Tag Archive | "Robert Gates"

During a Sensitive Site Exploitation (SSE) mis...

Clinton confirms, US trained Osama Bin Laden

During a Sensitive Site Exploitation (SSE) mis...

Hillary Clinton admits US trained Osama Bin Laden Image via Wikipedia

Mrs. Hillary Clinton has officially admitted that the US trained Osama Bin Laden. In the ABC show she was saying that Pakistan supported the Taliban, and had changed its mind since 2001.

“That is changing… Now, I cannot sit here and tell you that it has changed, but that is changing,” she told ABC News in an interview, the transcripts of which was released by the State Department.

Ms. Clinton accepted that the U.S. had created certain radical outfits and supported terrorists like Osama bin Laden to fight against the erstwhile Soviet Union, but that backing has boomeranged. “Part of what we are fighting against right now, the United States created. We created the Mujahidin force against the Soviet Union (in Afghanistan). We trained them, we equipped them, we funded them, including somebody named Osama bin Laden. And it didn’t work out so well for us,” she said.

The Secretary of the State also said Pakistan is paying a “big price” for supporting U.S. war against terror groups in their own national interest. “But I think it is important to note that as they have made these adjustments in their own assessment of their national interests, they’re paying a big price for it,” Ms. Clinton said.

“And it’s not an easy calculation for them to make. But we are making progress (in Afghanistan). We have a long way to go and we can’t be impatient…Well, the headlines are bad. We’re going home. We cannot do that,” she said.

Appearing on the same ABC show, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said Pakistan has withdrawn an equivalent of about six divisions of its army from the Indian border and moved them.

“And they are attacking the Taliban. They’re attacking the Taliban — Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and safe havens that are a problem for us,” Mr. Gates said.

“But the other piece of this, we face in both countries what they call a trust deficit, and it is because they believe we have walked away from them in the past at the toughest moments of their history.

“You can’t recreate that (trust) in a heartbeat. You can’t recreate that in a year or two. They both worry that once we solve the problem in Afghanistan, or if we don’t solve it, that either way, we will leave and leave whatever remains in their hands to deal with,” he added.

Keywords: U.S.-Pakistan relations, India-Pakistan relations, terrorist organisations

Posted in Current AffairsComments (1)

Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton vis...

Rising tensions in South China Sea behind Indo-US affair?

Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton vis...
Image by US Army Korea – IMCOM via Flickr

A SERIES of recent aggressive actions by China were designed to test other nations, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has declared.

These included claiming sovereignty over the whole of the South China Sea and demanding the US not send an aircraft carrier to military exercises near South Korea.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian yesterday, Mrs Clinton said the US was determined, along with other nations, to ensure that China abided by international law. She also reaffirmed the US commitment to remain militarily paramount in the Asia-Pacific.

Mrs Clinton’s comments came as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the US intended to stay in Afghanistan for the long term, exerting an influence on the country long after the combat troops leave.

Their remarks were made during a three-day visit to Melbourne for the annual Ausmin talks with their Australian counterparts, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith.

US military ties

Mrs Clinton was asked yesterday about China’s blanket claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea, its furious reaction to Japan arresting a Chinese fishing captain who rammed a Japanese naval vessel, its demand that the US not send an aircraft carrier to exercise in the Yellow Sea near South Korea and a series of other aggressive actions from Beijing.

“We think it is part of the testing process that countries go through,” the Secretary of State said.

Mrs Clinton earned Beijing’s ire earlier this year when she opposed its South China Sea claim, most of which is distant from China, abuts other Southeast Asian nations and is routinely used by the US and many other nations for international trade.

Mrs Clinton reiterated her strong opposition to the way China had pursued the sovereignty claim.

“When the Chinese first told us at a meeting (in China) of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that they view the South China Sea as a core interest, I immediately responded and said, ‘We don’t agree with that’.”

By elevating the issue to a core interest, the Chinese raised it to the level of Taiwan and Tibet, over which China has said it would go to war. This alarmed Southeast Asian nations.

