Video and Transcript: Dick Cheney on Fox News (12 May)

Related Post: Torture Now - Jon Stewart Takes on the New Dick Cheney
Related Post: Video and Transcript of Dick Cheney on “Face the Nation” (10 May)

Yep, him again. Fed lines by Fox's Neil Cavuto, Cheney blew more smoke with the demand that Government memoranda providing the effectiveness of torture be released, covering up the inconvenience that Government memoranda have been released and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of "enhanced interrogation". He raged against the next symbolic moment, the possible release of hundreds of photographs of the programme (think Abu Ghraib, magnified many times), and repeated how Obama is endangering the nation and the world.



CAVUTO: We’re getting word that by May 28th, up to potentially 2,000 pictures are going to be released by the White House showing various interrogation methods, up to 2,000. What do you think of that?

CHENEY: Well, I guess what I think is important is that there be some balance to what is being released. The fact of the matter is the administration appears to be committed to putting out information that sort of favors their point of views in terms of being opposed to, for example, enhanced interrogation techniques.

But so far they’ve refused to put out memos that were done by the CIA that I’ve requested be declassified that show the positive results of the detainee program, and all of the information and the intelligence we were able to garner from these high-value detainees.

CAVUTO: And you say there are at least two such CIA memos that point to...

CHENEY: Two specifically that I requested.

CAVUTO: To the enhanced interrogation and that it did yield results.

CHENEY: Yes, well, that specifically talked about detainees, about the contributions that we got to our overall intelligence picture. Publicly General Hayden, who used to be director of the CIA, said as late as 2006 a majority of the intelligence we had gotten about al Qaeda came from detainees, high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, like Abu Zubaydah, people that we captured during the course of our campaign against al Qaeda.

And they, of course, were obviously also the people that the debate has focused on with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques. So I...

CAVUTO: Have you spoken to anyone in the White House lately about this? And did they give you a head’s up, we’re going to release all of these interrogation...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: Well, what I did was make a formal request for declassification through the National Archives, which is the way you do it, and then it goes out to the agency responsible, in this case, the CIA. And I’m still awaiting a formal answer from them.

CAVUTO: Your daughter, Liz, was on a rival news network this morning.

CHENEY: She was.

CAVUTO: And she made the comment that the White House should have called my dad, I’m paraphrasing here, Mr. Vice President, but it was clearly -- the inference was that that did not happen.

What happened? When this whole dust-up started happening on interrogation and then eliminating waterboarding, did anyone from the White House give you or President Bush a head’s up that this policy was about to be reversed?

CHENEY: Well, I didn’t discuss it with anybody in the administration, but I’m not offended by that. They campaigned all across the country, from one end of the country to the other against enhanced interrogation techniques, and made it very clear they were opposed to that. They called it torture.

I don’t believe it was torture. We had attorneys who gave us a clear guidance as to what was appropriate and what wasn’t. The reason we’ve gotten into this debate at all is because the administration saw fit to go back and release OLC opinions, opinions out of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Justice Department dealing with its classified program.

Now that’s a very rare occurrence. You don’t ordinarily release those opinions, especially when it deals with classified programs. They did it in a way that sort of blocked so far any real discussion of the results of the program, and instead focused upon the techniques themselves.

And they really began the debate then with the suggestions that perhaps people should be prosecuted for having participated in the program or the lawyers who gave us these opinions should be disbarred. I think it’s an outrage.

I think the proposition that a new administration can come in and in effect launch an attack on their predecessor because they disagreed with the legal advice that was given by the Justice Department or because they find that they don’t like the policies that were pursued by the prior administration.

It’s one thing to come in and change the policy, it’s an entirely different proposition to come in and say that you’re somehow going to go after the lawyers and the Justice Department or the agents who carried out that policy. I just -- I think that’s outrageous. And that’s why I’ve spoken out as I have to defend the policy and...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But you have, but President Bush has not. And that, to your critics, is a sign of his statesmanship and your lack of it. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I don’t pay a lot of attention to what the critics say, obviously. From my standpoint, that a notion that I should remain silent while they go public, that I shouldn’t say anything while they threaten to disbar the lawyers who gave us the advice that was crucial in terms of this program, that I shouldn’t say anything when they go out and release information that they believe is critical of the program and critical of our policies, but refuse to put out information that shows the results of what we were able to achieve.

Bottom line is we successfully defended the nation for seven and a half years against a follow-on attack to 9/11. That was a remarkable achievement. Nobody would have thought that was possible, but it was. I believe it was possible because of the policies we had in place, which they’re now dismantling.

CAVUTO: So by that definition, are we more likely to be attacked now? Is that what you’re saying?

CHENEY: I think that we are stripping ourselves of some of the capabilities that we used in order to block, if you will, or disrupt activities by al Qaeda that would have led to additional attacks. I think that’s an important debate to have. I don’t think we should just roll over when the new administration says -- accuses of us committing torture, which we did not, or somehow violating the law, which we did not. I think you need to stand up and respond to that, and that’s what I’ve done.

CAVUTO: Have you raised this with President Bush? Have you talked with him and said, look, I’m going to go out and I’m going to be talking to Fox, I’m going to be talking, I want to let the world know how I feel?

CHENEY: You know, I’ve had a number of conversations on the telephone since January 20th.

CAVUTO: Any recently?

CHENEY: Those are -- oh, it’s been a couple of weeks. But we’re...

CAVUTO: How were those conversations? What do you talk about?

CHENEY: Well, those were private when we were in the White House and they remain so today.

CAVUTO: So you’re not going to tell me?

CHENEY: No.

CAVUTO: OK. Fine.

All right. We’re getting word out of “The Jerusalem Post,” Mr. Vice President, that Iran has deployed mobile ground-to-air and ground-to- sea missiles along the Strait of Hormuz, and perhaps beyond, in the Persian Gulf.

How bad is this getting?

CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the reports. I think it’s important to be aware of or recognize that Straits of Hormuz obviously are a key waterway, not just from the standpoint of the United States, but that about -- these numbers are rough, but about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through those straits every day. It’s something close to 18, 19 million barrels that come out of the Gulf, come out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and so forth. That’s the major export route, if you will, and so anything that potentially threatens the free flow of that traffic, obviously, would be of concern.

CAVUTO: Well, what they’re obviously doing is saying, you attack us, then we respond in spades (ph). And then the whole world is dealing with $100, $200 a barrel oil, right?

CHENEY: Well, I don’t know what they’re doing, obviously. I can’t speak for what the Iranians are up to. They’re difficult enough to follow when you’re talking to them, and we’re not talking to them and haven’t for a long time. But I do think...

CAVUTO: Well, we are making overtures to them, right? CHENEY: Well, the...

CAVUTO: This president is trying, and that the time for that type of behavior, as well as opening up more to folks like Hugo Chavez and all, the time is now for that, because we got nowhere (ph) this administration is doing. But you did, which was effectively to isolate these guys.

What do you make of that?

CHENEY: The Iranians have a track record. We tried to resolve the issue diplomatically. We worked with our European friends and allies. We tried to persuade them that they did not need to enrich uranium to weapons grade, that the Russians, for example, were prepared to sell them fuel for their reactor and then take the spent fuel back after the fuel had been used.

A lot of ways for them to acquire nuclear power-generating capabilities without producing weapons. They clearly seem to be in the business of wanting to produce weapons. We were unable to talk them out of it previously, and there was a very serious effort diplomatically, working through the United Nations and with the EU3, the way we refer to them, the British and the Germans and the French.

The fact is that, as far as we know, they’re still in the business of trying to produce that capability, and that would be a fundamental threat not only to the folks in the immediate region, but potentially others around the world, including the United States. They’re working on missile technology, and they can marry up a weapon with the missile, and they become a formidable power.

CAVUTO: President Obama is going to be in Egypt next month (INAUDIBLE), which he will use that nation as an address to the Muslim world. He is not stopping by Israel when he is in the neighborhood, so to speak. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: I don’t know that it has any significance. But obviously, I haven’t been part of scheduling for the new administration, so I don’t know what considerations go into that. But I don’t think I can attribute motives one way or the other.

CAVUTO: So, to Israelis who are concerned that maybe this administration, again, with a vested interest for the whole region at heart, is more inclined to engage Muslim nations, maybe even some radical nations. It’s giving some Israelis pause. Should it?

CHENEY: Well, I think it’s giving not only Israelis pause, it’s also - excuse me - creating concerns on the part of nearly everybody in the region. And I would put in that category, although I haven’t talked to him recently, the Saudis, the Gulf states, the Emirates and so forth, because they have been more concerned in recent years about developments in Iran than anything else, than any other issue in the area or the region. And that’s because they believe if you - if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it’ll fundamentally change the dynamic in that part of the world.

CAVUTO: How close are they, by the way, do you think?

CHENEY: Well, you can get all kinds of estimates. They clearly have installed thousands of centrifuges. That’s their claim. But there have been inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that can give us fairly precise information on how many centrifuges are installed and so forth. In terms of how close they are, I - you know, there are estimates, but I can’t give you a precise read or take on how much it is.

CAVUTO: Well, what would U.S. policy be, Mr. Vice President, if were to see Benjamin Netanyahu act alone, unilaterally to take out those centrifuges?

CHENEY: Well, I can’t speak for the administration, obviously, and that’s where you need to go to find out.

CAVUTO: What would you think?

CHENEY: I would find it that it would be a reflection of the fact that the Israelis believe this is an existential threat to the state of Israel. That Iran has taken a position and supported it over the years, that Israel should cease to exist, should go out of business, and Iran remains one of the prime sponsors of terror in the world, especially Hezbollah, and that all things considered, I think the Israelis look at developments in Iran, and they have stated publicly that they believe a nuclear-armed Iran is something that fundamentally threatens their existence. So, I would expect them to try to do something about it.

CAVUTO: Soon?

