they've been for the past two years, at least, secretary gates has been involved at some extent or another with the russians on that idea. he still thinks as you heard when he testified before the senate that there is opportunity cooperate with the russians on a missile defense system in europe. that system is still viewed as a comp needn't what we have done thus far with the czeches and the poles. and as obviously the focus of our discussions right now with the russians have been on start leading up to the president's trip there in the next couple of weeks. but i think that everybody here remains optimistic that some sort of agreement can be worked out with the russians on building a collective system that protects each other and

our peoples and our allies in europe. >> is it a case of either or? did the sites at the czech republic or southern russia or do you see this as all complimenting each other? >> i think we view this at this stage as cooperation with the russians would be as a conferencement to a site in -- you know, the sites in europe. that perhaps they could help us enhance what we've already agreed to with the czeches and the poles. should this will review internally keep us down that road into per suing a third site in europe. but i don't think this is screwed as an alternative but -- i don't think this is viewed as an alternative but rather a compliment. >> ok. geoff. >> what is the secretary's

reaction to russian officials trying to link the start talks to missile defense. is that accept snble >> well, i'm going to defer on how these talks are handled, to the white house. they are the lead on this. and i'm going to let them handle those matters. and i'm not going to speculate up here as to what they view as acceptable or unacceptable. jeff? >> a former commander of the washington, d.c. guard was killed in monday's train crash. are they going to issue a statement about his passing? >> i'm not aware of a statement in the works. obviously everyone who works here grievous for those who lost their lives or who was injured in that crash. obviously the colonel of the d.c. national guard was especially tragic for those who worked in this building or all

those in uniform but i'm not aware of any plans to issue a statement. >> could you take this question could we get a statement? >> i just offered a statement. we feel terribly for all the victims of that crash. those who died, those who were injured and we feel particularly soreoful for one of our own the former commander of the d.c. national guard so his loss is felt particularly among those in this building and all those in uniform. >> with the june 30 decline date coming up, i'd like to ask you -- >> i'm glad you're so aware of his schedule, tony. there are other things on his schedule beyond those two trips. but you happen to be right, we won't be doing a press conference. >> clairvoyant. >> what's the best assessment you and the secretary are getting about the analyst about the state of iraq

august/september, the u.s. pulls back and the level of violence that's expected and the iraqi security forces' capability to handle whatever does occur. >> i think, first of all, we saw an horrific bombing take place south of kirkuk over the weekend, which is rather unusual given where it took place and also unusual as far as the trend of late. despite that attack security -- attacks remain at all-time lows since march of 2003. so despite fact that you've seen spor at i can high-profile attacks still taking place in iraq, the overall security climate is a good one, and we remain at all-time lows. that said, to your question, i do believe that we have an expectation, based upon the pattern of behavior we've seen

over the past few weeks, and frankly, historically in iraq leading up to seminole dates whether it be elections or other significant dates of the uptick in the operational tempo of terrorists and insurgents, so i think we have reason to believe and i think our forces have been alerted to the possibility that we will likely see an uptick in violence leading up to the june 30 decline for u.s. combat forces to leave iraqi cities and towns. that said, i think the general is confident both in the capabilities of his forces to deal with that increased threat level and with the iraqi security forces such that we are going to proceed per the security grievance, status forces agreement to remove all of our combat forces from iraqi cities. by june 30. now has he made clear in his

press conference in iraq, i think last week and in his letter to his troops throughout the country. that does not mean that every single american soldier or marine or airmen or say legislators that happen to be on the ground are going to be out of iraqi cities. we are going to have some compliment, albeit in much smaller numbers, of troops in some iraqi cities and towns in an advisory and assistance role until such time that the iraqi security forces are developed to the point that they no longer need us in that capacity. >> do you have a follow-up. >> ok, capacity, what's the u.s. citizen expect that u.s. troops will be back in a cavel cavalry role versus leading attacks or operations? >> well, it depends on where

