.

I am also recommending that Lieutenant General David Rodriguez be assigned to the new position of deputy commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan. I have advised the secretary general of NATO and the minister of defense of Afghanistan of these prospective changes.

I made these decisions only after careful consideration of a great number of factors, including the advice of Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus. In the end, I believe my decisions are in the best interests of our national security and the success of our mission in Afghanistan. I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Generals McChrystal and Rodriguez so they can begin their important work as soon as possible.

Let none of this detract from, nor cause us ever to forget, General McKiernan's long and distinguished career of military service. For decades, in peace and war, Dave McKiernan has led hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform with conviction, integrity and courage. He has dedicated his life to the preservation of the freedoms we in this nation enjoy. And on behalf of the Department of Defense and the nation, I thank him for his years of selfless service.

Pam.

Q (Off mike.) Are you worried at all that switching horses in midstream has an air of desperation, or that you -- that you -- what you saw on both of your recent trips there was worse than you had expected to see?

SEC. GATES: Well, let me start and then turn to Admiral Mullen.

I think that the -- as the statement suggested, that -- that with agreement on a new strategy and a new mission, and a new national approach and international approach in Afghanistan, that if there were to be a change, this is the right time to make the change, at a time when we are at the beginning of the implementation of a new strategy. And it is in that context that I emphasize that the focus here is simply on getting fresh thinking, fresh eyes on the problem, and in how we implement the strategy and the mission going forward.

ADM. MULLEN: In fact, for me, based on my recent trips, the opposite is true. In the time that I spent in RC East, I was very encouraged by the progress that we'd made and the depth of understanding of what the requirement was from our people on the military side to generate success.

Clearly that is not the case in the south, because we have not had the forces there, and putting them there this year is critically important. And I would only echo what the secretary said, from the standpoint of, with the new strategy, with the new team across the board, I felt it was very important for new leadership, and supported this decision completely.

Q Mr. Secretary?

Q Admiral Mullen? Mr. -- for both of you gentlemen, while you say you felt there needed to be fresh eyes, fresh thinking, General McKiernan, of course, has only been there for a period of months. He's yet to get the resources he asked the Obama administration for. The troops that he has asked for aren't even there yet.

So what specifically was he not doing that he -- you said you wanted fresh thinking, fresh eyes. Did he resist your ideas? Did he resist change? Was he uncooperative with the new thinking, the new way forward? What went wrong here?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, General McKiernan has been in Afghanistan, I think, 11 months. And -- first of all, I would say, nothing went wrong, and there was nothing specific.

It is -- it simply was my conviction, based on my consultations with Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus, that a fresh approach, a fresh look in the context of the new strategy, probably was in our best interest.

Q Mr. Secretary?

Q Admiral Mullen?

Q Admiral Mullen -- excuse me. Admiral Mullen, what -- why couldn't, in your mind -- you said you supported the recommendation; in your mind, why could General McKiernan no longer do the job?

ADM. MULLEN: Again, he's been there almost a year. And, in fact, under normal circumstances, he would have rotated somewhere between 18 and 24 months, depending on timing.

I have said that we must focus all of our effort in terms of making Afghanistan better.

There probably is no more critical ingredient than that -- than leadership. And again, along with all the other changes, it's time now. And that's why I made that recommendation.

Q Is it just loss of confidence? I haven't heard anything yet -- I'm so sorry -- about why you both think he couldn't do the job.

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I'm not going to say a whole lot more, other than the -- I thought there was a need for new leadership -- clearly we have in the two that the secretary -- the two officers that the secretary mentioned a rich experience level -- General Rodriguez in particular deep in Afghanistan, having been there before -- and that I think these two officers will bring a -- not just a renewed but a focus, which we really need in 2009, and I just didn't think that we could wait until 2010.

Q Mr. Secretary, having talked to people who are involved in all this, they say McKiernan was maybe too conventional, too "old Army" in his outlook, not nimble enough to deal with the complex counterinsurgency. And as the admiral mentioned, McChrystal has a lot more experience in Afghanistan. Could you just comment on some of that?

SEC GATES: Well, it's -- you know, I won't -- it's hard to say anything more than we've already said. I would -- Admiral Mullen just talked about the experience that -- in counterinsurgency that both General McChrystal and General Rodriguez have.

I would tell you that those who are speculating on the ingredients in this decision, if it's not Admiral Mullen or me or General Petraeus, has (sic) no inside information on our thinking.

Q So McKiernan just lacked a certain counterinsurgency experience or wasn't nimble enough on this?

SEC. GATES: I think what the admiral said is exactly where we are. It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes. Julian?

Q Secretary Gates, for you, talk to me a little bit more about why General McChrystal and his -- whether it's the Special Operations background came into your thinking.

