Text 1265, 398 rader
Skriven 2005-08-11 23:42:26 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0508112) for Thu, 2005 Aug 11
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 11, 2005

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
Crawford Filing Center
Crawford, Texas



4:09 P.M. CDT

MR. HADLEY: Good afternoon, everybody. I thought I'd talk a little bit
about the President's day. He began early this morning. He had a meeting
with his national security principals. For the first part of the meeting,
he had on screen, Zal Khalilzad, General Casey, John Abizaid, to get a
report on Iraq. Ambassador Khalilzad gave a update on the constitutional
process, which is moving forward, in anticipation of this August 15
deadline to have a Iraqi constitution. He received a report from his
commanders about the security situation and progress on the training of
Iraqi security forces.

The principals then met and Secretary Rice updated the principals and the
President on the status of the Iran nuclear issue and recent developments
in IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna. She also talked about next steps with
respect to the six-party talks dealing with the North Korea nuclear issue,
and also talked about preparations for a Gaza disengagement, which will
begin next week.

They then -- the President then met with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Vice
President and other representatives from the Department of Defense to
review current issues. He did that in the morning. There was a lunch and
then he met with Secretary Rice and the State Department team. The purpose
of that, it would allow the President to do -- to have a little more time
and kind of take a step back, look at important issues for the Defense
Department and for the State Department. He's done this every year and has
found it useful.

In terms of the Defense briefings, they briefed the President on some of
the things they are doing to manage the personnel, military and civilian
personnel, in the Department of Defense. The President talked a little bit
about that this morning -- things that they are doing to enhance the
numbers of deployable units, for example, with respect to the Army;
converting some billets from military to civilian; improving the procedures
for calling up Guard and Reserve -- things of that nature.

There was then a good discussion about the QDR process -- the Quadrennial
Defense Review -- the review that's done every four years of key defense
issues. That is moving forward this year. The QDR will be completed at the
same time that the budget -- that would be February of '06 -- so that the
recommendations in the Quadrennial Defense Review can begin to be reflected
in the '07 budget that would go up to Congress in February of '06. They
talked to the President about some of the issues that they were addressing
in that process.

And then, finally, there was a more specific discussion of some of the
budget issues that are going to be presented to the Secretary of Defense
and that he will be considering as part of the QDR process, but, more
importantly, the budgetary process.

These, again, were not decision-making meetings. They were to give the
President a better appreciation of the kinds of issues the Defense
Department is grappling with, what the Secretary's thinking is on those
issues, and what the thinking is of those who support him in that effort,
and to get -- they, in turn, can get some indication from the President of
his thoughts as they move forward.

There was then a lunch that involved both the Defense Department team and
the State Department team, and that was a discussion of public diplomacy,
the challenge that the country faces in getting a better understanding
abroad of its policies, and some ideas that the State Department is
considering about how to enhance the effectiveness of that effort.

And then, after lunch, there was a meeting that the President had with the
State Department team, and it was really a review of a range of Middle East
issues -- developments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, a little bit
more on developments in Iran and the like -- developments in the region,
and then kind of a step-back review of where are we on the freedom agenda
and advancing the cause of freedom in the Middle East which, as you know,
the President thinks is a critical element in the long-term about winning
the war of ideas that is at the heart of the war on terror, and also
enhancing stability and progress in the Middle East.

It was a good day, a lot of back-and-forth. It really allowed the President
to step back, ask some questions, interact with his two State and Defense
teams, and I think it was a good day for all involved.

That's what the President's day was. I'd be glad to answer any questions
you might have.

Q When he talks about rebalancing forces, I'm not quite sure I understand
what that means exactly. Could you elaborate a little bit?

MR. HADLEY: He's obviously -- Secretary Rumsfeld and his people are better
able to do that. One of the things it means is a determination of what
kinds of missions should be in the Guard and Reserve, what kinds of
missions should be in the active force. But it's also an effort to define
what are the real missions that we need to do in the 21st century, and do
we have the right priorities. And I think what they're discovering is that
there's probably more people and emphasis in some areas, in some mission
areas, and with some kinds of forces that are less important in the
challenges we face in the 21st century. So it's one of these -- we need a
little less of this and a little more of that.

