Text 3701, 706 rader
Skriven 2006-11-28 23:31:18 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (061128e) for Tue, 2006 Nov 28
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 28, 2006

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
Reval Hotel Latvija
Riga, Latvia



5:30 P.M. (Local)

MR. HADLEY: I'm going to try and just give you a little recap of the day,
look forward a little bit tonight to the NATO working dinner tonight.
Started the day, of course, in Estonia, the President being the first
sitting President to visit Estonia. It was an interesting day because this
is a very small country that has made a lot of right decisions, in terms of
its politics, in terms of its international relations, in terms of its
economy. These were not easy decisions, but the people of Estonia are
reaping the rewards. They privatized their economy, they opened to foreign
investment, they opened to the power of trade, and their economy is doing
very well, returning almost double-digit growth.

So it's a heartening experience for those nations making a transition from
conditions of tyranny to conditions of freedom, that there are some models
there and there are some examples of what is possible, in, in terms of
historical events, a fairly short period of time.

They have also, as part of their -- that transition and making right
decisions, they have made some right decisions with respect to their
military -- their military, while small, nonetheless, they are increasing
defense spending, adapting to the capabilities required for the challenges
of the 21st century. And in that respect, they are an example for the rest
of Europe of the willingness to put resources into the defense mission and
to adapt to the defense requirements and capabilities that are needed for
the 21st century.

The President then went on to Latvia. Again, it's very interesting, Estonia
and Latvia, two of the three "captive nations." They kept the flame of
freedom alive within their countries for almost 60 years, and now with over
10 years enjoying the benefits of freedom and liberty, they still have a
palpable understanding of what freedom means and they have been willing to
help others find their freedom. And they -- it was interesting how the
leaders in both countries have put that forward to us as a contribution
they feel morally obligated to make. Having found and had their freedom
restored themselves, they talked very passionately about their obligation
to help others find their freedom.

They are working with a number of Europe's emerging and struggling
democracies. They are working actively with Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova.
They're working with Belarus. We met -- the President was introduced in
Estonia to a number of individuals who have been involved in democracy
promotion efforts, and the leaders of the country are clearly very proud of
their work. And these are also countries who are punching above their
weight in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Though they have very small military
forces, they have something like almost 10 percent deployed in Afghanistan
and Iraq. They are taking on real military missions. They are exposed --
they are in parts of Afghanistan, for example, where they are taking
casualties. And they are actually talking about increasing the number of
forces that they are putting into those two places -- again, an indication
of this both passion for and feeling an obligation to help others find
their freedom.

They are providing leadership in European institutions, despite their small
size. And of course, one of the reasons it's so important to have this NATO
summit here in the Baltics is to acknowledge their contribution. They feel
very strongly about the importance of retaining the transatlantic link
between Europe and the United States for meeting the challenges of the 21st
century, and of course, NATO is the primary institution for doing that.

And I must say, as we sat there listening to these, at one point, Secretary
Rice leaned over and passed me a note saying, thank God both Republican and
Democratic administrations have been supporters of NATO enlargement,
because look at the fruits of that effort over the last decade.

We went and had a meeting with -- the President had a meeting with Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer, the Secretary General of NATO. That was to talk a little bit
about the meeting coming up tonight. The focus of that meeting will be very
much Afghanistan. The President and the Secretary General talked about the
commitment and accomplishments that have been achieved by NATO's
involvement in Afghanistan. It has been a hard decision to commit forces
down there. It was the right decision, and I think the two of them talked
about the importance for the mission in Afghanistan succeeding not only for
the future of Afghanistan, but for success in the broader war against
terror and of the importance to NATO, having taken on this mission, to
succeed.

They talked about NATO transformation, what NATO is learning by its
involvement in Afghanistan, the kinds of capabilities NATO is understanding
that it needs in order to carry out these missions. One of the subjects of
this NATO summit is a series of initiatives that the President just talked
about in his speech, which are part of the process of NATO adapting its
capabilities and structures to the challenges of the 21st century.