And Admiral Mullen, if you would talk a little bit about the effort that General McChrystal has been doing for you in terms of how to resource the Afghanistan mission, what -- why you assigned him that, what his mission was in that.

SEC. GATES: I would simply say that both General McChrystal and General Rodriguez bring a unique skill set in counterinsurgency to these issues. And I think that they will provide the kind of new leadership and fresh thinking that the admiral and I have been talking about.

ADM. MULLEN: I just -- for both of them, as -- whenever you look for replacements -- I mean, whenever that occurs, you -- I took a broad range of inputs from military officers.

And McChrystal and Rodriguez rank -- outside this discussion, outside this change, McChrystal and Rodriguez have ranked, for the entire time that I've been chairman, at the top of the list. So we couldn't pick two better officers.

And then specifically, Julian, with respect to the -- the discussions and focus on getting the best people to Afghanistan, making sure that we resource that as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible, making sure that leaders who go there that -- have that experience so that our ramp-up time when we turn over is absolutely minimal -- all of that focuses on the importance of Afghanistan, and actually lessons that we learned from Iraq where some of our rotations would -- you know, we were starting over from an experience level. So it's how to do that and keep that focus and move as fast as we can from a resourcing people, training, expertise standpoint in Afghanistan.

Q Is this something you started thinking about some months ago? And could you also tell us what Ambassador Holbrooke's role might have been in this? And also, when -- did you just tell him today?

SEC. GATES: Ambassador Holbrooke?

Q (Off mike.)

SEC. GATES: No. I talked to him when I was in Afghanistan last week. The answer to part of your question is that Ambassador Holbrooke played no role in this.

Q He had no recommendation, had no thoughts about how --

SEC. GATES: I don't know whether he had any thoughts. He played no role in this.

Q You'd know. (Laughs.)

ADM. MULLEN: No, I mean, he had no role to -- in this at all.

Q Well, can you talk a little bit about how and when you started thinking about this? Is this some months ago? Is it --

ADM. MULLEN: General McKiernan was -- originally planned to be there between 18 and 24 months. So as far back as six or seven months ago, I was looking at his relief, potentially his relief, as well as General Odierno, who's due to leave sometime early in 2010. So there had been discussions about this over an extended period time. I think certainly for me it's been in the last several months, as we've focused heavily on Afghanistan and resourcing it and how we were going to move forward, that this issue -- that the specifics of this really came to bear and that -- that I concluded that it was time for a change, and made that recommendation to the secretary.

Q So is it fair to say that in terms of a -- unique skill sets, that General McChrystal -- for those who don't follow his career, he specializes in black -- commando special operations: the capturing of Saddam Hussein, the killing of Abu Zarqawi, the melding of intelligence and special-ops units in the -- during the surge. Is that what you're looking for from him in terms of Afghanistan -- replicating some of those successes in that terrain?

SEC. GATES: Well, let me say something and then invite the admiral. The way I look at this is as -- McChrystal and Rodriguez as a team. They each bring tremendous skills in a variety of areas that are very pertinent to the kind of fight that we have in Afghanistan. And it is their combined skill set that I think gives us some fresh opportunities looking forward.

ADM. MULLEN: And while General McChrystal has that background that you described, Tony, his background is much deeper and much broader than that. And I've been privileged to work with him over the better part of the last year and seen that, you know, the broadness and the depth that go far beyond just high-end special-operations skills. And I'm extremely confident that he will be able to carry out this mission in its fullness to include, obviously, those skills, but others as well.

Q Those kind of missions, though, to make this more a SOF-like fight?

ADM. MULLEN: I wouldn't be specific about what kind -- you know, exactly the kinds of missions we would increase specifically. But certainly his focus and his background, I think, are very relevant to our needs there. And then -- but it really is also the combination of he and Rodriguez which are so important.

Q Mr. Secretary, you've often said that you were worried about establishing too big a military footprint in Afghanistan. Yet General McKiernan, it seemed like every few months, was asking for more and more and higher levels of forces. Is that one of the areas that wasn't new-think, in your mind? And did you and General McKiernan have a difference there?

SEC. GATES: No, that had nothing to do with it, as far as I was concerned.

Q And about keeping the troop levels lower, you were talking, Admiral Mullen, about the lessons learned in Iraq. Wasn't that one of the lessons learned in Iraq, that we didn't have enough troops in Iraq initially?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, as I've looked at the analysis for what we need, certainly, in the immediate future, the troops we have in the east recently are -- have recently put in there, as well as those going in the south, those meet the needs that we see that we have right now. And I'm very comfortable that they will be able to provide the hold after the clear, which is where we've been short, particularly in the south.

Q Mr. Secretary, can you talk a bit -- now that these changes have been made at the very top, what follow-on changes may take place? I mean, for instance, as an organizational issue, will there be an RC South -- American commands in RC South paralleling RC East? And even in general terms, can you talk about on the ground, tactically, what we may see differently going forward in the months ahead that was not the case up until now?

