Middle East Inside Line: Arab League & Israel-Palestine, British PM on Gaza "Prison Camp", Separation Fence Scandal

Thorny Road to Direct Israel-Palestine Talks: Arab League Foreign Ministers are meeting today in Cairo.

Talking to Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that continuing the construction freeze on West Bank settlements would be impossible politically and would bring down the coalition.

A Palestinian official told Reuters, "Abbas will tell [the Arab League] that, until this moment, there is nothing to convince us to go to direct talks.”

Israel-Palestine: Abbas’ Conditions, Netanyahu’s “Eastern Front” Response

Haaretz claims from Palestinian sources that Abbas will seek unequivocal clarifications from the US that the framework for direct talks will include a declaration that the Palestinian state will be based on the borders of 4 June 1967, with adjustments will be based on agreed exchanges of territory. The PA also wants an Israeli declaration that the construction freeze on settlements will continue and that building in East Jerusalem will stop.

Israeli cabinet minister Isaac Herzog (Labor Party) summarizes the dilemma of a "chicken-and-egg" situation. Talking to Israel Radio, he said:

Abu Mazen (Abbas) says: "I don't want to enter direct negotiations until I know what the final result will be."

Netanyahu says: "Enter direct negatiations and I will also tell you what the final result will be."

Each one looks at it opposite, and we are in a sort of political trap.

Britain's Cameron in Turkey, Comments on Gaza: British Prime Minister David Cameron made his first official visit to Turkey, warning European countries about anti-Muslim prejudice and the slow pace of accession talks with Turkey. He told Turkish businessmen:

When I think about what Turkey has done to defend Europe as a NATO ally and what Turkey is doing now in Afghanistan alongside European allies, it makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been. I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.

Cameron's counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel’s raid on the Freedom Flotilla an act of “piracy” and compared Israeli officials to Somali pirates. Cameron said that the incident was “completely unacceptable” and called for a speedy and transparent Israeli inquiry into the incident. Cameron also sharpened his tone on Gaza:

The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

The Israeli embassy in the U.K. responded to Cameron quickly:

The people of Gaza are the prisoners of the terrorist organization Hamas. The situation in Gaza is the direct result of Hamas’ rule and priorities.

We know that the Prime Minister would also share our grave concerns about our own prisoner in the Gaza Strip, Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage there for over four years, without receiving a single Red Cross visit.

Separation Fence Scandal: EA has already reported that Walajeh, a village in the Bethlehem Governorate 8.5 kilometres (5.3 miles) to the southwest of Jerusalem, is in danger of being cut off from the rest of Palestinian lands, leaving 2,000 villagers encircled by Israeli settlements, roads, and security barriers.

In a court hearing on Sunday, it emerged that the order to expropriate village lands for the fence, which enabled the work to begin, had expired a year ago. However, instead of ordering a halt to the work, the court issued an injunction requiring the state to explain within 45 days why construction should not be stopped.

The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and Palestinian villagers say that since the injunction was issued, the Defense Ministry and the contractors have been working much faster than before.

The Cost of an Eye: Emily Henochowicz, an Israeli-American studying at the Bezalel Academy of Art in Jerusalem, lost her left eye when Border Guards fired a tear gas canister during a demonstration following the raid on Freedom Flotilla.

According to Henochowicz, one policeman shot a canister directly at her face. Haaretz says that one of its reporter also witnessed the incident.

Following her treatment in Jerusalem, her father was handed a bill for NIS 14,000 (around $3,600). The Ministry of Defense refused to pay, claiming the tear gas was not fired directly at Henochowicz. The statement accused Henochowicz of putting herself at risk by voluntarily participating in a breach of the peace and accused:

From our reports, we know that the Border Police acted in accordance with the law at the violent demonstration at Qalandia, and that the shooting of tear gas canisters at demonstrators was justified. Of course, we regret that Emily Henochowicz was wounded in her eye. But under such circumstances, the Defense Ministry does not cover the expenses of medical treatment.

Afghanistan: After the Wikileaks "Petraeus to Stop Corruption" (Partlow)

We've had the first phase of stories following the appearance of the 91,000 Wikileaks documents: hostility to US troops amongst villagers, even when they hate Taliban; claims of support by Pakistani intelligence services and military for Afghan insurgents; claims of support by Iran for the insurgents (countered by some analysts); revelations that some of those fighting US and NATO forces are coming in from Turkey, a member of NATO; the far-from-surprising news that the US media has been paying Afghan media to run "friendly" stories; the assertion of financial and political misdeeds by Afghan officials

Now the next phase: the US military trying to walk hand-in-hand with the media to counter a damaging story. Although Joshua Partlow of The Washington Post may have been developing this piece before the arrival of the Wikileaks documents, the timing of its appearance is more than a little interesting.