And that's basically -- the other thing they've talked about, as you know,
is to try and identify those missions that you really need military
professionals to do, and those missions and activities that, in fact,
civilians could do just as well, and probably more cheaply. And so it is an
effort, then, to rebalance the force both within combat and non-combat,
within military and civilian, within active and Guard and Reserve, to have
the force more tailored to the challenges of the 21st century.

Q Is this an effort to shorten deployments in Iraq, to move more people in
and out of there?

MR. HADLEY: That wasn't talked about. One of the things they are trying to
do is to get more predictability in the call-ups for the Guard and Reserve
so that people, their families, their employers can plan. And that is
something that they've improved on, and are going to continue to do, to
make improvements on.

Q He talked a little bit about how he was pretty certain that the
constitution charter would be actually drafted by Monday. How could he be
so sure about that since it's only a couple of days away? And can you
expand a little bit more on the federalism -- the problems they were
dealing with the federalism, and there was one other -- religious -- yes,
role of religion?

MR. HADLEY: She asked, why could you be confident that the deadline of
August 15th will be met, and what's the status on issues about religion and
federalism.

There's been a lot of work done. There has been a drafting committee
involving Sunni, Kurds and Shia that have produced a draft. There's
actually several drafts around, but they are trying to focus on specific
language. But there are probably six or eight issues that are kind of
issues of principle which are well understood, and the options under each
have sort of been well fleshed out. And they've now put together a small
group of leaders from the various communities to try and address in a
systematic way those issues. And they're literally meeting around the
clock. And everybody knows the issues, everybody knows what the options
are. There's some efforts to bridge some compromise. And I think their
belief is, once they can get those leaders to agree on a compromise, that
turning it into text is not going to be a particularly difficult problem.

Secondly, they have been working these issues for a while, and I think
Ambassador Khalilzad believes that some of the compromises are coming
forward. And what they're really -- I think is going on is a sort -- on
some of those issues, they're going to go back to agreed language that was
in the transitional administrative law. On some of those issues, there's a
compromise around -- it looks like it can get a following from all three
communities. And on some issues, they really don't need to be decided now
in terms of a constitution and there will be an opportunity to address them
later.

So Zal's view is that everybody understands the urgency of coming out with
a draft by August 15, so we can keep the schedule of getting it out in the
country. One of the things he briefed us on was the numbers of forums and
discussion sessions and the degree of public participation already in the
debate over the constitution. And that's a very important part of making
sure that any constitution coming out of this process is widely supported
in the country and will, therefore, pass on the referendum on October 15th.
So there's the desire to keep the schedule which was set out in the
transitional administrative law, and that's one of the things that's
keeping them focused on trying to get the August 15th date so they can keep
on this schedule of events. And his assessment is, he's optimistic that
they will be able to do that.

Q Is it bad if they don't? What if they don't?

MR. HADLEY: Well, one of the things -- deadlines have a very, sort of,
useful forcing function to force people to compromise. And we've seen that
with respect to Afghanistan; we've seen that in early dates when we had
discussions about slipping election dates because preparations were going
to take a while. And I think the President's view has generally been stick
to the deadline; it has a wonderful way of getting people to be serious and
bring the negotiations to a close.

And secondly, the other reason, of course, to do it is to keep on the
political schedule that is in the transitional administrative law, because
they're going to need, then, a couple months to get the constitution out to
Iraqis to allow reasonable time for debate and discussion so that people
can do the referendum on the 15th of October.

I think he's -- like any of these documents, when you get a document up
there, will probably be some technical changes that need to be done
afterwards. This is true with legislation in Congress all the time. But at
this point, the parties, themselves, the Iraqis have decided they want to
meet the August 15 deadline. As you know, they passed up an opportunity,
which they could have had under the transitional administrative law, on
August 1 to extend it for another six months. And they decided not to do
that, and stick with the TAL. And, of course, we support that decision. And
the Ambassador is being very active to try and facilitate the dialogue
among the leaders of the communities to try and come up with a document by
August 15th.

Robert.

Q What did Karen Hughes have to say about public diplomacy? Did she have
any new ideas, and how is she going to approach her job in the State
Department?