SEC. GATES: Well, I don't know that I can speak very well to the strategy and tactics going forward. I don't expect there to be a change in the command rotation in RC South. The Dutch are in command now. They will be replaced for -- at the end of a year by the British, who will be in command for a year, and then we will take command in 2010.

And some of the additional troop levels that General McKiernan has asked for are, in fact, a two-star headquarters to support when the U.S. takes command of RC South in the fall of 2010, in November, I think. So I don't anticipate any change in that arrangement.

Q Can you talk even in general terms about what might take place differently on the ground, as far as the prosecution of the war?

SEC. GATES: No, I don't know.

ADM. MULLEN: I think -- I mean, in some ways, we're learning as we go here. I mean, we're -- what General McKiernan has recommended, in terms of the troops that are going there now, are the ones that we're resourcing.

But I'd also certainly want to hear from new leadership what their beliefs are once they get there, get on the ground and make some recommendations about how to move forward as rapidly as possible.

So I'm not aware of any changes. And I wouldn't speak to exactly how they're going to -- how they'd fight it, although I've been briefed, for instance, on, you know, how it's going to apply in the south here over the course of this year.
But certainly with new leadership, there will probably be some fresh views, which we will have very, very good discussions about.

Q Admiral, you said, we can and must do better. And so I'm surprised you don't have any more solid idea of how we need to do better.

ADM. MULLEN: I can't think of a more important decision than putting in new leadership, with respect to that, and then having the impact that is so critical.

Q Actually the secretary said, we must and can do better. Any thoughts on how?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think, that's the challenge that we give to the new leadership. How do we -- how do we do better? What new ideas do you have? What fresh thinking do you have? Are there different ways of accomplishing our goals? How can we be more effective? The admiral and I aren't the source of those ideas. General McChrystal and General Rodriguez are. And that's what we expect from them.

Q Let me ask it a different way. One of the criticisms of General McKiernan was that he hadn't implemented a joint campaign plan, essentially an implementation of the way the strategy would be used on the ground. When the new leadership gets there, do you have a sense that then they will provide new feedback that could change the Af-Pak strategy as we know it? And what might it be?

SEC. GATES: Well, I -- first of all, the new strategy is a strategy approved by the president. And it is a whole-of-government strategy. If there are any changes that they would recommend, it would be in the military part of that strategy.

Q Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Recently North Korea said that if South Korea participated in -- (inaudible) -- then North Korea will regard it as an act of war. What is your comment on this?

SEC. GATES: Well, I've been frankly surprised and disturbed by the kind of rhetoric coming out of North Korea in recent weeks. And I think that North Korea has effectively isolated itself internationally, even greater than was the case before, by some of this rhetoric. But that's what I think it is, rhetoric.

Q (Off mike) -- you can give us any more detail of the shooting in Iraq -- what you know about the soldier, whether he'd been on multiple deployments, whether he was seeking help for combat stress? Are there any details you can give us?

ADM. MULLEN: No, I don't -- I don't have a whole lot more than what -- than that which is already out there. Clearly, the tragedy occurred in a -- in a -- in a place where individuals were -- were seeking help. And I'd also like to certainly extend my condolences and thoughts and prayers to the families of those who were killed.

It does speak to me, though, about the need for us to redouble our efforts, the concern in terms of dealing with the stress, dealing with the whole issue of those kinds of things. And it also speaks to the issue of multiple deployments, you know, increasing dwell time, all those things that we're focused on to try to improve to relieve that stress. But I just don't have the specifics of this particular incident.

Q Mr. Secretary, where do we stand now on the bombings in western Afghanistan? A lot of blame was thrown each way -- senior Defense officials blaming the Taliban; Taliban blaming U.S., saying there was the use of white phosphorous. Where does that investigation stand? Is there any light you can shed on that?

SEC. GATES: Well, let me tell you what I think the status is and ask the admiral to correct me if I get it wrong.
My understanding is that General McKiernan has sent a general officer to Farah province to participate with the Afghan Ministries of Defense and Interior in an investigation of what happened. I also understand that General Petraeus is either considering or has already decided to send someone to Afghanistan from outside the country to investigate the tragedy.
(To Adm. Mullen.) Is that --

ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

Q Do you have an update on how many civilians may have died?

SEC. GATES: No.

Q And have any payments been made to civilian families, as you suggested they would be done immediately last time you were in Afghanistan?

SEC. GATES: I don't -- I just don't know.

Q Clarification? Mr. Secretary, just a clarification. Does General McKiernan's resignation end his military career?

SEC. GATES: Probably.