CHENEY: I can’t predict that. I don’t - I obviously don’t know, and can’t predict what they’ll do or when they’ll do it.

CAVUTO: Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired General David McKiernan from leading (ph) Afghanistan and said that whatever we were doing - I’m paraphrasing here, sir - wasn’t working and that we need more of a special-operations guy than we supposedly have now, and saying that the battle game and plan for Afghanistan has changed. Has it?

CHENEY: I think there’s been a significant increase, obviously, in the focus on Afghanistan, which I think is good. We had completed a review of our policy in Afghanistan shortly before we left office, and then decided that we would not put it out at that point, that that would feed into whatever the Obama administration wanted to do and might help them form a sounder policy. One of the things they’ve done and I think makes good sense is send more troops. I also believe the decision yesterday to send Stan McChrystal, lieutenant general, to take over in Afghanistan is a very good one. Stan’s an absolutely outstanding officer. I’m not saying anything critical of General McKiernan, who’s leaving. But Stan McChrystal was head of the Joint Special Operations Command. He’s been a superb officer...

CAVUTO: So, you support that choice?

CHENEY: I think the choice is excellent, and you’d be hard put to find anybody better than Stan McChrystal to take on that assignment.

CAVUTO: If you don’t mind, sir, I’d like to go back to terror (ph) for a second, and...

CHENEY: Excuse me.

CAVUTO: Sure. Nancy Pelosi has been caught up in when did she know and how much did she know, as far as the waterboarding issue, elevated interrogation techniques, and says she was aware of a 2003 meeting, but the way it’s been characterized that she was aware of all the details is wrong, and that painting (ph) her any other way is wrong. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: I don’t know the specifics of what sessions she was in. I know she was listed in a memorandum I’ve seen, a timeline that talks about when various members were briefed that the agencies produced in the last few days as public documents.

CAVUTO: When you say “briefed,” briefed on specifically waterboarding?

CHENEY: Briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

CAVUTO: That include waterboarding.

CHENEY: I don’t know. I wasn’t in the meetings, and I can’t speak to the content of the meetings. I know what the intention was. I know that the CIA basically took the responsibility of briefing members of Congress, a few in number, chairman and ranking member of the intelligence committees about the program.

CAVUTO: Congresswoman Jane Harman was among those who did write the letter of protest.

CHENEY: I don’t know about that, but I...

CAVUTO: Now, she passed along her concern to Nancy Pelosi , who I guess went through the legislative channels, who didn’t want to disrupt the legislative channels, to let her do the speaking, if I’m interpreting it correctly. But what...

CHENEY: You’re down in the weeds now.

CAVUTO: I guess I am.

CHENEY: I’m generally, obviously, aware of the program. I’m aware of the fact...

CAVUTO: Would you say more (ph) people knew than are saying so about these interrogation techniques?

CHENEY: I think it paralleled the surveillance program, for example, the terrorist surveillance program that we ran where I ran the briefings. And we briefed every few months the chairman and ranking member, and at one point, the “Big 9,” the speaker and majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate, on the substance of the program, on what we were doing, on how we were doing it, sought their advice and guidance on whether we should continue it.

CAVUTO: Well, do you remember any of them, Mr. Vice President, saying, whoa, whoa, whoa! This is a little too far for our tastes. We don’t want this.

CHENEY: No. On the terrorist surveillance program, after we’d given them the brief in the Situation Room in the basement - I presided over it - I went around the table and asked if they thought we should continue the program. They were unanimous. Then I asked if they thought we should...

CAVUTO: Who was unanimous?

CHENEY: The speaker, the majority and minority leader of the House and Senate, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

CAVUTO: On everything that had been stipulated, including these interrogations?

CHENEY: No, on the terrorist surveillance program.

CAVUTO: Gotcha.

CHENEY: I’m just giving you an example. And then I asked if they thought we should go back and get additional congressional authority, and they said absolutely not. That would reveal the existence of the program. And I think what happened with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques is, the CIA did go up. They did brief the relevant people, and I think what often happens in these circumstances is once a controversy develops, then some of the people that were briefed get forgetful.

CAVUTO: Let me just, on one last foreign policy issue before we hit on some economics. I know your time is tight. On Gitmo. The administration’s intelligence director had said that detainees who are just misplaced and are here have a right to, among other things, and could get who are just misplaced and are here, have a right, to among other things, and could get welfare, for example. How do you feel about that?

CHENEY: I think it’s a terrible idea. While we were running things at Guantanamo, there were several hundred people that processed through there, that were held there for a period of time and were ultimately sent back to their home countries.

The ones that are remaining, about 245, are the hardcore, the worst of the worst. They’re cases have been reviewed, they were given an review down at Guantanamo, and they were kept in custody because we believe they constituted a threat to the United States, so they had some continuing value.

Of those that were released, we had about a 12 percent recidivism rate, 12 percent that went back into the terrorism business. I think the recidivism on the ones that are still there would be far higher. It includes people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

Now, I think they’re having a very hard time finding anybody around the world who wants to take these folks. I know when we tried to place a few Uighurs, Chinese terrorists...

CAVUTO: Right, right.

CHENEY: And while we were still in office, ultimately, the only country that would take them was Albania. Everybody else rejected them.

CAVUTO: Where do you think they’re going to end up?

CHENEY: Well, I think they need to keep Guantanamo open. I think it’s a mistake to try to close it. I think if you didn’t have it, you’d have to invent it. If you bring those people to the United States, I don’t know a single congressman who is going to stand up and say, gee, send me some terrorists. I’d like to have some al Qaeda-types living in my district. That’s not going to happen.

So I think they’re going to find someplace where they can locate these folks. Guantanamo is a great facility. It’s very well run. These people are very well treated. It’s open to inspection by the International Red Cross and the press and so forth. It’s a good facility, it’s an important program, and we ought to continue it.

CAVUTO: Senator Biden was making his, today, spin to a union group, saying, we have to rebuild the middle class and the way to do that is to help labor unions grow. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I’m not anti-labor union. I carried a ticket for six years in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in my youth. I built power line transmission line all over Wyoming, Utah, Colorado. That’s how I paid for my education. So, I’m not anti-union.

I do think the legislation that the administration is supporting and that the unions are pushing hard, the so-called Card Check Law, would do away with a secret ballot in terms of the question of organizing unions. I think it would be a huge mistake. I don’t think we want to get into the business where we make it easier for there to be the kind of intimidation that we’ve sometimes seen in these operations in the past and where people wouldn’t be able to cast a secret ballot in terms of whether or not they want to join a union.

CAVUTO: Jack Welt (ph) said they be deliteriates (ph) to our economic recovery. Do you agree?

CHENEY: Well, I always felt that what Ronald Reagan did back in 1981in the early part of his administration when he was very tough with the air traffic controllers was a good, sound, solid move. I think that, as I say, people want to join a union, fine. That’s their business. There are provisions for that that allow unions to be represented.

But I think what the unions are trying to do here is dramatically expand the base in terms of membership and they will, in turn, generate vast sums of money in terms of dues and political contributions. And I think it does have wide- ranging ramifications and that the current system where we have secret ballots for people to decide whether or not want to be represented by unions is a good way to go. We ought to preserve it.

CAVUTO: You mentioned Ronald Regan, sir, and Jeb Bush made some news recently made some news recently saying that the party, and I’ll paraphrase here, obsesses a bit too much about Ronald Regan and have got to move on and move forward. What do make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I like Jeb. I think he’s a good man. I’d like to see him continue to say involved politically.

CAVUTO: For president?

CHENEY: I’d probably support him for president.

CAVUTO: Would you really?

CHENEY: He’s a good man.

CAVUTO: Over Mitt Romney?

CHENEY: I’m not - I’m not endorsing anybody today. I’m not...

CAVUTO: Any candidate you like?

CHENEY: I’m not in the business of endorsing anybody at this point, Neil. But I’m a big fan of Jeb’s.

I think, in terms of the Regan legacy, I think it’s important to the party. I think it was a period of time when we had an administration that understood that the engine that drives the American economy is the private sector. That one of the things that was most important from the standpoint of government was to get out of the way of the private sector and let small businesses grow and develop and create jobs and create wealth. You had to reduce the tax burden to the maximum percent possible. Exactly the opposite of the kind of policies we see coming out of the administration today when we’re experiencing a vast - a proposal for a vast increase in the power of the government over the private sector.

CAVUTO: Without, you know, any regard for party, it started with your administration, right? I mean, the bailout, the financial bailouts of the banks and looking to help the auto companies being in very dire economic moments, certainly, was started by you and President Bush.

CHENEY: Well...

CAVUTO: Do you regret any of that?

CHENEY: I disagreed with bailing out the automobile companies. I would have encouraged the process to go forward for a Chapter 11.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What about the banks?

CHENEY: ...to go.

The banks were different. And the reason the banks are different is because they are part of the financial system that is the heart and soul of our economy. And the federal government has major responsibilities for the health of our financial institutions. You’ve got the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the FDIC, SEC, et cetera. And when the markets began to seize up, when people couldn’t get credit any more, when the collapse, for example, of the subprime mortgage market and so forth, put at risk the basic fundamental health of our economy because it threatened that core of our financial system and there isn’t anybody other than the federal government that can fix it. And therefore, we felt that we had no choice. But it’s still...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But it’s still in shaky shape, right? After all...

CHENEY: It’s still in shaky shape, but there are...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: ... bankruptcy like you recommended for the auto companies be applied to the banks...

CHENEY: Not for the banks.

CAVUTO: Really?

CHENEY: I really think that would have been a serious problem when you have...

CAVUTO: Now, what did you see, can you say now, what did everyone see that was going to be so horrific that ...

CHENEY: Well, when we have the secretary of the Treasury or the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve come in and say we’ve got a major crisis on our hands and within 48 hours major financial institutions are going to go down in flames. Or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that dominated the mortgage market out there were suddenly in trouble financially because of the collapse of the subprime mortgage...