That's also going to require additional defense capabilities and probably
additional defense spending. And that's one of the things that the
Secretary General has been very outspoken about, and the President has been
very supportive about. And one of the issues at this NATO summit is going
to be highlighting the need for enhancing capabilities for these missions,
and the other aspect, of course, is also enhancing the partnerships with
non-NATO countries that are involved with NATO in these missions.

The two leaders talked about NATO enlargement, the continuing open door to
European democracies who want to be part of NATO and are able and willing
to meet NATO's requirements. And the President, of course, addressed that
in his remarks tonight, and it will be a subject addressed in the meeting
later tonight and in the communiqué that comes out tomorrow.

Finally, there was some discussion about the importance of NATO's mission
in Iraq, and the President has an opportunity to talk a little bit about
the meeting he, the President, is going to have here in the next two days
with Prime Minister Maliki.

That's basically what was talked about today. The discussion this evening I
think is going to focus heavily on Afghanistan, the adaptation of
capabilities required to succeed in that mission. And I'd be pleased to
take any questions.

Sir.

Q Steve, you said the Baltic countries are punching above their weight in
Afghanistan. Are some countries, like Germany, punching below their weight?

MR. HADLEY: I simply said that they are punching above their weight and
they recognize the stakes and they're willing to make a commitment. And
that's something for which it's wholly appropriate and that they should be
acknowledged and recognized.

Q Will the President ask for some countries to do more than they're doing
now, specifically?

MR. HADLEY: Well, there are a number of things that NATO has asked. As you
know, there are still some additional requirements that have not been met
and SACEUR has been talking about those. There's a desire to make clear
that we are all in this together and that NATO countries need to be
supporting each other in the NATO mission, and that the capabilities sent
to Afghanistan have to be capabilities that match the requirements of
military commanders to accomplish the mission on the ground.

So I think you're going to have that kind of discussion tonight.

Q Steve, can I ask about the Maliki meeting? Does the President think it's
time to be more candid with Maliki than he's been before, to apply more
pressure on the need for Maliki to shore up some kind of political center
in Iraq that is the starting point for actually ending the violence,
especially after the elections, especially with all the pressure to bring
troops home? Is this the time to really put pressure on Maliki? Is that
what's on his mind?

MR. HADLEY: The President has been very candid with Maliki in his
discussions. I've been party to those discussions, both in person and by
video. So this is a relationship of candor from the get-go. I'm sure it
will continue to be such.

Secondly, I think there's a lot of discussion about pushing Maliki. Maliki
is doing a lot of pushing himself. He has talked very publicly of his
desire to enhance the capability of Iraqi security forces, to have Iraqi
security forces take more responsibility for security in the country, and
to have more control over those forces.

He's also talked very much about the importance of reconciliation, of
bringing other sectors of the politics -- of the political spectrum into
more active engagement and support of the government. So I think the thing
that's interesting is that this is a unity government that is not -- that
is, in some sense, leaning very far forward and wanting to accept
responsibility for the future in Iraq. That is a very good thing. It is
something that, obviously, speaks well for them. It's what the Iraqi people
want, it's what the American people want, it's what this activity has been
all about, to put the Iraqi government and Iraqi people in the position and
posture where they can take increasing responsibility for what -- for their
own future.

Q But if I can just follow on that?

MR. HADLEY: Sure.

Q Isn't it more important, at this stage, to deal with the produced
results, rather than having desire? Of course he wants to control the
security forces, the question is, can he do it? And what will the President
say about the fact that he's been unable to do it and that he can't even
control Baghdad, and that you've got the figure like Muqtada al-Sadr, who
has, it seems, greater control over the government and over the streets in
Baghdad than the head of this unity government that he champions?

MR. HADLEY: I don't think those things that you said are factually correct.
There has been an effort that has been a coordinated effort between the
Iraqi government and coalition forces to get greater control of the
security situation in Baghdad. And as we have said very clearly and
candidly, after two iterations, it has not produced adequate progress in an
acceptable time frame. They will clearly talk about more of what there is
to do. There have been a number of steps, in terms of reconciliation, that
the government has taken, meetings they've had of tribal leaders, of
religious leaders, political leaders, some in the country, some outside of
the country, trying to bring reconciliation together. He has taken steps.
Obviously, they have a long way to go.

