MAN CHARGED FOR PROVIDING SUPPORT TO TERRORIST GROUPS IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Reno Man Charged with Conspiring to Provide Material Support to Terrorism Groups in India and Pakistan

A Reno, Nev. man has been charged with providing material support to terrorism groups in India and Pakistan in order to intimidate the Indian government and to harm persons that were not supporting their cause, announced John Carlin, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Daniel G. Bogden, U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, and Laura A. Bucheit, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI for Nevada.

“A thorough investigation and cooperation among agencies led to these charges,” said U.S. Attorney Bogden.  “Investigating and prosecuting matters of national security is the top priority of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Balwinder Singh, aka Jhajj, aka, Happy, aka Possi, aka Baljit Singh, 39, of Reno, is charged in an indictment with one count of conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country, one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, one count of making a false statement on an immigration document, two counts of use of an immigration document procured by fraud, and one count of unlawful production of an identification document.   Singh was arrested on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, in Reno, and is scheduled to appear before a U.S. Magistrate Judge on Friday, Dec. 20, 2013, for an initial appearance and arraignment.

 “After an extensive investigation, the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) of Northern Nevada has disrupted an individual’s involvement in facilitation activities in support of a foreign terrorist organization, targeting an ally of the United States,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Bucheit. “We will continue to work with our international partners to prevent acts of terrorism on U.S. soil or, as in this case, on that of an ally. This investigation demonstrates the importance of law enforcement coordination and collaboration here and around the world.”

According to the indictment, Singh was a citizen of India who fled to the United States and claimed asylum.  Singh lived in the United States where he eventually obtained a permanent resident card from the United States.  The indictment alleges that Singh is a member of two terrorist organizations, Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), whose members aim to establish an independent Sikh state in part of the Punjab region of India known as Khalistan. These groups engage in bombings, kidnappings and murders in India to intimidate and compel the Indian government to create the state of Khalistan.  These groups also target for assassination persons they consider traitors to the Sikh religion and government officials who they consider responsible for atrocities against the Sikhs.

The indictment alleges that the object of the conspiracy was to advance the goals of BKI and KZF by raising money and obtaining weapons to support acts of terrorism in India.  It is alleged that the conspiracy began on a date unknown but no later than Nov. 30, 1997.  It is alleged that Singh used a false identity and obtained false identification documents in the United States so that he could travel back to India without being apprehended by the Indian authorities.  It is alleged that Singh communicated with other coconspirators by telephone while he was in the United States to discuss acts of terrorism to be carried out in India.  It is alleged that Singh sent money from Reno, Nev., to co-conspirators in India for the purchase of weapons that would be provided to members of the BKI and KZF to support acts of terrorism in India. It is alleged that Singh traveled from the United States to Pakistan, India, and other countries to meet with coconspirators to assist in the planning of terrorism in India, and that Singh provided advice to coconspirators about how to carry out acts of terrorism.

If convicted, Singh faces up to life in prison and fines of up to $250,000 on each count.

The case is being investigated by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in northern Nevada, and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sue Fahami and Brian L. Sullivan, and Trial Attorney Mara M. Kohn of the U.S. Department of Justice Counterterrorism Section.    

The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt.  The defendant is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

SECRETARY KERRY VISITS ZERO POINT POWER PLANT IN PAKISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
Remarks at Energy Event
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Pakistani Minister of Power and Water Khawaja Asif
Zero Point Power Plant
Islamabad, Pakistan
August 1, 2013

MINISTER ASIF: I’ll just remark --

SECRETARY KERRY: You’re the boss.

MINISTER ASIF: -- say a few words and then you can. (Inaudible). Secretary Kerry, ladies and gentlemen, it’s my privilege and honor that I’m welcoming Secretary Kerry at this great station, at this facility. And I take this opportunity to express my gratitude also for this project of local data improvement, which has been almost now 90 percent complete, and it has been done over – all over Pakistan on all the DISCOs. This has enabled us to improve efficiency, to have accurate figures, to estimate what is being generated and distributed in different areas of distribution companies. And this has helped us a lot in developing our policy to take care of the energy crisis in Pakistan.

Let me emphasize on the crisis we are facing these days, for the last – not only these days, for the last three or four years now, four or five years. This is the biggest crisis Pakistan has – Pakistan’s economy has faced in the last 65 years. And by an estimate, this is costing us about a thousand billion rupees per year. It is a bigger menace to our economy, to our existence, than the war on terror. Terrorism is a very big problem. It’s not only Pakistan’s problem; it’s Pakistan – it’s a problem for the rest of the world also. It’s an international problem. It’s a threat to the international community.

But this problem of energy, the shortage of energy in Pakistan, has crippled our economy in the last 10 years. Millions of people have gone – they are unemployed, industries have closed, and almost – there’s a gap. We have improved our situation, the generation situation in the last week or 10 days with an effort of – which included liquidating the debt, to settle a debt of almost 500 billion rupees during June and July, which has improved our situation. The hydel power is better because of the rains, and the dams are full. So we are generating, for the first time in our history, more than 16,000 megawatts. So that has alleviated a bit of our agony, but the problem still remains there, and it will take few years to take care of this problem.

Secretary Kerry, I just wanted to give you the background. And in this backdrop, this – the help which USAID has given us is very valuable, and we really appreciate it. It’s very valuable not only in providing these smart meters in this LDI project. Your assistance, U.S. assistance, is very valuable in our hydel power projects also, and improving the conditions in our transmission system also. So U.S. is providing very valuable assistance in this sector, and we – they are helping us in controlling our – this problem, the problem of load shedding, the problem of outages. But it’s a long process, will take few years before we get – really come to grips with this whole situation.

I’ll again thank you and your delegation, and the Excellency, the Ambassador, and everybody present over here. I’ll hand over the podium to you now. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, Minister. Usually when I hear that sound, I thought my mail was being delivered. Takes me back a few years. (Laughter.) Or something else.

Minister Asif, thank you very, very much. A great privilege to be here with you. I’m very grateful to you and the government for helping us to set up this event so we should – we could highlight the importance of energy to the economic future of Pakistan. And so I’m delighted to come to the Zero Point substation here, and I’ve just been inside where I’ve been able to see the combined work that you’ve undertaken and also the help that USAID is providing by helping to bring some technology to the table which assists in the effort to try to reduce the waste, the loss, and to better allocate the provision of power so that there aren’t outages or losses at one particular moment and it becomes a far more predictable process.

I wanted to come here today to talk about this energy plant particularly, and the smart meters in this program, number one, to underscore the vital relationship between the United States and Pakistan that is many more things than what people normally read about or hear about.

Secondly, I want to underscore the importance of energy to Pakistan’s economic future. There’s so much more that we need to do beyond the discussions of security and Afghanistan and other kinds of things that are critical to the people of Pakistan. And one of the core goals of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, which we passed in the Congress which provided over $7 billion of aid – I think 3.5 billion of it has already been delivered to Pakistan – is to help with projects like this so that we can provide the electricity that is vital to the future development of Pakistan.

One of the greatest single restraints, one of the greatest pullbacks against growth, is the lack of energy. If a company is going to situate itself somewhere and open its manufacturing doors, it needs to have energy. If a school is going to open, it needs to have energy. To build homes, people need to have energy. And so how much we provide energy, how fast is going to be critical to the feelings of people in Pakistan that progress is being made in terms of their economic future.

The Islamabad Electric Supply Company is now helping to guarantee that the power that is generated from infrastructure projects is actually going to reach people reliably and efficiently. It’s an example of smart power through smart metering, and it achieves – one little meter actually achieves a goal that’s much bigger than all of those parts. It allows the Minister and his people to be able to guarantee that they understand what the demand level is, they understand what’s being provided, they also understand better where it’s going in the transmission line, and whether it’s being lost, or even, in some cases, stolen during the course of that transmission.

I’m proud to say that USAID-funded energy projects have added more than 1,200 megawatts of power to the national grid of Pakistan. That’s enough to benefit more than several million households. Now, obviously, we’re going to have to increase a lot more power than that, and a lasting solution is actually going to require changing the current subsidies that exist and finding a way to improve the efficiency of power generation and to be able to make certain that we have a system that works, where bills are being collected, and the system actually pays for itself. That’s how you get a modern and effective and efficient system, and it’ll improve the economy of Pakistan in doing it.