“So they (the Chinese) were on notice that if they were in the process of extending their efforts to claim and control to the detriment of international law, freedom of navigation, maritime security, and the claims of their neighbours, that was a concerning matter,” Mrs Clinton said.

“So we worked with a lot of the ASEAN countries who are directly impacted and 12 of us raised it at the ASEAN regional forum in July to make it clear that issues like that have to be resolved in accordance with the rule of law.”

This episode is widely seen as one in which Washington stared down aggressive behaviour from Beijing.

Mrs Clinton emphasised that the US had a balanced approach to China.

“I think you just have to be constantly making it clear that, speaking for the US, we support the peaceful rise and the economic success of China, but in doing so we expect China to be a responsible member of the international community whose actions are in accordance with their size and stature and the rules of the road,” she said.

Mrs Clinton believes that China’s actions themselves may be forcing others to take hedging actions. Earlier this year, the Japanese government claimed that Beijing put a temporary ban on the exports of rare earth minerals, which are vital in many hi-tech products, after a maritime clash.

“The Chinese claim they did not in any way interfere with the delivery or continuing export of rare earth minerals,” Mrs Clinton said.

“Whether or not their motivation was as they describe it, or as the Japanese fear it, the fact is they (Beijing) control the vast majority of this supply. That’s not healthy.

“In effect, the Chinese action was a wake-up call to the rest of the world.”

Now, she said, Japan, Vietnam, the US and Australia were looking at finding alternative sources of rare earth minerals.

“I think that’s a good outcome of what may have been an effort to send a message to Japan,” Mrs Clinton said.

Mrs Clinton also pledged the US would maintain its military resources in the Pacific so that it could continue to carry out the security balancing role that had been central to the region’s stability for 65 years.

“Our role in stabilising and providing the context for peace and stability may not look exactly the same as it did for the last 60 years because the threats have evolved and the needs have altered, but we will be here and we will be very active,” she said.

Her commitment was echoed by Mr Gates, who denied that budget constraints would limit the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific.

Mr Gates is leading a cost-cutting effort at the Pentagon designed to reduce overheads within a defence budget that is increasing only slowly. The process is not designed to reduce US military capability.

“As I look at cutting overheads, we may look at providing more ships and planes and this region would be a beneficiary of this,” Mr Gates said. China actions meant as test, Hillary Clinton says
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor From:The Australian November 09, 2010 12:00AM

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Seal of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Can Obama's new DOD team change Afghanistan

Seal of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Image via Wikipedia

WASHINGTON — With critical decisions ahead on the war in Afghanistan, President Obama is about to receive an unusual opportunity to reshape the Pentagon’s leadership, naming a new defense secretary as well as several top generals and admirals in the next several months.

It is a rare confluence of tenure calendars and personal calculations, coming midway through Mr. Obama’s first term and on the heels of an election that challenged his domestic policies. His choices could have lasting consequences for his national security agenda, perhaps strengthening his hand over a military with which he has often clashed, and are likely to have an effect beyond the next election, whether he wins or loses.

That is all the more reason that Mr. Obama’s choices are certain to face scrutiny in a narrowly divided Senate, whose Republican leadership has declared itself intent on defeating him.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he plans to retire next year, while the terms of four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are scheduled to end: Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman; Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman; Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief; and Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired Army officer who is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said this round of replacements, coming after two years of difficult and sometimes intense wrangling over how to carry on the war in Afghanistan, “is particularly important, and is likely to prove particularly difficult.”

“The challenge facing the president,” Mr. Bacevich said, “will be to identify leaders who will provide him with disinterested advice, informed by a concern for the national interest, and, in doing so, to avoid either the appearance or the reality of politicizing the senior leadership.”

At the top of the new pantheon of military power, the president needs a heavyweight to succeed Mr. Gates, an unexpected holdover from the Bush administration who stayed longer than many expected to become perhaps the most influential member of the Obama cabinet.

White House officials say the president is not prepared to announce any decisions on his new slate of Pentagon and military leaders for next year.

But speculation for the top Pentagon job in recent days has included two respected veterans on military matters, both with bipartisan credentials and hands-on experience: John J. Hamre, a deputy defense secretary in the Clinton administration who now leads the Center for Strategic and International Studies while running the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to Mr. Gates; and Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, who lost his seat last week and with it the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee.

