Speeches and Remarks 2006

Remarks to the Press by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace

Roosevelt House, New Delhi
June 5, 2006

General Pace:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Ambassador, thank you sir.  It is great to be with you all, and I appreciate you taking the time to come out here today to give me a chance to answer your questions.  But equally important, to be able to - through you - to talk to all the people here in India, to express my personal appreciation at the very, very warm welcome that I have received.  I had the pleasure of meeting the Prime Minister in Washington, D.C. in July of 2005.  I have had the pleasure of being with your Minister of Defense in the Shangri-La Conference that just concluded in Singapore over the weekend.  And then to come here, at Admiral Prakash's invitation, is a very special treat.  I had time with the Admiral this morning.  I also had time with the Chief of your Army, and the Vice-Chief of your Air Force.  Collectively, what we are interested in doing, what I am interested in doing, is listening.  I wanted to come and introduce myself, and to listen about ways that the U.S. military and your military can partner together in ways that are good for both of our countries in the future.  I will be here today and tomorrow, and I will be going back to Washington on Wednesday.  But we have had some excellent discussions.  I do feel very strongly that this is a natural partnership between your largest democracy in the world and our democracy in the United States, that there are maybe 10% of the things that we would like to do that you would not, and maybe 10% of the things that you would like to do that we would not, which leaves about 80% of the things in the middle that are good for both countries, and that's the part where I'm looking to focus and to be of assistance.  So, with that as kind of a background, I would be delighted to answer some of your questions.

Q:  General, I am Vishnu Makhijani from the Indo Asian News Service.  Now, in your discussions today with the Defense Minister and with the Naval Chief, did this question of the Malacca Straits come up?  Because, you know Admiral Gary Roughhead was here two weeks ago, and he talked about the U.S. liking to see a greater role for India in the Straits.  And also possibly that India would be more acceptable, perhaps, if I may say, to the littoral states of the Malacca Straits.  Did this issue figure?

General Pace:  It did come up as a topic, but not as an issue, per se.  We talked about it in the terms of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, as you know, are working very closely together to do what they need to do to keep open sea lanes in the Straits, and that India has offered those three nations assistance if they would like it.  That is about as far as that discussion went, because we all were comfortable that the three primary nations involved right now are working together well, and that India has offered assistance if they need it.

Q:  Matt Rosenberg, with the Associated Press.  There was some talk late last year about India looking into buying the next generation of Patriot Missile.  Did that come up?  And where are we on it?

General Pace:  It did not come up as a discussion item today because the time I had with the Army Chief was relatively limited.  However, probably the reason it did not come up as an issue is because the U.S. has provided classified briefings to the Army here, and the information has been made available, so the government and India can make their own determinations about whether or not this is an item that would be useful to them.

Q:  Have you gotten any follow-up or response from them?  Are they going to buy it?  Has anything been processed?   General Pace:  The information I have is that the Indian Government has been very satisfied with the information we have provided, and now it is up to them to decide for themselves whether or not that system will be useful to them.

Q:  Ranjit Kumar from Navbharat Times.  Last week the U.S. Administration announced its decision to supply arms to Pakistan worth $370 million.  Would you please explain the rationale of this decision?

General Pace:  First of all, Pakistan has been a very good partner to the United States in the war on terrorism, and especially early on, after the attack on us, 9/11, and our need to go into Afghanistan.  We could not have done what we did in Afghanistan without the support of the Pakistan government.  So we are very appreciative of what President Musharraf did then and continues to do, as partners with us in the war on terror.  Second, I think when you look at any nation - stability is increased when nations have confidence in their own defensive capacities.  So, whether you are looking at Pakistan, or the United States, or India, or any country, if any nation has sufficient defensive capacity, then they are more relaxed, I think, about perceived threats, from their viewpoint, and they will not act too quickly [militarily], if they feel - whoever they are - that they can always respond if they are attacked.  So, I believe that it is stabilizing to have countries - mine, yours, Pakistan, Afghanistan - it is stabilizing to have countries that know that they have sufficient defense, and who have the intent to use it for only defense.

Q:  Rahul Singh from the Hindustan Times.  You talked about fostering military cooperation between the two countries.  There is some amount of cooperation already on in the form of air exercises, joint naval exercises.  What's the next step forward from here?