Q Sir, can I follow up on that other issue of the bombing? You've expressed concern and frustration the military is unable to counter Taliban or al Qaeda propaganda. In this case, with the bombing in Afghanistan, it seems that they have -- they have a storyline, and the U.S. and McKiernan hinted at another narrative, that the Taliban had killed a bunch of people.
How, going forward, do you hope that that changes? And do you see the new leadership there kind of jumping in on that issue?

SEC. GATES: Well, one of the -- one of the disadvantages we have in these situations is that the Taliban don't tell the truth and they don't care what the truth is. And so when you're making it up, you can respond a lot faster than when you're trying to figure out what actually happened.

And we have -- and that has been a disadvantage for us on an ongoing basis. And we have to figure out how to get inside that strategic communications cycle to get in front of this issue. This is a principal strategic tactic of the Taliban, is the use -- is either provoking or exploiting civilian casualties.

And we have done a lot -- and I must say, General McKiernan has done a lot -- in recent months to try and reduce the level of civilian casualties. The fact of the matter is, civilian casualties since January in Afghanistan are down 40 percent over a year ago during the same period. And U.S., Afghan and ISAF casualties are up 75 percent during the same period.
So there is a tremendous effort going on on our part to try and avoid civilian casualties. But figuring out how to come out better on the strategic communications side of this is an ongoing challenge for us.

Q Is it more of the process, or is it just cultural resistance in the military to just come out and say the truth as soon as you know it?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think -- I'm not sure I would characterize it as a military cultural aspect. I think it's more an American characteristic to try and figure out what happened before you decide --

Q (Off mike) -- President Karzai came out over the weekend. He called upon the U.S. to stop using airstrikes and also to stop nighttime raids. Is that at all practical, do you think?

SEC. GATES: Well, I can't improve on General Jones' statement yesterday, that we can't fight this war with one hand tied behind us. But one of the things that General McKiernan has been working on and that I am confident that Generals McChrystal and Rodriguez will work on is how we can do better in this area.

Q Let me ask you about Swat Valley very quickly. We have seen now perhaps half-a-million Pakistanis displaced in their own country. You've given billions to Pakistan. You've urged them to engage in counterinsurgency. Is this kind of aerial and artillery bombardment the kind of -- with thousands displaced -- the kind of counterinsurgency strategy you wanted them to embark on?

ADM. MULLEN: Actually, I spoke in a continuing dialogue with General Kiyani. I spoke to him earlier today. He called me just to update me specifically. And I won't go into the -- into the details of that, but they actually have made considerable progress in recent weeks and in -- in ways that many of us -- many -- not many of us, but many would have not predicted.
Clearly, there is a concern for the refugees and taking care of that. I know that the prime minister has been out speaking to the need for the Pakistan people to support that. That's also an important strategic both shift and emphasis.
And then I guess I wouldn't get into the details of his planning or his execution, but he's certainly aware of the challenges in particular with respect to the IDPs and the need for his government and other NGOs to address that issue.

Q But are you satisfied with the strategy that you're seeing? Because there are now potentially hundreds of thousands of IDPs? Are you satisfied?

ADM. MULLEN: I think, at least historically in counterinsurgencies, particularly when you're in the -- in the aggressive -- when you -- when you start them, you do -- we do see lots of IDPs and have to address that. And certainly, we're all concerned about that. I know that it's -- that it's -- that concern is being addressed specifically by the Pakistani government as a priority.

SEC. GATES: Thank you all very much.

Video and Transcript: Secretary of Defense Gates on CNN (3 May)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, conducted earlier this week, was broadcast today. While the discussion has already been overtaken by events in Pakistan and Iraq, we'll be commenting on important clues to the future course of Obama foreign policy in an analysis tomorrow.



ZAKARIA: Secretary Gates, thank you for doing this.

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: My pleasure.

ZAKARIA: President Obama -- you've heard a lot of Republican criticism that he's going around the world apologizing about America. Do you accept that?

GATES: Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America. And, you know, you go back to Theodore Roosevelt and his line about speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

I think that acknowledging that we have made mistakes is not only factually accurate, I think that it is unusual, because so few other governments in the world are willing to admit that, although they make them all the time. And some of them make catastrophic mistakes.

And in speeches myself, I have said that at times we have acted too arrogantly. And I didn't feel that I was being apologetic for America, I just was saying, because the next -- I was just saying that that's the way we are in terms of being willing to recognize our own limitations, and when we make a mistake to correct it.

Because I think the next line that I always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical, and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values, or when we feel like we've been too arrogant.

So, I think -- I have not seen it as an apology tour at all, but rather a change of tone, a more humble America. But everybody knows we still have the big stick.

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about perhaps the most pressing crisis on your plate right now, which is Pakistan.

In your view, has the Pakistani military regained the initiative in Buner, and perhaps even in the areas around the Swat Valley, where the Taliban had gained strongholds?

GATES: It is my impression from a great distance that they have begun to regain the initiative.