Another name certain to be on Mr. Obama’s list is Michele A. Flournoy, currently the Pentagon’s under secretary for policy and one of the foremost national security specialists of the up-and-coming generation. Her appointment would allow Mr. Obama to claim another first in naming a woman to become defense secretary, something he could also accomplish by moving Hillary Rodham Clinton into the job from secretary of state.

Other possible candidates include Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary who formerly served as governor of Mississippi and ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, an Army veteran; and Richard J. Danzig, a former Navy secretary.

It also is tricky to pick members of the Joint Chiefs, who are not only the president’s senior military advisers on questions of war but also the leaders of the individual military services, at the fulcrum of competing missions and constituencies that are never easy to balance.

A thorough revamping of the high command is especially complex at a time of persistent challenges on so many fronts, like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threats from Iran and North Korea and the challenges from Russia and China, all while facing the constant risk of a terrorist attack.

The new military leadership, after years of war and economic crisis, also has to cope with strains on military budgets, while caring for the health and morale of a force that simultaneously must be modernized.

There are lingering strains between top civilian aides to Mr. Obama and the military brass, over issues as diverse as how to fight and wind down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how to allow military service by openly gay troops.

Any commander in chief is theoretically free to replace his top civilian and military subordinates whenever he chooses, but it rarely happens all at once.

Traditionally, a new president appoints a new defense secretary and allows the chiefs to serve out their tours, which tend to fall more or less randomly across a president’s term in office. Mr. Obama was the first to carry over a defense secretary who had served a president of a different party, and Mr. Gates’s expected departure now falls coincidentally along with four members of the six-person Joint Chiefs. (The Marines got a new commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, last month, and the Air Force chief, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, retires in 2012 unless he is rotated into another senior position, which is possible.)

The changes in 2011 are so unusual, and the national security risks today so significant, that General Cartwright, the vice chairman, offered to retire a year early, so that a new officer would be in place for some continuity, according to Pentagon and administration officials familiar with the discussions.

But General Cartwright — known for his fluency in nuts-and-bolts issues like missile defense, cyberwarfare and procurement — has been described as one of the president’s favorite officers, and was asked to stay on. He is very likely on the list of those who would be considered for promotion to chairman.

When Mr. Obama had opportunities in recent weeks to replace top members of his White House inner circle, including his chief of staff and his national security adviser, he opted to replace his inaugural “team of rivals,” populated by outsiders, by promoting trusted confidants and moving toward creating, in essence, a team of insiders.

So the questions before Mr. Obama include trust and comfort and assurances that his policy decisions will be executed the way he wants.

The expected candidates are all familiar to the White House, and all those on any list of suitable officers have blue-chip résumés but differing temperaments.

One of the first questions the president will have to answer for himself is what to do with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former Iraq commander asked to rush to Afghanistan when Mr. Obama relieved two commanders there in a row.

Supporters say that General Petraeus has earned the chairman’s job by reason of experience, intellect and sacrifice, but that may not satisfy some political advisers around the president, who still resent the officers involved in the Afghanistan-Pakistan review last year. General Petraeus also could remain longer in Afghanistan or could be offered the job of Army chief or that of supreme allied commander in Europe, a post once held by Dwight D. Eisenhower and so hardly a dead end.

In addition to Generals Cartwright and Petraeus, another potential candidate for chairman is Adm. James G. Stavridis, currently the NATO commander and one of the Navy’s most intellectual officers; he likewise could be slotted into the job of chief of naval operations.

Three other highly regarded Army officers remain in the hunt for any of the top jobs. They include Gen. Ray Odierno, a three-time Iraq commander now in charge of the military’s Joint Forces Command; Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who had two tours in Iraq before serving as acting commander of American forces in the Middle East and who now oversees Army training and doctrine; and Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, a two-time Iraq commander who is the Army’s vice chief of staff, with a focus on improving care for wounded soldiers. Pentagon Openings Give Obama New Options By THOM SHANKER

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)


Categories

Archives