US Military Chief Mike Mullen on Wikilea
US Military Chief Mike Mullen on Wikileaks
GREGORY: Good morning. troops in the nearly nine-year war in Afghanistan. GREGORY: We just played for our viewers very strong comments by you this
week about these leaks. You indicated those who are responsible for making these secret documents public may already have blood on their hands, a
strong statement. What specifically do you mean?ADM. MULLEN: These --- the, the, the scope and the volume of these leaks are unprecedented, and, and
the specifics of them, and I've been through some of them, but we've still got a lot of work to do to, to really put the details together. But I think
the, the leaks themselves don't look clearly at the war that we're in. There is an ability to put this kind of information together in the world that
we're living in and the potential for costing us lives, I think, is significant. GREGORY: But how can that happen based on this?ADM. MULLEN: Well, I
would speak to--actually the Taliban spokesman has come out in the last day or so and said that they're looking at the names, and I think that's
evidence of what that potential is. GREGORY: These are Afghans that they're looking at?ADM. MULLEN: These are --- there are Afghan names that are,
that are listed in the documents and specifically the Taliban spokesman said that they're going to look at that. MULLEN: They --- exactly. And people
that aren't in, in a fight like this, that don't do this for a living, don't understand what the potential is for something like this in terms of the
kinds of information. GREGORY: What endangers you as troops?ADM. MULLEN: The, the fact that they would look at what our tactics are, how we report,
where we're fighting, who's involved, the, the kinds of things that we do. GREGORY: You are looking at a suspect, a private who you believe may be
responsible for obtaining this information, ultimately leaking it. What should happen to those responsible?ADM. MULLEN: I think anybody in our --- in
the, in the national security apparatus has, has got to take full cognizance of their responsibility for the safeguarding of classified information.
GREGORY: But is it treason?ADM. MULLEN: Again, I'll let the investigation run its course, and we'll see where it goes, specifically. GREGORY: There,
there are some who have argued that the fixation about the leak perhaps is a distraction from the larger point of these documents, and that is that it
goes in an unvarnished way to the core question of whether the strategy is actually working. The New York Times, as part of its reporting, made this
piece of analysis --- and I'll put it up on the screen --- on Monday: "The documents --- some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations
from January 2004 through December 2009 --- illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in
Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001." Don't you think the public gets a look at these documents, and the bigger concern
here is, not the leak, but the fact that this war may be a lost cause?ADM. MULLEN: I don't think that the Taliban being stronger than they've been
since 2001 is, is news. I mean, I've been concerned about the growing insurgency there for a number of years. We really are at a time in Afghanistan,
after the president's review, where we've got the right strategy, the right leadership, and the right resources. And, and we really are in the second
year of that aspect of Afghanistan. I certainly understand it is the ninth year, it is a long time, the sacrifices have been significant, and yet, at
the same time, I think the strategy's right. And the release of these documents, best that I can tell, have not affected the strategy. Many of them
were very, very old. GREGORY: But the reality is still the same, whether it's news or not, the disillusionment with the --- among the American people
about the fact that the Taliban is stronger and not weaker--go back a year ago, nearly, you were on this program, and I asked you about the mission,
and here's a portion of what you said.(Videotape, August 23, 2009)MR. GREGORY: We're rebuilding this nation?ADM. GREGORY: Is that what the American
people signed up for?ADM. MULLEN: No, I'm --- right now, the American people signed up, I think, for support of getting at those who threaten us, and,
and to the degree that, that the Afghan people's security and the ability to ensure that a safe haven doesn't recur in Afghanistan, there's focus on
some degree of making sure security's OK, making sure governance moves in the right direction,roger vivier sandals, and developing an economy which will underpin their future.(End videotape)MR. GREGORY: The problem with
that a year on is that, again, the Taliban is stronger and there appears no evidence that they're willing to do the core thing, which is to turn their
back on al-Qaeda. Isn't that the case?ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think, again, that is the main mission is to make sure that, that Afghanistan can't become
a safe haven again. They are indeed stronger. And yet the president approved additional forces, most of which are there, but there are still
additional forces yet to come this year. So we've said for many, many months this would be a very difficult year; you pointed out the, the losses that
have occurred in the month of July, the highest ever. We recognize that this is a tough fight, but we think we've got the resources right, the
strategy right. There's also a regional piece of this, a lot of effort gone on the Pakistan side, a significant effort on the part of Pakistani
leadership, Pakistani mil to address that --- military to address that as well. But we're not there. GREGORY: But another problem area, in terms of
achieving the goal, is indeed Pakistan. I've talked to people who say the strategy, in effect,roger vivier shoes, boils down to this, with General Petraeus on the scene: Bloody the nose of the Taliban to the point that they
are willing to turn their back on al-Qaeda, Pakistan can broker a deal where there is some power-sharing in the country where the,Roger vivier, the Taliban have a seat at the table and control some part of that geography, and in return, al-Qaeda's out of the
picture. We know that the Taliban is operating from within Pakistan, from safe havens, and escalating their attacks. prime minister used his first
public appearance in Bangalore to warn Pakistan to stop `promoting terror' or face isolation in the international community." And these, these
documents demonstrate what a lot of people knew, which was the intelligence service for Pakistan was helping the Afghan Taliban. Is Pakistan working
against our interests there?ADM. MULLEN: I've said for a long time, clearly the --- a, a critical key to success in the region is going to be Pakistan
and our relationship with Pakistan, which was one that was broken in the late '80s and which we've worked hard to restore. That there are elements of
the Pakistani intelligence agency that are connected or have had relationships with extremists is certainly known and that has to change. I just came
back from,roger vivier pumps, I think, my 19th trip to Pakistan since I've been in this job, spending time particularly with military
leadership, General Kayani. And he has, he has actually directed his military to take on the, the insurgent threat in his own country. We--and he's
made great strides. GREGORY: They operate in that tribal area?ADM. MULLEN: They do. And they, and they have a safe haven there, and that causes us
great problems in Afghanistan as well. That we are anxious to have that addressed is,roger vivier shop, is well known to him. So this isn't going to turn overnight. And you, you laid out one possible outcome. I
think it's a little early to say exactly what the outcome would look like specifically. Suffice it to say, I think we have to be in a stronger
position in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the insurgency overall. We have to continue to develop this relationship and evolve this relationship with Pakistan.