I think that the failure of the agreement in Swat, and then the movement into Buner, particularly, I think was a real wakeup call for the Pakistani government. We and others have been talking with them about how what is happening there in the western frontier area is truly an existential threat to democratic government in Pakistan. And I think the movement of the Taliban into Buner really got their attention.

I think that the leaders of Pakistan do understand this -- President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, General Kayani and others. But I think that there's a need for them to help the rest of Pakistan understand why it's an existential threat.

ZAKARIA: But do you think that the leadership gets it? Because I look at what's happened, Mr. Secretary.

They have these Taliban forces, insurgencies, 60 miles from the capital, 100 miles from the capital. And what they have done so far is move 6,000 troops from the eastern border to the western border, out of an army of about a half-million. This does not strike one as a full-throated response at every level that mobilizes the nation and its defense forces.

Do you think that there is still a way to go for the Pakistani military in terms of focusing on this threat?

GATES: Well, I think what you have to do is look at it in some historical context. For 60 years, Pakistan has regarded India as its existential threat, as the main enemy. And its forces are trained to deal with that threat. That's where it has the bulk of its army and the bulk of its military capability.

And historically, the far western part of Pakistan has generally been ungoverned. And the Pakistani governments going back decades would do deals with the tribes and the Pashtuns, and would play the tribes against one another, and occasionally, when necessary, use the army to put down a serious challenge.

I think that -- and partly it's because the Punjabis so outnumber the Pashtuns, that they've always felt that, if it really got serious, it was a problem they could take care of. I think that -- that's why I think the movement of the Taliban so close to Islamabad was a real wakeup call for them.

I would just remind that, you know, the first al Qaeda attack on the United States was in 1993. We really didn't change much of anything we did until after we were hit on September 11, 2001. So, al Qaeda was at war with us for eight years, at least eight years, before we acknowledged that we were at war with them, as well.

And I think a little bit of the same denial has been going on in Pakistan. But I think that the recent developments have certainly got their attention.

ZAKARIA: Do you think they have the counterinsurgency capacity? Because at some level, armies don't like to fight these kind of wars, as you well know. I mean, what armies like to do is have a big enemy, so they can have a big budget, and never have to fight a war.

And that is, in effect, what has happened with Pakistan with India, which is they have this big enemy. It justifies a very large budget for the Pakistani military. But they don't actually have to fight.

Whereas this one, the insurgency, is one which they have to fight. They could lose. And so, they worry, I think, that they even have the capacity.

Do they have the capacity for real counterinsurgency?

GATES: Well, I think that they are at the beginning of the process of developing that capacity.

But again, to provide some perspective, in 2003, when we went into Iraq, or even in 2001 and '02 when we went into Afghanistan, our Army didn't have that capacity either. We had forgotten everything we learned about counterinsurgency in Vietnam. And it took us several years to change our tactics and to get ourselves into a position where we could effectively fight a counterinsurgency.

So, institutions are slow to change, even in the face of a real threat. And I think that the Pakistanis are beginning to open up to others, to get additional help. I certainly hope that's the case.

But I don't -- it's not something where I would sort of blame the Pakistani Army, because we went through the same process ourselves as we confronted a building insurgency in Iraq. We had to learn all over again how to do this. And we had to acquire the equipment to do it effectively, completely outside the normal Pentagon bureaucracy for the most part.

So, perhaps I have a little more understanding of the challenges that our Pakistani counterparts face than perhaps others.

ZAKARIA: Well, they're blaming us. The Pakistani ambassador wrote an article in the "Wall Street Journal," in which he says, basically, that Washington has been reluctant to share critical technology and training, the modern equipment and training for their military. Basically what they want is helicopters, night vision goggles, that kind of thing.

Is it true that we have been reluctant to give them some of this equipment and training?

GATES: Well, of the kinds of things that you have described, I think that we have been willing to provide the training, all the training and that kind of equipment that we possibly can, as much as they would take. There has been a reluctance on their part up to now. They don't like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that.

But we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation. I think that we have been willing to do that for quite some time.

ZAKARIA: Will there be American military advisers in Pakistan now, training the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency?

GATES: Well, I think that remains to be seen. There's a very small number now. But I think it will depend on how the situation develops and the views of the Pakistani government.

I would just say, we are prepared to provide whatever help in developing this counterinsurgency capability to the Pakistanis that we possibly can. But it's their country, and they're sovereign. And we'll let them dictate the rules.

ZAKARIA: Let's move to Afghanistan.

You've said a number of times that no civil war, no conflict, no insurgency is ever really ended without some kind of political reconciliation. And you've talked about the fact that some part of the Taliban -- perhaps even the majority of the people fighting, though not the leadership -- might be reconcilable.

There are reports that there have been efforts made by American military officers -- Dexter Filkins of the "New York Times" followed one such reconciliation effort.