Remember, this is a government that came in -- we've talked about kind of
the new phase in Iraq that was ushered in -- the President talked today --
by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in February. That was two
months before this government even came into power. So I think we have to
recognize that this is a very difficult hand that this unity government has
dealt. They are both having to build democratic institutions that in some
sense are unprecedented for Iraq's past; they are also trying to build
governmental and security capability, new institutions, and at the same
time, coping in real time with a very challenging situation.

I think Maliki would be the first person to say he has not produced the
kind of results he would like to have produced, and he has some ideas about
how to increase his capability to produce those results. The President will
be listening to those ideas, and figuring out how we can support him in
that effort. That's clearly what he wants to do, that's clearly what the
Iraqi people want him to do, and that's what we want him to do, he and his
unity government.

Q Does the administration's opposition to a specific timetable for
withdrawing U.S. troops encompass and include what the Democrats have been
increasingly talking about, which is to say that some troops should be
pulled out -- they should start to be pulled out in four to six months? Is
that part of what you would consider a specific timetable, and therefore,
is that something you would oppose?

MR. HADLEY: I think the President has been very clear that, obviously, he
would like to bring U.S. forces home; quite frankly, Iraqis would like to
be at the point where they can control their own security and be
responsible for their own security, don't need coalition forces. So
everybody knows where we want to get. The question is, can you get there in
a way that will ensure that Iraqis really are able to control and provide
for their own security, recognizing they're in a challenging situation
where they're having to build capability under fire, if you will.

So that's a difficult transition to make. The President wants to make sure
that the transition is to order and security, not to something less than
that. So what the President has said is, it's got to be conditions based;
it's got to be a function on progress against the terrorists; progress in
Iraq, in terms of building up their security force; and progress in Iraqis
on being able to exercise political control over those forces.

What the President has said is, we want to have that transition; that
transition will open the door for bringing our forces -- gradually
realigning and repositioning our forces, and gradually bringing them home.
But that transition is difficult to manage, and those kinds of adjustments
in our forces have to be reflecting conditions on the ground.

So when you say, by such and such a date, start, finish, complete --
whatever your number is, you've stepped away from what the President
believes is the most important thing, which is a conditions-based approach
to the issue of troop levels.

Now the President, as he said today, we are undertaking our review. The
issues about troop levels, it's not an issue that he's got a view on other
than, very strongly, this set of principles, that it needs to be condition
based in a context where Iraq can succeed in taking greater responsibility
for its own security.

Want to follow up?

Q So even the call to begin withdrawing troops, not to do the middle or the
end, but just to start, as you say, would be -- in your consideration,
would be a timetable and therefore you would oppose that, the beginning of
it?

MR. HADLEY: I tried to say what the President's principles are. We're in
the process of a review. The President has said he wants to listen to all
kinds of ideas. He wants to listen to his own commanders. He wants to,
obviously, listen to Prime Minister Maliki -- that's why he's going to
Iraq.* He wants to listen to Baker-Hamilton. He wants to listen to
Democrats in their new role as the majority in both houses of Congress.

Let us have that process. I'd light the answers by saying, we have a set of
principles, the President has been very clear on those principles. As to
the specifics, the kinds of things you're talking about, let's get through
this political -- let's get through this policy review process that we've
talked about. You should not take that as a movement on the part of the
administration, you should not take it as a rejection of the
administration. It is a question that's premature at this point in time.
The President has been clear about his principles. I don't expect he will
deviate from those principles. But the kinds of specific issues people are
talking about I think we ought to allow to come to be addressed as part of
this review process.

Q Underlying a lot of the calls for more direct talks with Iran and Syria
is the belief that if there were progress, particularly involving Israel,
either with the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, that if there
was progress on those two tracks you might have greater stability in Iraq
or across the Mideast. Do you think that that position, that idea, that
progress in Israel-Palestine, Israel-Syria is linked to stability in Iraq
and the Mideast? Do you share that belief?