So we’re very eager to continue to work with our friends here at the Islamabad Electric Supply Company. I think this is a terrific story that the people of Pakistan can be proud of, and I will take back with me to the United States the urgency of all of us working together to try to increase the number of these projects so that they can rapidly increase the amount of electricity that is being reached by the people of Pakistan. The minute there is increased power, there will be more jobs, more economic opportunity, Pakistan will grow faster, and people will feel the difference. That’s something worth working for, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Thank you very, very much. (Applause.)

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT EMBASSY IN ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Embassy Islamabad Meet and Greet
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy
Islamabad, Pakistan
August 1, 2013

AMBASSADOR OLSON: Mr. Secretary, good morning. Colleagues, it is my great honor and privilege to introduce a man who needs no introduction here, especially, Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been to Pakistan more times than I think we can count. This is his first visit as Secretary of State, but of course, he is well known as a good friend of Pakistan.

And Mr. Secretary, it’s my honor to introduce you to the staff of the American Embassy in Islamabad. It’s one of our bigger missions in the world, and today you’ll have a chance to see the large building that we’re putting up over on the horizon on this side. But it’s really the people that make this mission. It’s a very dedicated, courageous, hardworking staff. We think we’re one of the best in the world. I’d particularly like to note the contributions of our locally engaged staff, who face many challenges in doing their work, have been with us for many years. I’d like to call out Abdullah Zafar, who is the longest standing – yes, sorry – (applause) – of the Embassy. He’s been here 30 years. And so we have a – and he’s standing in to represent all of our locally engaged staff.

So again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much for joining us. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. As-Salaam Alaykum. Nice to see everybody, and Ramadan Kareem to those of you who are celebrating. And I can’t believe it. Do those fans really work over there? (Laughter.) Or is this a joke? I thought there was a great sense of humor when I walked out and I saw a line of fans down here. These blow the hot air around. Anyway.

It’s great to be here with all of you. As Ambassador Olson said, I have been here many, many times. Many of you have supported me in my visits here as a senator, and I’m deeply, deeply appreciative for everything that you do. So thank you, this is always a fascinating place to come to. I learned today that you have signs in front of the cafeteria that say, “Don’t feed the cats, don’t feed the mongoose, and don’t feed the jackals.” Not everywhere in the world can you find signs like that, I want you to know. (Laughter.) It makes it special.

But I want to congratulate Rick for the job he is doing. He seems to draw tough assignments – Iraq, Afghanistan, now Pakistan. And the reason he keeps getting them is because he does a hell of a good job. And we need good people in good places, so – (applause). And Dick Hoagland, thank you very much, sir, likewise. You’ve been around the horn in a lot of places, and I know you began – he began 27 years ago as a junior officer in Peshawar, for those of you who don’t know it. And so it sort of goes full circle, I guess, and now you can’t – it’s hard to go to Peshawar. We have to change that. We’re working on it.

A profound thank you to all of you. It’s a great privilege to serve as President Obama’s Secretary of State. As I think all of you know, it is a privilege to serve in the Foreign Service or in the Civil Service or to be here as local employees. And I would like just all the local employees, I want you to raise your hands, all local employees. Look at that. We cannot do this without you. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. (Applause.) Shukran.

And I know that sometimes it’s difficult. Sometimes you get a little harassment or somebody says, “Well, why are you working for the Americans? What’s this all about?” I have raised this issue previously in my visits here with President Zardari, with former Prime Minister Gilani and others, with the ambassadors from Pakistan who come to the United States. I don’t know many other countries that try to do as much good as we do. And I certainly don’t know – I’ve been up in the mountains when we delivered earthquake assistance. And I remember seeing those kids who came down out of the mountains and put on a uniform and went to school for the first time in their lives at age 12 and 13 and 14 and 15. And their parents loved it and they loved it.

And I think that all of the work that we do is really in the interests of people. That’s why I led the effort to put in place something called Kerry-Lugar-Berman, which was $7 billion over five years to make a statement that we weren’t just being transactional, we weren’t interested in just the day-to-day security relationship or in whatever the problems are with insurgencies; we’re interested in the people of Pakistan, and we want the people of Pakistan to know what we’re doing. And I will call on the politicians here, as I have previously, to stop playing to the lowest common denominator, where they begin to attack – because we make a good target, we’re big, we’re powerful, and we do a lot of things. But I think we do it for the right reasons, and I think you can all be very, very proud of that, and we’re proud of you.

So I want to thank you for your willingness to be here. Obviously, a difficult post. All you have to drive through the zone and you understand how difficult it is. And we know the history. My dream, and I think your dream, is that we can actually find a day when people fight their battles in the parliament debating and talking to each other and voting and living with what the majority makes a decision, and if they don’t like it, you go out to the country and you have an election.

This is an historic transition that just took place. Nobody should diminish it. I was here with now Vice President Biden and now Secretary of Defense Hagel. We were here just the three of us together when the election took place in 2005, I guess it was. And we came here to view the election, which was the first time there had been a transfer of the presidency in a peaceful way at the ballot box. I think President Zardari deserves credit that now these years later, after a full term of office, there has been a peaceful transfer of power to an opposing party. That’s progress. It’s an enormous step forward. It’s historic. And in the 66-year history of Pakistan, that has never happened.

So change comes over time. Remember we tend to sort of think that things are always the way they are today. They weren’t for the United States. We had a first round on our Constitution and it didn’t work so well. Remember? Well, you don’t remember firsthand, but you remember from the history books, right? And what happened was we had to meet again in 1789, come up with another constitution. And guess what? We had slavery written into our Constitution before it was written out, and we had our own Civil War. And it wasn’t until the late 1800s, 1863-5, we got rid of that in the Emancipation Proclamation. And it wasn’t until 1965 that people actually had a Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. And ladies and gentlemen, we are still fighting some of these battles.

So remember that as you go about this task. And I would just say to you very, very quickly, because it is hot and I don’t want to keep you all here, being in the Foreign Service, I think – I say this because I was a Foreign Service brat, I was 11 years old when I first traveled abroad – that I have great respect for what you all go through – how different and difficult and challenging but exciting it is to go to another country, learn another language, learn the culture and meet the people, make friends, and carry our values with you in ways that make a difference to people for a lifetime. You have no idea how many foreign ministers, prime ministers, finance ministers, presidents of countries I meet who proudly tell me of their years studying in the United States of America or on a Fulbright or doing something, or their kids are in America today at a university or a school. And now many of those universities are opening up adjunct universities in all of these other countries, in China, in Abu Dhabi. And you run the countries, they’re all over the place. Egypt.

So this is a great, great undertaking. It’s a great adventure. And I thank you on behalf of everybody in the United States for being the brave, courageous pioneers who are willing to step out and be part of this kind of an endeavor.

Now, sadly, sometimes, because we are a great extended family, we suffer losses together. And I think you all have heard the news, the sad news that we lost Meghan Aberle, who passed away several days ago in Bogota, literally three days after she arrived there, in her sleep. We do not know what happened – 32 years old, she served all of you here in human resources. She loved doing what she was doing. She’d been to all these exciting places in her life, in her short life. So we miss her today, but I’m confident – and I talked yesterday with her sister and there’s great pride. She comes from Massachusetts and there’s a great pride of service, a great pride in the friendships she made here. And I want every single one of you to continue to work in memory of her and Anne Smedinghoff and others that we lose and have lost along the way. Nobody said this is easy. It was always difficult.

So thank you very, very much for everything that you’re doing. I look forward to having a chance to say hello to a few of you now. Keep up the good work, and we’re going to keep fighting and backing you up in every way that we can. Thank you. (Applause.)

U.S.-BANGLADESH RELATIONS STATE DEPARTMENT FACT SHEET

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

U.S. Relations With Bangladesh
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Fact Sheet
July 2, 2013
U.S.-BANGLADESH RELATIONS

The United States established diplomatic relations with Bangladesh in 1972 following its independence from Pakistan. U.S.-Bangladesh relations are excellent and reflect the two countries' strong bonds of friendship and shared values. Bangladesh is a key U.S. strategic partner in South Asia. The country’s efforts at development, countering violent extremism, assisting international peacekeeping, and improving regional connectivity are vital to regional and global stability. The U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue advances shared bilateral, regional, and global objectives and gives strategic direction to ongoing and future cooperative activities. The second U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue meeting, held in Dhaka May 26-27, 2013, covered a wide variety of topics: democracy and governance, trade and investment, security cooperation and regional integration.


Bangladesh has made progress toward a more prosperous and democratic society. Despite improvements, much of the population still lives in poverty and the country faces major vulnerabilities in the areas of infrastructure shortcomings, governance, and potential terrorist exploitation by extremist groups. These challenges are compounded by the fact that Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.