Afghanistan: What Did Wikileaks Reveal? What I Wrote in Kabul in 2005 (Shahryar)
Afghanistan: Why Wikileaks Should Not Be Plugged (Dissected News)

But there is a question, unasked in the article: since the media has featured for years the assurances of US military and politicians that they are combating corruption in Afghanistan with the outcome of "good governance", what makes this good-news prediction of an article --- even if it is headlined by the name "Petraeus" --- any different?

Partlow's article:

Every day, Gen. David H. Petraeus meets with senior NATO officials at headquarters for a 7:30 a.m. update, and at nearly every session, he returns to an issue that has bedeviled the U.S. campaign for years: Afghan corruption.

In his first month on the job, Petraeus has intensified efforts to uncover the scope and mechanics of the pervasive theft, graft and bribery in the Afghan government, examine U.S. contracting practices, and assist Afghan authorities in arresting and convicting corrupt bureaucrats, according to U.S. and NATO officials.

"It is his drumbeat that he started on Day One," said a NATO military official who participates in the morning "stand-up" meeting. Petraeus sees corruption "as an enemy. It is counter to our strategy. And it is readily apparent to me . . . there is a new sense of urgency."

The issue was also a central concern for Petraeus's predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, as the U.S. military has come to realize that its counterinsurgency goals depend on fighting corruption. NATO surveys have found that anger at corruption is the top reason Afghans support the Taliban over the government.

From police shakedowns to profits from drug trafficking, NATO officials put the yearly price tag of corruption and black-market business at $12.3 billion, just shy of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. Citing U.N. statistics, they estimate that about half of that comes from the smuggling industry and illicit taxes levied on trucks crisscrossing the country. About $2.5 billion is paid in bribes each year, stolen Afghan government revenue tops $1 billion, and billions more is pilfered from foreign aid and NATO contracts, according to a briefing prepared by NATO's anti-corruption task force.

"It has progressively gotten worse. It's at all levels," said one senior NATO official who works on corruption issues. Reversing the situation is "a moral imperative, and it's an operational imperative."

The NATO officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Turning up the pressure

Petraeus has asked his subordinates to brief him more often on progress on this front -- twice a week, instead of once -- and is considering naming a one-star general to oversee anti-corruption work. In his first three weeks in Afghanistan, Petraeus has met with President Hamid Karzai at least 20 times, and corruption has been a regular topic of discussion, the NATO officials said.

In addition to fielding two new teams in Afghanistan to study how American money is spent through reconstruction and security contracts, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is preparing a proposal that would require the Afghan government to meet anti-corruption benchmarks to receive U.S. funds.

"We expect they will live up to their commitments, and we will give them incentives to live up to their commitments," a Western diplomat said.

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Afghanistan: At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack

UPDATE 27 July: From Reuters....

*Afghan government and NATO officials on Tuesday disputed each others' accounts of reports that over 50 civilians were killed after being caught up in fighting between foreign forces and Taliban insurgents.

Government spokesman Siamak Herawi said 52 people, many women and children, were killed by a NATO-rocket attack on Friday in Sangin, Helmand province, but the NATO-led force said a preliminary investigation had not yet revealed any civilian casualties....

Afghanistan LiveBlog: Wikileaks and The Truth About the US Occupation
Afghanistan: The Wikileaks “War Diary” of 91,000 Documents

Herawi said information that 52 civilians had been killed came from the country's intelligence service in the district.

Karzai strongly condemned the attack and asked NATO troops to prioritize the protection of civilians in their military campaign, his office said in a statement citing the same casualty figures for the attack.

ISAF, however, insisted that a joint investigation with the Afghan government had so far found no evidence of civilian deaths, while a provincial official suggested local residents could even have made it up....

An ISAF spokeswoman said the team was still in the area, trying to establish the truth.



"We take any civilian casualty very seriously but there was no report of operational activity in Rigi," said Lt. Cmdr. Katie Kendrick.*

Amidst the chatter over the Wikileaks "War Diary" of 91,000 documents on the military intervention in Afghanistan, Al Jazeera reports that a rocket attack on an Afghan village last Friday killed at least 45 civilians, including women and children.

Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said an investigation was underway to determine who was responsible for the attack in Sangin district in the southern province of Helmand.

According to witnesses, helicopter gunships fired on villagers who had been told by fighters to leave their homes, as a firefight with the International Security Assistance Force loomed.

According to witness accounts, men, women and children fled to Regey village and were fired on from helicopter gunships as they took cover.

Abdul Ghafar, 45, who said he lost "two daughters and one son and two sisters" in the attack, claimed that the gunship fired on areas of shelter: "Helicopters started firing on the compound killing almost everyone inside. We rushed to the house and there were eight children wounded and around 40 to 50 others killed.".