you are. in the cities i think this is going to be a coordinate, train, advise, assist role. outside of that. and we can provide you with a copy of this letter that that the general provided to his troops, that there will be layers often defense outside the city that we will provide that we have been by with and through the iraqi forces, but there will still be combat operations that we undertake outside the iraqi cities and towns with iraqi security forces. >> during the search there was a very aggressive counterterrorism operation the u.s. executed against al qaeda targets infusing intelligence and going after them quickly. it was written about in his book and general petraeus talked about it. will that stand structure where

we will have black prayings? >> obviously we don't talk about such operations here, but i will say this. obviously with this milestone date approaching of june 30, it's significant on many levels but it does not mean, however, an end to counterterrorism operations in iraq. in fact even when we get finally to the end of august of next year, when all combat brigades are to leave iraq, there will still be a residual force that stays behind and one of the mandatory dates will be to conduct counterterrorism operations, so that we believe is still a fundamental role for us to play, however, this is not done unilaterally but done in close with the iraqi forces and going after agreed-upon targets, warranty operations with shared intel and so forth. so those will continue. yes? >> just for the record, what

are the city that is we might see some compliments staying there? like in the north, you mean? >> i defer you to mnfi as far as where, specifically, the bulk or thoses that remain behind will be. but i think they are going to be where the iraqi security forces where the ministry of defense can provide an advisory and assistance role to help the iraqi security forces that are now going to be responsible exclusively for security in those citys to make sure they have the capacity to undertake that. but obviously baghdad will be one of those places where we will provide advisory and assistance to iraqi security forces within the city. ok? yes? anything else on iraq? yep. >> no.

not. >> nancy? >> well the violence is at record lows and the united states is handing over the security situation to the iraqi forces and going into in advise and assist role why is there such a hesitance to declare this a victory? >> i'm sure, nancy you or your colleagues wrote about the attacks that took place south of kirkuk on saturday. i mean, that was an absolutely horrific attack in which dozens of people were killed. obviously there was still a threat that remains and it requires our vigilance to make sure it doesn't ma that is that size again into an exstentional threat to the got to the. we think we have beaten back al qaeda to the point where they are now conducting attacks that are basically propaganda campaigns in an attempt to make it look like they are driving

us out of iraqi cities when nsket -- in fact the truth of the matter is the work of our brave men and women in uniform created such an environment that we can leave iraqi cities and the iraqis are capable of taking over that but so long as there exists still this threat in iraq and so long as the government is still trying to develop to the point where it can assume all of these responsibility that is we have been assisting them in, we still think there is a role for us and will be hesitate tenant to declare a victory. >> if that problem as you're describing is now an iraqi problem by virtue of the united states handing over -- what is it when they ask for assistance? >> frankly i don't think anybody's too preoccupied with declaring victory. i don't think that's something

we will ever do. i think we feel as though we've had great success recently in helping the iraqi people to develop capacities to govern they must answered create a security climate that people can live in peace and go to work and develop an economy and have a democratic rule and respect for minorities and women and all those things are improvements, and we find a security agreement with the iraqis in which they asked for us to stay in iraq for the next three years to help them continue to build upon that momentum. we view that obligation seriously and we intend to honor it. >> one other thing, in light of these major bombings in the last few months, nobody's taken responsibility and the military says it's al qaeda but do you know why the al qaeda hasn't taken responsibility is any intelligence work being done to shut down their communications?

>> i wouldn't start to guess as to why al qaeda does what it does. and without acknowledging what we have done in specific cases, clearly our efforts to target al qaeda have not been exclusive to capture and kill operations. we have also been very interested in trying to shut down their ability to produce propaganda and recruit people via the intent. so have we worked in that area, yes, we have have we had success in that area? yes, we have. don't know why that's not the reason we are having claims of this. >> could you give us a status update in the flag ship you have been following and explain what procedures you might enact? this secretary and the chairman last week outlined a quail and prayer procedure. has it been done?