U.S. Assistance to Bangladesh
U.S. assistance seeks to foster robust engagement with the Government of Bangladesh and complement support from other donors to address the underlying social, demographic, and economic factors that threaten democratic governance, stifle economic growth, and increase vulnerability to extremism in Bangladesh. The United States aims to build on previous gains to further reduce poverty and food insecurity, improve health and education, mitigate the impact of frequent natural disasters, and achieve more effective governance in order to foster equitable and sustainable growth.


Bilateral Economic Relations
U.S. exports to Bangladesh include agricultural products (cotton, wheat, dairy products), aircraft, machinery, and iron and steel products. U.S. imports from Bangladesh include apparel, other textile products, headgear, shrimp and prawns, and agricultural products (primarily tobacco). The United States is one of Bangladesh’s largest export markets. The two countries have signed a bilateral investment treaty and a bilateral treaty for the avoidance of double taxation. Bangladesh provides several tax, foreign exchange, customs, and labor incentives to investors in its export processing zones. On June 27, 2013, President Barack Obama suspended Bangladesh’s designation as a beneficiary country under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, citing Bangladesh’s inability to take steps to adopt internationally recognized workers rights. The decision to suspend Bangladesh’s designation came after a multi-year review by the U.S. Trade Representative.


Bangladesh's Membership in International Organizations
Bangladesh and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, ASEAN Regional Forum, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S PRESS STATEMENT ON AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Press Statement John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 3, 2013
　

This morning I called leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to tell them that Ambassador James F. Dobbins has agreed to serve as the next Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has deep and longstanding relationships in the region and I couldn’t be more grateful that Jim has agreed to take on this assignment.

This is a pivotal moment for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with interconnected political, security, and economic transitions already underway in Afghanistan, and Pakistani elections just days away, marking an important and historic democratic transition.

Given my own history with both countries, and players throughout the region, identifying the right person for this position was a key priority. Jim will continue building on diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion, actively engaging with states in the region and the international community.

Jim was our first diplomatic envoy to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. He represented the United States at the Bonn Conference that established the new Afghan Government, and he raised the flag over the U.S. Embassy in Kabul when it reopened in 2001.

Before going to the RAND Corporation as director of their International Security and Defense Policy Center, Jim was a career Foreign Service officer. While serving this country, he led the Department and U.S. Government efforts to establish greater peace, stability, and security in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti.

Jim is one of our nation’s most accomplished diplomats and will bring all of his considerable expertise and experience to bear as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

His appointment, succeeding the Ambassador Marc I. Grossman and the late Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, reaffirms this government’s commitment to the key national security priority of ensuring Afghanistan and Pakistan are secure, stable, and prosperous nations.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL BRIEFING ON TOKYO CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Background Briefing on the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan
Special Briefing Senior Department Official
Senior Official Okura Hotel
Tokyo, Japan
July 8, 2012
MODERATOR: All right. We are in Tokyo at the conclusion of the Tokyo conference, and here to talk to you a little about the core group meeting today is [Senior State Department Official], hereafter known as Senior State Department Official. Go ahead, [Senior State Department Official].

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thanks a lot again. I’m sorry to keep you waiting. I’d like to actually just talk about the core group in a minute, but to step back if I could, sort of talk a little bit about the day today because I think two things are really important. Now, first, and again this is – I recognize maybe perhaps more of an interest to me than it is to you, but this idea that we’ve sort of come now to the 8th of July in Tokyo after a series of events really that started in Istanbul last year – Istanbul, Bonn, Chicago, Tokyo – I hope that you’ll be able to think about them a little bit as a whole. The job we were given by Secretary Clinton you’ll recall in her speech at the Asia Society in February of last year was to see if we couldn’t create a diplomatic surge to meet the military and civilian surges that were already going on. And we were committed to try to do so in a way that created a regional context for Afghanistan.

We’re talking about an Afghanistan secure, stable, and prosperous inside of a secure, stable, and prosperous region. And so we thought about Istanbul as the place where the neighbors and the near neighbors of Afghanistan got together to sort of start take responsibility in a regional way for Afghanistan, and then on then to the conference in Bonn which talked about a transformational decade for Afghanistan and really endorsed what the region had said: Yes, this is the vision going forward. Went on to Chicago then, and I think among the most important issues in Chicago was to kind of follow-up the security piece of what was called for in Bonn.

So Bonn had lots of pieces but one was security, one was economic development foreign direct investment in private sector. And then Chicago was about doing the security part of Bonn. And then today in Tokyo what we tried to do is then meet the economic development, private sector, foreign direct investment part of what was called for in Bonn.

So for us – for me anyway – it completes a sequence where we have now a regional structure in place, where we have the transformational decade, where we’ve made the security commitments, and now the economic and development commitments to follow through on our transformational decade. The only other thing that I would want to highlight today is I hope when you have a chance or have had a chance to look at the declaration that was put out today by the Tokyo conference, I think what’s interesting about it is the mutual accountability framework as the annex that’s referred to a number of times in the document.

But you all have been following these kinds of issues for a very long time, and I’d say that the mutual accountability framework is about as specific as we can get. It talks about the requirements of the Afghan Government back to the international community, the international community to Afghanistan. And we hope that document will be a foundation now to sort of judge how everybody’s doing, going forward. So again, as you report this or think about it, I hope that you’d consider the mutual accountability framework as something important. It’s pretty specific and I think quite interesting.

In terms of the core group, the other we’ve tried to accomplish today was to try to bring together the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States. As you know, the core group was established a year or so ago – I think in April it was when the senior leaders of Pakistan at that time went up to Kabul, talked about Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation. One of the outcomes was, they called for a core group of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States, to meet and talk about reconciliation. That group I think met six or seven times at my level over the past year, year and a half. We hoped at some time we’d be able to put it together at some higher level, and we achieved that today.

And so three things I’d draw to your attention for today: One is the fact that it took place, and we were able to bring the core group together at a ministerial level. Secondly, from my perspective in listening to the conversation, I got to thinking that over time we, the United States, play a role of a facilitator here for this conversation, and that I could see that over time perhaps we’d play less and less of a role. And this is really a conversation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I thought that was interesting and sort of my observation is that ought to be something we can try over time. Secondly, we did, at the core group meeting in Islamabad a few weeks ago, tried to announce – set up some specific efforts that the group would make, such as to make sure that everyone’s following the United Nations’ 1988 process on travel of people who are listed, and other sort of coordination mechanisms. And then thirdly --

MODERATOR: Who are listed on the international sanctions list.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Sanctioned under the 1988 list. And then thirdly, we did issue a statement today and I thought the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan were prepared to make a similar – a call today together to the armed opposition to lay down their weapons, to get into negotiation, had its utility. And we tried to kind of lay out a vision for what the future would be like and then call people (inaudible) to that vision. So --

MODERATOR: Do you want to do a little bit on this first meeting after the GLOCs between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Khar?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I can only do a little in the sense that the Secretary – we wanted to have the meeting today in advance of the core group meeting so that we kind of could lay out for Pakistanis as we had for the Afghans about what we were trying to accomplish at the core group.

Secretary decided to do it one on one to sort of show the kind of intensity of kind of her engagement in this. You can imagine that all the checklist of items were discussed, but they were together for about an hour and they did it just the two of them.

MODERATOR: Questions? Arshad.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, please. Arshad.

QUESTION: So the Secretary said that the United States was – is going to try to build into the aid that it has pledged incentives for Afghanistan to enact reforms and fight corruption. Can you tell us what those incentives are or what disincentives there might be if the money won’t come if things don’t improve on corruption? And then secondly, listening to the Secretary at the news conference with Foreign Minister Gemba, it’s not clear to me that the solving the land routes issue is going to do much of anything to secure more direct Pakistani activity on counterterrorism. What is your impression of that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. Both fair questions. First, let me talk about the question on incentives. Again, that’s why I would refer you to the mutual accountability framework and one of the things that we tried very hard to build was this idea that certain percentages – 5, 10, and then increasing numbers – of U.S. assistance ought to be connected to meeting the obligations in the mutual accountability framework, not just in terms of corruption, but good governance and a whole list of things in that area.

And so this is really the first time we’ve been able to get everybody to agree that there ought to be these percentages – the percentages ought to keep growing. So I think that was – it’s a step forward. And if you tie the percentages to the specificity of the mutual accountability framework, I think it answers your question.