The BBC said it sent an Afghan reporter to Regey to interview residents, who described the attack and said they had buried 39 people.

Colonel Wayne Shanks, an ISAF spokesman, said the location of the reported deaths was "several kilometres away from where we had engaged enemy fighters". An investigation team dispatched after the casualty reports emerged "had accounted for all the rounds that were shot at the enemy....We found no evidence of civilian casualties."

Afghanistan LiveBlog: Wikileaks & The Truth About the US Occupation

UPDATE 2010 GMT: Nick Schifrin at ABC follows up on the angle that the Wikileaks documents show officials from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence aiding the Afghan insurgency.

Al Jazeera interviews the former head of ISI, General Hamid Gul, who denies the claims:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqkQKk9S_8E&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Afghanistan: At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack
Afghanistan: The Wikileaks “War Diary” of 91,000 Documents
General Kayani’s “Silent Coup” in Pakistan: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Mull)

UPDATE 1655 GMT: And how is Afghan President Karzai using the Wikileaks "War Diary"? To turn attention to Pakistan: "The recent documents leaked out to the media clearly support and verify Afghanistan's all-time position that success over terrorism does not come with fighting in Afghan villages, but by targeting its sanctuaries and financial and ideological sources across the borders. Our efforts against terrorism will have no effect as long as these sanctuaries and sources remain intact."

UPDATE 1515 GMT: Amy Davidson in The New Yorker starts from one incident revealed in the Wikileaks document:

The Obama Administration has already expressed dismay that WikiLeaks publicized the documents, but a leak informing us that our tax dollars may be being used as seed money for a protection racket associated with a narcotics-trafficking enterprise is a good leak to have. And the checkpoint incident is, again, only one report, from one day. It will take some time to go through everything WikiLeaks has to offer—the documents cover the period from January, 2004, to December, 2009—but it is well worth it, especially since the war in Afghanistan is not winding down, but ramping up...."

And reaches this conclusion:

After more than eight years at war, how carefully are we even looking at Afghanistan? The [New York] Times had a piece in Sunday’s paper on the strange truth that our expenditure since 9/11 of a trillion dollars on two wars has barely scraped our consciousness. Fifty-eight Americans have died in Afghanistan so far this month; one of them—Edwin Wood, of Oklahoma—was eighteen years old. Maybe the WikiLeaks documents will make those numbers less abstract."

UPDATE 1455 GMT: Andrew Bacevich assesses in The New Republic:

"The real significance of the Wikileaks action is...[that] it shows how rapidly and drastically the notion of 'information warfare' is changing. Rather than being defined as actions undertaken by a government to influence the perception of reality, information warfare now includes actions taken by disaffected functionaries within government to discredit the officially approved view of reality. This action is the handiwork of subversives, perhaps soldiers, perhaps civilians. Within our own national security apparatus, a second insurgent campaign may well have begun. Its purpose: bring America’s longest war to an end. Given the realities of the digital age, this second insurgency may well prove at least as difficult to suppress as the one that preoccupies General Petraeus in Kabul."

And Andrew Sullivan on his Daily Dish blog:

When one weighs the extra terror risk from remaining in Afghanistan, the absurdity of our chief alleged ally actually backing the enemy, the impossibility of an effective counter-insurgency when the government itself is corrupt and part of the problem, the brutality of the enemy in intimidating the populace in ways no civilized occupying force can counter, the passage of ten years in which any real chance at success was squandered ... the logic for withdrawal to the more minimalist strategy originally favored by Obama after the election and championed by Biden thereafter seems overwhelming.

When will the president have the balls to say so?

UPDATE 1445 GMT: Simon Tisdall in The Guardian of London uses the documents to write, "How the US is Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds".

Meanwhile we have posted on a specific incident on Friday which demonstrates the complications of military intervention and that supposed battle for hearts and minds, "At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack".

UPDATE 1145 GMT: The BBC is working the angle, "Cases of Afghan civilians allegedly killed by British troops have been revealed among thousands of leaked US military documents....The records include references to at least 21 incidents involving UK troops. The Ministry of Defence said it had been unable to verify the claims and it would not speculate on specific cases."

UPDATE 1140 GMT: Wikileaks director Julian Assange is currently holding a press conference. Take-away quotes: "The course of the war needs to change. The manner in which it needs to change is not yet clear"; "It’s war, it’s one damn thing after another. It is the continuous small events."

UPDATE 0920 GMT: "The Afghan government is shocked with the report that has opened the reality of the Afghan war," said spokesman Siamak Herawi.

UPDATE 26 July 0910 GMT: The White House has issued a far-from-surprising response to the Wikileaks "War Diary". National Security Adviser General James Jones said such classified information "could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk".