MR. HADLEY: She's got a lot of ideas, a lot of energy, and I don't want to
scoop her on those. I can give you some of the things that she has been
thinking about. One thing she's done already is she's done a lot of
listening and reading. There have been a lot of reports over the last two
or three years on public diplomacy. She has mined those for good ideas.
She's been a lot of -- doing a lot of discussion with ambassadors overseas
and people in the State Department.

And the kinds of issues that she's thinking about are, one, what kind of
priority does public diplomacy have in the minds of ambassadors and in the
minds of foreign service professionals? Do they see this as a really
important part of the war, the role for our diplomatic personnel? And how
do we raise the profile and importance of that issue?

Secondly, some of these issues really need to be done on a regional basis
because we're into regional communication, Mark, that's -- and regional
challenges. And so one of the questions is, how can we get our embassies in
the field to work together more closely on developing public diplomacy
themes.

Third issue is how do we react more promptly and flexibly when stories get
out that get, then, picked up and distorted in ways that hurt our country;
how can we, in a more active and prompt way, deal with that issue. And
finally, I think it's partly in the wake of the -- establishment of USIA,
how do we really show to the men and women in our Foreign Service that this
is a respected career path, this is an important part of the mission.

So she's struggling with all of those issues -- how much should we do
through the government; how much should we do in public-private
partnerships; how much do you really have to leave to the private sector
and to private citizens to do; what is the -- and finally, how can we do a
better job of treating public diplomacy not just as a State Department
issue, but much more as a governmental-wide issue, since we have public
affairs office in all the major departments. How can we make sure we have a
more coordinated effort in advancing the interests of the country.

She's got a good handle on the issues. She had a good discussion. I got
some -- she has a number of ideas, and I think she'll be putting them
together, in terms of a plan that she and the Secretary of State will bring
to the President, and then will try and get out through the interagency.

Q Steve, has the President made clear to Rumsfeld and Myers that he prefers
they not use euphemisms for the word "war"? He's not shy about saying the
U.S. is a nation at war.

MR. HADLEY: I think you saw the President, today, standing up in front of
his national security team, making very clear it's a war on terrorism, how
he sees it. You know, everybody has heard it and I think there's actually
no disagreement that there's a war on terrorism. It is a terribly important
struggle for the United States. And there is obviously -- and to be
successful, we have to integrate all elements of national power. And part
of that is, obviously, military action against terrorists; and part of it
is also, of course, progress in the war of ideas, in spreading democracy
and freedom.

Everybody knows that's part of the war on terror, but nobody is under any
illusions that it is a war. All you have to do is look at the litany of
death and carnage that has occurred before and after 9/11. And, of course,
the American people are under no misapprehension about that.

Q Was the President at all miffed when in recent weeks Secretary Rumsfeld
and General Myers keep using euphemisms for that word?

MR. HADLEY: Look, the President today and over the last two weeks has made
very clear how he sees it. And this is a team that -- Secretary Rumsfeld
and General Myers don't need any reminder that there's a war going on. And
the President made very clear how the issue needs to be framed for the
American people, and that's how it's going to be framed.

Q Steve, what was the thinking on Iran? We've heard some disturbing
information from Secretary Rumsfeld this week about very sophisticated,
powerful bombs being smuggled from Iran into Iraq. We've seen Iran now
restart uranium enrichment. We've seen Iran say that the Paris Accord is
now defunct. The IAEA has passed a resolution condemning the activities and
calling for more talks. What kind of communications, either directly or
through channels, has the U.S. government had with Iran about its
activities and along the border with Iraq? And is there any kind of a
connection that might be drawn between the posture the Iranian government
takes in both areas?

MR. HADLEY: The question was about Iran, what's going on

-- what's happening on the nuclear front and what's happening on reports of
Iran -- perhaps, let me put it this way, weapons coming across the border
from Iran into Iraq and are they related.

I don't see any relationship between the two. I think where we are on the
nuclear issue in terms of Iran is this: They have -- they have indicated
and taken steps to begin the conversion. They have not done anything on
reprocessing or enrichment; they have done something on conversion. They
have asked the IAEA to remove the seals and they have removed the seals. It
is still being done under IAEA observation. But the EU 3 have taken the
position, and we agree with it, that that activity is inconsistent with the
Paris Accord and is one of the things that the Iranians agreed to freeze or
suspend as part of that Paris Accord. And so they are in violation of that
Paris Accord, and that is what the EU 3 has said.