CAVUTO: But you must have seen where that was going, right? What you do for one, all expecting then - it’s an expectations game, right?

CHENEY: Right. But again, I think you’ve got to, and we did, make a distinction about the financial sector, because it is different than the other parts of the economy. The other parts of the economy can’t function without a strong financial sector, without credit, without sound monetary policy and actions by the government and the Federal Reserve to establish and maintain the value of our currency. Trying

CAVUTO: But now we’ve got the president, the government dictating salaries at these institutions rescued - which, I guess, happens if you take taxpayer dollars - and dictating their very business, right?

CHENEY: Well, the thing I find objectionable is that people are taking what was done with respect to the financial sector and without discriminating, trying to do the same thing for a broader range of sectors. And think that’s a mistake.

CAVUTO: Do you think it went too far?

CHENEY: I think so. I would have kept it focused on the financial institutions. But I do - I worry that the current situation is a set of circumstances where the administration is using the excuse of the economic difficulties in order to significantly broaden the power and authority of the government over the private sector. I think that’s a huge mistake.

CAVUTO: In “The Wall Street Journal’s” story that has it that the president’s tax hikes actually go in to those earning $235,000, not $250,000. What do you think of that?

CHENEY: I haven’t seen the story, but I worry. I don’t see any way you can do what he’s trying to do in terms of the vast expansion of governmental programs and the huge federal deficit and major tax increases without the kind of tax increases that are going to hit virtually every American.

CAVUTO: Do you think it stops at 39.6 percent?

CHENEY: I’m afraid it won’t, not if you go with a government of the size and scale that the administration apparently envisions.

CAVUTO: What do you envision that we’ll ultimately get to?

CHENEY: Well, I’d much prefer a situation in which we did not embark upon a course of the vast expansion of the authority of the federal government over the private sector. I’d be much more focused on tax cuts and reducing the economic burden on the private sector that the federal government represents as the best way to get the economy up and running again. I think you need to create jobs, you need to support small business, you need to encourage people to go out and save and invest and create the kind of entrepreneurial activity that really has given us the greatness that is the American economy, not expand the size of the federal government.

CAVUTO: Finally, Mr. Vice President, many have urged the Republican Party to moderate, to get more mainstream, to do what Democrats did at the time that Bill Clinton in the late ‘80s into ‘92, become more palatable to a wider section of the population. What do you say?

CHENEY: I think we need to run a party that is broadly based, where people of a wide variety of viewpoints are welcome. I don’t think we ought to change the basic fundamental philosophy of the Republican Party. I personally am a conservative Republican. I obviously believe in my philosophy, and I think that’s the basis upon which we have to build any resurgence of our party. I think we will, but I think we’ll do it by being true to our principles, not becoming more like the Democrats.

CAVUTO: So, you don’t think you’d isolate the Republicans going your route?

CHENEY: No.

CAVUTO: Mr. Vice President, thank you very, very much.

CHENEY: Pleasure as always, Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you very much.

CHENEY: Good to see you.

Iran: Roxana Saberi Freed from Tehran Prison

Enduring America, 17 April: "For Saberi’s sake and — not more importantly but more broadly — for the sake of US-Iran engagement, some politicians and officials in Iran need to move with a face-saving solution such as conviction and immediate deportation."

Iran's Press TV has confirmed that, a day after her appeal of an 8-year sentence for espionage, Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi has been freed from jail in Tehran. Saberi's father Reza collected her in front of Evin prison.

Saberi's defence lawyer Saleh Nikbakht earlier said, "Her punishment has been changed to a suspended two-year sentence and she will be out of prison in one-and-half hours." Iranian judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi confirmed to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, "In consideration of this ruling, naturally she will be freed."

The narrow legal rationale, according to Al Jazeera's Alireza Ronaghi, is that Saberi was sentenced under "article 501 that says any co-operation with hostile governments and hostile countries deserved one to 10 years in prison....That article of law has been disputed by lawyers who say Iran is not at war with anyone at the moment", raising the question of interpretation of "hostile government".

The overriding reason for Saberi's release, however, is political. As Ronaghi notes, "[Iran doesn't] want to jeopardise all the possibilities and potential of future changes in Iran-US relations with one court order."

Video and Transcript: David Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday"

Related Post: David Petraeus on CNN’s “State of the Union”

The centrepiece of the Obama Administration's Afghanistan-Pakistan sales pitch this weekend is not one but two appearances by General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, who showed up on "Fox News Sunday" before moving to CNN for "State of the Union".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYnfhaYTFK8[/youtube]

CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us from U.S. Central Command in Florida is General David Petraeus, who oversees American military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

And, General, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday.”

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, Chris. Thanks.

WALLACE: General, let’s start with Pakistan. The military there has launched a new offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley. Is there any sign that this is different from earlier Pakistani military campaigns, which have not been effective?

PETRAEUS: There are a number of signs of difference, actually, Chris.

First of all, the actions of the Pakistani Taliban pushing below the Swat Valley into Dir and Buner seem to have galvanized all of Pakistan, not just the president and the prime minister, but also even the opposition leaders, virtually all the elements of the political spectrum and the people, in addition to, of course, the -- the military.

So there is a degree of unanimity that there must be swift and effective action taken against the Taliban in Pakistan.

And this is reflected also, as has been announced by the Pakistani leaders, the shift of forces from the eastern part of their country faced off against India to the North-West Frontier Province areas where the fighting is already ongoing and where more presumably will be conducted.

WALLACE: But the fact is that -- and I know you have been critical of this. A lot of military experts in the past -- the Pakistani army tends to fight the war that they would fight against the Indians, with heavy artillery, with air ships -- you know, with war planes fighting.

Do -- do you have the sense that they have the counterinsurgency strategy that makes you confident that they can beat the Taliban in the Swat Valley?

PETRAEUS: Well, we did have some good conversations this past week in Washington as part of the trilateral process that you’ve reported.

And during that, it was very clear in discussions with everyone, from President Zardari through the other members of the delegation that there’s an understanding that this does have to be a whole-of- government approach -- in other words, not just the military but all the rest of the elements of government supporting the military -- so that they can reestablish basic services, repair the damage that is inevitably done by the bombardment of these areas in which the Taliban are located, and to take care of the internally displaced persons.

And there’s an enormous effort ongoing in that regard, our State Department, other countries, all trying to help the U.N., which is the agency on the front lines there, trying to take care of these refugees that are streaming out of the Swat Valley.

WALLACE: General, you reportedly told top U.S. officials recently that the next two weeks were critical to determine the survival of the Pakistani government.

If we’re talking about something as existential as that, what are the chances that the Islamic radicals could get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

PETRAEUS: Well, first of all, the reports of what I said were a little bit more than what I actually said behind closed doors several weeks ago, at which time I said that, in fact, the next few weeks would be very important and, to a degree, pivotal in the future for Pakistan.

And I think that that has been proven accurate. Indeed, now the Pakistani government, military, people have all responded, and certainly the next few weeks will be very important in this effort to roll back, if you will, this existential threat, a true threat to Pakistan’s very existence that has been posed by the Pakistani Taliban.

With respect to the -- the nuclear weapons and -- and sites that are controlled by Pakistan, as President Obama mentioned the other day, we have confidence in their security procedures and elements and believe that the security of those sites is adequate.

WALLACE: But -- but to press the point, if I may, because, as you say, you are talking about an existential threat from Islamic radicals, can you assure the American people and the rest of the world that the U.S. will not allow those Pakistani nuclear weapons to get into the hands of Islamic radicals?

PETRAEUS: Well, this is not a U.S. assurance that matters. This is a Pakistani assurance. And also, by the way, I should point out, Chris, this is not a U.S. fight that Pakistan is carrying out at this point in -- in this effort.

This is a Pakistani fight, a Pakistani battle, with elements that, as we’ve mentioned, threaten the very existence of the Pakistani state.

WALLACE: You also said this week that Al Qaida has reemerged in northwestern Pakistan as a centrally organized operation capable of planning attacks in other countries.

Is Al Qaida back in business, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, Al Qaida has been back in business for years, Chris. There is not an enormous revelation here. What I was merely saying was that the location of Al Qaida’s senior leadership is, indeed, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of that very rugged border region of western Pakistan just east of Afghanistan.

There’s no question that Al Qaida’s senior leadership has been there and has been in operation for years. We had to contend with its reach as it sought to facilitate the flow of foreign fighters, resources, explosives, leaders and expertise into Iraq, as you’ll recall, through Syria.

We see tentacles of Al Qaida that connect to Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the elements Al-Shabab in Somalia, elements in north central Africa, and that strive to reach all the way, of course, into Europe and into the United States.

And of course, there were attacks a couple of years ago in the U.K. that reflected the reach of the transnational extremist elements of Al Qaida and the other movements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

WALLACE: And -- and, General, do you believe that bin Laden and Zawahiri are still in charge of Al Qaida?

PETRAEUS: We do. Again, I don’t think anyone can give you any kind of accurate location for bin Laden or, frankly, for Zawahiri other than a general description of where that might be, but certainly, they surface periodically.

We see communications that they send out. And of course, they periodically send out videos in which they try to exhort people and to inspire individuals to carry out extremist activities.

WALLACE: General, let’s...

PETRAEUS: It’s important to note, by the way, Chris, that -- that these organizations, by the way, in the FATA have sustained some pretty significant losses over the course of the last six, eight, 10 months or so.

And there is a good deal of disruption that has taken place but, of course, that’s transitory in nature, and we’ll have to see how the security operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas -- different from, of course, the fight in the -- in the Swat and North- West Frontier Province areas go.

WALLACE: General, let’s turn to Afghanistan. It has been widely reported that as many as 147 civilians, Afghan civilians, were killed after U.S. air strikes in western Afghanistan. I know you’ve been investigating the circumstances and the responsibility for that. At this point, what do you know?