(Older readers may remember that the "national security" line was the response put out by the Nixon White House when the "Pentagon Papers" on the Vietnam War were published in 1971.)

And by the way, Jones added --- repeating a line put out by White House officials within hours of the story breaking --- the episode has little to do with us: the documents cover 2004 to 2009, before President Obama "announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan".

UPDATE 2205 GMT: Simon Tisdall in The Guardian has a different approach based on the documents: "Iran is engaged in an extensive covert campaign to arm, finance, train and equip Taliban insurgents, Afghan warlords allied to al-Qaida and suicide bombers fighting to eject British and western forces from Afghanistan, according to classified US military intelligence reports contained in the war logs."

UPDATE 2155 GMT: Der Spiegel has posted a full package of articles. It also has an exposé of the Pakistan connection with the Taliban but also considers "German Naivety" with "trouble in the growing north" and profiles "Task Force 373", the US "black" unit hunting down targets for death or detention (the Guardian also has an article on the unit). It also has the first critiques of American operations: one on drones --- "the flaws of the silent killer" --- and one on "The Shortcomings of US Intelligence Services".

UPDATE 2145 GMT: The second New York Times article is a snapshot of Combat Outpost Keating:

"The outpost’s fate, chronicled in unusually detailed glimpses of a base over nearly three years, illustrates many of the frustrations of the allied effort: low troop levels, unreliable Afghan partners and an insurgency that has grown in skill, determination and its ability to menace."

UPDATE 2140 GMT: The first New York Times special report based on the Wikileaks documents focuses not on American but Pakistani involvement:

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports to be made public Sunday.

The documents, to be made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.

Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul.

Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place.



But many of the reports rely on sources that the military rated as reliable."

UPDATE 2130 GMT: The New York Times has now posted a few of the documents and its first article on "The War Logs" of Wikileaks. The take-away points:

¶ The Taliban have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, a fact that has not been publicly disclosed by the military. This type of weapon helped the Afghan mujahedeen defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

¶ Secret commando units like Task Force 373 — a classified group of Army and Navy special operatives — work from a “capture/kill list” of about 70 top insurgent commanders. These missions, which have been stepped up under the Obama administration, claim notable successes, but have sometimes gone wrong, killing civilians and stoking Afghan resentment.

¶ The military employs more and more drone aircraft to survey the battlefield and strike targets in Afghanistan, although their performance is less impressive than officially portrayed. Some crash or collide, forcing American troops to undertake risky retrieval missions before the Taliban can claim the drone’s weaponry.

¶ The Central Intelligence Agency has expanded paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan. The units launch ambushes, order airstrikes and conduct night raids. From 2001 to 2008, the C.I.A. paid the budget of Afghanistan’s spy agency and ran it as a virtual subsidiary.

Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements — attributing the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles or giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by Special Operations commandos.



White House officials vigorously denied that the Obama administration had presented a misleading portrait of the war in Afghanistan.

---
Nick Davies and David Leigh write for The Guardian of London:

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US navy sailors captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

The war logs also detail:

• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.

• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban has acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

• How the Taliban has caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of its roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."

The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."

The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents. Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests in the past, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers. At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, although this is likely to be an underestimate because many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.

US Politics/Foreign Policy Transcript: Vice President Biden on "This Week" (18 July)

Vice President Joe Biden was interviewed by Jake Tapper on ABC television's "This Week" this morning.

Most of the discussion was on domestic policy and politics. The most significant aspect of the exchange on foreign policy --- indeed, about the only significant aspect, given that the opportunity to consider Iraq was largely wasted and that Tapper strayed into flamboyant questions about combatting "Islamic terrorism" --- was on Afghanistan.

And what's notable is how depressing the prospects are. The US media are running with Biden's fig leaf that a "few thousand" American troops will be out before the July 2011 deadline for withdrawal, but the wider picture i this interview is that --- only a few months after "victory" was proclaimed in the Marja offensive --- there is no image of advance:

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: I know that there are some in the White House who feel Wall Street reform, health care legislation, stimulus, and yet the public still overwhelmingly thinks this country is on the wrong track.

Are you not getting enough credit, you and the administration?

JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, these are gigantic packages to deal with a gigantic problem we inherited. And the vast majority of the American people and a lot of people really involved don't even know what's inside the packages. And so you have, for example, Mr. [Senator John] Boehner already calling for the repeal of --- of the reform that just passed on Wall Street. People don't realize, in that reform, you know, you say, look, we've had meat inspection for 100 years ago, the meat packing companies didn't like it. Automobile safety 50 years ago.

People are going to look back on this very shortly and say, why shouldn't we have some consumer group in -- entity looking at whether or not you can give someone a mortgage with no down payment, with no -- with a teaser interest rate, with no documentation, etc.