MR. HADLEY: We have -- it's in our interest and it's in the interest of the
region to both help Iraqis stabilize the situation in Iraq, help Iraq
become a democratic state that can, as the President says, can govern
itself, defend itself and sustain itself, and is an ally in the war on
terror. It is also, separately and apart, a good thing for the region and
for U.S. policy for the Israelis and the Palestinians to get to the point
where they can talk about how to stand down their conflict and move in the
direction of a more permanent peace. Those are useful and important policy
objectives.

It is also important that the situation in Lebanon be such that the
international community is supporting Lebanese democracy against those
outside forces that are trying to destabilize it. I don't think these are
linked in some kind of game. They are linked, however, in one important
respect, as the President has talked about -- they are all differing
examples of countries or groups that are trying to assert their freedom and
build democratic institutions. That's what you're seeing in Lebanon, that's
what you're seeing Iraq, that's what you're seeing by President Abbas in
terms of the Palestinian Authority and what he's trying to do among the
Palestinians.

It is in the interests of all who love freedom to try and support those
efforts. Unfortunately, they are separately being frustrated by countries
like Iran and Syria, and those that they support, in terms of Hezbollah and
Hamas, that have a very different agenda. So in some sense, while it is in
our interest to pursue all those policy levels, they are connected because
it is in the context, as the President said, of moderates who are trying to
find democratic solutions based on freedom versus extremists that are
trying to stop that process.

Q Can you address Syria specifically, Israel-Syria, rather than in the
context of Lebanon, or can you talk about Israel-Syria?

MR. HADLEY: What about Israel-Syria?

Q You mentioned the importance of Israel-Palestinian, you mentioned the
importance of Lebanon. But what about the importance of negotiations
between Israel and Syria, which probably is not --

MR. HADLEY: I think Prime Minister Olmert has been sort of very clear on
that subject. Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the
Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and
supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support
Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas. This is not a Syria that
is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region, and I think
Prime Minister Olmert said, under those circumstances, with that kind of
Syrian policy, how can you talk about negotiating on the Golan Heights?
Seems to me that's a sensible position.

Sir.

Q There's a report that Hezbollah has been training Muqtada al-Sadr's
Shiite militia, both in Lebanon and in Iraq.

MR. HADLEY: I haven't seen the specifics of that support, of that report.
But, look, that Iran is doing things to support elements that are in
opposition to the coalition and in opposition to the Iraqi government is
not news. We've been talking about that for months. In terms of training
elements inside Iraq, in terms of transferring equipment and particular
things that become elements of improvised explosive devices, we've been
seeing that for some time, in terms of flow of money and the like.

So I would say to you, if that report turns out to be true, it would be all
of a piece of Iranian activity in Iraq that has not been supportive of
progress towards democracy and security; quite the contrary. And that's, of
course, why Iraqis have been going to Tehran and sending the message, you
are not being constructive in Iraq, and you need to change your policy and
become constructive in Iraq.

So I would say, if that report proves out, it's of a piece of what we are
seeing, and is why Iraq has been so concerned about the activities of its
neighbors, both Syria and Iran.

Q If it is true, was the President today essentially closing the door to
U.S. negotiations with Iran, short of them taking care of their enrichment
of uranium, stopping that? Was that, what the President was answering
today, closing the door to possibly the U.S. engaging in conversations with
Iran regarding Iraq?

MR. HADLEY: I don't know what you mean by closing the door. Let me tell you
what I think he was saying, is, look, we've said very clearly we are --
one, we've been very clear publicly on our concerns about what Iran is
doing in Iraq and other places. So there is not -- and of course the Iraqis
have been very clear. So there's not a miscommunication here or something
that is hidden. There's lots of communication going on to Iran all the time
about its activities in Iraq. Let's be very clear about that.

So this is not a problem of lack of communication. This is a problem of
Iran pursuing very destructive policies which we think are also not in
Iran's long-term interests, but that's another issue.