PETRAEUS: Well, in fact, I should note, first of all, that I had a very good conversation with President Karzai about this, about some statements, of course, that he’s made in recent days, and we’re going to have to work our way through this.

I would point everyone to -- and we sent you a copy, of course, of the joint press release -- again, put out by the Afghan and U.S. elements in Kabul yesterday after their initial investigating team came back, which clearly described the sequence of events that took place, with the Taliban moving into these villages, seeking to extort money from them, eventually killing three of the citizens in that area, then engaging the Afghan police who responded, which led to the governor of that province, Farah province, requesting help from the Afghan national army and coalition forces.

It was in that response that, of course, this very significant firefight broke out, battle, that ultimately resulted in the dropping of bombs which clearly killed Taliban and some civilians that it appears the Taliban forced to remain in houses from which the Taliban was engaging our forces.

Now, we are going to do a very thorough investigation of this. I’ve appointed a brigadier general with extensive experience in conventional and special operations who will go out to Afghanistan and look at it more broadly as well, to ensure that our forces are very well acquainted with in -- in carrying out the directives that General McKiernan has put out so that our tactical actions don’t undermine our strategic goals and objectives.

And that’s essentially the conversation that President Karzai and I had yesterday on this particular topic.

WALLACE: General, you also say that the Taliban is mounting a surge of its own to protect its safe havens in eastern Afghanistan. President Obama has announced that he’s going to send another 21,000 troops to the country.

Are you getting all the troops you need? And what kind of assurances are you getting from the president about his willingness to send more troops if necessary, his commitment to win in Afghanistan?

PETRAEUS: Well, I’d just state that every request for forces that -- that I’ve sent to the secretary of defense and that has gone to the president has been approved, and that carries all the requests through the course of this calendar year.

There are requests beyond that for which decisions don’t need to be made for a number of months, and I’m confident those decisions will be made at that point in time.

We have gone so far as to shift some forces that just -- we don’t have enough of in the inventory -- which, by the way, is why Secretary Gates’ budget addresses these kind of so-called enablers, the low- density, high-demand units -- to shift some of these from Iraq to Afghanistan, in fact, to ensure that -- that the infrastructure is established and that the kinds of forces that they need to enable this significant augmentation of our forces is made possible.

WALLACE: There is also growing violence in Iraq, amid signs that the Iraqi government is dropping some of the counterinsurgency tactics that you introduced into Iraq. Jobs programs in Sunni areas are -- are being ended. The Sunni “Awakening” -- these are Sunni forces that are fighting Sunni insurgents -- some of those units have not been paid for most of this year.

Are we giving back -- is the Iraqi government giving back some of the gains that we worked so hard to establish on the ground in Iraq?

PETRAEUS: Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the “Sons of Iraq,” these Sunni “Awakening” forces, have not been paid this year. There is drama and emotion with every single payday, but the vast majority of these “Sons of Iraq” have been paid during the pay periods.

There’s another one ongoing right now. Inevitably, names are lost, mixed up, or what have you. But over time, we feel quite comfortable with what the Iraqi government has done in taking care of these “Sons of Iraq” and on taking them all now onto their payroll rather than being on ours.

The level of violence, actually, has been roughly about the same for the last five or six months, which is quite significant. It has averaged between 10 and 15 attacks per day for that period, which equates to a level of violence not seen since the late summer of 2003 before the insurgency and well before the militia activities accumulated that led to, at one time, 160 attacks per day in Iraq in June of 2007. What we have seen and what is troubling, certainly, has been the incidence of sensational attacks, if you will, high-casualty-causing attacks. Particularly, we saw these in Baghdad a few weeks ago.

That did prompt a number of attacks with Iraqi conventional and special operations forces, together with our forces, to go after the reemerging networks of Al Qaida.

We should expect that Al Qaida will continue to try to reestablish itself in Iraq, even as the focus of Al Qaida’s senior leadership appears to have shifted away somewhat from support of the activities in Iraq.

WALLACE: I’ve got a couple of...

PETRAEUS: But we will see this periodically. There will be periodic upticks in that regard.

WALLACE: If I may, sir, we’ve got a couple of more questions I want to ask you, and we’re beginning to run out of time.

I want to follow up on this last point, because all U.S. combat troops are supposed to be out of Iraqi cities by the end of June of this year.

But General Odierno, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, now says that 20 percent of our combat forces are going to stay behind in Baghdad and Mosul past that deadline. Why is that, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, what we are in the process of doing and have been doing is withdrawing the bases of our combat forces from Iraq cities and large towns. That process has been ongoing. It’s gone smoothly. We still do have some of those bases in Baghdad and Mosul, but we think that they will be out.

What General Odierno was talking about were liaison elements, adviser elements, organizations that partner with Iraqi forces in the support of them, not in the conduct of our combat operations.

So certainly, there will be a presence, but there will not be the combat forces based in those cities as we have had in the past, and that is in accordance with the security agreement.

WALLACE: Finally, General, and we have about a minute left, let’s turn, finally, to Iran.

President Obama has made several efforts to reach out to the Iranian regime. Whether it’s its nuclear program or arming our enemies in Iraq, do you see any signs on the ground that the Iranian regime is moderating its behavior?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think there’s probably been some small reduction in the assistance provided to Shia extremists in Iraq, although that continues, and again, it’s very difficult to measure because sometimes you have to have some event that precipitates something to be able to determine how much is ongoing. Beyond that, we’ll have to see as the weeks and months proceed. My deputy just accompanied Ambassador Ross in a swing through the region. There clearly -- enormous concern out there about Iranian rhetoric and actions, but we need to see how these diplomatic initiatives might be able to moderate and produce some openness and transparency in Iran, particularly with respect, of course, to its nuclear programs.

WALLACE: General Petraeus, we want to thank you for giving us a tour of all your responsibilities in that part of the world. Thank you for joining us, and please come back, sir.

PETRAEUS: Thank you, Chris.

UPDATED Iran: Court Hears Roxana Saberi Appeal

UPDATE (10 May): Roxana Saberi's appeal process began Sunday. Spokesman Alireza Jamshidi assured that the appointment of three judges, rather than one, meant "more attention will be paid and the process would be meticulous". He also confirmed that a decision is likely on Monday or Tuesday.

Iran's Press TV has confirmed the news, given to CNN by her father, that the journalist's appeal against an 8-year sentence for espioange will be heard Sunday. Saberi's lawyer, Abdolsamad Khoramshami, said:

Tomorrow at 9:00 am (0430 GMT), branch 14 of the appeal court will have a hearing. "We expect that our defense, which has been submitted to the court in 15 pages, will be heard carefully. I do hope and I am optimistic she will be acquitted.

The decision of the appeals court is expected on Monday or Tuesday. Saberi, who holds American and Iranian nationality, was initially detained in January for buying a bottle of wine. The charges then escalated to working without a journalist's license, and then spying.

Video and Transcript: General Odierno Briefing on Iraq (8 May)

Related Post: US Troops Staying in Iraqi Cities Past June Deadline (and to 2024?)

Video of Odierno Briefing

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, good afternoon. How we doing today? I have about a five-minute opening statement that I'd like to make, and then obviously I'll open it up to any questions that you all might have.

What I'd like to start out by talking about is, first, we continue to see overall levels of violence at or near the lowest levels since the summer of 2003 inside of Iraq. And overall, from an overall perspective, security in Iraq remains improved.

Obviously, over the last few weeks, the Iraqi people have seen high-profile attacks that remind all of us that the situation still is fragile in some areas. While the number of attacks is low, it's obvious that the terrorists are intent -- are conducting high-profile suicide attacks designed to garner attention and spark sectarian discord within Iraq.

But I would emphasize that this is not 2006 or 2007. We have yet to see sectarian retribution.

All the political parties and government officials are appropriately disavowing the recent attacks. The capacity and capability of the Iraqi security forces is much improved. The Iraqi people understand and continue to reject attempts by al Qaeda and other elements to create a new cycle of sectarian violence.

We continue to see indications that Iraqis want to move forward, whether it is in the form of voting for their elected leaders, improving economic conditions, or normalizing relations with their regional partners and the wider international community.

As the government of Iraq gains capacity and capability, we continue to step further into the background. We are fully moving along with implementation of the security agreement. We've closed more than 50 installations in Iraq. We've returned security of the Green Zone to the government of Iraq. And we've turned over the Republican Palace, which served as the U.S. embassy, among many other examples.

The government of Iraq has assumed complete responsibility for paying the Sons of Iraq, a clear sign of its resolve to continue the important program. The government has budgeted over $300 million to ensure full payments in -- in calendar year '09. But perhaps even more important, the leadership has shown its determination to move the SOI members into the Iraqi security forces and other ministries. The Council of Ministers this month approved the integration of 80 percent of the Sons of Iraq into non-security ministries and 20 percent into the security ministries.

We are fully aware that the challenges are still in front of us, as Iraq continues to involve and improve the problem -- as the situation continues to involve and it continues to improve, the problem set actually becomes more complex as we move forward.

But we still see evidence that Iran is funding, training and equipping surrogates who are conducting disruptive operations within Iraq. While the level of Iranian interference is somewhat lessened, it is nevertheless not what Iraq should expect from a neighbor. We expect that Iraq will have a relationship with its neighbors, and Iran has had an opportunity to make that relationship a positive one based on respect for Iraq's sovereignty. It should be clear to Iranian leaders that the ratified security agreement, which Tehran has strongly opposed, and the recent provincial elections, which largely repudiated outside interference, that the Iraqi people demand respect.

Likewise, some elements of foreign fighters continue to traffic through Syria. This rate has also been reduced, but Syria also has the opportunity to improve its status with Iraq through actions that demonstrate a commitment to eliminating the use of its soil as a staging area for foreign fighters.