So it is -- people don't know that. Just like people don't know a lot of what's going on in the Recovery Act, understandably, because this has been so much stuff that has been flowing our way. And -- and we're facing a bunch of guys who are good guys, but they're all about repeal and -- and repeat. Repeal what we're doing and go back, repeal the incentives for industry to invest in solar energy. Repeal the health care bill that allows you to keep your kid on your health care policy, precondi -- preexisting conditions can't deny you policies, etc.

It's just going to take time. This is Jan -- this is July. The election is not until November. And I think we're going to have to firmly make our case. I think we can make it and especially in the context of who's going to be opposing us.

Compared to the alternative, I think we're going to get a fair amount of credit by November and I think we're going to do fine.

TAPPER: So the reason you're not getting enough credit is because the public doesn't understand everything that's happened yet?

BIDEN: Well, nor could they or should they. Look, in the last six months of the Bush administration, they lost three million jobs. Before we got our economic package in place, another 3.7 million jobs were lost in the first six months we took office. The last six months of this year --- the first six months of this year, we created almost 600,000 private jobs, you know, in the private market. That's not nearly enough to make up for the eight million jobs lost in the recession. But people are going to start to focus on exactly what we're doing. And all -- look, I'm convinced, at least from sitting around my dad's kitchen table and -- and the people I grew up with is when things are really tough economically and the country is in trouble, all they want to know is, they -- they don't expect an answer, but they expect to be reassured that we're moving in the right direction.

That is...

TAPPER: But they don't think that we are.

BIDEN: No. No, they don't think now because I don't think they know the detail of what's going on.

For example, here you had the insurance industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make the health care bill out to be this God awful tragedy.

Now what's starting off to happen?

The health care numbers are going up.

Why?

Because they're figuring out that small businesses are going to get a 30 percent tax cut. They didn't know that because of all the advertising done.

So there's a lot --- and --- and I would use health care as an example. Health care has gone from a barrage of advertising against it, why it was so bad, just like Wall Street reform. The financial industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against this this is an awful thing, it's government regulation. All it is, is rational control and the turning around of what the Republicans did, which is let Wall Street run wild.

People --- when you say to people, you know, we just went out and had a regulatory reform bill, where I come from, it's like, OK, what --- what does that mean?

They don't know what it means yet, understandably. And so I think it takes time, Jake.

TAPPER: There's that famous saying in Washington by Mike Kinsley that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Robert Gibbs experienced some of that this --- this past few days...

BIDEN: I've never had a gaffe.

TAPPER: You've never had an issue with gaffes.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: No, I know. So you can't relate.

BIDEN: Yeah.

TAPPER: But --- but he said that enough seats are in the play in the House for the Democrats to possibly lose the House. Empirically true.

How bad are the losses going to be for Democrats?

BIDEN: I don't think the losses are going to be bad at all. I think we're going to shock the heck out of everybody. I really -- and I've been saying this now. I think even when you and I went down to North Carolina and you followed be on the recovery trip, I was saying it then. I am absolutely confidence --- confident when people take a look at the what has happened since we've taken office in November and comparing it to the alternative, we're going to be very --- we're going to be in great shape.

Here's the deal. What Robert Gibbs also said was what he believes, what I believe, what the president believes, we're going to win the House and we're going to win the Senate. We're not going to lose either one of those bodies.

And so, again, this is July. November and at the time, the most vulnerable time any public official finds himself in is when they have no opponent.

Look at Harry Reid. You know, I got --- I got kind of banged around for saying I think there was a 55 percent chance Harry Reid is going to win. Well, Harry Reid, when he was the --- you know, on the other side of the barrage of how bad Harry Reid was, was in trouble. Now Harry Reid, in the last poll, was up 7 points. I --- he I think he --- I --- I'd bet anything --- I'm not allowed to bet, but I'll bet Harry Reid wins. You're going to see that repeated.

So, that old --- to paraphrase Mark Twain, I think the --- the reports of our demise are premature.

TAPPER: The NAACP had a convention in the last week. And they passed a resolution saying that elements of the Tea Party are racist.

Do you think elements of the Tea Party are racist?

BIDEN: Well, the truth is that at least elements that were involved in some of the Tea Party folks expressed racist views. We saw that on television and it was turned --- but I don't think --- I don't --- I wouldn't characterize the Tea Party as racist. There are individuals who are either members of or on the periphery of some of their things, their --- their protests --- that have expressed really unfortunate comments. And, again, it was all over TV, all over your network, you know?

A black congressman walking up the stairs of the Capitol.

But I don't believe, the president doesn't believe that the Tea Party is --- is a racist organization. I don't believe that. Very conservative. Very different views on government and a whole lot of things. But it is not a racist organization.

TAPPER: One of the big issues in this election, in this mid-term election is the economy.

BIDEN: Yes.

