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

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

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

GATES: Thank you, Chris.

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



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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GATES: I don’t think so.

WALLACE: That is the commitment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GATES: The launch?

WALLACE: Yeah.

GATES: I think it probably will.

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

GATES: Nope.

WALLACE: And what does that say to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GATES: I think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GATES: My pleasure. Thank you.

Transcript: Obama Interview on Global Economy with Financial Times

From the Financial Times website, which also has audio of the interview:

FT: Thank you for doing the interview Mr President.

Obama: My pleasure, I read the Financial Times before other people read the Financial Times. Now it’s trendy and everybody carries around a Financial Times.

FT: Let’s talk about the G-20. What will be your benchmarks for success?

Obama: The most important task for all of us is to deliver a strong message of unity in the face of crisis.

There’s some constituent parts to that. Number one, all the participating countries recognise that in the face a severe global contraction we have to each take steps to promote economic growth and trade; that means a robust approach to stimulus, fighting off protectionism.

Next, we have to make sure that we are all taking serious steps to deal with the problems in the banking sector and the financial markets and that means having a series of steps to deal with toxic assets and to ensure adequate capital in the banking sector.

Third, a regulatory reform agenda that prevents these kinds of systemic risks from occurring again and that requires each country to take initiative but it also requires coordination across borders because we have a global, we have global capital markets, and that will include a wide range of steps, additional monitoring authority coordination of supervisors and various countries dealing with offshore tax havens. Making sure that…

FT: Is that a problem? Offshore tax havens.

Obama: Well, its something that is going to be discussed. I know that in my discussion I think there is a concern that we don’t want people to be able to game the system or circumvent regulated capital markets and making sure our regulations are targeting not just banks but any institution that could pose a potential systemic risk to the system.

A final area of concerted action involves international financial institutions and their capacity to assist emerging markets in developing countries at a time when those markets could be under even more severe strain then some of the more wealthy nations and I think making sure that institutions like the IMF have the resources to provide such assistance that world food supplies are not imperilled as a consequence of the break down in global trade, those are all issues that I think have to be addressed.

Now, I’m confident based on conversations that I have this week with Angela Merkel, Sarkozy, as well as with Kevin Rudd as well as conversations that I have had previously with Gordon Brown and others, that there is already a rough consensus there that by the time we arrive in London we will have taken, we will have made significant progress in moving in the right direction.

FT: Let’s just talk about the stimulus for a moment. At the moment there has been a 1.8 per cent GDP boost in 2009 by the G20 nations. There are concerns among economists that you need a sustainable stimulus and therefore 2010 is key. Will you get secure commitments from say, the Europeans, for action if necessary in 2010?

Obama: Two points I want to make on this, Number one: The press has tended to frame this as an “either or approach”. There are some G20 participants that are arguing fiercely for stimulus, others for regulation. What I have consistently argued is that what is needed is a “both and approach”. We need stimulus and we need regulation. We need to deal with the problems right in front of us and we also need to make sure we’re taking steps to prevent these types of breakdowns from happening again.

With respect to the stimulus, there is going to be an accord that G20 countries will do what is necessary to promote growth and trade. I think there is a legitimate concern that, would most countries already having initiated significant stimulus packages that we need to see how they work. Obviously I admire economists. I have a bunch of them on my staff. But to start making a whole host of plans about next year, without having better information on how the current stimulus efforts are working, is something that I think is of concern.

So what we are going to see is what the United States has led on this. We have been very aggressive in terms of our recovery package. The way our recovery package is structured, money is going out both in 2009 and 2010. But each country has its own constraints, its own political rhythms and what we want to just make sure is that everybody is doing something, everybody recognises the need to make progress on this front and that we are prepared to step into the breech should current efforts prove to be inadequate.

FT: I mean that is really the great challenge, in managing this crisis - bridging the gap between what is economically absolutely necessary and what is politically possible. How do you bridge that?

Obama: That’s one gap. Then there’s a gap in ideas about how to approach a crisis like this, especially among economists - although on the issue of the stimulus there seems to be much broader consensus among both conservative and liberal economists that stimulus is appropriate.

You know, the financial crisis hit the United States first; it is now being experienced around the world. Not surprisingly we took some very aggressive action earlier than some other countries because its impact had been felt most immediately on Wall Street. As other countries start experiencing these drastic declines in GDP and in their exports I think that the sense of urgency has grown and you are going to start seeing a convergence. In all countries there is an understandable tension between the steps that are needed to kick start the economy and the fact that many of these steps are very expensive and tax payers have a healthy scepticism about spending too much of their money, particularly when it is perceived that some of the money is being spent not on them but on others who they perceive may have helped precipitate the crisis. So that is always going to be a challenge and what’s also difficult is the fact that the policies we initiate all take time to take effect and by its very nature politics looks for more instantaneous gratification.

But I am confident that the American people, and I think people around the world, are looking to its leaders to lead and that some of the steps we have already taken are starting to bear fruit. We’re seeing glimmers of stabilisation in the economies and we haven’t yet seen…

FT: Glimmers of stabilisation?

Obama: Here in the United States for example, you’re starting to see pockets of stabilisation in the housing market. Our housing plan has led to the lowest interest rates, mortgage rates in a very long time and you are starting to see a huge number of refinancing in the banking sector. In certain select markets, like the market for auto loans or the market for student loans, Secretary Tim Geithner’s efforts to provide a market for asset-backed securities has helped and so we still have a long way to go, but I am confident that if we are persistent and we don’t approach this with a thought that there is a silver bullet out there but instead are willing to try a range of methods to deliver on the economic growth in jobs that we will get out of this current crisis.

