Beyond the Summit: Dan Froomkin on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Latest Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn
Related Post: Pepe Escobar on Obama-Bush in Afghanistan-Pakistan

From Dan Froomkin's excellent overview blog "White House Watch" on The Washington Post site:

What the 'Military Solution' Looks Like

There's a tremendous sense of urgency surrounding President Obama's meetings today with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And a sense of urgency often leads people to focus primarily on military solutions.

So it's worth stopping to consider what the "military solution" has been looking like recently in that region of the world.

Rahim Faiez writes for the Associated Press: "The international Red Cross confirmed Wednesday that civilians were found in graves and rubble where Afghan officials alleged U.S. bombs killed had dozens....

"Women and children were among dozens of bodies in two villages targeted by airstrikes, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported Wednesday, after sending a team to the district. The U.S. military sent a brigadier general to the region to investigate.

"A former Afghan government official said up to 120 people died in the bombing Monday evening...

"The first images from the bombings in Farah province emerged Wednesday. Photos from the site obtained by The Associated Press showed villagers burying the dead in about a dozen fresh graves, while others dug through the rubble of demolished mud-brick homes."

Matthew Lee writes for the Associated Press that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this morning said "the Obama administration 'deeply, deeply' regrets the loss of innocent life apparently as the result of a U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and will undertake a full review of the incident."

But the damage is done, both to the victims and to our goals. Consider what Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in February: "We have learned, after seven years of war, that trust is the coin of the realm -- that building it takes time, losing it takes mere seconds, and maintaining it may be our most important and most difficult objective.

"That's why images of prisoner maltreatment at Abu Ghraib still serve as recruiting tools for al-Qaeda. And it's why each civilian casualty for which we are even remotely responsible sets back our efforts to gain the confidence of the Afghan people months, if not years."



And now let's take a look at what's going on in Pakistan, where, as Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers, "Obama and his team are urging [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari to mount a sustained offensive against the Taliban and its allies, who're imposing a brutal form of Islamic rule across the country's northwest."

The problem: "Religious militants, who aspire to fundamentalist religious rule like the Taliban maintained in Afghanistan for five years until 2001, took advantage of a cease-fire with the government to win control over the scenic Swat valley and have since moved into neighboring districts, some of which are 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad."

But here is what Zardari's solution looks like. As Saeed Shah wrote for McClatchy Newspapers on Monday: "The Pakistani army's assault against Islamic militants in Buner, in northwest Pakistan, is flattening villages, killing civilians and sending thousands of farmers and villagers fleeing from their homes, residents escaping the fighting said Monday...

"[R]esidents' accounts of the fighting contradict those from the Pakistani military and suggest that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari is rapidly losing the support of those it had set out to protect."

Strobel and Talev write that the "heavy-handed military force...could further undermine support for the government.

"'All they're doing is displacing civilians and hurting people,' said a U.S. defense official who asked not to be further identified because he isn't authorized to speak to the media. 'It's not going to work.'"

So what will work? Who knows? As Paul Richter and Christi Parsons write in the Los Angeles Times, Obama seems to have no choice but to "overhaul a painstakingly developed security strategy that was unveiled only five weeks ago but already has become badly outdated."

And the greatest urgency, in fact, is now seen on the Pakistan side of the border. As Richter and Parsons write: "In what is emerging as Obama's first major foreign policy crisis, U.S. officials fear the militants could fracture Pakistan, the far more populous nation, further destabilizing the region and even posing a grave risk to the security of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal...

"Though the situation in Afghanistan may not have improved, it does suddenly seem more manageable. 'By comparison, it looks like Canada,' one U.S. official said in an interview."

Canada? With 60,000 American troops soon to be in harm's way? I don't think so. But you get the point.

Meanwhile, Obama is dealing with two reluctant allies.

As Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes in The Washington Post, "senior members of Obama's national security team say [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai has not done enough to address the grave challenges facing his nation. They deem him to be a mercurial and vacillating chieftain who has tolerated corruption and failed to project his authority beyond the gates of Kabul....

"Vexed by the challenge of stabilizing Afghanistan with a partner they regard as less than reliable, Obama's advisers have crafted a two-pronged strategy that amounts to a fundamental break from the avuncular way President George W. Bush dealt with the Afghan leader.