General Pace:  Well, that is very much what we are working together to determine -- what is the next likely step forward.  We have had very good navy-to-navy exercises.  We have had very good army-to-army exercises.  We have had great air exercises.  Examples - in continuation of the air exercises - is that we have issued an invitation to what we call the "Red Flag" exercise in [Nevada].  And we are working with the Indian Air Force to see whether or not they will be able to accept that invitation either next year as observers or perhaps in '08 as participants.  We have had not only planned exercises with the Indian Navy, but impromptu exercises - like we had recently when the aircraft carrier [USS Ronald Reagan] came through the region, and very quickly the two navies decided to have a chance to meet at sea and to exchange greetings and to work together quickly.  That was put together literally as the ships were passing through the region.  So, there are many steps we can take.  We want to do this in a way that is approved and comfortable for the government here in India, and approved and comfortable for the government in the United States.  Military officers should do what we are doing, which is explore possibilities, come up with ideas, and present them to our governments to get proper approval so we can do the things that make sense, that allow us to have more robust capacity to work together in things like Tsunami relief, other humanitarian exercises, and to be able to take care of pop-up problems that people cannot forecast but are able to work together efficiently and effectively, are able to do so more quickly and more efficiently for both countries.  So, we will - both our military and your military - will work together to come up with proposals, and our governments will determine which of those proposals are the best ones for us to pursue.

Q:  Palash Kumar from Reuters.  India is planning to test an ICBM called Agni III.  India is planning to test an ICBM - Inter Continental Ballistic Missile - India.  What does the U.S. think about it?  Do you favor such a test, you think it will trigger an arms race in the region?

General Pace: First of all, India is a sovereign nation, and it is going to decide for itself what weapons to test and what weapons not to test.  Second, there are other countries in this region who have also tested missiles.  So the fact that a country is testing something like a missile is not destabilizing, and to go back to my answer about Pakistan - when countries have capacities that are designed for defense, and then are intended for use for defense, and they have competence in their ability to use those weapons for defense, it is a stabilizing event.  India will decide what India wants to do about testing missiles.  But to answer your question, no I do not see that as destabilizing.

Q:  Bijender Singh from Sahara TV.  What is the thrust of the Indo-U.S. defense ties?

General Pace:  This is a golden opportunity for both India and the United States - as very prosperous, vibrant democracies - to partner in a way that brings peace and stability to this very, very important part of the world.  So the thrust of our way forward - in my opinion - is to find ways that our two militaries can interact that will reinforce to our friends that we are capable of defending ourselves and our friends, and to reinforce to any potential enemy that India as a sovereign nation and the United States as a sovereign nation, and together as partners, are going to protect our citizens against harm.  That, I believe, would be very stabilizing, if potential enemies had to think through - not only in the individual capacities of the Indian military, which is a superb, professional, military force, and in the individual capacity of the United States, but also the potential that the two of us could work together in a way to maintain peace in the region.

Q:  This is Josy Joseph from DNA.  The U.S. has for a very long time pursued the Proliferation Security Initiative. (inaudible)

General Pace: The first question was about Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, and where India is in relationship to potentially signing on to PSI.  It bears repeating that India is a sovereign nation, and your government will decide whether or not PSI is something that is good for India.  There are about 70 nations in the world right now who have participated, and are participating in PSI.  Collectively, those nations have had significant impact on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  PSI contributed to Libya's decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction.  So, I think that the world community can rightly so, look to PSI and say it has been very positive in its impact on reducing the number of weapons available to nations.  Having said that, it is still India's decision as to whether or not the pluses outweigh the minuses, in India's view.

Your second question about Indian troops to Kabul.  The first time I heard about that as a question was when you asked it.  I am not aware of anybody asking India to send troops, and I do not know whether or not India is interested in sending troops.  I do know that the Indian Government has been very supportive of the Afghan Government.  It is [more than] 600 million U.S. dollars in aid that your country has already provided.  You have road crews there now helping build the road network and many other construction projects, so India is right now assisting in a very meaningful way in Afghanistan.  But I just am not aware of any request, either from the government of Afghanistan or anybody else for you to send troops, nor do I know if your government has offered to send troops.  But until you asked that question, it was news to me.