FT: You mentioned the risks and dangers of protectionism. 73 separate measures have been identified by the World Bank since the last G20 summit so what again in practical terms can your administration do at the G20 to stop this - and I’m thinking to whether there are real risks that people worry in Europe a lot about what is going on, on Capitol Hill, with “Buy American” provisions.

Obama: Well first of all I think it’s important to note that here in the United States, despite some protectionist rhetoric and very real economic frustration growing out of the collapse of the financial markets and the huge rise in unemployment that the “Buy American” provision that was in the stimulus package was specifically written that had to be consistent with WTO [World Trade Organization]. That the Mexican trucking provision is now subject to negotiations to ensure that we don’t see an escalating trade war.

I have sent a very clear signal that now is not that time to offer hints of protectionism and I will continue to discourage efforts to close off the US market. I think that in a democracy, there are always going to be some loose ends out there. That’s true here, that’s true around the world but overall I don’t think that we’ve seen a huge rush to protectionism that that isn’t the rhetoric that is emanating from the leaders that will be gathering in London.

And to the extent that the American people or Europeans or Asians, Africans, Latin Americans all feel confident that their leaders are doing everything that they can to encourage and promote economic [..] and that they have their populations interests at heart, I think we are going to be able to hold the line on any significant slippage.

FT: I wondered Mr President whether you’re concerned that, particularly following the AIG bonus controversy, there’s some danger that confidence that business has in the rule of law in the United States has been shaken and that could hinder some of these recovery measures?

Obama: I think it is a source of concern in some quarters. To the extent that the captains of industry recognise very legitimate frustrations that the American people feel when they read about huge bonuses going to members of firms that are receiving large tax payer bailouts. I think they can take steps to lessen that danger and I met with some bankers today and it was a constructive conversation but one of the points that I made is that a time when everybody is needing to sacrifice there has to be a similar sense of sacrifice on the part of those various sectors of the economy that helped to precipitate this crisis and to the extent that they’re showing restraint that compensation packages are structured so that there is some deferral until money is returned to tax payers and the economy recovers that will be good for everybody. That will put [...] in a stronger position to help them.

But you know, keep in mind that although there are going to be, I think, emotional reactions to and legitimate grievances around some of these issues, the United States has been the world’s most successful economy precisely because of a long standing respect for legal contracts and orderly transparent and open market operations and that’s not going to change.

FT: Mr President, given the rising tendency to populism on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, do you feel confident that at a time like this you can go to Congress and ask for the kind of backing of capitalisation that most economists say will be required in the near future?

Obama: I think it is very important for us to show that the money that has already been authorised is being well spent. That it is helping to result in loans going to small business and large business that are in turn investing and creating jobs. If voters perceive that it’s a one way street that we are just pouring more and more money into institutions and seeing no return other than avoiding catastrophe then it’s harder to make an argument for further intervention.

If on the other hand people start saying that they can refinance their house, and their child can get a student loan and that small business is able to retain its credit line, so that there is a tangible and meaningful result from our measures, then I think we can win back the confidence of the American public.

Guess Who Loves Mr Obama's War?

Honourable Mention

Preacher of US hyper-power Robert Kagan:

Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan.

Bronze Medal

Bush Administration spinner Peter Wehner posts on the Commentary blog:

The fact that the remarkable [General David] Petraeus is (among others) overseeing things is a source of comfort and confidence.

Silver Medal

Military sychophant of the year David Brooks writes in The New York Times after his Pentagon-guided tour of Afghanistan:

The Afghans are warm and welcoming. They detest the insurgents and root for American success....We’re already well through the screwing-up phase of our operation....The people who work here make an overwhelming case that Afghanistan can become a functional, terror-fighting society and that it is worth sending our sons and daughters into danger to achieve this.

And the Gold Medal Goes To....

Michael Goldfarb blogs on the Weekly Standard website:

I asked the boss for a reaction to the Afghan speech. He said he would have framed a few things differently, but his basic response was: "All hail Obama!"

Mr Goldfarb's boss is failed New York Times columnist Mr William Kristol.

Ho Ho Silvio: Italy's Prime Minister in Blackface (Again)

This one is for our Italian colleagues, inheritors of a long and cherished political heritage, from The Guardian:

Not satisfied with having once referred to Barack Obama as "sun-tanned", Silvio Berlusconi today returned to the subject, telling a reporter he was paler than the US president.

After a journalist commented that his response to the global economic crisis made him seem like Obama, Italy's prime minister, who is famed for his even, year-round tan, shot back: "I'm paler, also, because it's been so long since I've been in the sun." He quickly added: "He is more handsome, younger and taller."

Afghanistan's Karzai on Mr Obama's War: "Better Than We Expected

Related Post: Mr Obama’s War for/on Pakistan-Afghanistan - Holes in the Middle

Who's happy about the lack of attention in the Obama grand strategy to the political complexities in the centres of Kabul and Islamabad?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, for one. He told a news conference, "[Obama] has our full support. This was better than what we expected."

Given that Obama did not push the general line of a move away from Karzai and the specific charges of an Afghan Government riddled with corruption, Karzai's response very shrewd and very "sensible". More interesting will be his exchanges with US officials and the dynamics at the conference on Afghanistan at The Hague next week.