"Obama intends to maintain an arm's-length relationship with Karzai in the hope that it will lead him to address issues of concern to the United States, according to senior U.S. government officials. The administration will also seek to bypass Karzai by working more closely with other members of his cabinet and by funneling more money to local governors."

And Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "The Obama administration 'unambiguously' supports Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, even as it puts 'the most heavy possible pressure' on his government to fight extremists in the country, Richard C. Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, told Congress yesterday....

"When the three sit down today, Obama will tell Zardari and Karzai that they 'have to work together, despite their issues and their history. That's just what has to be done,' said one of two senior administration officials who briefed reporters at the White House about the visits on the condition of anonymity."

As the New York Times editorial board writes: "American officials don’t have much confidence in either leader — a fact they haven’t tried to conceal. Most Afghans and Pakistanis share their doubts. But if there is any hope of defeating the Taliban, Mr. Obama will have to find a way to work with both men — and find the right mixture of support and blunt pressure to get them to do what is necessary to save their countries."

Video and Transcript: Obama Remarks After Meeting Afghanistan's Karzai and Pakistan's Zardari (6 May)

Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan-Pakistan Burn

President Obama made a statement of almost eight minutes after his meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari yesterday.

Nothing new here. Instead, Obama put out the simplistic rhetoric reducing local opposition and insurgency to "Al Qa'eda and its extremist allies", and he referred both to "civilian and military components" to support Pakistani and Afghan Governments and their people. No reference, of course, to the civilian casualties from US airstrikes, including the dozens killed in western Afghanistan on Tuesday; in fact, there was no mention at all of US drone and missile operations.

Perhaps the only interesting aspect of the statement was the subtle dynamic in Obama's references to Karzai and Zardari. They only got a name-check late in the statement, after the President focused on his own policies and officials: "I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it." Which translates as: OK, boys, we're not going to push you out of office, but you best be co-operating with us now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzrQV8Y_gc[/youtube]

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. We just finished an important trilateral meeting among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And earlier today I was pleased to have wide ranging bilateral discussions with both President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Zardari of Pakistan.

We meet today as three sovereign nations joined by a common goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their ability to operate in either country in the future. And to achieve that goal, we must deny them the space to threaten the Pakistani, Afghan, or American people. And we must also advance security and opportunity, so that Pakistanis and Afghans can pursue the promise of a better life.

And within Pakistan, we must provide lasting support to democratic institutions, while helping the government confront the insurgents who are the single greatest threat to the Pakistani state. And we must do more than stand against those who would destroy Pakistan –- we must stand with those who want to build Pakistan.

And that is why I've asked Congress for sustained funding, to build schools and roads and hospitals. I want the Pakistani people to understand that America is not simply against terrorism -- we are on the side of their hopes and their aspirations, because we know that the future of Pakistan must be determined by the talent, innovation, and intelligence of its people.

I have long said that we cannot meet these challenges in isolation, nor delay the action, nor deny the resources necessary to get the job done. And that's why we have a comprehensive strategy for the region with civilian and military components, led by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and General David Petraeus. And for the first time, this strategy will be matched by the resources that it demands.

U.S. troops are serving courageously and capably in a vital mission in Afghanistan alongside our Afghan and international partners. But to combat an enemy that is on the offensive, we need more troops, training, and assistance. And that's why we are deploying 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and increasing our efforts to train Afghan security forces -- and I'm also pleased that our NATO allies and partners are providing resources to support our strategy.

And that is why we are helping Pakistan combat the insurgency within its borders -- including $400 million in immediate assistance that we are seeking from Congress, which will help the government as it steps up its efforts against the extremists.

And to advance security, opportunity, and justice for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are dramatically increasing our civilian support for both countries. We were pleased that these efforts were recently amplified through the $5.5 billion that was pledged for Pakistan at an international donors conference in Tokyo -- resources that will help meet the basic needs of the Pakistani people.

The road ahead will be difficult. There will be more violence, and there will be setbacks. But let me be clear: The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waiver. And that support will be sustained.

Every day, we see evidence of the future that al Qaeda and its allies offer. It's a future filled with violence and despair. It's a future without opportunity or hope. That's not what the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan want, and it's not what they deserve. The United States has a stake in the future of these two countries. We have learned, time and again, that our security is shared. It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11, and it is a lesson that we will not forget.