Q:  Hello, Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service.  Sir, in addition to the maritime security issues, what other role do you see India playing in the Global War on Terror and how do you see it as being most effective and what talks that you had today and also in Singapore, do you see expanding on the existing cooperation?

General Pace:  It was interesting to me in Singapore that this conference did not ask the question - was terrorism a threat?  It seems to me over the last several years, that major conferences like this there have been those who have asked whether or not terrorism is really a threat.  Because no one asked that question, and because there was a great deal of discussion about how to counter terrorism, it seems to me that the world community has acknowledged that terrorism is a threat.  That it is just not one group of terrorists, that there are those in many regions of the world who seek to dominate through fear and murder and subjugation.  The first way to deal with that - for each of us, I believe - is to deal with those who are attacking our own country, whatever our own country is.  But to understand that terrorists truly know no state boundaries.  They don't play by any rules.  They can lie, and do lie.  That to be effective in the long term, single nations cannot fight by themselves against single terrorist organizations.  We need to find a way, as the international community to share ideas, to share intelligence, to work together so that while terrorists ignore international boundaries, we don't ignore them, we respect them, we respect people's sovereignty, but we are able to share information across those boundaries in a way so that the boundaries no longer are what they are in many cases today, of benefit to the terrorists.  Because they can go back and forth and there are potentially different rules on different sides of the border.  There is a lot of work to be done in that regard.  We have probably decades of work to do amongst nations to reduce the threat of terrorism below a level at which all of our societies can function.  If you equate it to crime - all major cities have crime, but the police forces keep the crime rate below the level at which the normal population can live and work and prosper.  And that is really, I believe, the end state for the war on terrorism.  Not that you have completely eliminated terrorism, but that collectively amongst nations - by sharing information and sharing techniques and working together - that we are able to keep the global incidence of terrorism below a level at which free, elected governments can provide the proper governance and the proper kinds of support to the populations of their countries that we expect of ourselves and of our institutions.

Q:  I am Shridhar Kumaraswamy from the Asian Age newspaper.  The Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan has recently accused Pakistan of providing covert support to Taliban elements, and this is something that India has been saying for a long time that Pakistan is allowing terrorists to operate freely from its soil.  Did this issue come up today in your discussions with the Indian military leadership and with the Defense Minister?

General Pace:  We did discuss at every meeting that I had today our mutual perceptions of the region.  We had discussions about most of the countries in the region, and I appreciated what I was being told because as I stated up front, I came here to listen and to learn.  Each of the leaders I spoke with today took time to talk me around the region, and explain to me how folks here in India see the region. And in Afghanistan, it was certainly brought to my attention that folks believe that the Taliban have sanctuary in Pakistan.  I think if you would ask folks in Pakistan, in the government, whether or not there are any elements that have sought sanctuary in Pakistan that they would tell you "yes" - that parts of their territory have been used by organizations that attack into Afghanistan.  I think that they would also tell you that under President Mussharaf's leadership, that they are working hard to eliminate those sanctuaries.  But as you know, those tribal areas are a difficult problem for the central government in Pakistan to work through and with to handle the problem.  I understand how each country, looking at Pakistan and Afghanistan, can see different levels of activity.  But I think all countries would stipulate that there are Taliban in Afghanistan; there are Taliban in Pakistan. They are not a strategic threat to Afghanistan, but a tactical threat - meaning, they cannot unseat the government but they can attack and cause disruption in places. Therefore, the NATO countries that are coming to Afghanistan, the countries that are already in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan's neighbors, need to work together to eliminate the safe havens, and to take out the Taliban, militarily, either capture or kill [them], when they present themselves on the battlefield.  In the last about two months, the Taliban have been conducting larger attacks this year than they did the same time last year.  The problem for the Taliban is that as they have gotten larger groups together, they have become much bigger targets, and they have lost about 300 Taliban in the last two months during those operations.  The Taliban are a tactical problem for the coalition in Afghanistan; and the coalition in Afghanistan is a strategic problem for the Taliban.

Q:  Shivani Rawat from AP Television.  Just wanted to know your assessment of the situation in Iraq.  Do you think it is getting increasingly difficult for the coalition forces to operate?  And also, will you reiterate the U.S. resolve to get to the bottom of the Haditha killings, when will that get …?