The economy in Iraq, as in much of the world, has taken some blows. The Iraqi economy is, of course, closely tied to the price of oil, and the reduced prices have affected the government's budget. And they will have to make some very difficult decisions between Iraqi security force modernization, service improvement and infrastructure investment over the next couple of years.

As you know, President Obama announced that, at the end of August in 2010, we will end combat operations and change our mission to one of an advisory and training role. We will maintain a force of about 35(,000) to 50,000 to ensure that we can achieve our new missions while providing sufficient force protection and still target -- and still be able to conduct counterterrorism missions.

According to the security agreement, all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but this doesn't mean that our relationship with Iraq will end. I remind everyone that we signed two agreements back in December. The second was the Strategic Framework Agreement, which is designed to ensure cooperation in many areas between the United States and the government of Iraq -- areas such as medical, cultural, scientific, economic and other endeavors that will strengthen the country and help our two countries enjoy a long, enduring friendship built on mutual respect as sovereign nations.

I remain hopeful that Iraq can achieve long-term stability and develop a common vision for the way ahead. An Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, is able to defend and protect its people against internal and external threats, and is a respectful participant in the community of nations is achievable, but much work is still ahead.

With that, I'll be glad to take any of your questions.

Q General, what's your current opinion of whether the Iraqi security forces are going to be up to the task of assuming responsibility for the cities on deadline? And do you think there's any chance at this point that this deadline will slip?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, well, frankly, we're basically out of all the cities except for two, Baghdad and Mosul. We are on our way out of Baghdad. We've been slowly turning that over to the Iraqi security forces now for about three months, and I think they've made some pretty good progress.

We still have a major operation going inside of Mosul with all forces assisting and helping out. We expect that to end here within about 30 to 45 days, and then there'll be a decision to be made. I think if you ask the prime minister today, I think he would say that we will be out of the cities by the end of the 30th of June, and it is his decision.

But we'll continue to conduct assessments. I was just up there Saturday, and we conducted a joint assessment -- myself, the minister of defense, the minister of interior -- and we got a full brief from both Iraqi leaders as well as the U.S. leaders on an assessment of Mosul. And based on that assessment, there's some problems that we have to work through. But in fact, there's potential that they can handle the mission post starting on 1 July.

Q I want to follow up, though. Back on August -- April 12th, you were on CNN, and you said you wouldn't hesitate to recommend that the U.S. forces stay beyond June 30th if the violence levels continued. What's your current assessment there?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, I mean, again, we still have -- I mean, I would -- I just -- every day counts, and we still have another 45 days yet before the end of June. The recent operations there have had very good impact on Mosul. We still have some issues that we have to walk -- work through in Mosul, but I think we're on track. We should be in pretty good shape by the end of June.

Q The trend of high-profile attacks is not -- the extent is not such that you would recommend U.S. troops stay beyond June 30th?

GEN. ODIERNO: That's correct. That's correct. Yes, ma'am?

Q What's your best assessment of the number of U.S. troops that would stay behind as enablers in the cities after June 30th?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again, what I don't want to do is -- I've left that to the local operational commanders to figure that out. But let me give you some broad guidelines that I've given everyone; is that we will continue to have liaison elements inside of all the joint security -- inside joint security stations, one that we've agreed to. We will continue to have advisory and transition teams embedded with Iraqi forces in order to provide them enablers. That will be determined, the size and how many -- I'm letting each local commander determine that, because that is something that they have to agree upon between the Iraqi security force leader and the U.S. leader. But those are the general guidelines that I've given the commanders, and they're working their way through that.

Q There's no number you're going to tell us about?

GEN. ODIERNO: There isn't a number. I mean -- I mean, I don't know what it is. And what I tell you today might be different 30 days from now, because they're working that out on the ground. And that's why I don't want to get into that.

Q But is there an order -- is there an order of magnitude? Is it hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I -- you know, I would say -- no, I would say it's probably -- let me -- I would say it's probably about 20 percent of what it is now.

Q Based on what you said about Iran and Syria's growth, do you think that you need to coordinate your exit strategy with Damascus and Tehran by the end of 2011?

GEN. ODIERNO: No. What I think we need to do is we need the government -- what we're doing is we need to work with the government of Iraq. This is about Iraq. Iraq is a sovereign nation now. When we signed the security agreement, it was an agreement between us and them.

So as we leave in 2011, obviously we think -- what we want to see is the government of Iraq start to have discussions with the government of Syria and the government of Iran about how they should be acting as we leave and what help they need in order to protect their borders to keep some militant activity from coming in from either Syria or Iran.

Q General, a follow-up, sir. I know it's hard -- maybe it's hard to answer this question. How do you see Iraq after -- after the U.S. force leave?

GEN. ODIERNO: In 2011?

Q Yeah. How do you see the future?

GEN. ODIERNO: I think -- listen, I can't look into a crystal ball, but there's a couple things I will just say we -- I would ask you to look towards. One is, obviously, the national elections coming up. And I think we had very successful provincial elections. And I would say they were successful because the people voted on issues, they didn't vote on -- based on sectarian issues. They didn't vote based on -- based on potential religious standing. They voted on the issues that affected them every day.

It's going to be interesting to see how the national elections go, either in December or January, coming up. And I think how that goes, how the Iraqi people react to that, what the new government looks like, how does the government transition in the beginning of 2010 will have a lot to say with how the Iraqi government continues to improve and move forward, which prepares them for 2011.

So in my mind, it's much too early to be talking about. I think we're on the right path. I think we're on the right path that in -- at the end of 2011, the government of Iraq will be able to hold its own, will be able to stand up in the regional community, international community, as I look at it today.

If you ask me that a year from now, I might have a different opinion, but I think we're on track for that right now.

Q General, you mentioned before the cycle of sectarian violence. And I think that one kind of welcome development has been that Shi'ite groups thus far, despite the deaths of hundreds of civilians, have not yet responded. Are you seeing either a reemergence of traditional Shi'ite militias? Jaish al-Mahdi, Badr Brigades, are they reemerging? And if not, are you seeing any new groups that worry you that are sort of on the horizon that could be the source of reprisals?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I think -- I think, again, in terms of reprisals, we have several indicators with that. And one of them is, in fact, the formation of militias. We have seen no formation of militias or any -- any movement to form militias, any talk of forming militias in order to go after sectarian violence. So that is a very positive sign.

I think part of that has to do with the basic improvement of governance at the provincial levels that -- based on the fact that we now have provincial governments that are very active, that help us with that problem, and as well as the national government, who's able to address some of these issues. I think that helps.

Now, that said, we watch it very closely because we know what we don't want is some event to cause all of a sudden a -- what I would call a snowball rolling down the hill that accumulates momentum and causes a significant amount of sectarian violence. But again, we don't see any signs of that right now, of all the indicators we look at.

Yes, ma'am.

Q You said that you'd seen less Iranian participation or interference. Can you characterize or quantify that? Do you mean in terms of EFPs --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean -- yeah, well -- yeah, first off, yesterday or the day before, we just uncovered a huge cache down in Amarah, which is near the Iranian border, of over 100 EFPs, over -- over hundreds of rocket rails, over hundreds of rocket systems that we all know came from Iran. So what we don't know is, did it come over six months ago, three months ago, or a year ago? But what we do know, there's still a lot of Iranian-supplied munitions and other things that are still in Iraq that can be and are being used, in some cases, against both the government of Iraq and U.S. forces.

What I would say is, I think following the -- there's two things that happened, that I think Iran is looking -- relooking at their strategy, and -- and I think they've adjusted a bit. Why? Because of two events. One was, I think, the signing of the agreement between the United States and the government of Iraq. And second was the results of the provincial elections, where any parties that were closely associated with Iran didn't do very well in the elections.

And so I think they've decided to take a look at their -- what -- what their policy need to be towards Iraq, and I think they're still working that now. And so we're watching closely. We're seeing what they're going to do. We continue to ask them to stop the training of surrogates inside of Iran. We continue to ask them it stop funding these surrogate groups inside of Iraq. And we also asked them it stop sending munitions into Iraq. So we'll see what happens.

Q But -- a follow -- you think it's more their political will than actions you're taking that's causing --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean, again, I think because of the progress we've made, and because of the success of the Iraqi security forces and the U.S. being able to stop some of this, is why they didn't do very well with the groups they backed in the provisional elections. So I think it's a whole combination of things.

I think they have not done very well, and so they're reassessing what they need to do in order to get more influence inside of Iraq.

Yes, sir.

Q Do you believe the Iraqis have Mr. al Baghdadi? And have they allowed you access to confirm the person they have is or is not him?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, they believe they have Omar al Baghdadi. They believe that, based on the intelligence they have, the statements that they have, the people that have talked to them, that be they have Omar al Baghdadi.

We have -- we have not yet had access to him in order to question him or ask him any questions, so I can't say that our intelligence would -- agrees with that. But it's not -- it's mainly because we have not had access.

So they clearly believe that they have him. I think I'll just leave it at that.

Q Why are they not letting you have access?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean, I think -- I don't think it's that they're not allowing us to have access. I mean, I think, as protocols go, they want to have -- they want to have the access. They want to question him. They want to bring in -- they want to make sure -- they're bringing in people now who supposedly made statements. They want to question them. So I mean, they're just doing a very thorough job. I think once they're done, they will -- they will turn him over to us.

Q You have mentioned that the number of U.S. troops inside Iraqi cities would be roughly 20 percent of what it is now.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q What is that number now?

GEN. ODIERNO: I don't know. I mean, listen, listen, I don't -- I don't know keep -- you -- I don't keep stats of how many soldiers we have in the cities. What I'm telling you is -- because it changes every day. It -- I mean, I could give you a number today; it will it be different tomorrow, it will be different the next day. Okay? First of all, I leave that up to my subordinate commanders to worry about that, okay?