will it be done? >>i know there's great fascination about this one ship out there that we have shown some interest in. we have been interested in this one ship but we've been interested frankly in multiple ships, north korean ships for some time, that proceeded that. frankly. under psi we had an obligation and interest in tracking ships to make sure there was no proliferation of any banned goods. we obviously under 1874 have additional responsibilities and authorities. and we appreciate that. i also would push back on the notion that it's us and this one ship. i mean, the u.n. authorized all of us who have an interest in deterring north korea from proliferating banned weapons, in their case all we weres now. to try to deter that, prevent

that, stop that. so it's not just us who have this authority or this responsibility. all members of the united nations have that authority and responsibility. and it's not just us who are interested in north korean ships. there are many others who are also keeping an eye on said ships. that said, with regards to the second part of your question, have we hailed this particular ship? we have not. but i wouldn't read anything too much into that. we are -- we are interested in that ship and other ships and we will continue to monitor them. >> what trigers the queery? >> i think that's a decision that will have to be made at some point, and not necessarily just by us or this got to the, but that is a decision that we will likely take collectively

with our allies and partners out there. and make a determination about whether we choose to hail and queery this particular ship, and if we make that particular decision when and where to do so. but that has not been made yet and i don't get the -- we are in this for the long run. we are committed to working with our friends and partners and allies in the region to make sure that north korea is not able to proliferate weapons of mass destruction, nuclear capabilities, parts, arms, any banned goods. and we will continue to work to that enth. >> well, i'm not going to get into where it is or where it's going. you know, obviously we have

some notions of that, but i don't think it's productive for us to discuss it. >> you have followed other ships since the u.n.r. has -- >> that's not what i'm saying. >> this is the only ship that's been tracked, correct? >> as far as i know it's the only ship we have tracked like this. we have had interest in many ships over the years coming out of north korea. >> the -- >> this one obviously has a particular history that makes it more of interest, but we've had interest historically in many ships. >> the north koreans today threatened to wipe the united states off the map. are you not taking that threat seriously? >> i don't know how i even respond to such sillyness. wipe the united states off the map for what and with what? >> to start another war, the aggressors will wipe the

aggressors off the map. >> yeah. i don't think i'm going to dignify that with a response. >> acting like this in the region or -- >> i think china is obviously key to this. i'm not so sure that anybody has tremendous influence over kim oni will or the or his regime, but if anybody does, it would be the chinese. obviously they are crucial tour efforts to try to bring about a multi lateral approach to preventing the north from developing a nuclear we were. developing long-range ballistic missile capabilities, and from proliferating. they are obviously a lynch pin to our efforts. but as we talked about at shapingry lei last month, we are proceeding on a multi lateral basis, a bilateral

basis, even a ewan -- uni lateral basis to protect ourselves and our friends in the region. >> if china's nuclear test in north korea -- >> i think i got what you were asking. you're saying someone in the washington times brote it was a chinese test in knot korea? i think this falls into jennifer's category. >> is china with the u.s. on knot korea? well, they voted with us and the rest of the world unanimously to pass the united nations security council resolution which gives us unprecedented authorities to deal with the north korean threat. >> seems to be are the to testify into continued -- missile -- i mean, we -- within

one week. do you have any update or information on that? >> well, i think, again, on this trip that we took a couple weeks ago, the secretary acknowledged publicly that we have seen some missile activity which has caught our attention and that that we are closely following. i'm not going to get into specifics about that but we continue to monitor all missile activity in north korea. obviously previous security council resolutions have prohibited the north from testing long-range ballistic missiles. we have seen mistal tests of smaller range and we have seen this warning put out to mariners off its east coast, so obviously there does seem to be some suggestion that is it may be gearing up for something. so we are closely monitoring that. >> is there deployed the

interceptor already? >> i'm sorry? has the u.s. deployed -- well, the secretary talked about last week we deployed to in and around hialeah -- hawaii we deployed radar but you're asking if we've deployed assets to the western pacific? i think at this time we have had no new deploims other than what is the normal assets in that region. i think we're perfectly normal with the assets in that place, obviously the threat posed by north korea is not a new one, so we have adjusted our assets normally in that area some time ago and are comfortable with the platforms we have there and we take our security commitments and lineses in the region very seriously. >> ok. i'll come back.