So we are here today in the midst of a great challenge. But no matter what happens, we will not be deterred. The aspirations of all our people -- for security, for opportunity and for justice -- are far more powerful than any enemy.

Those are the hopes that we hold in common for all of our children. So we will sustain our cooperation. And we will work for the day when our nations are linked not by a common enemy, but by a shared peace and prosperity, mutual interests and mutual respect, not only among governments but among our people.

I want to thank President Zardari and President Karzai for joining me here today. I look forward to continuing this close cooperation between our governments in the months and years ahead. Thank you very much, everybody.

Just over a month ago, I announced a new strategy to achieve these objectives after consultation with Pakistan, Afghanistan and our other friends and allies. Our strategy reflects a fundamental truth: The security of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States are linked. In the weeks that have followed, that truth has only been reinforced.

Al Qaeda and its allies have taken more lives in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have continued to challenge the democratically-elected governments of the two Presidents standing here today. Meanwhile, al Qaeda plots against the American people -- and people around the world -- from their safe haven along the border.

I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of....

...the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it. And I'm pleased that we have advanced unprecedented cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan on a bilateral basis -- and among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States -- which will benefit all of our people.

Today's meeting is the second in the trilateral dialogues among our countries. And these meetings will coordinate our efforts in a broad range of areas, across all levels of government. To give you a sense of the scope of this effort, Secretary Clinton, Attorney General Holder, Secretary Vilsack, Director Panetta, Director Mueller, and Deputy Secretary Lew will all host separate meetings with their Pakistani and Afghan counterparts. And these trilateral meetings build on efforts being made in the region and in the United States, and they will continue on a regular basis.

Now there's much to be done. Along the border where insurgents often move freely, we must work together with a renewed sense of partnership to share intelligence, and to coordinate our efforts to isolate, target and take out our common enemy. But we must also meet the threat of extremism with a positive program of growth and opportunity.

And that's why my administration is working with members of Congress to create opportunity zones to spark development. That's why I'm proud that we've helped advance negotiations towards landmark transit-trade agreements to open Afghanistan and Pakistan borders to more commerce.

Within Afghanistan, we must help grow the economy, while developing alternatives to the drug trade by tapping the resilience and the ingenuity of the Afghan people. We must support free and open national elections later this fall, while helping to protect the hard-earned rights of all Afghans. And we must support the capacity of local governments and stand up to corruption that blocks progress. I also made it clear that the United States will work with our Afghan and international partners to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties as we help the Afghan government combat our common enemy.

Transcript: Pakistani President Zardari Gets Schooled by CNN (5 May)

Latest Post: Video and Transcript of Pakistan's Zardari and Afghanistan's Karzai on "Meet the Press" (10 May)

Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn

I'm still looking for the video of CNN's discussion with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, but apparently interviewer Wolf Blitzer combined the patronising and the surreal. Enduring America's Josh Mull commented, "Zardari is...trying to remain calm and classy while the anchors explain to him how his country works," while Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has a darkly entertaining account:

Blitzer directed him to look at a video of a CNN "iReport" from a Pakistani college student in Florida. "Turn around and you can see him," Blitzer ordered. Zardari, looking bewildered by Blitzer's arsenal of plasma screens, obeyed.

"Are you going to send your troops in," Blitzer demanded, "and clean out that area from the Taliban and al-Qaeda?" "Most definitely," Zardari promised. Blitzer was satisfied. "Mr. President," he said, "good luck."

The transcript bears out the impression that Pakistan is going straight to hell and Zardari better know his place in rescuing it. It's titled, "Nuclear Nation Could Explode".

BLITZER: One of the worst fears of the Obama administration right now, that Taliban extremists will seize control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, threatening the region, the United States, indeed the entire world.

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, he's here in Washington right now for talks with President Obama, along with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. President Zardari joined me just a short while ago here in THE SITUATION ROOM for an exclusive interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Are your nuclear weapons safe?

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: Definitely safe. First of all, they are in safe hands. We have a command and control system under the command of Pakistan.