TAPPER: Non-financial institutions are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash money that could be spent expanding, creating jobs...

BIDEN: Yes.

TAPPER: --- and they're not spending it on that --- that way. A lot of members of the business community in the last week or so have been saying the reason that money is not being spent on expansion or jobs is because the business community is convinced that the Obama administration is anti-business and they're worried about what legislation, what regulation is coming down the pike.

Why do you think they're not spending that money?

BIDEN: Three months ago, those same business leaders, they were in the White House in meetings with us saying, you know, you're going to be surprised on the up side how many people we're going to be hiring. I think that a couple of things have happened.

One, they didn't anticipate and no one anticipated the potential collapse of the European economy and the so-called Eurozone -- Greece and Spain and all of that. That put a real brake on an awful lot of people in terms of their optimism about where the world economy was going, because we're affected by that indirectly.

Secondly, I think that the very uncertainty they had is now been settled by the passage of the reforms. They didn't know which way they were going to go. They didn't know how much was going to happen.

So I think there is increased certainty now that the major reform they were worried about is law. It's passed. And they're going to know how to deal with it.

I think you see stabilization on the European side, in terms of the so-called euro and the Eurozone. And I think that's going to help.

So I think you're going to see them beginning to move.

TAPPER: You said that the stimulus is --- is working.

BIDEN: Yeah.

TAPPER: And you said earlier, in the past week, you talked about three million jobs being created by the stimulus...

BIDEN: Yeah.

TAPPER: --- so far. But since the stimulus passed, more than three million jobs have been lost. And before you took office, three million jobs were lost.

BIDEN: Yeah.

TAPPER: Was the stimulus, in retrospect, too small?

BIDEN: Look, there's a lot of people at the time argued it was too small. Actually, we...

TAPPER: A lot of people in your administration.

BIDEN: --- yes. A lot of people in our administration, a lot of --- I mean, you know, even some Republican economists and some Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman, who continues to argue it was too small. But, you know, there was a reality. In order to get what we got passed, we had to find Republican votes. And we found three --- three. And we finally got it passed.

So there is the reality of whether or not the Republicans are willing to play, whether or not the Republicans are just about repeal and repeat the old policies or they're really wanting to do something. And I --- I'm not --- I'm not --- you know...

TAPPER: So if you didn't have Republicans that you had --- if you didn't have the legislative reality...

BIDEN: I think what...

TAPPER: --- it would have been bigger?

BIDEN: I think it would have been bigger. I think it would have been bigger. In fact, what we offered was slightly bigger than that. But the truth of the matter is that the recovery package, everybody's talking about it having -- it's over. The truth is now, we're spending more now this summer than we --- I'm calling this the recovery --- the summer of recovery. We have two, three times as many highway projects going. We have significant investment in broadband for the first time now. It's starting to really ramp up because the contracts have been let. In high speed rail, in wind energy.

I mean, where are the new jobs going to come from?

And that's what we're laying the foundation for. And, again, this is a hard slog, man. And it's counter-intuitive. It's counter-intuitive to say someone sitting at a kitchen table in Claymont, Delaware, who lost their jobs by the way, we saved or created three million jobs and they pick up when we lost three million.

The truth is, over three million people who are now working would be out of work but for this. The truth of the matter is there's an overwhelming consensus that we're not losing jobs now, we're creating jobs. The argument's gone from losing jobs to are we creating them fast enough, not whether we're creating them. And nothing is fast enough till you get these people back to work.

TAPPER: Turning to Afghanistan...

BIDEN: Yeah.

TAPPER: --- which is foremost on a lot of Americans' minds, I want to read you a quote from Jonathan Alter's new book: "At the conclusion of an interview in his West Wing office, Vice President Biden was adamant in July of 2011, that we're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. 'Bet on it,' Biden said, as wheeled to leave the room, late for lunch with the president. He turned at the door and said once more, 'Bet on it.'"

Did you say that to...

BIDEN: I did say that.

TAPPER: --- to Jon Alter?

BIDEN: I did say that.

TAPPER: And what did you mean, a whole lot of people...

BIDEN: Well, what I said...

TAPPER: --- moving out?

BIDEN: --- if you read three or four paragraphs above that, Jonathan was making a very valid point. He was saying a lot in the military think they outmaneuvered the President to render the July date meaningless. And I was saying that's simply not true. The military signed on. Petraeus signed on. Everybody signed onto not a deadline, but a transition, a beginning of a transition.

TAPPER: But what does a whole lot of people moving out mean?

BIDEN: Well, what I was talking about was you have --- we're going to have over 100,000 people there and two...

TAPPER: More, right, if you include NATO troops?

BIDEN: Oh, yeah. I'm just talking about Americans.

TAPPER: Yes.