So what I'm telling you is there's going to be about an 80 percent reduction of U.S. presence in the cities once we come out of the cities. And what we're going to be doing is non-combat operations. We're going to be in liaison cells. We are going to be in cells that can help provide enablers for them such as aviation, such as intelligence, such as other things. And if they need help, we have those elements there to say, if they request it, then we can bring in combat assistance to help them, okay?

Q Well, since I struck out, can I get a follow-up?

GEN. ODIERNO: Sure. (Laughter.)

Q Are you worried -- you had said that the recent attacks show someone -- I'm guessing al Qaeda -- is trying to spark sectarian violence. Are you also worried that disaffected Sunnis might be trying to target the Iraqi government because they feel Maliki is not doing enough on reconciliation?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, first off, we have looked at this very closely. The attacks are being conducted by al Qaeda. We have confirmed this. We have looked at it. We have looked at it every which way. There's no doubt in our mind that these attacks are being conducted by al Qaeda.

We, of course -- I think, because of some of the success that we've had -- that we've splintered al Qaeda, that we've splintered many of the Sunni insurgent groups -- that there might be some coalescing of these groups out of necessity.

And we're starting to see a little bit of that.

So I think, you know, I would say there's some coalescing of them at the local level because they've been fractured, because they have less capacity and capability. So out of survival, there's some cooperation that there might not have been before. But I think that's more out of our effectiveness that we've had against them than it is anything else.

Q There have been some unfortunate incidents where Iraqi security forces, partnered with U.S. forces, have actually killed some of their partners.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yes.

Q Is this a trend? How is that going to impact the future mission?

GEN. ODIERNO: It won't impact the future mission. I've been very satisfied with the investigation that the government of Iraq has conducted on this. The individuals involved have been detained. One was -- in the latest incident, one was killed on sight. The other one was detained -- and actually was detained heroically by an Iraqi policeman.

So I would just say these are individuals -- we know that there's still some individuals that have been able to infiltrate the Iraqi security forces, and that's what you're seeing here.

I've been very proud of the U.S. units and the fact that they have continued to work with their Iraqi security force partners; that they have not even thought about their concern about continuing to work with their partners; that they understand that these are individuals who make these decisions and that we have to be vigilant about every individual because there are individuals that have still infiltrated some of the Iraqi security forces.

Q Is that going to lead to a greater screening process in the future, or are those already in the security forces?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, you know, I mean, they're already there. I mean, this is about, you know, just making sure that we continue to screen everybody very hard, very well, at every one of our -- our combat outposts.

Q General, the Pentagon is preparing to release hundreds of photographs later this month, many of which reportedly depict the abuse of detainees by U.S. servicemembers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the backlash from the Abu Ghraib photographs, what concerns might you have that it could undermine the U.S. mission in Iraq or actually even threaten U.S. soldiers?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again, I think there's a couple of lessons in here.

One is -- first, I think we've learned that these incidents that did occur are not who we are and that's not what we stand for as a military. And I think that's important, to make sure we make that point.

That we have done. We continue to take corrective action. We've stood up Taskforce 134 over time, which is -- we didn't have that in the beginning; we've stood that up -- totally responsible for taking care of detainees. And we constantly are updating and improving and trying to react to anything.

We have more -- we have more transparent of a detainee system then, I would argue -- then anywhere else in the world.

We let anybody come into -- through our facilities who want to inspect them. We let -- we bring the Iraqi leaders into our facilities.

So what I take this for is that there were mistakes made. Frankly, it was not something I'm proud of -- in fact, I was ashamed of. It's something that I think, though, that we've been transparent about, and that we are continuing to fix the problem. And I think that's the important message, and that's the message that we continue to try to send to the Iraqis.

I cannot predict how they'll react to the photos yet, but we are -- we -- what we do is, we're reaching out to them. We're letting them know that they're going to be released. We're letting them know what we've done to make sure -- that we have tried to correct all of these problems, that we continue to correct -- that we continue to do investigations if there's some sort of -- any allegation of abuse. And we will continue to do that.

We've changed our manuals on how we do interrogations. We have rewritten them -- so this is -- what this is bringing to fore is, yes, we had a problem. We probably weren't prepared for what we faced back in 2003 and '4 initially. We've continued to try to improve how we do this. We constantly review it. We constantly look at -- we constantly try to improve it. And I think that's what the message that we have to send is.

Q Would you -- would you prefer that the photos not be released?

GEN. ODIERNO: It's not my decision. My job is to, whatever the decision is -- that I have to try to do whatever I can to make sure the impact on the ground is -- you know, is mitigated.

(Robert ?)?

Q Hopefully this won't come across like a totally frivolous question --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yes?

Q -- but I understand you have your own Facebook page now -- (laughter) -- and that you're somewhat of a fan of social networking in the military.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q I wanted to ask you about that, seriously, because you are -- have such a young population -- social networking, what do you do for social networking? Do you Twitter?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, no, you know. (Laughter.)

Q And just talk about that for a minute.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, if I could. First, I realized about, you know, six months ago, I didn't -- I didn't know what Facebook was. I mean, I know it's been in place for a while. My son was on -- my -- both of my sons were on Facebook. My daughter was on Facebook. They used to talk about it. They used to talk about -- so my thought was, this is where young people communicate. This is a place where young people get together, they pass information. So I thought -- and really thought maybe it would be a good idea if I tried to do this. And I do it for a number of reasons.

One is to try to put out some information that's not normally seen on the news or, you know -- and something to let them know, maybe, some personal things about me, what it's like to be in Iraq, what it's like to be the commander in Iraq. So that's kind of the intent.

You know, we're just starting out with this. You know, the -- it's been a pretty good response. I've been pretty happy with the response. I mean, I think we're -- somewhere between 4(,000) and 5,000 people have signed up. It grows every day. People keep joining. So it's an interest. We'll see how it goes.

I think it's important for us -- the one thing I've learned over the last six years is you have to understand this global media explosion that we're having in a variety of forms, and that we have to try to figure it out and how we play in that, because people are interested in what the military is doing, because we -- we do play an important role in our nation's security. We do play an important role in the world. And so that's part of the reason why I did it.

Twittering, if I could just -- I'm still not sure exactly what it is, but I would just say what I found is there are some operational security issues. (Laughter.) And so, you know, I'm not sure I can be twittering where I'm going and where I'm at, and, you know, so I try to be very, very careful about that.

So I think it's great for some people. I think somebody like me, it's probably not a good thing to -- to do. But we'll see. I mean, we'll continue to take a look at it. If we -- if we find there's an advantage, then maybe we'll think about it.

Q Well, can I just briefly follow up and ask you -- I mean, because you have so many -- tens of thousands of young people serving in Iraq, what's your view about operational security, about whether it's Facebook or blogging or Twittering, them amongst themselves, them with their friends back home, how do you control this sort of thing?

GEN. ODIERNO: Again -- yeah, well, we put out guidelines and guidance. I mean, and we have to trust, then, that they will abide by the guidelines and guidance. And, obviously, we can check on it.

But, listen, it's going to happen. And that's how they communicate today. So we've got to allow them to do that, but we have to put guidelines on what you can and what you can't talk about.

It always comes down to we just don't want them to put the force at risk. We don't want to put the mission at risk. And so we've tried to put guidelines out that talks about that.

So, you know, you don't talk about future operations, you don't kind of talk about things that might be sensitive, obviously classified things. But, you know, so -- and the soldiers get it for the most part. I mean, we have a few hits and misses once in a while, but they understand that. But you got to let them do it. I mean, that's the bottom line.

I mean, you know, one of my guidance now, as I go around, there's -- there's four things I require that every place has to have. It's they got to have at least two hot meals a day; they got to have air conditioning or heat, depending on the type of the year; they got to be able to take a shower; and they have to have access to the Internet. That's -- that's my requirement. And the reason that is is so they can talk back to their family and everything else, and that's important for them, especially on multiple rotations. And it makes a huge difference in their life if we let them do that, so you got to understand that as you go.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Admiral Mullen recently stated that Afghanistan he now considered the main effort and was going to issue potentially some guidance to that effect. Are you concerned that that will impact the prioritization of resources that you're getting, and that that will have any kind of impact on the Iraq mission --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, well, of course. You know, as the commander on the ground there, you're always concerned about that. But that's my job. My job is to raise the issues, if we have any, and to let people know that I think maybe this might have a detrimental effect on what we're going to do. But the process that's been put in place allows me to do that, allows me to voice my opinion. I don't always get what I want, just like I don't think any commander ever gets what they want.

But -- so I understand that Afghanistan is now a higher priority, but I -- of course, we have, as of today, 134,000 soldiers in Iraq. And so, you know, that's still a fairly large number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are still conducting a very difficult mission. So it's my job to make sure that we have enough to make sure we can continue to meet our mission, and that's -- that's -- that's what I have to make sure.

Q Okay. Just to follow up a little bit --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q -- on the enablers in particular, as the drawdown is carried out, what -- what are your major concerns about those elements that are going to be in high demand still in Iraq? You know, will some of them have to go, like, directly to Afghanistan? Or what ones are you most concerned about maintaining there?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, we go through a process of identifying certain ones that we know that we'll probably have to move from Iraq to Afghanistan to meet that priority. It also should coincide a little bit, some of it, with the reduction of our forces in Iraq. So we're trying to make it as close as possible.

There's about a six-month period that this is a little more difficult, and it's kind of between now and the end of the year. And so this is kind of the tough six months where we have to juggle, and everybody's trying to juggle some of these enablers to make sure that we have enough in Iraq, but there's enough in Afghanistan for them to start being prepared for the additional people coming in.

So I mean, but that's what we have to do. We have to -- we have to look at this very difficultly. We have to look at it very seriously. We have to look at it with a lot of specific information to make sure that we have what we need to continue forward in -- yeah -- allowing for Afghanistan to stand up. And we look at that every day.

Q Can you give us a couple of examples?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. I mean, you know, aviation is one. I mean, you know, aviation is one that we always kind of look at. But I think we'll be okay. Some of our intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance systems we look at. But what's good is the amount of intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance is growing, so that will catch up and I think we'll be okay. So I mean, those are the kind of things.