What the President has wanted -- was reaffirming today is we made it very
clear we are prepared to talk with Iran, and those conversations clearly
begin with the nuclear issue. We've talked and offered to talk with Iran in
the past about other issues like Iraq, but the issue before us now, and the
most immediate one, is the nuclear issue the President just reiterated that
we are prepared to talk to Iran about the nuclear issue in the context of
the EU3 plus Russia, China and the United States, but it has to be when
Iran meets the conditions imposed upon it or set for it, if you will, by
the U.N. Security Council, by the IAEA Board of Governors, by Germany,
France and U.K., the countries that have been leading the negotiations with
Iran, and that is, suspend your enrichment program, suspend your program,
come to the table, we will talk. That's what the President was reaffirming
today.

Sir.

Q Can you give us any readout from the meeting that the Vice President had
with King Abdullah --

MR. HADLEY: I've got to correct that. Of course, what I meant to say is,
suspend your enrichment program, come to the table, and we will talk.
That's the point.

Sorry. Sir, go ahead.

Q I was just going to ask whether you can give a readout from the meeting
the Vice President had with King Abdullah. We understood that King Abdullah
had actually requested the Vice President's presence. And did he have a
specific message, and did we carry a message through the Vice President to
him about what's going on?

MR. HADLEY: Obviously that was a very confidential conversation. The Vice
President has shared it with the President. And it would not be in the
interest of our relations with Saudi for me to talk about that conversation
here.

Q All right.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, sir.

Q Just to follow up on the question that David -- can you give a little bit
more of your analysis of -- you had said in your comments that the Maliki
government has not produced the results that we had hoped for. That's
roughly a paraphrase.

MR. HADLEY: The results that he has hoped for. And he's talked about that
very candidly. And he's talked about what he thinks he needs in order to
produce results -- this is not a criticism of Maliki, don't get me wrong.
This is not a criticism of Maliki. We think that this unity government is
doing pretty well in a very difficult situation. What I'm saying to you is
Maliki has been impatient, and has said that his government has not
produced the results that they seek, and he's got some ideas about how to
enhance their capabilities to do so. It's very important.

Q My question was, you visited Baghdad a few weeks ago, and obviously have
talked to him. What is your analysis, just stepping back, of why that has
happened, why he has not produced the results he has hoped for? What's your
analysis, in a little more detail?

MR. HADLEY: Well, I think it's hard to underestimate the difficult
situation this government is up against. It's dealing with a new
constitution that is, in many ways, unprecedented in the Arab world. It is
a unity government that has been put together, again, the first time in
Iraq's history and really in the region where you've tried to put together
a government in which Sunni, Shia and other groups -- the Kurds and others
-- are working as partners in a democratic framework, rather than one being
on top, one on the bottom. They've been at this new constitution, new
government, reorganizing the politics after 30 years of brutal oppression,
and they've been at it for five or six months and they're doing it in a
context where there is considerable violence, sectarian violence that is,
in large measure, provoked by al Qaeda in a strategy that Zarqawi announced
years ago that he was pursuing. So you have a situation of al Qaeda
activities, Saddamist activities, various activities by Sunni extremist
group and Shia extremist groups and sectarian violence.

This is a pretty tall order for a government, and, at the same time, you're
building your government institutions and your security institutions from
the ground up. This is a big challenge. This is a big challenge for a very
sophisticated and well-established democracy, much less a country -- a big
challenge for a country with the political institutions he's got.

So I don't think one should be surprised that it is not moving at the speed
that he wants it to move. This is a huge challenge, and this government
needs our support.

Sir.

Q Can I follow on that statement?

MR. HADLEY: Can I do this, and then I'll come back to you? Yes.

Q Can you describe, in as much detail as you can, what you know about the
insurgency in Afghanistan, where it's rising up, how bad it is, what you're
hearing about that?

MR. HADLEY: I'll come back to that. Did you want to follow up, Bill, on
this one? I thought we were going to --

Q How can you say that we think the Maliki government is doing pretty well
when, by all accounts, he would have no strength at all in parliament but
for the bloc of votes that Sadr's party holds? It seems to be the majority
view, in everything we read, that he has no power except the power which
comes from his association with Sadr, who is inimical to U.S. interests.