In terms of counterterrorism, my answer is we’ll see. The thing that was for sure is that in many ways the fact that the GLOCs were closed was getting in the way kind of a lot of conversation with Pakistan. Now that the GLOCs are open, we have an opportunity, it seems to me, to go back into kind of business with them, and counterterrorism is one of those areas. So we’ll see.

MODERATOR: Brad.

QUESTION: I have two questions. Just the first on the funding, I think several – well, many people expected that it would go further beyond 2015, I was just wondering what was the thinking beyond really only going one year past the 2014 mark? Does it really set it as long-term as maybe one might have expected? And then secondly, I understand there was something of a kerfuffle related to the Italians who put some stronger language on the women’s rights and there was some back and forth on that. What are your concerns? Why was there some Afghan pushed back on that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, on the first, I’d say two things. One is that, I think the Japanese concluded that if they could have people talk about sort of commitment – 2015 to 2017, actually is what they were talking about – that given sort of structures in governments, the length of governments, that that was, for many countries, that was as far out as they could look. But I thought it was interesting, I think the Swedes today made a commitment for the whole transformation decade. So I think certain countries made their own decisions. The Swedes I think they went in for the whole 10 years and other countries did as well.

So everybody’s got their system, and we have our own system, too. We have Congress and we have to seek annual appropriations. The Secretary was pretty clear in her intervention, and as we said all along, that we were going to look for and seek funding at or near the levels that we’ve sought for the past 10 decades. Other people’s systems work --

MODERATOR: Ten years.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Ten years – past decade.

MODERATOR: You said the past 10 decades.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Not 10 decades. (Laughter.) Sorry, I
am a little tired.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m sorry, yes that’s right, there you go. That’s right – I’ll be a hero at the Treasury Department. So everybody’s got their own system and I think the Japanese just thought that’s what they could do. But – the Swedes and I think somebody else – but anyway, the Swedes I know for sure went in for the whole 10 years because they were able to do so.

In terms of the other question, there was just an effort by I think every country around the table to make sure that the document is a declaration itself and the mutual accountability framework was as strong as possible on women’s issues and these – there’s a negotiation about all of these things, but there was absolutely unified view all around the table that the women’s issues were important that ought to be mentioned as much as possible, as strongly as possible. And you could ask him, but I was struck by, in the last session of – the closing session of the conference – both Foreign Minister Rassoul and the Finance Ministers (inaudible) said, “We’ve got your message on a whole list of things, but certainly women’s rights was part of that.”

QUESTION: So these were Afghanistan and --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Both. Both Afghanistan. Rassoul is the Foreign Minister and Zakhilwal the Finance Minister.

MODERATOR: I would just add to that that President Karzai was very, very strong on this whole complex of issues and that the gains women have made in Afghanistan are a litmus test of the country’s development and it can’t be allowed to roll back when he met with the Secretary yesterday in Kabul.

QUESTION: So --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Let me see – I have just one other thing and that’s one of the reasons that we did – that the Secretary this afternoon met with civil society groups, so we could make that point again and make it in public.
Sorry, Jane.

MODERATOR: Jane.

QUESTION: So that accountability framework implies for the whole $16 billion, right?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Correct. Correct.

QUESTION: So, I mean in plain language, the – from 5 to 20 percent is conditioned on what the Afghans do in meeting anticorruption measures?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And meeting the requirements of the mutual accountability framework.

QUESTION: Which is – and it’s up to 20 percent of the $16 billion?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, let’s see. I don’t want to --

MODERATOR: Dan briefed us on the plane and he said that, whereas we had started at 10 percent, it’s basically up to 20 percent and that was one of the gains.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s in here.

MODERATOR: It’s in the annex.

QUESTION: Well, so the question I really want to ask about is --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, it’s paragraph 13 of the annex.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) – the Haqqanis. Did you – did the Secretary press the Foreign Minister of Pakistan that more had to be done about the Haqqanis this afternoon?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: As she always does, sure.

QUESTION: As she always does. So what was the new twist in here? Since they haven’t spoken about it for six months, what else did you have to say about it besides the usual?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I mean, the usual is that we want them to do more – we want them to increase the pressure on the Haqqanis.
QUESTION: And what was the response?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Their response is that they intend to do more.

QUESTION: So they recognize that the Haqqanis are in their territory?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think one of the important things here is – what we’ve been saying to them is go back to your parliament’s declaration. What’s that parliament declaration say? Parliament declaration says no foreign fighters. Nobody should attack other countries from our territory. We shouldn’t be the base for terrorist, sects, and other people, the argument is, “So, your parliament has said this. That’s your policy, so find ways to live up to it.”

QUESTION: I got lost.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Please.

QUESTION: On the mutual accountability and the 5 to 20 percent, how are you actually going to monitor compliance?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Again, it’s in there. There’s a whole thing on the joint JCMB – the whatever it says – the joint – the JCMB. There’s a whole series of compliance frameworks there.

QUESTION: And then, also back on the issue of women’s rights in Afghanistan, I was struck by the Secretary’s speech and how strongly she had defended that and with your comments just now. Are you very worried that women’s rights are being rolled back in Afghanistan right now?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’re just trying to set a – I think everyone’s trying to set a standard. And the standard is that as you go forward here with all the things they – with all their requirements, that women’s rights remain one of the fundamental interests of all of the countries – certainly represented there today. And I’d say the people who spoke for Afghanistan as well.

QUESTION: Did you say at risk?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Risk. I mean, there seems to be – there was a recent --

QUESTION: Marital (inaudible.)

QUESTION: Yes. Yes. That would suggest that there was some – perhaps a roll back to these rights.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I certainly think in areas where the insurgents are, what do you see? You see women’s rights being rolled back. And the other thing is, I think it’s important, as you report this – as people head towards 2014, there’s still a very large amount of anxiety inside of Afghanistan that the international community’s just going to depart. And so one of the reasons to keep reinforcing not just the message on women’s rights, but one of the reasons we signed a strategic partnership agreement with them, one of the reasons that there’s a commitment for the transformation decade, one of the reasons that people are looking forward is to try to inject into the psyche and debate inside of Afghanistan that 2014 is not the end of international engagement there.
MODERATOR: Let’s take --

QUESTION: There’s – on to Pakistan --

MODERATOR: Let’s – can I just let people that haven’t had a chance at all? Thank you.

QUESTION: So we can read the mutual accountability framework. Can you back it up a little bit for us and tell us how you identified where the most corruption was and how you focused and crafted that wording? Where along the line was the corruption that you decided you could effect by wording things the way you did?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I mean, it says what it says – I don’t know how to answer your question.

QUESTION: No, I’m not asking what it says. I’m saying, how was it – the process of deciding where along the line you’re finding the most corruption. Where is the problem of corruption right now among the transmission --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think as the Afghans said this afternoon, and I think as President Karzai said in the opening session, that corruption is in their society and they need to take care of it. And so one of the reasons there are indicators in the mutual accountability framework is for precisely that reason, is so that people can judge against them.

QUESTION: But that’s (inaudible) --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I mean we took – in a number of these areas of the mutual accountability framework, you take the indicators that you can, you try to make the best – you say, well, here if these things were done, we’d make some progress. So that’s what they indicated --

MODERATOR: If I could just – most of this is based on the analysis that the World Bank makes and they’ve been sort of the baseline, as they are in all countries, for standards of corruption et cetera and the best techniques for attacking it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) percentages.

MODERATOR: We’ve got one more here.

QUESTION: The Japanese say there’s going to be no mechanical cut off of aid despite the percentages, and the percentages seem to only be geared towards the Afghan reconstruction trust fund. How confident are you that, in fact, these are real meaningful goals that have teeth, and that if they’re not met, in fact money will be shut off?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think that the tenor of the conversation today was that mutual accountability is mutual accountability, which is to say that the international community has made these commitments to Afghanistan, Afghanistan has made commitments back, and people have to keep them. And again, I thought that the Finance Minister at the end of the day today said, “Look, we understand this is really hard on your politics. Your taxpayers want to know if they’re getting their money’s worth. It’s our job now to meet our requirements. So that’s what we’re going to do.”

QUESTION: Can we ask one about the money, because I think this an important issue? The Secretary’s language, that you’re going to seek from Congress an amount, add from here what you thought over the last 10 years, to me has a sort of tremendous ambiguity to it, because I went and looked at the CRS’s calculation, and it goes from $970 million to a peak of about $4 billion in 2010 and then down to about 2.3 for FY2012. And it’s sort of like my kid saying, I’m going to try to achieve grades at or near the level that I’ve achieved over the last decade and that range length from say a “D” to an “A+”. And so it’s not clear to me if the kid’s going to try to get a “B” or if at or near the “D” is good enough to meet the standards set in this language.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right.