What is your sense about how these efforts are going? How is the effort to in some way draw away parts of the Taliban from the central leadership?

GATES: I think there are several aspects to it.

First of all, based on the information available to us, some considerable proportion of the Taliban essentially do this as a job. They get paid for it. And if alternative means of employment can be found, they probably could be fairly easily drawn away, and there really is no political agenda associated with it at all.

In terms of political reconciliation, first of all, in my view, it has to be on the terms of the Afghan government. They will have the monopoly on the use of armed force inside the country.

But I think, as long as the Taliban think the momentum is with them, that the prospects for political reconciliation are probably not very bright.

If we are successful in restoring significant security, particularly in the south and in the east of the country, I think then, as we are more successful, along with our Afghan partners, in reestablishing security, then I think the opportunity for political reconciliation will probably grow.

ZAKARIA: But right now there are no real prospects on hand?

GATES: I think there may be in some limited areas, but not of consequence as far as I can tell.

ZAKARIA: You've talked about trying to secure the population. There's also the effort now to take on the drug cartel, which is effectively run by the Taliban providing most of the money for their operations. All of this suggests you're taking the battle to the enemy.

Should we expect to see higher numbers of casualties in Afghanistan, American casualties, just the way we did in the early months of the surge, when, for the first time, you took the battle to the enemy?

GATES: I think that's a prospect we have to be willing to face, particularly in Regional Command South, as our forces go into parts of Afghanistan where there have been no government or coalition forces, ISAF forces, really, for the last several years. So, we will be turning over rocks that haven't been turned over in quite some time. And so, that does raise the prospect of greater casualties.

Although, it will be interesting to see whether the Taliban are prepared to stand and fight, or whether, in the face of significant military force, they will just dissipate and then return later.

The key, particularly in the south of Afghanistan, it seems to me, is the ability of the Afghan government, with our help, to hold on to the areas that have been cleared. It's very much the same principle as in Iraq.

The people are going to be ambivalent, as long as they can't tell who's going to win. They're going to try and not take sides, because they're afraid that once we leave, the Taliban will come in and kill them.

And so, we have to work with the Afghans to establish an enduring presence in some of these places -- perhaps with some of our people, but mostly with Afghan soldiers and Afghan police -- to hold these places against the Taliban, so the people will have confidence and then be willing to side with the government in a more enduring way.

That, I think, is the real challenge that we face.

ZAKARIA: That sounds like an Afghan government that is strong, legitimate, has a lot of capacity to do things like securing local areas.

Some people -- as you know, Henry Kissinger argues that this is sort of a bridge too far, that this is probably more than you can achieve in Afghanistan.

GATES: Well, first of all, I think that the priority, at least from the standpoint of the Department of Defense, is the continued growth and increased effectiveness of the Afghan national security forces, both the army and the police. And we are now looking at a significant increase in the size of the Afghan army, and it is probable that there will be a need to increase the size of the national police force, as well.

And I think that those are genuine...

ZAKARIA: Which is riddled with accusations of corruption.

GATES: But I think, under the new minister of interior in Kabul, there have been some real -- there has been some real progress in beginning to clean up the national police and make them more effective.

And we also have a program called Focused District Development, which takes the police out of villages and districts and retrains them, and gives them equipment, and gives them new leadership, and so on, that seems to hold promise. So, it's a work in progress. There's no doubt about that.

But I think that we have to pay more -- we have to continue to try and build the capacity of the Afghan government, work with them in their capabilities. But I think we also have to focus at the provincial and the district level.

This is where I think development programs and assistance are more likely to actually happen and for school rooms to be built, for roads to be built, for wells to be dug, and so on and so forth, where the people can actually see government, Afghan government -- it may not be the national government, but the provincial government or the district government -- actually delivering a service and improving the quality of life.

So, I think part of the reason that the civilian surge is such an important part of the administration's new strategy is that it's this kind of capability at the provincial and the district level, in my view, that really has to be strengthened. We have to make the Provincial Reconstruction Teams much more robust with civilian experts, so we can begin to help the Afghans deliver these kinds of services.

I think, at the end of the day, that, plus the increased effectiveness and strength of the army and the police, are really the pathway forward.

ZAKARIA: You once said that the chief lesson you learned from 40 years in government was the limits of power. So, apply that lesson to Afghanistan today.

What does it -- what do you think of -- what are the limits to what America can do in Afghanistan?

GATES: Well, I have been quoted, accurately, as saying I have real reservations about significant further commitments of American military -- of the American military to Afghanistan, beyond what the president has already approved.

The Soviets were in there with 110,000, 120,000 troops. They didn't care about civilian casualties. And they couldn't win.

If there's ever an example that military power alone cannot be successful in Afghanistan, I think it was the Soviet experience. And I think there's a lot we can learn from that.