Yes, ma'am.

Q General, you talked earlier about the -- that -- you said al Qaeda was responsible for the violence in an effort to restart the sectarian warfare. The most extraordinary tactic they launched, then, would be the attack on the shrine in Kadhimiya. Can you give us details about how they were able to launch that attack? And is there any evidence that they have been able to infiltrate the guards that protect the religious shrines in Iraq?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. What they've done is -- first, they didn't get into the shrine, okay? It happened outside -- it happened outside the front and it happened outside the back of the shrine. So they didn't get into the shrine.

What happened is, though -- they are -- their tactics are going after -- they are trying to create the tactics where -- for example, around the Kadhimiya shrine, two of the bombers were females, who were very inconspicuous and were people that you wouldn't suspect the way they were acting to be suicide bombers. They are picking on vulnerable populations that would make it easier for them to infiltrate certain areas in order to conduct these suicide attacks.

So you know, it's not -- it's much more difficult for them to bring in a foreign fighter and have them dress up and do -- they're still able to do that once in a while, but it's much more difficult. So what they're trying to do is pick people who will be harder to detect, harder for people to figure out, in order to go in and do these kind of attacks.

And so -- but there has been no infiltration near the -- best I can tell -- near the Kadhimiya shrine that allowed them to do this. You know, there was -- there was one, I think, that was -- where there was a suicide attack -- that was in Rusafa -- where there was a female holding a child's hand when she detonated. You know, so that before was -- something was a sign; if they were with children, they were, you know, usually not a suicide bomber. You know, so they're going after the most vulnerable -- I mean, this is the mind-set of these individuals.

And all it does is, frankly, it turns the Iraqi people more and more against them. And so we'll see how that works out as a result.

Q Can I follow up?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q Are you seeing other tactics, other than using women? Are you seeing different kinds of -- different types of bombings? Any other change in tactics by al Qaeda in the last few months?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well -- no, no. We're seeing the use of teenagers and women. And teenagers because they're a vulnerable population to go after. Use of females -- we've seen a few in Mosul. A couple of the attacks were connected by Tunisian foreign fighters that came in, we think, through Syria. We actually detained the leader of the cell, so we're now learning more and more about it. So I mean, I think that's what we're seeing.

What we're finding, though, is actually the vests and the bombs are not as sophisticated as they were before. There are less sophistication. Although they're tragic and kill people, they were not as sophisticated or effective as they had been in the past. And I think that says a couple things: It's harder for them to do it. It's harder for them to get a hold of the things. It's becoming more difficult. But they're still able to do it, and that's what we still have to look at and stop.

Yeah.

Q Are you getting any indications that the al Qaeda cells that may have been laying low have been emboldened now that the U.S. has shifted its focus on Afghanistan?

GEN. ODIERNO: What you're seeing is -- no, we have not seen that on the ground. What we are seeing, though, is -- again, every time there's any incident, what you'll see is they'll attempt to start recruiting again on their Internet sites, on the various sites that they use to do this. You'll start seeing recruiting going up. You know, when we did -- they'll show the event and they'll say, come -- you know, we want you to come join the jihad or whatever. And so we're seeing a little bit of that. But we have not seen any increase at all in the cells.

What I would say is what I said earlier: because we fractured al Qaeda and we've fractured some of the insurgents, we're seeing some of that coalesce at the local level.

That's about it.

Q (Off mike) -- call -- at the -- when the British leave, there'll be U.S. troops and a few hundred Romanians and Australians. Why will it still be called Multi-National Force - Iraq?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again, we will probably change the name in the future. We're working our way through that.

Q To U.S. Forces Iraq?

GEN. ODIERNO: Probably. But again, that's not been approved yet.

Q General -- well, you said -- things appear to be on track on be able to abide by the SOFA and draw U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Do you see that SOFA being renegotiated to permit some elements of the U.S. military to remain -- air support, for example, and protective services?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, I would just say I think it's too early for that. I mean, I think that's something that's down the road, that will have to be decided jointly between the United States and the government of Iraq. But I don't think now is the time to assess that.

Q Let me ask how you characterize the insurgency. Five years -- in '05, Vice President Cheney said it looks like, you know, their last throes. On April 7th, the secretary said he hoped that these high-profile attacks indicated the insurgency was in a last gasp.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. Yeah.

Q You said they've been fractured and they look like they're coalescing. What's an accurate depiction here? Last throes? Last gasp? I mean --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, well, I don't -- I -- first off, I think there's always going to be -- whether we like it or not, there's always going to be some level of violence in Iraq, okay? So I think there'll always be some insurgent elements that are attempting -- whether they're supported by -- a number of different areas. So I will never say last throes, almost ready to end. I'll -- I won't say that. What I will say -- I -- what I will -- I won't say that the insurgency's in their last throes.

And it's not going to end, okay? There'll always be some sort of a low-level insurgency in Iraq for the next five, 10, 15 years. The issue is, what is the level of that insurgency? And can the Iraqis handle it with their own forces and with their government? That's the issue. What we're seeing now is -- as I would -- described it is, you have overall security improving in Iraq. You have normalization coming back. You see it in the streets. You see it in most places.

But what's happened now is, now it gets fractured once in a while by a high-profile attack that happens randomly, frankly. So, on a day-to-day basis, stores are open, all -- normal life's starting to come back. But it gets fractured by these high-profile attacks, for the most part.

Now, let me just go a little bit further. We're a long way -- there's still some more work that has to be done yet. And it mostly has to do -- along the political line, which will help, overall, create security.

And you have Kurd-Arab tensions. You have the Article 140 process. You have the disputed territories that we have to work through. That has to be worked through.

We've made some progress on Sunni accommodation, is what I call it, not yet reconciliation. We have to continue to move forward on that.

These are political issues that have to be resolved and continue to be resolved in Iraq. And as long as they keep working towards these -- and we believe they are -- we think that then the level of security will continue to improve and we think that by the end of 2011, they will be able to handle it themselves.

Go ahead.

Q Can you -- General, let me ask you, along the same lines, is there anything more specifically that the U.S. or Iraqi forces could do militarily about these high-profile attacks in the last couple --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, there's always something to be done. I mean, we're trying to get inside of these cells. We're trying to understand where they're coming from. We're trying to understand who is behind them.
And we have been successful. We are picking people up. We have picked people up. We've picked up -- over the last three weeks, we've probably picked up about 200 individuals who we think had some either, you know, funding, supplying. So -- and we'll continue to do this.

I mean, so -- and what we have to be able to do is make it very, very difficult for them to move around and conduct these attacks. Because of the lack of sophistication, that shows they are having problems moving around and doing this. However, I want it to be where it's even difficult for them to move at all to conduct these attacks.

So we're working together to do this, and it's about sharing intelligence. You know, we are working very hard now really to increase the transparency between U.S. intelligence and government of Iraq intelligence. We're much better than we were six months ago, but we're trying to even get better than we were.

You know, their strength is the human intelligence. Our strength comes in other ways. And so we're trying to combine those together so we can work towards solving this problem.

Q As U.S. military attention and resources shift to Afghanistan, are you worried about a leadership deficit in Iraq, that the Army's best minds or up-and-comers won't want to go there? And do you have any mission envy yourself?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah -- no, I don't. I have enough to do in Iraq. You know, as I said earlier, Iraq is as -- I would argue Iraq is more complex right now than it's ever been. And it's a very -- and it has to do with -- success breeds more complexity. The security success breeds more difficult issues, because it allows the Iraqis to start dealing with some of these fundamental issues that we haven't dealt with. And I go back to the Arab-Kurd tensions. I go back to Sunni reconciliation. I go back to center (sic) government versus provincial government. Those are the more complex issues that we're now dealing with. And so I don't.

And I will tell you -- is, I've continued to be able to handpick the leaders that come over there. And so I feel very comfortable with all the people I have over there.

And you have Kurd-Arab tensions. You have the Article 140 process. You have the disputed territories that we have to work through. That has to be worked through.

We've made some progress on Sunni accommodation, is what I call it, not yet reconciliation. We have to continue to move forward on that.

These are political issues that have to be resolved and continue to be resolved in Iraq. And as long as they keep working towards these -- and we believe they are -- we think that then the level of security will continue to improve and we think that by the end of 2011, they will be able to handle it themselves.

Go ahead.

Q Can you -- General, let me ask you, along the same lines, is there anything more specifically that the U.S. or Iraqi forces could do militarily about these high-profile attacks in the last couple --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, there's always something to be done. I mean, we're trying to get inside of these cells. We're trying to understand where they're coming from. We're trying to understand who is behind them.

And we have been successful. We are picking people up. We have picked people up. We've picked up -- over the last three weeks, we've probably picked up about 200 individuals who we think had some either, you know, funding, supplying. So -- and we'll continue to do this.

I mean, so -- and what we have to be able to do is make it very, very difficult for them to move around and conduct these attacks. Because of the lack of sophistication, that shows they are having problems moving around and doing this. However, I want it to be where it's even difficult for them to move at all to conduct these attacks.

So we're working together to do this, and it's about sharing intelligence. You know, we are working very hard now really to increase the transparency between U.S. intelligence and government of Iraq intelligence. We're much better than we were six months ago, but we're trying to even get better than we were.

You know, their strength is the human intelligence. Our strength comes in other ways. And so we're trying to combine those together so we can work towards solving this problem.

Q As U.S. military attention and resources shift to Afghanistan, are you worried about a leadership deficit in Iraq, that the Army's best minds or up-and-comers won't want to go there? And do you have any mission envy yourself?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah -- no, I don't. I have enough to do in Iraq. You know, as I said earlier, Iraq is as -- I would argue Iraq is more complex right now than it's ever been. And it's a very -- and it has to do with -- success breeds more complexity. The security success breeds more difficult issues, because it allows the Iraqis to start dealing with some of these fundamental issues that we haven't dealt with. And I go back to the Arab-Kurd tensions. I go back to Sunni reconciliation. I go back to center (sic) government versus provincial government. Those are the more complex issues that we're now dealing with. And so I don't.