And (INAUDIBLE), like you say, as the crow flies, these mountains are 60, 70 miles from Islamabad. They've always been there. And there's been fighting there before. There will be fighting there again. And there's always been an issue of people in those mountains who we've been taking on.

BLITZER: Because you know the world is worried if the Taliban or associated groups were to take over.

ZARDARI: It doesn't work like that. They can't take over.

BLITZER: Why can't they take over?

ZARDARI: They have a 700,000 army. How could they take over.

BLITZER: But aren't there elements within the army who are sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: I deny that. There aren't any sympathizers of them.

There is a mindset maybe who feel akin to the same religion, God, et cetera, et cetera. But nothing that should concern anybody where -- as far as the nuclear arsenal or other instruments of such sort.

....

BLITZER: Tom Foreman, our correspondent, is here in THE SITUATION ROOM, and he has on the map -- he is going to show us where some of the threats to your government, what some would consider to be existential threats, are located.

He's here.

ZARDARI: If I may say, they are not threats to my government. They are a threat to my security, they are a threat to my security of (INAUDIBLE), for my Army, my police, yes. They're not set to my government. My government is not going to fall because one mountain is taken by one group or the other.

BLITZER: All right. I want you to watch this and then we'll discuss -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Wolf.

Let's take a look at the geography of this land and get a sense of what we're talking about here. Of course you know area, Iraq over here, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The area we're most interested in here is the northwestern region of Pakistan.

This has been an area where the Taliban has been strong, particularly down here, south Waziristan, north Waziristan, just across the border from Afghanistan. You know after 9/11, when the Taliban was crushed here, they retreated largely into this area, including al Qaeda leaders.

The concern for the United States and, Mr. President, presumably for your government, from what you say, has been the expansion this way toward the east, into this area. And north, up here.

Only a year ago, the limit was sort of here with influence up here. But now it's moved up further.

This is the Swat Valley, very important up here, and of course Buner we were talking about a little bit ago. All of this area along here, to some degree, can be described as contested these days, and when we zoom in tighter to Islamabad, you can actually see that distance we're talking about. If you look at the actual measurement from here down to here, it's going to be about 60 miles.

That is one big concern on the Pakistani front. But for the United States there is another concern. The more that the Taliban is able to establish firm hold in here, uncontested by the Pakistani government, for the United States the concern is this is a big base from which to wage war into Afghanistan, where President Obama says he wants to reestablish the government based in Kabul.

Which, as you know, Wolf, and Mr. President, is having a very hard time.

BLITZER: Is that a pretty accurate assessment of what's going on in those areas?

ZARDARI: No. I would say it's an accurate assessment, but exaggerated.

BLITZER: What is exaggerated?

ZARDARI: The exaggeration is that they have been there -- they have been not today...

BLITZER: The Taliban.

ZARDARI: The Taliban, they've been there historically. They are the tribes. They are the people. They are the kin.

If they have been there, the Taliban, the United States has been there for the last 10 years. And if they don't know the exact locations of individuals, then don't expect us to know.

But we have been giving them a fight. We've taken back -- we've cleaned out Bajaur, Mohmand (ph), Buner, Dir (ph), all of those areas. We've cleaned them out.

BLITZER: Because you're going in there now after you've made a cease-fire, you made a deal with these Taliban-related groups that -- has it collapsed completely?

ZARDARI: The provincial government, (INAUDIBLE), made an arrangement, an agreement with them that if they were to lay down their arms, we would talk to the reconcilables.

BLITZER: You would let them, for example, institute Sharia law?

ZARDARI: No, no, no, no, no. Not at all.

It was swift (ph) justice under the constitution of Pakistan, and as is, the constitution of Pakistan would work and the laws of the country would apply there, not Sharia law. Sharia law is already in Pakistan, all around.

BLITZER: Because right now we're seeing and hearing reports that women can't leave their homes in some of these areas unless not only they're fully covered, but unless their husband or a male takes them outside.

ZARDARI: That is their interpretation of their law. That does not mean that we adhere to it or we accept it. We do not accept that. Wherever we are, wherever the government is, that is not happening.

Whenever they come in (INAUDIBLE) -- because you must remember, this is -- hasn't been -- there's no police station in most of this area. There is no law in most of this area. It has been like...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Are you going to send your troops in? You have 600,000 or 700,000 troops.