General Pace:  Let me take the Haditha incident first.  There are two ongoing investigations:  one is to find out what happened in Haditha last November, the second is to find out why it is taking us so long to find out what happened last November - two very separate and distinct investigations.  Regardless of the outcome of those investigations, the leadership of our Marine Corps - General Hagee, who is the leader of our Marine Corps, the Commandant of our Marine Corps - has already gone out to Iraq to talk to his Marines, and is going to go throughout the United States and other places where Marines are stationed - to reinforce to the 99.9% of Marines who are serving their country very honorably and very well that what they are doing, and how they are doing it, is exactly what we expect - to revisit our core values, and to rededicate ourselves to serving our country in the most honorable way possible.  In addition, our Army, Navy, and Air Force are also taking the opportunity to take a moment, and to review their core values - to reinforce with all of those who have the privilege of wearing the uniform of the United States military, that it is a privilege, and that how we act on the battlefield and off is of strategic importance to the United States and to the world.  That does not prejudge the outcome of the investigations.  If the investigations determine that there was wrongdoing, then the wrongdoing will be put into our court system and the court system will handle it.  We are absolutely determined to be open with the public about what we find.  We will probably have that information available later than the public would want to have it, only because of the need to protect the judicial process, so we don't have information out that can bias any court process that may take place because of the findings.  But at the end of the judicial process - by the end of the judicial process - all that we know about this through our discovery in investigations will be public, and you will be able to judge for yourselves what we found out, and what we did about it.  Your first question was?

Q:  Situation in Iraq.

General Pace:  Thank you.  There is both good news and not-so-good news with regard to the situation in Iraq.  On the good news side is certainly the stand up of Prime Minister Maliki and his cabinet, and the will of he and his fellow leaders to carry forward for the Iraqi people and to govern the Iraqi people in a way that will give them the opportunity to have lives that they haven't had a chance for in the last three or four decades.  The Prime Minister's list of priorities, when you read it, is thirty-plus things that he wants to accomplish, each of which seems to me - as an outside observer of a sovereign nation's determining for itself what it's going to do - to be great things for a government to do for its people.  His focus on the Basra area, and declaring that to be an area of interest and emphasis for him right now is showing the kind of leadership that you would expect from an elected leader.  The Iraqi armed forces are now at 265,000 strong - when you add police and the Army together.  They will be at 335,000 by December of this year.  They have 10 divisions now, 2 of which are controlling Iraqi territory.  Inside those 10 divisions are 30+ brigades, some 17 of which are controlling Iraqi territory for the Iraqi government.  And inside those 30+ brigades are 120 battalions, of about 500 men each.  Of that 120 battalions, about 60 right now are controlling Iraqi territory for Iraqi Government.  Their performance in battle has been solid.  Their quality continues to increase.  So from the standpoint of producing and sustaining a quality armed force, there is a good bit of good news, and the stand up of the government is good news.  The primary bad news is the number of bombs that continue to explode, killing innocent men, women, and children.  That is what they are designed to do by the murders who set them off.  That is why terrorists are called terrorists.  The terrorists are fearful in both Iraq and Afghanistan, because they see that people have freely voted, that governments, representative governments are forming, and that each day that those governments function is a bad day for the terrorists.  So it is not surprising that as the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq become stronger, that the terrorists are going to become more and more agitated about their state of affairs.  Of those who are conducting bombings, some are ideologically disposed to what they are doing, meaning they believe in whatever cause they are supporting.  But a large number of those who are planting bombs are those who are willing to accept money to go plant a bomb on the side of a road so they can feed their family.  That is why all of our collective efforts to enhance Iraq's ability to govern is so important, because it will be a stable environment that provides the opportunity for their government.  But their government then must be able to provide the jobs, the education, the kinds of things that governments provide so their people can have a prosperous life and choose the better road of jobs and a way forward, as opposed to staying where they are, planting bombs and the like.  That is a longer answer than you probably bargained for, but it is a very complex problem.  The United States is committed to success in Iraq.  The United States is committed to success in Afghanistan.  We will stick with this.  Thanks very much for the opportunity to be with you.