QUESTION: So I understand you guys are loathe to give a specific dollar figure because you’ve got to deal with Congress, but I also understand that one has no real idea. It seems to me it could be anywhere at or near the low end of that or the high end of it.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. I’m not going to go any farther than that. We’re just going to have to see.

STUDENT NEGOTIATORS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Exercise Introduces Students to Negotiating Tactics
By Jason Tudor
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN, Germany, May 17, 2012 - Trucks filled with food and medical supplies rumble and bump over a road in the Balkans. Before the cargo can be delivered, a warlord stops the convoy under the guise of weapons smuggling, and will turn whatever he can find into profit.

With lives at stake, negotiators begin talking, trying to find the best compromise to move the humanitarian aid to starving and injured citizens without getting anyone on the convoy hurt. Will the warlord let them pass? What will he take? Only students in this class taken at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies here know the outcome for sure.

The elective at this Department of Defense Regional Center is one of a handful offered to complete the Program in Advanced Security Studies, a 10-week look at international law and the framework for the program's namesake. The elective's 12 two-hour sessions last four weeks.

Ten of the students chose to take Professor James Wither's course titled "Negotiations in International Conflict." Participants get a range of basic negotiating tactics, plus insight to what Wither called "conventional wisdom."

"A short elective like this won't make them experienced negotiators," said Wither, a Marshall Center professor. "We want them to appreciate the kind of skills negotiators need and to give them insights into the role that negotiators can play."
In this exercise, students were given the task of "confronting a hard bargainer." Tamir Sinai, who builds exercises like these for the Marshall Center, played that role. Four students were selected using four separate styles, and others observed. Sinai said they all understood what was happening.

"The fear is that my soldiers and I might loot the convoy," Sinai said, adding that the key to the exercise is human interaction. "There's so much subtext."
As an added degree of difficulty, this is the first time the elective has been conducted in English only.

"There are lots of linguistic and cultural differences in how individuals from different countries approach negotiations," he said. "Negotiating across countries, language and cultural differences will always be difficult."

Sinai said participants were given four separate negotiation styles to appease the warlord -- some would work, and others would not. As the warlord, Sinai set the ground rules.

"I established that I am in charge, but I am open to negotiations," Sinai said. "I was in command of the area, and nothing was going to get in without my consent."

Pakistani army Lt. Col Fiaz Khan was one of the negotiators during the exercise. A former United Nations observer in the Congo, Khan said the elective offered him the opportunity to more detailed information about negotiations.

"There are many circumstances in which we interact with armed rebels, ... sometimes with terrorists, where you need to negotiate," said Khan, citing Pakistan's role as an ally to the United States in attempting to thwart terror as well as work in Afghanistan and Iraq. "In different scenarios, you have different techniques. You cannot apply one technique to all the scenarios."

Wither praised Khan and others who went through the exercise. "They did very well. They had a plan of what they thought they would say to the individual, and they were also warned that their plans might not work when they encountered him."

Khan gave the exercise the highest marks. "It was a wonderful litmus test of what we learned."

AFGHAN BORDER INCIDENT PROMPTS CHANGES

The following excerpt from  the American Forces Press Service Department of Defense website:

"Mattis Directs Corrective Actions Following Pakistan Border Incident
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26, 2011 - Drawing on findings from the investigation into the deadly Nov. 25-26 incident near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, U.S. Central Command commander Marine Corps Gen. James R. Mattis directed the International Security Assistance Force to take a series of corrective actions.
The actions, directed to ISAF Commander Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, are intended to correct problems of mistrust and miscommunication among those working in the border area. Those kinds of problems led to the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers.

U.S. Central Command today released an unclassified version of the investigation report by its investigating officer, Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Clark, director of plans, programs, requirements and assessments for Air Force Special Operations Command.

"The strongest take-away from this incident," Mattis said in a statement, "is the fundamental fact that we must improve border coordination, and this requires a foundational level of trust on both sides of the border."

On the night of Nov. 25-26, an Afghan National Army Commando company, partnered with U.S. Army Special Forces, landed near Maya Village in Afghanistan's Khas Konar District in an area of operations assigned by ISAF to its Regional Command-East.

According to the report, these ground forces were executing Operation Sayaqa, approved by ISAF Joint Command headquarters, when they came under fire from positions on a ridge near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In self defense they used air support to engage the ridgeline positions. The air engagement ended 90 minutes later and had included about 45 minutes of fire. Fire from positions near the ridge had stopped. Eventually, it became clear from various information exchanges that those engaged at the ridge were Pakistan military personnel.

In the early hours of Nov. 26, the report said, supporting aircraft pulled back from the border area and Pakistani authorities reinforced their border positions and reportedly removed 24 dead and 13 wounded.

The ground forces completed Operation Sayaqa. They left the area shortly after midnight on Nov. 27, arriving back at their base later that morning.”

As a result of the investigation and report, Mattis directed Allen to implement the following actions as soon as possible:

- Improve mutual trust among those working in the border areas.

- Clarify authorities, responsibilities and standard operating procedures for command, control and communication in near-border operations and develop formal training exercises and drills.

- Implement a program of full disclosure of all border area facilities and installations on both sides of the border, with systematic updates based on a common database and map.

- Before conducting any operation, direct all future coalition units and formations contemplating near-border area operations to confirm all installations near the border and the planned objective.

- To prevent friendly fire incidents, develop and share with the Pakistan military the common use of force-escalation measures such as show of force and other standard procedures.

- Consider harmonizing ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom rules of engagement to promote clarity and transparency.

Among the investigation's critical findings are that the international law of armed conflict was respected and that rules of engagement -- directions given to military forces that define the conditions, degree and manner in which force may be used -- were appropriately and legally applied.

The report found that the catalyst for the engagement was the opening of fire by Pakistan soldiers and that their continued fire made the situation worse.

The operation was conducted in support of ISAF campaign objectives, the report said, but the issue of Operation Enduring Freedom rules of engagement in an ISAF campaign causes confusion and friction among coalition partners, the report said, and ISAF and OEF orders, standard operating procedures and directives related to border-area operations lack clarity and precision and were not followed.

Also lacking are time-sensitive senior command override measures for border-area incidents and pre-mission near-border coordination for the operation, according to the report.

A series of miscommunications within the chain of command -- but especially in the area of the border coordination nexus -- delayed confirmation of the identity of the Pakistani forces, the report said.

"In the context of this tragedy, a way forward must be found to prevent similar occurrences in the future," Clark said in his concluding comments.

"Over the long term," he added, "the way to ... peace and stability along the border is to be found in resolving the long-standing border disputes that perpetuate a state of uncertainty and mistrust within which local cooperation and coordination efforts are less likely to succeed."

DOD NEWS BRIEFING FOR DECEMBER 21, 2011

The following presentation is from the Department of Defense website Presenter: Pentagon Press Secretary George Little and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby December 21, 2011