ZARDARI: Yes, sure.

BLITZER: Are you going to send them in and clean out that area from the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: Most definitely. Most definitely, we've cleaned out like...

BLITZER: So that cease-fire agreement is history? That's...

ZARDARI: The cease-fire agreement is not holding. But we are going to try and hold them to it because they're the reconcilables. They're supposed to fight for us.

BLITZER: Do you need American help, more drone attacks, for example, against suspected al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement. I need to own those...

BLITZER: Because there you can see, we have some -- if you turn around over there, you can see some pictures from those Hellfire missiles on those U.S. drones going after suspected Taliban or al Qaeda targets in your country.

Are you OK with this U.S. strategy of attacking targets inside sovereign Pakistani soil?

ZARDARI: Let's agree to disagree. What I have agreed upon is I need this. We've have asked for them -- we've asked the United States for this...

BLITZER: For the technology?

ZARDARI: Technology.

BLITZER: Have they agreed?

ZARDARI: We're still in dialogue. They haven't disagreed, but they haven't agreed.

BLITZER: Is that the most important item on your shopping list right now?

ZARDARI: It is one of the items on our shopping list.

BLITZER: So you will ask the president of the United States for these drones?

ZARDARI: I will request the president of the United States to give it a thought that if we own them, then we take out our targets rather than somebody else coming and do it for us.

BLITZER: We invited some of our viewers to submit a comment or a question because knowing you would be coming here. And we have this iReporter who is a Pakistani student studying in Melbourne, Florida, right now. He's a Fulbright scholar. And I'm going to play what he wants to ask you.

Turn around and you can see him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZEESHAN USMANI, CNN IREPORTER: Why can't we solve the problems we have created for ourselves? And why do you have to beg to the U.S. every time anything goes wrong in Pakistan?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: His name is Zeeshan Usmani. He's a student in Florida.

ZARDARI: Definitely, Zeeshan, democracy is part of the answer. We -- this is our problem, this is our situation, this is our issue. We will solve it. By bringing in democracy, by electing me as the president to Pakistan, the people of Pakistan have voted. They have said yes to democracy and no to the Talibanization of Pakistan.

So we are solving this problem, and we shall.

BLITZER: The president of the United States, at his news conference the other day, he also said this about your fears of your neighbor, India. And I'm going to play the clip for you.

Listen to President Obama.

ZARDARI: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Has your what he calls "obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan" been misguided?

ZARDARI: Democracies have never gone to war. No Pakistan democratic government has gone to war with India. We've always wanted peace. We still want to -- want peace with India. We want a commercial relationship with them.

I'm looking at the markets of India for the Pakistani -- for the industrialists of Pakistan and am hoping to do the same. I'm waiting for the elections to be over so that all of this rhetoric is over and I can start a fresh dialogue with the Indian government.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, there is concern, especially in the Congress, that of the approximately $10 billion the U.S. has provided Pakistan since 9/11, most of that money has been used to beef up your arsenal against some sort of threat from India, as opposed to going after the Taliban and al Qaeda.

ZARDARI: Let's say they've given $10 billion in 10 years, a billion nearly a year for the war effort in -- against the Taliban, and the war that is going on.

BLITZER: Just explain what that means.

ZARDARI: That money has been spent, my forces -- 125,000 forces are mobilized, they're there in the region fighting the Taliban for the last 10 years. It takes -- it is a lot of expense.

BLITZER: Do you want U.S. troops in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I don't think the U.S. troops want to come to Pakistan.

BLITZER: But if you were to ask the United States, we need help -- maybe, I don't know if you do -- to deal with this threat, is that something you're open to?

ZARDARI: No, I'm open to the fact that we need more equipment, we need more intelligence equipment, we need support, intelligence- wise, et cetera. But not personnel. I don't think personnel are necessary. They'll be counterproductive.

BLITZER: Because the defense secretary, Robert Gates, told our Fareed Zakaria this the other day, saying he's open to listen to what you need.

Listen to Gates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: 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. And -- but we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What do you think about that?

ZARDARI: I think the last statement, I'll take it on first value and go with it. I'll run with it and ask for more help.

BLITZER: Because he says, pretty much what you want you'll get. Just ask.