BIDEN: 140,000 people there. And there's going to be a drawdown of forces as we transition. There are 34 districts in Afghanistan and the plan is, as we train up the Afghanis, we are going to, beginning in August, say, OK, now you've got this province, we no longer have to have American or NATO forces in that province. There will be a transition.

And really what I was responding to was the idea that the president had been outmaneuvered. I was saying make it clear. And so it --- it wasn't so much numbers I meant. It could be as few as a couple thousand troops. It could be more. But there will be a transition.

TAPPER: Let's talk about the present in Afghanistan. Marjah did not [go] as well as hoped. Kandahar has been delayed.

How [are] you and the President, your new way forward in Afghanistan, where are we in that?

Are we --- are we losing?

Are we treading water?

Where are we?

BIDEN: It's too early to make a judgment. We don't even have all the troops of the so-called surge in place yet. That won't happen until August.

TAPPER: But it's not --- it doesn't seem like it's going...

BIDEN: No...

TAPPER: --- according to plan.

BIDEN: No, it is --- well...

TAPPER: We're losing a lot of troops.

BIDEN: Well, unfortunately, everyone knew that in these summer months, when they can infiltrate from Pakistan under the cover of foliage and the rest and it's open, that there would be more deaths. That's been the pattern. And now we're engaging them more and there are more deaths.

But we still believe that the policy that the military signed onto, put together initially, signed onto, is, in fact, going to work. And let me define what I mean by work. We are making considerable progress against al Qaeda, which is our primary target. We're taking out significant numbers of the leadership in al Qaeda. And we are, in the process, which is painfully slow and difficult, of training up Afghani forces in order to put them in a position they can deal with their own insurgents. There is, for the first time now, a real attempt and a policy of trying to figure out how to reconcile those in the Taliban who are doing it for the pay, who are not the Mullah Omars of the world, into the government of Afghanistan.

All of this is just beginning. And we knew it was going to be a tough slog. But I think it's much too premature to make a judgment until the military said we should look at it, which is in December.

TAPPER: There was a recent incident involving the commanding general --- now the ex-commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal. And I just wondered, since you were one of the people mentioned disparagingly by his aides. I know he called you to apologize.

BIDEN: He did.

TAPPER: I'm wondering, what was your reaction when you...

BIDEN: I didn't take it personally at all. I really, honest to God, didn't, compared to what happens in politics, this is --- that was a piece of cake. And it wasn't so disparaging is that I --- I was the enemy. It wasn't that I --- I wasn't the clown. I was the guy who, in fact, was their problem, they thought. I'm not their problem. I agree with the policy the president put in place. But it was clear --- I was asked to and I did on my own survey, I think, six four star generals, including present and former, every single one said he had to go.

So we did --- we made --- the President made the right decision. He changed the personalities, but not the policy. He put the strongest guy in the U.S. military and a counter-insurgency policy in place.

So I think it was --- it was the absolutely necessary thing to do. The president didn't take it personally. I didn't. I met with McChrystal. The president met with McChrystal. He was --- he was really apologetic. He knew they had gone way beyond. But we also knew that if a sergeant did that, if a lieutenant did that, I mean no one could stay.

TAPPER: Why do you think they thought of you as the enemy, because you had been in favor of...

BIDEN: Well, because...

TAPPER: --- the counter-terrorism instead of the counter-insurgency?

BIDEN: --- they --- because I had been someone who --- who offered a plan that was different in degree. But, you know, again, I --- I --- someday I'll be able to lay out exactly what the plan I offered was. It would be inappropriate to do that because it was so close to what --- what, in fact, the plan ended up being that there was virtually no difference. But I got characterized because I was really very challenging to some of the assertions made.

If you notice, what we have is a counter-insurgency plan along the spine of the country, where the population is. It's not a nationwide counter-insurgency plan. We're not engaged in nation-building, which the original discussion was about. We have a rec --- we --- we have a date where we're going to go look and see whether it's working. And we have a timetable in which to transition.

All of those things were things I was supporting. All those things were --- so. And to --- to conclude, when --- when General Petraeus was picked the day in the office --- it was the day we were supposed to go downstairs into The Situation Room, they call it, to discuss the overall policy. Everyone was there. I pulled him aside and I said, David, there is no daylight between your position and mine.

And he said, I know that. Will you tell people that?

TAPPER: Let's switch over now to Iraq.

BIDEN: Yes.

TAPPER: This is your first news interview since returning from Iraq.

BIDEN: True.

TAPPER: There's a --- there's a tremendous stale mat --- stalemate there.

BIDEN: Yes.

TAPPER: Since the March elections, I believe the parliament there has only met for 20 minutes. And just this week in Washington, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Zebari, pleaded for more U.S. engagement. He said: "We believe that there's a role for more engagement to help, to encourage, to facilitate, not to pick and choose the next government or the next leader, but really to play a greater role in the process."