DOD News Briefing with George Little and Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon             GEORGE LITTLE:  Good afternoon.             Q:  Good afternoon.             MR. LITTLE:  This is likely to be John's and my last briefing of 2011.  So we extend our best wishes to all of you during the holiday season, and happy New Year.             MR. LITTLE:  This has been, in many ways, a remarkable and historic year.  If you look back, you see Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Operation Tomodachi and many other national security events.             The men and women of the U.S. military and their families have done incredible work, have had many successes and of course have made sacrifices, and to them, especially, we say thank you.             I'd be remiss if I didn't note that this year has also seen the demise of Osama bin Laden and the decline of al-Qaida, and the increased pressure on AQAP, to include the loss of Anwar al-Awlaki to that terrorist group.             The secretary has recently said that we're now at a turning point; 2012 is likely to bring opportunities for the United States military and for all Americans.  We're seeing successful transition efforts in Afghanistan.  We're building a new relationship with Iraq. And 2012 is likely see increased focus on the Asia-Pacific region.             Again, our men and women in uniform have performed in an outstanding manner.             In closing I would like to say to my colleague that -- and you haven't noticed this, but I'm wearing a tie with anchors on it.             CAPTAIN JOHN KIRBY:  There you go.             MR. LITTLE:  So -- (chuckles) -- happy holidays.             CAPT. KIRBY:  Go, Navy!             MR. LITTLE:  (Chuckles.)             CAPT. KIRBY:  Go, Navy!  Well-chosen.             MR. LITTLE:  Thanks.             Anything else, John, before we --             CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know how I could top that eloquence.  I think we should just go right to questions.             MR. LITTLE:  All right.  Very good.             Lita.             Q:  Just one housekeeping question:  Do you know if all of the -- or if 10,000 U.S. troops have come out of Afghanistan for this year yet?  And secondly -- that's probably just a yes or a no.             CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know specifically what the final numbers here, but I can tell you that General Allen is confident that he's going to be able to meet the drawdown deadline by the end of this year.             Q:  But you don't know that it's been met yet?             CAPT. KIRBY:  I do not know the specific number where we're at today, but we can see if we can get that for you.             Q:  OK, and then secondly, I realize this is a criminal investigation, but Danny Chen's death -- is there anything you can say about this case, particularly about whether or not there may be some concerns that some of this hazing may have either been known about or -- and/or whether commanders did or did not take appropriate action as this was going on over a subsequent period of time?             CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I think you can understand why we wouldn't be commenting on a case that's ongoing.  As you know, the charges were just announced today.  We need to let the military justice system work.             Q:  Follow-up?             Q:  As a follow-up to that, though -- but just to Lita's question, I mean, coming after the Marine who was hazed earlier in the year, who was also Asian-American, who also killed himself, there's been a lot of calls from some in the community that say the military really needs to do more to screen out, you know, racists or people with racist tendencies before they get to these remote bases overseas. Do you think the military needs to do a better job?             CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, look, any single case of hazing or inappropriate conduct to a fellow soldier, airman, Marine, sailor, Coast Guardsman is inappropriate and not acceptable.             Zero is the right number.  We treat each other with dignity and respect.  That's what this uniform requires.  And when we don't, there's a justice system in place to deal with it.  And that's what -- that we're seeing here in the case of Private Chen.             And again, I wouldn't want to get into any specifics on this.  I mean, we don't want to prejudice that system.  But hazing's not tolerated in the -- in the military.  If it's found and it's proven, it's dealt with.             Q:  Can I address how you are going to prevent more incidents like hazing like this one or any --             CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, we -- this is -- and this is something inculcated in our culture from the moment you join the service.  When you raise your right hand, through all your basic training and -- in your first tours of duty, I mean, the -- these notions are bred into you in the military.  We treat each other with respect and dignity, or we go home.  That's it.  And I mean, the tolerance is absolutely zero.             And the system itself, because it works and works well, is in fact a deterrent to future behavior, or at least we certainly hope it is.  But you know, it doesn't mean that there aren't still going to be miscreants out there who want to -- who want to test it and try it. And like I said, when it's found and it's proven, it's dealt with.             Q:  But I guess it's dealt with, but it's dealt with after suicides.  So I guess the questions would be should something be done before it's getting to that level?             CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, our thoughts and prayers certainly go out to the family here.  We -- this is tragic, tragic incident.  And as I said, there are -- there are training mechanisms in place throughout the military, in all the services, whether you're an officer or an enlisted.  I mean, this is something that's bred into you when you -- when you -- when you come into the service.             I've been doing this for 25 years, and I can't tell you the number of times that I've had to undergo the -- you know, that kind of training and awareness programs.  I mean, it's not like we don't pay attention to this.             It's not like we haven't experienced this before and this is the first time and, you know, we're just waking up to it.  But it also -- you know, you're -- unfortunately, you're never going to be a hundred percent perfect with this.  And there's going to be those few who want to flaunt what the uniform stands for and what the regulations require and what the culture demands of us.  And like I said, when that happens, they're going to be dealt with.             Q:  Were the charges brought because of the pressure from the community there?  The community came to visit the Pentagon last week. So was that because of the pressures of --             CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know what prompted -- I mean, that -- this all inside the justice system and inside the command system out there in ISAF, I'd refer you to them for specifics on the -- how the charges were preferred.  I don't have that kind of detail.             Q:  First of all, happy New Year and happy holidays to you all and my colleagues.             CAPT. KIRBY:  Thank you.             MR. LITTLE:  Thank you.             Q:  And thank you for everything.             My question is that as we enter the new year, how do you see Afghanistan as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan and now we are out of Iraq?  One, how the Afghanis are taking this, that U.S. is now out of Iraq and now they see that U.S. will be out by 2014?  And second, if you can update on U.S.-Pakistan relations in the next year and now if the routes  are open or not, because now Pakistan is really politically in chaos because president is back and nobody knows what's going on and what's the future.             MR. LITTLE:  Well, when it comes to Iraq, as I said in my opener, we're committed to developing a long-term relationship with the Iraqis.  We've made that clear.  And we continue to build that.             I would note that this was the most successful logistical drawdown in U.S. military history.  And General Austin and the men and women in uniform who carried that out deserve tremendous praise.             When it comes to Afghanistan, we're working hard to define not just the near-term actions in terms of fighting the insurgency, but also what our long-term relationship will look like.  And we are committed to an enduring security relationship with the Afghans.  We have close dialogue at all levels.  Ambassador Crocker, General Allen are doing amazing work to interface with their Afghan counterparts.             And our men and women in Afghanistan -- and we just were there with the secretary -- we saw that they are incredibly dedicated to their mission, which includes the transfer of lead security responsibility to the Afghans.  They're working very hard to do that, and we think they're having very good success.  We're looking at about half of the Afghan population now that's now living under Afghan security lead.  And that's very -- that's an important development.             Just a final point on Afghanistan, and then I'll move to Pakistan.  2011 saw a much different fighting season than in many previous years.  The Taliban and other insurgents have been brought under increased pressure.  And that is a mark of progress in what we and the Afghans and our NATO partners are doing.  And we think that's an important trajectory to note.             Finally, with respect to Pakistan, we know that this year has brought challenges with our Pakistani counterparts.  We know that the recent border incident created a challenge, too.  The goal, of course, is to work through these issues with the Pakistanis.  This is a complicated but essential relationship, and we're committed to a long- term relationship with the Pakistanis.             We -- look, we face a lot of the same threats.  Terrorists threaten Americans, and terrorists threaten Pakistanis.             And we are confident that we can get to a baseline in the relationship that allows us to move forward.  It's not always going to be easy, but we -- with a little bit of hard work, we think we can do it.             Phil.             Q:  Just quickly on -- first, on the Pakistan issue, the border incident report due out, I think, on Thursday or Friday, do you know if it's -- by Thursday or Friday -- do you know if it's already been completed?             CAPT. KIRBY:  The -- it's -- what I can tell you is -- yeah, I think the due date was the 23rd to be completed.  We -- it -- our understanding is it's on track and is -- and is being staffed.  But I don't have anything more for you than that today.             Q:  Will it be made public right away, or do you know if it'll be --             MR. LITTLE:  We've made a commitment to share the findings with all of you.  We're not doing that this afternoon, but in the relatively near future we expect that to happen.             Q:  (Off mic.)             Q:  Are you getting any -- I'm sorry -- are you getting any positive --             MR. LITTLE:  Yeah --             Q:  Sorry -- on the -- on the blockade on supplies coming through Pakistan to Afghanistan, that's now been going on for some time.  And you said there hasn't -- that, you know, that hasn't affected operations.             MR. LITTLE:  Right.             Q:  And -- but could you go into a little bit more explanation as to what has been the practical effect?  And how long can you go before you have to take certain steps to mitigate it?  I know that the Northern Distribution Network we're all familiar with -- if you could just discuss a little more, because this has been going on quite some time.  