ZARDARI: We are asking. We've been asking for a lot of help, and it has been in the pipeline for a long time. And I'm not here to, you know, point fingers at anybody. I'm here to get more support for democracy, get more support for the war effort, and show them my record, and try and tell them, listen, one year of democracy, eight months of -- seven-and-a-half months of my presidency, we've done more than your dictator did before...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Do you have confidence in President Obama?

ZARDARI: I have confidence in the American system. I have confidence in the democracy in America. And definitely, I have hope in Obama.

BLITZER: How would you describe right now the U.S.-Pakistani relationship? ZARDARI: I think our relationships are pretty strong. I think it needs more effort. I think it needs more understanding on both our sides, and we need more interaction. But I think our relationship is pretty strong.

BLITZER: As you know, I interviewed your late wife. Benazir Bhutto, here. She was sitting in that seat, where you are right now, just before she went back to Pakistan. All of us were worried what might happened, and we know the worst-case scenario happened.

Let me ask you, how worried are you, Mr. President, about your security?

ZARDARI: I'm always - that is a very -- it's in the back of my mind. But the fact of the matter is, running doesn't solve anything.

She came, she was there, she got attention. She managed to throw out a dictator. In her spirit, under her name, under her philosophy, democracy, we took the presidency, we took the prime ministership, we made a first time woman speaker of Pakistan and Parliament.

Now, under the same philosophy, we shall defeat the Taliban, we shall defeat all the challenges, and take Pakistan into the 21st century.

BLITZER: Mr. President, good luck.

ZARDARI: Thank you.

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.

More on "Bye, Bye Zardari", Hello Pakistan Military

Related Post: Bye Bye Zardari (Again)? Washington Considers The Political Alternative in Pakistan

A few hours after I wrote Washington's latest political strategy to isolate Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, I read this from Washington Post columnist and de facto Government spokesman David Ignatius:

President Obama convened a crisis meeting at the White House last Monday to hear a report from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had just returned from Pakistan. Mullen described the worrying situation there, with Taliban insurgents moving closer to the capital, Islamabad.

"It had gotten significantly worse than I expected as the Swat deal unraveled," Mullen explained in an interview.

So Ignatius has revealed not only that the Obama Administration sees Pakistan as the priority crisis, beyond even Afghanistan, but how eager the Government is to show its concern.

Once again, Admiral Mullen is using the columnist to put out his views. More importantly, and in contrast to the inter-Administration divisions over Iraq and Afghanistan, his President shares the pessimism: that is why Obama came down so hard on Islamabad in his press conference on Wednesday.

But Ignatius, even as he makes a mockery of the notion of an independent (let alone critical) journalist, does far more. He channels the Administration's praise for recent Pakistani operations --- "what encourages U.S. officials is that recent events have been a wake-up call for a Pakistani elite in denial about the Taliban threat" --- and tips off Washington's increasing reliance on Islamabad's military:

"My biggest concern is whether [the Pakistani government] will sustain it," Mullen said. He has told his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that "we are prepared to assist whenever they want." During his recent visit, Mullen toured two Pakistani counterinsurgency training camps and came away impressed.

There's also a tip of the hat to the political dimension, which we've noted and The New York Times confirmed yesterday: "Politically, the United States is looking increasingly to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif....Officials note that 60 percent of the Pakistani population lives in Punjab and that Sharif's popularity rating there is over 80 percent."

Ignatius does reveal one possible US scrap that might be thrown to Zardari, some semblance of a Pakistani involvement in US drone airstrikes. Even that, however, should be seen as a signal to Pakistan's military, which has been uneasy about the American attacks, rather than the President.

Ignatius concludes his piece with the pretence that he is critiquing American policy:

The growing crisis mentality in Washington poses its own threat to a sound Pakistan policy. It could produce red-hot American rhetoric and a corresponding U.S. impatience -- and that, in turn, would only make the Pakistanis more uneasy.

Don't be misled: The Post columnist is just a mouthpiece for Washington's message. When he finishes, "Success depends on Islamabad's recognition that it's their problem and that they must act decisively," you might as well add: "in doing what we want".

It's a message that no doubt will be delivered, not by a newspaper, but by Obama's officials when Zardari visits Washington this week.