The Board of Governors adopted a resolution calling on the Iranians to come
back into compliance with the Paris Accord, to suspend any further
conversion activity. They've called it a matter of great seriousness.
They've asked the Director General to make a report on the 3rd of
September. And there is an opportunity for Iran to do what the EU 3 and we,
and I think most of the Board of Governors hope they will do, which is come
back into compliance, stop the conversion activity, and then to resume
discussions and negotiations with the EU 3 about a more permanent
arrangement.

And it's interesting that while they have resumed this conversion activity,
they have still done it under IAEA supervision. And we had the President of
Iran indicating that they would have some ideas and that there would be
further negotiations. We think that is the right step, to have -- for Iran
to come back into compliance with the Paris Accord, and to resume the
negotiations and discussions with the EU 3. We've made that clear publicly.
We, of course, have our ambassador at the IAEA. He has said that in the
IAEA discussions. So we have, I think, good communication with the Iranians
on that issue.

In terms of the border issue with Iraq, obviously, we and the Iraqis
monitor closely the activities of Iranian representatives in Iraq. We try
and ensure that from both of the borders -- the border that Iraq has with
Syria and the border it has with Iran -- that there are not flows of
fighters or armament or anything else that will make the situation in Iraq
more difficult. Iraqis have called on both Syria and Iran to support the
democratic process and to support their efforts to defeat the terrorists in
Iraq by ensuring that there isn't any of this activity going across their
borders.

We've been very concerned about Syria as a staging area for foreign
fighters coming into Iraq. We have raised this issue repeatedly with the
Syrians. We have been monitoring, and the Iraqis have been monitoring, the
Iranian border, and the concern is that there are -- there may be IEDs and
other munitions showing up that seem to have a footprint similar to that of
devices used by groups that have historically had Iranian support. That's
the concern we have.

And whether the Iranian government is directly involved, we don't know. But
it's a concern we've had. We've raised it publicly. Other allies in the
coalition have raised it publicly, and the Iraqis are now aware of it, and
they've indicated that they will look into, as well.

But we're all in agreement that Iran and Syria need to control their
borders and make sure that there is nothing going across those borders that
will compound the security situation in Iraq and lead to not only coalition
forces and Americans being at risk and killed, but also, of course, Iraqis,
because scores of Iraqis are dying. They are the principal victims of this
terrorism.

Q -- IEDs, improvised explosive devices, but Rumsfeld talked about very
powerful, sophisticated, professionally manufactured devices. And you say
groups that have had support from Iran -- are you suggesting a distinction
between Iran and the government itself? Is it a suspicion that these are
coming from terrorist organizations that are somehow linked?

MR. HADLEY: We don't know. We're looking into it. And under the heading of
IEDs, there's a wide range of them, from very simple devices to more
sophisticated. And of course, the ones you're more concerned about are the
more sophisticated devices because they tend to be more effective and more
lethal.

Q Steve, before you leave, can you tell us about your meeting last Saturday
with Mrs. Sheehan and what you told the President about it?

MR. HADLEY: Sure. Joe Hagin and I were pleased that Mrs. Sheehan met with
us. We expressed our condolences to her and her family and our sympathy for
her loss. We told her that we wanted to hear what she had to say and hear
her views. And she expressed those views. She has said to the public she
thinks that the war is wrong and should be ended and the troops should come
home now. And obviously, as the President said today, he respects her right
to have those views -- respects them, understands they are deeply felt, but
believes they're wrong, and that what we're doing in Iraq is terribly
important for the security of our country in the long-term. And he just
respectfully disagrees.

As you know, he's very sensitive to the -- the loss that is being sustained
by families who have sons and daughters, husbands and wives who are being
killed or injured in Iraq. He meets with -- he's met with families of over
200 of the fallen. As you know, he meets at Walter Reed and elsewhere with
those that are injured. He understands very clearly the cost in terms of
lives and pain that Americans are -- are feeling. But he believes that they
are engaged in a noble cause and it's terribly important for the safety and
security of our country. And he respects her views, but respectfully
disagrees.

That's all I've got. Thanks a lot.

END 4:36 P.M. CDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050811-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)