You once advocated for a three-way partition of Iraq because you were not confident that Iraq's government was capable of having a strong central government. You said: "The most basic premise of President Bush's approach that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government headed by [Prime Minister] Maliki, in fact, looks out for their interests equitably is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It will not happen in anybody's lifetime here including the pages!"

So it's --- that was from 2007.

Is it possible that you were right back then...

BIDEN: No.

TAPPER: --- that it is just impossible...

BIDEN: --- and, by the way...

TAPPER: --- to have a centralized government...

BIDEN: No, it's --- I don't want to debate history here, but I never called for a partition. I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions.

TAPPER: Three provinces.

BIDEN: Well, it was...

TAPPER: I'm...

BIDEN: --- not --- it wasn't even, it was to allow them more autonomy, like what's happening in Kurdistan right now, like what's happening in Anbar Province right now. And so what's happening here is, there is an election that's taken place. And what happened --- there's 325 plus members of what they call their core, their parliament. And no one party won more than 91 seats. The two major parties, one won 89 and one won 91 seats. That's Maliki and [Iyad] Allawi, Iraqiya and the State of Law, they call them.

They're in negotiations right now to figure out how to allocate the power within that government. In other words, share power. And it is about just that. And it's underway. And it's going to happen. There will be a central government with control of its foreign policy, with control of the military. But you will see that there are going to be significant amounts of autonomy in each of the areas that exist in these provinces. That's what their constitution calls for.

And, look, it took the Dutch six months to form a parliament the time before last. It took the --- the folks in the Netherlands six months, 280 some days, if I'm not mistaken. So this is --- and this is their first crack at democracy.

I used the phrase politics has broken out, not war. We're moving in that direction.

TAPPER: And the combat mission ends at the end of August.

BIDEN: Yes.

TAPPER: And can that happen even if there isn't an Iraqi government?

BIDEN: There is a transition government. There is a government in place that's working. Iraqi security is being provided by the Iraqis, with our assistance. We're going to have --- still have 50,000 troops there. We will have brought home 95,000. There is no one in the military who thinks there's any reason we can't do that

So they're making real serious progress. I don't have a doubt in my mind that we'll be able to meet the commitment of having only 50,000 troops there and it will not in any way affect the physical stability of Iraq.

TAPPER: You spoke to the leader of Southern Sudan...

BIDEN: I did.

TAPPER: --- recently.

BIDEN: Kiir.

TAPPER: And the referendum on whether or not Southern Sudan can break away from Sudan takes place in January. There's a lot of concern by human rights groups that that election will be riddled with fraud, just like the ones in April.

BIDEN: A legitimate concern.

TAPPER: The White House's point man on the Sudan is in the --- has said that the U.S. has waning influence in the region, General Gration said that.

Are you willing to pledge that the U.S. will make sure that they're --- that war does not break out between Sudan and Southern Sudan should that happen?

BIDEN: We're doing everything in our power to make sure this election on the referendum is viewed by the world as legitimate and fair. That's why we've been pushing the UN. That's why we've been pushing Kiir. That's why I've been working with [South African President] Mbeki. That's why I've been working with President Mubarak, all who have significant influence in this.

And it must be viewed as credible to keep that country, that region, from deteriorating. The last thing we need is another failed state in the region. And I'm still hopeful. We are on it full-time. And --- I believe that we'll be able to pull --- they'll be able to pull off, with our help and the UN's help, they'll be able to pull off a credible election.

TAPPER: What's the larger strategy for combating Islamo-terrorism or Islamic fascism, as some people call it?

Even if Iraq works, even if Afghanistan works, it pops up everywhere. It pops up in Yemen. It pops up in Somalia. It pops up in Uganda.

What's the larger vision?

How does the U.S. combat that?

BIDEN: The larger vision is to appeal to the moderate Islamic states and the moderate Muslim world, which is the vast majority of the world. That's the first piece.

The second piece is, in those areas which the radicals can feed on and breed off of is to try to help stabilize those governments, not alone, but with the rest of the world. And part of that is building strong countries around them, as well as inside.

And it's a long-term deal. But I think we're making progress. And President Obama ju--- you know, I got asked the other day, you know, well, you ran for President, you know, you're Vice President. I said we got the order right. Even if I had been a great President and been elected, it would have taken me four years to do what he did in one month. In one month, he changed the attitude of the world about American intentions.

And the Muslim world and the moderate Muslim world no longer thinks it's us or them. The most important one that we're finishing up now, God willing, is Iraq. Imagine Iraq as a stable country in the midst of that part of the world, a very positive outcome.

TAPPER: Mr. Vice President, thanks for spending your time with us.

BIDEN: Thank you, Jake.