And so, I worry -- it is absolutely critical that the Afghans believe that this is their war. It is their war against people who are trying to overthrow their government that they democratically elected. For all of its flaws and shortcomings, it is theirs.

And we must be their partner and their ally. If we get to the point where the Afghan people see us as occupiers, then we will have lost.

So, the way we treat the Afghans, the importance of keeping the Afghans in the lead in many of these activities -- the military as well as the civilian -- I think is absolutely critical, so that they know, so that these villagers know, that its their people who are leading this fight. This isn't some foreign army coming in there, like all the previous foreign armies, to just occupy them.

ZAKARIA: But that means that a year from now, six months from now, you are unlikely to approve a request for additional troops in Afghanistan. GATES: I would be -- I would be a hard sell. There's no question about it. And I have not made a secret of that, either publicly or in government meetings.

I think we will have -- between the American military commitment and our coalition partners, the ISAF partners --we will have about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. That's only about 10,000 shy of what the Russians had. And I think we need to think about that.

My view is, it would be a far better investment to focus on building the strength of the Afghan army and the Afghan police, making sure that, of the numbers of people we have there, there are adequate trainers, so that we can accelerate the growth of those forces. It's that combination of a certain level of international support for the Afghan military effort and the growing of the Afghan security forces themselves, it's that partnership that I think eventually will be successful in Afghanistan.

As long as -- if we try to do it all ourselves, I think it won't work.

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Robert Gates, the secretary of defense.

I'm going to take you west to Iraq.

There has been some renewed violence in Iraq. And some of it does seem to be related to the Sunni community that feels still dispossessed. There is some controversy about exactly who is spearheading it.

You and Secretary Clinton have talked about al Qaeda remnants. But Prime Minister Maliki has pointed the finger at "former Baathists," as he puts it, and used it as a way of explaining why he's not going to make more concessions to Sunni demands.

Is this core problem, the Shia and Sunni political disagreement, going to produce more and more violence as U.S. troops draw down?

GATES: I actually think that that kind of sectarian violence -- I guess I would say, I hope not. And I actually think it probably will not grow.

I think that they do understand that this is al Qaeda. This is certainly the view of our commanders, that most of this, most of these high-profile bombings, are part of a campaign that was started a few weeks ago by al Qaeda, as we begin to draw down our forces, to both demonstrate -- to try and make the point to the Iraqi people that it was this kind of terrorist acts that led us to draw down, rather than our success, but also to try -- for al Qaeda to try and provoke the kind of sectarian violence that you're talking about. This is al Qaeda trying to set Shia against Sunni.

Now, regardless of what he says, Prime Minister Maliki also is reaching out to elements of the Sunni community as potential political allies.

And so, the key for us is the Iraqis themselves working these differences out, and their problems, in a political way. And so far, the record of the past year, year-and-a-half, has been pretty encouraging in terms of the progress that they've made.

There's no question that the roots of democracy are still very shallow in Iraq. But there's been a lot of progress. And I don't think there are very many Iraqis who want to return to the kind of violence that they saw in 2006.

So, I think this is mainly al Qaida. I think we do have to watch very carefully, perhaps more importantly, the situation between the Arabs and the Kurds to make sure that that relationship, that they continue to solve their problems, work through their problems politically.

So, you know, they have a lot of challenges. There's no question about it.

But I'm really -- I'm reasonably optimistic that the gains in terms of solving problems between the sectarian elements will continue to be done politically rather than violently -- despite all of al Qaeda's best efforts.

ZAKARIA: But you don't have an oil revenue-sharing law. You don't have much resolution over Mosul. You don't have much resolution over Kirkuk.

And when I talk to members of the Sunni leadership in Iraq, they tell me that they feel completely excluded from government jobs, from patronage, from all the kind of power-sharing that they were promised.

GATES: Well, I think that the election of the new speaker, of the council representatives, is an important step forward. As the provincial, the newly elected provincial councils begin to allocate positions, and so on, we see alliances being made. So, I think that there has been progress in that way. The Sunnis have taken charge of several of the provinces where they won the elections this time, where they could have won them before, had they not boycotted. So, I think that -- I think they continue to show progress.

On the oil law, the new speaker of the Council of Representatives has said that's one of the highest priorities that he has.

I think that Kirkuk, from an Arab-Kurd point of view, Kirkuk is a bigger problem by far than Mosul. Mosul is really still a security problem from the standpoint of al Qaeda still using it as kind of their last redoubt, if you will. But, you know, they continue to work these things through.

ZAKARIA: President Obama has laid out a vision for a nuclear- free world, for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Now, since 1945, there has been no war between a major power, and many people attribute that to nuclear deterrence. So, would a world free of nuclear weapons be more stable without nuclear deterrence?

GATES: Well, I don't know. And I don't think anybody does.