And could you also offer us any indication of when you might think that -- if you've gotten any signal of when this might end, or is this something you have to -- it seems it's indefinite.             MR. LITTLE:  I think that we're hopeful that the ground supply routes, the GLOCS, will open in the near future.  And I think the secretary recently expressed confidence that that would happen.             The war effort does continue, and our troops are well-supplied in Afghanistan.  It would of course be helpful to have those ground supply routes reopened, but General Allen and his team, working with our partners, they have done incredible work to ensure that we have what we need to carry out our mission in Afghanistan.  Not going to get into specific time frames in terms of how long our supplies will last, but we have what we need and we have what we need for the near term.             CAPT. KIRBY:  And the only thing I'd add to that is there -- General Allen, as all good commanders -- make sure that he has sufficient stockpiles on hand.  And he has -- and he had been prepared with stockpiles on hand.  There's been no appreciable impact to operations throughout Afghanistan as a result of this.             And you know, there are other avenues for support.  You mentioned the Northern Distribution Network yourself.  There are -- you can shift to other -- to other arteries if you need to.  But I think for the most part, General Allen has been able to subsist and to sustain the war effort based on stockpiles that he had on hand.             Q:  And one follow-up.  How does it affect the (costing ?) of the operations?  Obviously more expensive to be going --             CAPT. KIRBY:  If you have to go through the Northern Distribution Network for any great length of time that -- well, actually, not even -- the -- when you shift over to the Northern Distribution Network, it's going to be a little bit more costly and it's also going to take a little bit longer.  But as I said, he's been largely able to subsist on what he had on hand.             Q:  (Off mic.)  There's sort of an accepted truth that the Pakistani government can't close the lines for too long because of all of the powerful families and business interests that profit so greatly.             I know it's a Pakistani political question, but you all track this closely. Have you noticed any building pressure from the business community on the Pakistani government to open those ground lines?             CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't believe we have, Thom.  I don't believe we have.  And as I understand it, there is traffic moving through those gates -- civilian traffic, not traffic designed for NATO, for the mission.             MR. LITTLE:  Barbara.             Q:  Egypt -- what is the secretary's reaction to seeing the violence perpetrated by the Egyptian military on the streets of Cairo? Has he spoken to his Egyptian counterparts or the chairman?  Is it permissible, in his mind, for this to continue?  Are you looking at cutting off any arms sales to Egypt to ensure they don't use U.S. equipment or gear?  What can you tell us?             MR. LITTLE:  The secretary, as you know, visited Egypt in October and had very good discussions with Field Marshal Tantawi.  Since then there have been further developments in Egypt, and of course the secretary wishes that the level of violence would go to zero in Egypt. So when he sees violence break out, that's of concern.             Of course, at the same time, he believes that the Egyptian military is committed to a process of transition whereby the wishes of the Egyptian people for a full democratic system are realized.  And that involves, of course, the elections that have been taking place, constitutional reforms and eventually the election of a new president.             So he has confidence that the Egyptian military is working toward that.             And that being said, when we see violence on the streets of Cairo or elsewhere in Egypt, that raises concerns.             Q:  Well, to be clear, the violence of the last several days was very clearly, to some large extent, conducted by the Egyptian military.  So the question sort of remains, one, not in October, but more recently with this latest spate, has either Panetta or General Dempsey spoken to their Egyptian military or MOD counterparts?  Are you doing anything to cut any supply of U.S. equipment or gear that could be used?  Are you concerned about the violence perpetrated by the Egyptian military against civilians, and what they might be using to do that?             CAPT. KIRBY:  To your question on the phone calls, I would have to check on General Dempsey.  I don't know.  I don't believe the secretary has made a call in recent days.  But as George said, he's deeply concerned by the violence, no matter who it's perpetrated by. It's simply unacceptable.             You've seen the Egyptian military leaders come out and apologize for it.  That's an encouraging thing.  And we certainly hope that they will, you know, investigate this and deal with it appropriately. That's the secretary's expectation.  But as George said, the military is working very hard towards a transition to a civilian government, at the same time they are trying to secure their country.  I'm not making excuses for it -- not at all.  It's unacceptable behavior.             Q:  Can I follow up on just one other thing?             Can you tell us what the -- a different subject, on Iran -- what the secretary meant when he told CBS News that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a year?  What is he precisely talking about?             MR. LITTLE:  The secretary was very clear in his comments to CBS. He said that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.  That's a red line.  And he was asked about some specific timelines.  And he said that if the Iranians made a decision to move toward the development of a nuclear weapon, they could, in theory, have one in the relatively near future.             But he was also very clear that that requires certain steps.  It would require them first to make a decision to move forward with the development of a nuclear weapon, and then, of course, that they would have to not only enrich uranium so that you get highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon; you'd have to -- and then you have to go through the weaponization process.  So he was not saying definitively that the Iranians would have a nuclear weapon in 2012.  If they did move out on that timeline, though, it's possible.             Q:  Well, what he said, though, is -- right -- you're saying -- exactly, you're saying 2012, within the next year.  He says it could be within the next year if these conditions were met?  Is that his assessment?             MR. LITTLE:  If they -- if they made a decision to move forward with enrichment and with weaponization, then that is possible.  He was very clear, though, that we don't know if that decision has been made inside the Iranian regime.  We certainly hope that they don't make that decision.             Q:  And --             MR. LITTLE:  So our best information, Barbara, is that we don't know whether or not the Iranians have made the decision to move ahead.             CAPT. KIRBY:  We also think that if they make the decisions that George talked about, that we would be able to detect that, and we would have time to deal with it.             MR. LITTLE:  And the secretary articulated that as well in that discussion.             CAPT. KIRBY:  He did.  He did.  He did.             MR. LITTLE:  Remember, we had the IAEA there, and we would, in all likelihood, have some signals that they were moving ahead.             Q:  What signals would you have?  How would you --             CAPT. KIRBY:  As the secretary said, one of the signals would be that they would -- they would probably move to kick the inspectors out.  Inspectors on the ground -- they have access right now.  And so again, we think that we would be able to know should they cross that threshold, and we would have time to deal with it.             Q:  And when you say it's a red line -- so is the red line then when they kick the inspectors out because that is the signal that you're looking for?             CAPT. KIRBY:  No, what the president has said and the secretary also has reiterated is the red line is a nuclear-armed Iran.  That's the red line.             Q:  I'm sorry to keep -- (inaudible) -- if the redline is a nuclear-armed Iran, that means, if I'm understanding you correctly, they would be committed to get the nuclear arms.  You're saying a nuclear-armed Iran, not stop it before it becomes nuclear-armed.  But the red line is --             CAPT. KIRBY:  Iran with nuclear weapons -- that's a red line for the United States.  The president has said that.  The secretary of defense has made that very clear as well.             But look, I want to -- you know, it's also important to understand that the -- we're on a sort of a dual track here, I mean, of diplomatic pressure from the international community and economic pressure applied through sanctions.  And you saw public comments by their oil minister just the other day that -- admitting that the sanctions have had an effect on their -- on their oil revenues.             They are taking a bite.  And the secretary has been clear over and over and over again that he fully supports the -- that dual-track approach and that military options, while they have to be prepared and ready for the president -- that's our job to provide him options -- it should be the last option and that the secretary fully supports the approach that's being taken now.             MR. LITTLE:  Tony.             Q:  yes, on this, is it -- this year has the United States improved its capability to attack Iran's underground nuclear facilities if, in fact, it was called on to do it?             CAPT. KIRBY:  I'm not going to speak about our operational capabilities in that regard.             Q:  I thought that you might be able to speak about the – more benign -- the strategic review.             MR. LITTLE:  Yeah.             Q:  Do you see that coming out in early January?             MR. LITTLE:  I think, as I said -- have said earlier in similar forums, we do expect to articulate more about what the budget strategy is early next year in January.             Q:  Speeches?  Or how is it going to --             MR. LITTLE:  I don't have the exact contours lined up yet, but we do expect to go public with our thoughts on defense strategy in January.             Q:  On Iraq, for the last week and a half, we've heard nothing but themes of sacrifice and success.  The elephant in the room is whether the invasion was justified or not.  Secretary Panetta's getting roasted in blog -- the blog world, for his comment that it was worth the price.  Do we take from that that Secretary Panetta now believes the invasion was justified?             And John, you've been in this building a long time.  Are lots of military people pretty much saying thank God we're out there because this thing was a fiasco and not in our interest?             CAPT. KIRBY:  Want me to go first?             MR. LITTLE:  I'll be -- I'll be happy to --             Q:  Was it -- was it justified?             MR. LITTLE:  I think the secretary's made clear, Tony; he has said that the start of the war was controversial inside the United   States.  He understands that.  He understands the debates that went on in the 2002-2003 timeframe.             Roll the tape forward:  We are nearly nine years after that point, nine years of blood spilled, sacrifice and hard work.             And the secretary believes that the men and women of the U.S. military have done an outstanding job and have made sacrifices -- in nearly 4,500 cases, the ultimate sacrifice.             