MR. HADLEY: I don't think that's how it works. I think there are about 270
members, maybe 275 members in the legislature. Sadr has a block of 50. So
this is a unity government, drawing from Kurds, Sunni and Shia. It has a
broader base of support. Secondly, Sadr is in the government. Sadr has some
ministers that are part of the government. And one of the things that
Maliki has been very clear about is trying to keep Sadr in that government
and get Sadr to recognize that he has a role as part of the government, he
has a role as part of the government to ensure that the government is the
exclusive source of authority and force within Iraq. And that means going
after the extremes, whether Shia extremists or Sunni extremists, those
elements that are standing outside the government and are willing to use
force against the government. He is trying to unite moderates in Sunni,
Shia and Kurd communities into his unity, and give them, through the
training of security forces, the strength to go after those elements that
refuse to become part of the political process. That's what he's trying to
do.

He has said that the government needs to do better. We've said that the
situation in Iraq is not proceeding well enough, fast enough. This is not
-- I'm trying to give you a very candid assessment. But the question I got
was, why isn't he doing better? And all I wanted to do was to remind
everybody the situation which this unity government was presented, and the
challenges with which they're having to deal. It is something one has to
keep in mind when you evaluate what's going on in Iraq. That's my only
point.

Sir.

Q Pretty well is relative, isn't it?

MR. HADLEY: Pardon me?

Q Pretty well, as you said, is pretty relative, isn't it?

MR. HADLEY: It's very relevant, and my point --

Q Relative.

MR. HADLEY: -- was not to -- I hope you don't sort of encapsulize what I've
said by saying, Hadley says they're doing pretty well, because I think it
would be unfair to what I've just described as a situation which is --
we're very concerned about, high levels of violence, sectarian violence
that is a challenge for this new government, things proceeding not well
enough or fast enough. All I'm saying is, they are not making the progress
we would like, they are not making the progress they would like, and
there's some reasons for that, because they face a very challenging
situation. That's the best I can do, in terms of describing the challenge
they face and where they are in that process.

Sir.

Q You just said a few minutes ago that you wouldn't be surprised if Iran or
Hezbollah were supporting militias inside Iraq, especially the Mahdi
militias and Muqtada al-Sadr. Will the President ask Prime Minister Maliki
to take any specific measures and steps against Muqtada al-Sadr?

MR. HADLEY: Yes, I have a logic problem.

Q You said -- you were asked about the report that Iran or Hezbollah was
training militias --

MR. HADLEY: Yes, I've got it. Let me tell you what Maliki has said. Maliki
has said many times that there can only be -- that only the government can
have force and military forces in that country, and that those elements
that stand outside of that and are willing to use force on the government,
there is no place for them into Iraq, and that he is prepared to use force
against them. That's what he said.

Now, as I said earlier, Sadr is part of the government, and what he has
also said, I think pretty clearly, is those forces who are part of the
government need to support the monopoly of force in the hands of the
government, and ultimately be willing to support the government is using
force against those extremists, whether Sunni or Shia, who stand outside.
That's what he's -- that's the challenge that Maliki has made to Sadr.
That's the strategy he is pursuing. Can't do better than that.

Sir.

Q Do you have any indication that Maliki will be asking the U.S. to start
discussing some sort of timetable for withdrawal of forces?

MR. HADLEY: No, I don't. I have no indication that he's -- he has not
spoken publicly about that, and I don't have any evidence that that's going
to be on his agenda. But we'll see when we see him. The two leaders, as I
said, have had very frank conversations in the past, and they'll have
another one in the future.

Why don't I take you, and then I'll go back to the question on Afghanistan,
and then we'll call it quits.

Q Not well enough, not fast enough. Specifically, what will the President
ask to make it faster and better?

MR. HADLEY: That is, of course -- there are a couple things to that. One,
one of the questions is, what does Maliki think he needs to make it faster
and better, because, again, this is a sovereign Iraqi government, a unity
government. He has talked about things he thinks he needs to go faster and
better. And so the President is going to start, I think, by listening to
Prime Minister Maliki, on behalf of the unity government, and say, what is
your strategy, what are you going to do, and what can we do to help and
support.

Q He hasn't already outlined that?

MR. HADLEY: Pardon me?

Q He hasn't already outlined that?