>> last week the secretary in the briefing said he was concerned, asked specifically about a missile going towards or aimed at hawaii. he said he was concerned and defloyd bad missile and ratcheted up the rhetoric on this debate, so the question is -- >> he ratcheted up the rhetoric? >> said he was concerned. >> low-key bob gates ratcheted up the rhetoric? he's been accused of a lot of things, ratcheting up the rhetoric is not one. >> some people are reading it as -- >> like e.f. hutton, right? predates many of you. >> so my question is, if i can finish it, is -- is the secretary really concern that had a mistal will hit hawaii? >> i have no doubt that the secretary was being truthful with you about how he felt when he spoke last week.

i don't think he would have deployed missiles and radar if he didn't feel there was reason to do so. now specifically, obviously, previous long-range ballistic missile tests by the north have been failures. but they are obviously intent on developing that capability. and so long as they are we need to do responsible, prudent things, and in this case he thinks the responsible, prudent thing is to deploy those assets. >> and tots deploy -- >> well, we did not do it for the last launch. >> but they were in maintenance? >> well, we could have taken it out of maintenance. so there are judgment calls and the judgment this time is ehe wants to have those assets in place. >> and you said there are other navies keeping an eye on the north korean ships are there other navies now shadowing

other north korean ships? >> i didn't say shadowing. i think they take those responsibilities hopefully as seriously as we do. >> so are they watching other ships? >> i can't speak to what they are doing other than to say there are other navies out there that cr as concerned. the idea is that this is somehow being made a u.s. responsibility. the world spoke through the united nations. also this collective concern and there are now collective authorities given to us and we hope it doesn't just fall off on us to respond to this but in the sense that the security council resolution was much more comp hence i have that than that. there are new economic restrictions and sanctions and financial restrictions and sanction it's, so i would pursue y'all to pursue some of those angles as well, but there

are other components to this other than just the military one. >> geoff? >> it's been pretty widely reported that the president signed off on this new fiber sub command? >> yes. >> can you talk to us about what exactly he did authorize and what it will bring to the fold and when we could start looking for some of this to be standing up ? >> i think this has been reported ad nozz yum! by now. it was the least best-kept secret in washington and recently signed. yesterday. this does offer a sub unified command for the united states under the united states strategic command. so the idea here, though, is that this is not some sort of new and necessarily different authorities that have been granned. this is about trying to figure out how we, within this department, within the united

states military can better coordinate the day-to-day defense, protection and operation of the department's computer networks. so this is i think best described as an internal reorganization, focused only on military networks to better consolidate and streamline deo and fiber communities that dignify all aspects of find tore defend and operate our networks. i know there have been those who suggest that this is some sort of middle terization or cyberspace. this is not. this is not an attempt to for us to take over the government's cyberstate and this is part to better organize and situate ourselfs to deal with a very real let the, and it is a conference for people taking place in this longer away than --

>> i think soon, i think in the fall we hope to get things moving in that direction. so i think obviously this is not -- cyberhas been an issue within all the services and within strat come, but the hope is here by giving to it one person, a four-star whose responsibility will be to coordinate all of our efforts. there will be greater focus and expertise brought to bear on this very real problem. >> former detainees who were there from 2002 to twie have been telling bbc that they were abused physically and otherwise. i wanted to talk to you specifically about this these allegations and what your response is. >> i don't have any knowledge of this specific allegation. >> some of these detainees are

saying that they were victims of gulps pointed at their heads, excessive heat and cold, things like that. forced to stay off their clothes in front of female soldiers and stuff like that. what is your general response to that? >> well, without speaking to the specific allegations of which i have no knowledge, i can just tell you we operate according to the hearing field manuel which is very strict guidelines about what is and is not permitted in an detention and interrogation setting, and if anything were to exceed those parameters to go beyond those parameters, that is a problem, i am not aware of any instances in bagram such as you describe. there have been critics who have taken shots at bagram not

necessarily because of the the way people are treated at bagram but we view it obviously as a component to our war and fighting in afghanistan. it is necessary to take people off the battlefield and out of the fight so they no longer pose a athlete to us or the afghan people. i have no reason to believe they are not being done according to the army field manuel and all the other restrictions we place upon them. but i am sure we'll take a look at what your allegations are, but i'm not aware of them specifically. yes? >> secretary gates said yesterday the chief of defense ministers in washington, d.c. that iran keeps training, supplying groups, threatening iraq's stability. do you have any information or any details on that? could you elaborate more? >> i don't think what i'm going to get in the