I think that it's -- you know, we have had a number of countries forego nuclear weapons, countries that had nuclear weapons programs, who really voluntarily walked away from them -- South Africa, Libya, Taiwan, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil. So, total pessimism with respect to nonproliferation, I think, is unwarranted.

I think that -- I have worked -- President Obama is the fourth president that I have worked for, who has said that he would like to -- has said publicly -- that he would like to see an end to nuclear weapons and having a nuclear weapons-free world.

I think that's a laudable objective. I think it's clear to everyone it's an approach -- it's a goal that you have to move towards step-by-step.

I think that continued nonproliferation efforts -- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, another post-START agreement with the Russians in terms of further reducing our stockpile -- I think these are all important steps in that direction. But my guess is it's a long march.

ZAKARIA: But if we went to zero, and the Chinese went to zero, would the relationship be more stable? I mean, certainly, the U.S.- Soviet case, it seemed as though the fact that we both had nuclear weapons kept the peace.

GATES: Well, you're asking about a hypothetical world. And I think that's -- we don't know the answer to that question.

The question is, how do you deal with the technology? I mean, when you get down to very low numbers of nuclear weapons, and you contemplate going to zero, how do you deal with the reality of that technology being available to almost any country that seeks to pursue it? And what conditions do you put in place? What U.N. verification measures, or IAEA verification measures, do you put in place to prevent others from getting that?

So, I think this is an important goal for everyone to have in the world. But I think that it's a long road to get there.

ZAKARIA: Your defense budget has gathered a huge number of opponents. There's the contractors, people in Congress, parts of the services.

Are you going to get through the budget you want? Or do you think some significant compromise is inevitable?

GATES: Well, I think that, since the budget isn't even on the Hill yet, I'm not prepared to talk about compromises.

But, you know, I think there -- I will tell you, I have actually been surprised by how limited the criticism has been. And where I have heard criticism, it has come from predictable places.

And I think that there also have been some voices raised -- some important voices -- in support, including Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee, and others, as well, on both sides of the aisle.

So, I'm relatively optimistic, actually. I think we've presented a very -- as one news magazine referred to it -- "radically sane" set of proposals. They don't represent a cut. And where we have eliminated one program, we have added to others.

So, it's a question of how do we balance our preparations for some future conflict with the capabilities necessary to be successful in the conflicts that we're engaged in today? And so, it's that rebalancing that I'm trying to do.

But at the end of the day, 50 percent of our procurement budget is still for these high-tech, modern, modernization programs; about 40 percent for dual-purpose capabilities, such as C-17 cargo planes; and about 10 percent for irregular conflict. So the notion that I've sort of abandoned looking at future threats is contrary to reality, and I look forward to the opportunity to go to the Hill and make that case.

(END VIDEO)

ZAKARIA: Gates was relatively calm about Iraq. He sees more political progress there than I do.

Now, these sectarian tensions don't have to erupt into violence, but this was always the incomplete aspect of the surge. Its military success -- and success has been undeniable -- put a lid on all that sectarian strife. But unless there is a political resolution of the problem, as American forces draw down, the pot could well start to bubble up again.

Up next, a final question for Robert Gates on the question of empire.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO)

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Robert Gates, the secretary of defense.

A final question, Mr. Secretary. Do you worry -- you're a student of history -- do you worry that we are falling into a kind of imperial trap?

We have the largest defense budget in the world. We spend more, basically, than the rest of the world put together. Meanwhile, the Chinese are building this great industrial machine. We're in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We have to deal with Somali pirates.

It does begin to have this image of the British Empire, putting out the fires all over the world in somewhat peripheral areas, while the great industrial and economic challenges are coming up. And we're sort of -- we're caught by the reach of our own power.

GATES: Well, if we are an imperial power, we are a unique one in history, in that we are the only one in history that is always looking for an exit strategy.

The reality is, the United States has global interests. Our defense budget is about the same as the defense budgets or military budgets of every other country in the world put together.

But, as I say, we have global interests. And that defense budget is still less than 4 percent of our gross domestic product. During the Korean War it was as high as 9 percent -- much higher, obviously, during World War II. And it was 7 or 8 percent during Vietnam.

So, I think, first of all, that the size of military we have is not a burden on our economy compared historically to where we've been.

I think that -- I think a former secretary of state put it in a different way than an imperial power. She said, we are an indispensable power.

Because the reality is, if you look around the world and the variety of problems that exist, nothing ever gets done without American leadership, at the end of the day.

And I think that's going to continue. We're going through our economic troubles today.

I think it ties back to the first question you asked me about, you know, is the president on an apology tour. And absolutely not. This is about how the United States exercises global leadership. And being willing to listen, as well as to talk, is important in that regard.

ZAKARIA: And we thank you for having talked to us, Robert Gates, secretary of defense.

GATES: Thank you.