MR. HADLEY: Sure, he has. You have heard him talk about it. You have heard
him talk about it. He has begun to lay out those things. I think they will
talk more intensively about what that means, in terms of concrete and
specifics. And as you well know, there is a review going on within the
government of what additional steps we can take to support the Iraqi
government in the effort. This is what this review is in the process of
coming up with.

There have been conversations along these lines on the past. They will
continue these conversations in order -- with the hope of coming forward
with a program, and Iraqi program that we can support and a clear
indication of what the United States and other coalition countries can and
should do to support the Iraqi plan.

In Afghanistan, one of the -- again, a situation where a country emerges
from 40 years of foreign occupation, very oppressive governments, and sort
of ongoing violence for 20 or more years, comes out with a democratic
constitution, again pathbreaking in the region, and is in the process of
building political and security institutions which -- in a context where
they have been nonexistent or shattered. And one of the things that I think
is clear is the government is only gradually extending its reach into areas
in the south. And the Taliban clearly exploited the absence of those
institutions to begin burrowing into the south and mounting its attacks on
coalition and Afghan forces.

So one of the things that is important is this extension of not only Afghan
government authority into the south, but also of a coalition presence by
the extension of the NATO mission into the south, and now throughout the
rest of the country, and in support of the Afghan government, extension of
these 25 PRTs, which are a way of bringing local governance and political
support and reconstruction assistance to this part of the country.

Not surprisingly, the Taliban are resisting it. They obviously have
burrowed into those potions of the south. They are obviously getting
support from outside the country, and there's been a lot of discussion
about that. That is something that is of concern to President Karzai, it's
a concern to the President, it's a concern to President Musharraf. And
that, obviously, as you know, was one of the subjects that came up when the
three Presidents met at the hosting of President Bush here six or eight
weeks ago.

I think it's -- I think if you put all those together you have a Taliban
that also was fairly confident that it could confront the NATO forces as
they moved south. They massed, did confront those forces, and NATO did a
pretty effective job against them.

We're now going to go into the winter season where some of the --
traditionally the operations have reduced, and during that period of time,
of course, NATO will be acting to consolidate their presence in the south
and the PRTs will be working with Afghan authorities to try and strengthen
institutions in the south. And as the President noted, he has approved the
results of a strategic reassessment within the U.S. government that will
lead to a request to the Congress for additional support for Afghanistan,
both on the security side, on the economic side, and the infrastructure
side.

I think we're done. Thank you very much.

Q On a previous question.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, last word.

Q Thanks. Does the President think it's an effort in futility for Iraq to
be reaching out to Iran and Syria?

MR. HADLEY: What matters is the Iraqis and the unity government has decided
that it needs to reach out to its neighbors and make clear their view of
the current behavior of those countries and that they need to stop. And
obviously, we support this unity government, and we hope it is successful.
Thank you.

Q Do you have any realistic expectation that Iran and Syria would be
helpful to establish democracy in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: One brief erratum --

Q Hold on, he's going to answer. (Laughter.)

MR. HADLEY: I would hope that Iran and Syria would recognize that their set
of policies to oppose democracy, oppose peace in the Middle East, support
terror, and in case -- Iran's case, pursuing nuclear weapons, are leading
their countries and their people into increasing isolation, that these are
policies that are isolating them in the region, and they're isolating them
internationally, that these two policies are driving their two nations into
the ditch. And you would hope that some people in those structures in Iran
and Syria would recognize this and start to try and change those policies.
They will only do so if not only that is the demand by the international
community, but there is also some pressure on them to do so. And as you
know, under U.N. Security Council resolutions, the international community
is trying to impose that pressure on them.

MR. SNOW: Okay. On that note, we will conclude this peripatetic press
briefing, but there is one erratum, which is that Steve had --

MR. HADLEY: Peripatetic --

MR. SNOW: Yes, peripatetic, go back and look it up. The great philosophers
would walk and talk, that's how you got peripatetic.

*The erratum is this, that Steve had suggested that the President was going
to Iraq. Of course, Steve meant that he was going to Amman to speak with
the Prime Minister of Iraq. And now, we're out of here. Thanks.

END 6:10 P.M. (Local)

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061128-14.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)