Q:  I understand that.             MR. LITTLE:  And they have, at the end of the day, given Iraq the opportunity for a better future, to define for themselves what the way ahead is and to define what a sovereign, free and democratic Iraq should look like.  And that's what -- that's where his mind is right now.  And I think you heard some of that last week in his remarks at the end of mission ceremony.  That was a very historic occasion.             And that's where he is right now.  He believes that at the end of the day, that opportunity is there for the people of Iraq.             Q:  Is it worth the price, though?  The price was huge, and you know, that wasn't the reason we went in, to give them an opportunity. So I mean, I ask again:  He was opposed to it going in, as I recall. Have you heard him articulate --             MR. LITTLE:  Many Americans -- many Americans questioned the rationale for going into the Iraq war.  He believes at the end of the day that the 4,500 service members who died and the many thousands more who were injured, their sacrifices were not -- I repeat, were not -- in vain.             Q:  Has he --             CAPT. KIRBY:  OK, here's the -- here's the thing about wars -- and you don't have to be much of a historian to figure this out -- but they change.  They often change over time.             Q:  (Off mic) -- or the war?             CAPT. KIRBY:  The objectives --             Q:  (Off mic.)             CAPT. KIRBY:  -- the missions, the goals, the strategies.  It's not unusual or atypical for them to change in their very nature.  And the Iraq war did change over time.  It was a large-scale conventional invasion at the beginning and then became a full-out counterinsurgency.  You guys know that.  You've covered it.  You know it better than I do.   They do change over time.  And over time, this war did become about giving Iraq an opportunity -- an opportunity that they didn't have before, and now they have it. And as George said, it's their ring to grasp.             Now, back to your other question to me, I -- you were accurate. I've been in the building a long time.  I did not serve in Iraq, and so I will not pretend to speak for the hundreds of thousands of men and women or families that have been affected by that war.             What I will tell you is this.  When you strap on this uniform, you do what you're told.  You follow the orders you're given.  You do your duty.  And regardless of how any of our troops -- and I'm not -- and some of them may be very glad this is over, some of them may not be.  Again, I won't speak for that.  But I can tell you that each and every one of them can and should be proud of the fact that they did their duty.  And they can -- they can move forward with their lives in the consciousness  that they did their duties very, very well.             Q:  (Off mic) -- since we're doing multiple questions today, the point Tony is making is really a very interesting one.  The sacrifice of the men and women who served, and served magnificently, there's almost a sense that to criticize the war, now that it's over, is in some ways to undermine or challenge their sacrifice.  Not at all.  The nation owes them their -- our respect.  We get that.             But the chairman, Admiral Mullen, John, under whom you served, often said:  We're not safe if we're broke.  Part of the budget problem we're having today is the cost of the war.  So we can, you know, all agree the sacrifice of the service member is something we all should respect.  But is our financial insecurity now -- should that be put on the scale of what we did to liberate the Iraqi people?             CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, there's a lot -- you know, our financial situation in the country, yes, has certainly been affected by 10 years of war.  There's no question about that, Tom.  But it's not the only impact.  It's not the reason why the economy's struggling.  I mean, so I think, it's a fair point that you make.             Again, speaking for those of us in uniform -- and again, I'm not speaking as a vet of the wars, because I didn't serve there; it wouldn't be right -- but speaking as somebody in uniform, I can tell you it's -- the decision to go to war and all that that entails -- the risks, the costs, the dangers, the sacrifices that you know are going to be made -- those decisions are made by the civilian leadership.  We execute those decisions.  And it would be wrong -- it would be inappropriate for us to be -- again, the military, to be over- concerned with the financial costs or the impact to the economy of the United States as we execute those orders.             We don't determine when or where we fight, but we do get to determine how we fight and to give the advice to our civilian leaders in that regard.             MR. LITTLE:  We have time for maybe a couple more questions.             Q:  On Japan's selection to F-35, Japan's scheduled to have it deployed by 2016, but that is two years ahead of schedule, the expected U.S. Air Force – IOC of 2018.  What kind of message does this send to people inside the U.S. and also to overseas, that Japan's going to have this before the U.S., if that all goes on schedule?             MR. LITTLE:  I don't personally know the particulars of the schedule, but we certainly welcome the decision of the government of Japan to enter the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.  Japan is an unwavering ally of the United States, and we have an unwavering commitment to Japan.  And this latest announcement by the Japanese government is a further indication of the strength of our relationship with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and expresses confidence in the American industrial base.  So we welcome the decision wholeheartedly.             John, and then Louie.             Q:  Has anyone from DOD been in touch with their Chinese counterparts regarding the situation in North Korea?             And also, in the last couple of days have you seen any new or unusual activity by the North Korean military?             MR. LITTLE:  The answer to your second question is no, we have not seen any unusual movements by the North Korean military.  This appears to be a relatively smooth transition on the peninsula, and we hope it stays that way.  There has been no increase in force protection levels for U.S. forces in Korea.  And General Thurman and other American officials in the Republic of Korea are in constant contact with their South Korean counterparts.  And they're doing an amazing job.  The secretary has full confidence in what they're doing.             In terms of the first part of your question, I'll --             CAPT. KIRBY:  I'm not aware of any discussions with the -- with our contacts in China thus far, no.             Q:  Would you like to have contacts with the Chinese military regarding the situation in North Korea?             CAPT. KIRBY:  We would like to have contacts with the Chinese military across a wide range of issues.  I mean, this is a country that we want to have a much stronger relationship with from a military perspective.             At this point I'm not sure that there's a need specifically -- as George said, things are calm there across the DMZ right now.  And that's the way we'd like to see it.  So I'm not certain that there is necessarily an imperative here to reach out to the Chinese with respect to what's going on in North Korea.             Q:  Can I just ask a clarification, George?  You said the transition is relatively smooth.  One, how does the United States actually know that, since the information is almost nonexistent other than what official North Korean channels say?  And does that mean that you do believe that Kim Jong Un is solely in power now, or do you lend any credence to the report that other members are also taking power? What leads you to say the transition is smooth?             MR. LITTLE:  Well, we have no, you know, information to the contrary, Barbara.  I mean, we have not seen any unusual North Korean troop movements since the death of Kim Jong Il.  That would be one indicator of a less-than-smooth transition.  And I'm talking now about the security situation.             And in terms of succession, I'm really not going to get into the particulars of succession.  Kim Jong Un for sometime has been identified as someone who would probably take over.  I think North Korean media has suggested that he will take over for Kim Jong Il.  As to who else might be in power alongside Kim Jong Un, I'm simply not going to speculate.             CAPT. KIRBY:  There's an opportunity here for the North Korean regime, whoever heads it, to -- it's an opportunity to join the family of nations and to stop the isolation that they have suffered their people through, and we certainly hope they'll take that.             MR. LITTLE:  Louie (ph).             Q:  I have a couple of questions about the U.S. presence in Kuwait.  Has an agreement been reached with Kuwait to maintain an additional combat brigade as had been reported earlier this year?  I think a senior defense official on the way to Iraq mentioned that there are 3(,000) to 4,000 troops that are going to be maintaining themselves inside Kuwait for a couple of months.  How long will they actually be there for, and if there is an agreement with Kuwait for a permanent long-term presence?             And third part of this question:  Secretary Panetta has spoken about the 40,000 troops in the Gulf region that are going to be maintained there that the U.S. is going to be maintaining a presence.  But I believe there was mention out of the White House maybe last week or two weeks ago that the U.S. was going back to a pre-Gulf War presence, which would be significantly lower than the numbers that he detailed.             So which of those two are we supposed to believe?             MR. LITTLE:  You can go ahead.             CAPT. KIRBY:  I can -- yeah, I'll take the first part of that. We, the -- we are still working through what of -- the post-Iraq regional presence is going to be -- what's it going to look like, where is it going to be, how many, what they're going to be doing.  So there's been no final decisions made about where any residual forces may stay or for how long they will stay.             We're grateful for the support that we have received from Kuwait for a long time, not just -- not just even in the last 10 years, but certainly through these 10 years of war, Kuwait has been a steadfast partner, and we appreciate that.  But I wouldn't get into any kind of pre-decisional discussions we're having with any of our partners there.             MR. LITTLE:  And in terms of the numbers, I mean, the secretary has been clear that we are going to maintain a presence in the Middle East.             You know, the numbers in terms of deployments fluctuate, depending on the requirements at any given point in time.  So I'm not sure that I am in a position today to parse 40,000 versus a different number.  But the secretary is insistent that we have a presence in the Middle East that's going to protect our interests and those of our allies in the region.             Q:  And there is a discussion under way that could result in a lowering of that number?             MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into any particular discussions on troop levels in the Middle East or elsewhere.  The key point, Luis, is that we are going to maintain a strong presence in the Middle East. I don't have a particular figure to give you today, but that is going to remain a focus of the United States military.             STAFF:  On that, I think we ought to go.             MR. LITTLE:  Happy New Year.             CAPT. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.             MR. LITTLE:  Happy holidays.             Q:  Thank you.