And I will tell you -- is, I've continued to be able to handpick the leaders that come over there. And so I feel very comfortable with all the people I have over there.

And you have Kurd-Arab tensions. You have the Article 140 process. You have the disputed territories that we have to work through. That has to be worked through.

We've made some progress on Sunni accommodation, is what I call it, not yet reconciliation. We have to continue to move forward on that.

These are political issues that have to be resolved and continue to be resolved in Iraq. And as long as they keep working towards these -- and we believe they are -- we think that then the level of security will continue to improve and we think that by the end of 2011, they will be able to handle it themselves.

Go ahead.

Q Can you -- General, let me ask you, along the same lines, is there anything more specifically that the U.S. or Iraqi forces could do militarily about these high-profile attacks in the last couple --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, there's always something to be done. I mean, we're trying to get inside of these cells. We're trying to understand where they're coming from. We're trying to understand who is behind them.

And we have been successful. We are picking people up. We have picked people up. We've picked up -- over the last three weeks, we've probably picked up about 200 individuals who we think had some either, you know, funding, supplying. So -- and we'll continue to do this.

I mean, so -- and what we have to be able to do is make it very, very difficult for them to move around and conduct these attacks. Because of the lack of sophistication, that shows they are having problems moving around and doing this. However, I want it to be where it's even difficult for them to move at all to conduct these attacks.

So we're working together to do this, and it's about sharing intelligence. You know, we are working very hard now really to increase the transparency between U.S. intelligence and government of Iraq intelligence. We're much better than we were six months ago, but we're trying to even get better than we were.

You know, their strength is the human intelligence. Our strength comes in other ways. And so we're trying to combine those together so we can work towards solving this problem.

Q As U.S. military attention and resources shift to Afghanistan, are you worried about a leadership deficit in Iraq, that the Army's best minds or up-and-comers won't want to go there? And do you have any mission envy yourself?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah -- no, I don't. I have enough to do in Iraq. You know, as I said earlier, Iraq is as -- I would argue Iraq is more complex right now than it's ever been. And it's a very -- and it has to do with -- success breeds more complexity. The security success breeds more difficult issues, because it allows the Iraqis to start dealing with some of these fundamental issues that we haven't dealt with. And I go back to the Arab-Kurd tensions. I go back to Sunni reconciliation. I go back to center (sic) government versus provincial government. Those are the more complex issues that we're now dealing with. And so I don't.

And I will tell you -- is, I've continued to be able to handpick the leaders that come over there. And so I feel very comfortable with all the people I have over there.

You know, our brigade commanders and division commanders are essentially selected. They're all the same, and we're still getting allocated. So, I mean, there is no problem with having the expertise. I have the expertise. I have people. I have people who have multiple, multiple rotations in Iraq. I have general officers who have multiple rotations. I have brigade commanders. So we have the expertise we need to do this. And you need that expertise because of the complexity I just talked about. The hardest thing for a military is to start stepping back and allowing the Iraqis to do it. And how do we best enable them to be successful? And that's what we're doing now. And that takes very sophisticated leadership at the lower levels up to the senior levels. And I'm seeing that on the ground.

Q General, historians have said that traditionally Arab armies have had problems because their non-commissioned officer corps is too weak compared to the officer corps. Has the Iraqi army been trained by U.S. soldiers to model after the U.S. Army in that regard?

GEN. ODIERNO: We have worked very hard. We have established professional development schools in all of their institutions to develop non-commissioned officers. They have made a little progress, but nowhere near enough progress yet. And it's not the development of the non-commissioned officer; it's about the officers buying into the role of the non-commissioned officer. And I think that's going to take a little bit -- while longer in the Iraqi military for them to do that.

Yes, sir?

Q General, just going back to staying on top of these high-profile attacks, are you concerned that -- you said you have 45 days left before your troops go behind the wall. Are you concerned that, once they are behind the wall, it's going to be harder to stay on top of -- on top of --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, first, the troops coming out of the city, they're not going behind the wall. And that's an important point. I want to make that very clear, that we will have plenty of other missions that we have to do, and we will not be sitting behind the wall. We will be out assisting in areas outside of the cities that we have always called to be support zones and other areas, where we'll flood and work with the Iraqi security forces.

So, frankly, there's a potential that this could actually work, and increase. If the Iraqis are able to maintain in the cities, and we're able then to spend more of our time in the support zones outside of the cities, we actually could come up with actually a stronger method of going after these forces. But we have to wait and see.

Yes?

Q Sir, in the -- as a number of detainees are released throughout the year, are you seeing any greater levels of recidivism, with some of these people going back and to the insurgents? And among the 200 that you spoke about recently, are there any indications that they were --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, I mean, we see some recidivism, but it's still very, very low. We have a very complex process that makes sure that we vet all of these individuals before they leave. But the ultimate issue, though, is if they cannot be prosecuted under Iraqi law, they have to be let go. And the Iraqis make that determination, not us.

We have a process in place that screens them for 70 days before they're released, where the Iraqis get to vet them to see if they have anything that they could charge them with or not. And if they can't be charged, they're released. So we have a very complex system to do that.

Are there some that get out there? And yes, there is, but it's a fairly small number.

Q Sir, you said, you know, violence will always be kind of a part of Iraq. Of course, violence is way down. At what point is "insurgency" the wrong word to be using there?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. There's a -- it's a very -- it's a good question, very good question, by the way.

A lot of times, we struggle between insurgent activity and criminal activity now. There's still an insurgency out there. The intelligence tells us there is still an insurgency. It's lower -- it's less than it was, but there's still a bit of an insurgency. There also, though, is a criminal element to it. And I would argue there is some percentage of those attacks that you see there that is really criminal in nature that we might confuse with insurgent activity. It's hard to determine that sometimes.

You know, the other piece is what makes is difficult for us is, you know, we can't -- it's getting harder and harder to lump them into groups because what you have is you have people that just conduct things for money. So it depends on who's -- you know, they are just -- there are people who conduct violent acts just to get paid. And so sometimes they'll work for this group, sometimes they'll work for this group, sometimes they'll work for this group. They're just doing it because it's a way to make money. And that's why one of the most important things we're trying to do is going after the money -- is going after the finances of these insurgent groups. And we've been a little bit successful in that, but we still have a lot of work to do in that.

Yeah, Jim.

MODERATOR: Quickly, before we let the general go.

Q After June 30, will there be any U.S. military advisers embedded with Iraqi forces in the cities?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q So they will continue that role?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. I mean, our plan is, in joint security stations, there'll be -- there'll be liaison officers and there'll be advisers -- adviser teams with the Iraqi security. Not all, but some. And it depends on the level of where they're at.

Yeah.

Q Earlier, you said there were still some issues to be worked out in Mosul. Explain -- walk us through some of what those are, what you meant, and what --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean, I'm not quite sure. You know, we're still clearing Mosul. We're still -- you know, we now have enough Iraqi security forces and U.S. forces where we're clearing through the city and establishing the Iraqi security forces as the primary security element inside of Mosul. And we're still in the process of doing that, and it's going to take us another 30 days to finish that. So once that's finished, that will give us a better idea of where we are in Mosul.

Q Those are house by house --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. I mean, it's neighborhood by neighborhood. Yeah, it's neighborhood by neighborhood. We've been doing it now for about 75 days.

Yeah.

Q I just had a follow-up on that.

I mean, I think we heard from the commander in the north that, even once they do move out, that they can come back at any time or would be coming back at the request of the Iraqi forces.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, that's correct.

Q So that --

GEN. ODIERNO: As part of the security -- and that's exactly right. As part of the security agreement, they can ask us to come in at any time. And that's why we have the liaison elements with them and the advisers with them. So if -- if they get in trouble, they need help, we can come in.

Q And so, theoretically, they could be going back every day?

GEN. ODIERNO: They could be. But I think we'll have to put some -- what we have to do yet -- and we'll do this in the next 30 days or so -- is the government of Iraq will establish some ways of how we do this and what -- you know, who has to ask. Is it the local commander who asks, or is it the minister of defense, or is it the governor? That's what we have to work through yet. We're working through that now, but we haven't come to a resolution yet.

Q Just one more brief clarification involving airstrikes. Are Iraqi military -- would they be allowed to call in U.S. airstrikes? Or would that have to be done by the liaison and/or adviser?

GEN. ODIERNO: We would have to -- no, only -- we have to do that.

Q Okay.

GEN. ODIERNO: We would be standing right next to the Iraqi forces in order to do that, but yeah.

Q Trends on IED attacks, this is a different trend, obviously, over here --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q -- but what's the trend on IED attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqi forces?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, it shifts back and forth. Clearly, these are targeting civilians for the most part. The IEDs are -- we found is about a third/a third/a third, Iraqi security forces/U.S. forces/civilians. Now, with the civilians, sometimes it's difficult because you don't know if they're really trying to go after an Iraqi security force and end up hitting civilians, but we try to work through that. But we think it's -- it's roughly a third/a third/a third.

Q (Inaudible.)

GEN. ODIERNO: Oh, yeah. Yeah, if you look -- let me see. Let me get the -- the blue is IEDs, but that also includes the amount we have found and cleared. So what's not -- and we're about 50 percent. So we find about 50 percent of what's put out there.

Q And the (effects ?)? Can you give us --

GEN. ODIERNO: They're about the same. I mean, they're about the same I think about the last three months. You know, we either find one or one will explode every day.

Q They haven't gone up dramatically?

GEN. ODIERNO: No. No.

Okay, thank you, everybody. I appreciate all your time. Hopefully it was helpful to you. And I look forward to talking to you again. Thanks.