GREGORY: But true or untrue,roger vivier shop, the big fear is that Pakistan's working against us and not with us?ADM. MULLEN: In many ways, Pakistan is
working with us. I mean, their, their military, their intelligence agency. I mean, we've got a very strong relationship in the positive sense with,
with their intelligence agency. MULLEN: But they have, they have shared intelligence with us, they've killed as many or more terrorists as anybody,
they've captured them. GREGORY: Fair to say that among the outcomes you would look at would be a scenario where the Taliban would have some power in
the country?ADM. MULLEN: I think in any of these kinds of insurgency over history, in the political solution, those who have been insurgents at some
point in time have been in a position of political influence at some point down the road. GREGORY: It --- it's --- it seems to be an important point,
if you look at the cover of Time magazine, which has a pretty striking photograph of a young woman whose nose was cut off by the Taliban, a--just one
indication of how brutal and horrific these people are. And, and they've done this when they were in power and,roger vivier shoes, indeed, even when they've been out of power. should not leave, is that our central mission, the central
mission of the United States is not to protect the women of Afghanistan. Is that fair?ADM. GREGORY: But you said a year ago our central mission was to
get at those who threaten us. MULLEN: Well, the Taliban are incredibly unpopular with the Afghan people, even as we speak, and they have--as they have
been for a long period of time. The mission --- the overall mission is to dismantle and defeat and disrupt al-Qaeda. But we have to make sure there's
not a safe haven that returns in Afghanistan. MULLEN: Certainly, the, the,roger vivier pumps, the long-term goal is to make sure that the --- with respect to the population in Afghanistan, that there's a
governant --- governance structure that treats its people well. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that
this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to
prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon
would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is
worse?ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome. And it's those unintended consequences that
are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that
is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of
international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. GREGORY: But leaders
have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United
States attacks?ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would,
would pick one or the other along those lines. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He
doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has
not been even in our recent history, past six months,Roger vivier, a year?ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and
certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. GREGORY: There was a concern among
Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the
case?ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't --- it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an
outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?ADM. GREGORY: Admiral Mullen,
one final question of something I'm sure deeply troubles you, and that is the rate of suicides in the military. And the concern is not just that they
have been increasing, but that commanders in the field have not been attentive enough to the, the problems that are leading to the suicides. What
should be done about that?ADM. MULLEN: Well, I, I think it was addressed this week very well by General Chiarelli,roger vivier pumps, specifically. I mean, the purpose of the review, which was widely reported on, was to understand as much as
we could about what the problem was. It is not a problem that exists just in the Army, because the suicide rate is up in all our services. And we
don't have the answers. I'm one who believes that the pressure of these wars and the repeated deployments is a significant factor, but there's a
significant population that have committed suicide that have not deployed. So it's a, it's an incredibly complex, vexing problem. I think what General
Chiarelli did was, was correctly focus on leaders to be all-attentive to this in every single way and know that we certainly, we're not even close to
solving it. It's an enormously complex problem nationally for us, and certainly we are a microcosm of that. MULLEN: Thank you, David.
????????
http://richardsearley.com/
http://zeekeet.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=56&func=view&catid=47&id=263528#263528
http://annesurecan.com/content/basic-sugar-cookie-recipe#comment-674848
http://www.writetoenlight.com/showthread.php?1190844-based-Vitamins-spun2&p=1220496#post1220496
http://todaysbands.com/musicianrefferal/blogs/viewstory/127101
|
![[*]](images/xmbproblack/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
