>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. we begin this evening with the foreign minister of pakistan. in washington for talks with the obama administration about the future of afghanistan and pakistan. he is shah mahmood qureshi. >> perceptions on both sides have to change. perceptions of pakistan and the u.s. have to change, and u.s. perceptions in pakistan have to change. then only can we have a long-term partnership. the people thof-people relationship has to improve and this is why when i was in strategic dialogue, when i was trying to expand, what i had in view was areas that affect the ordinary people so that the people of pakistan can realize and see that this american help,

this american assistance has made a difference to my life. >> rose: we continue with foreign, undersecretary of defense for policy. she was one of the important participants engaged in the dialogue between pakistan and the united states. >> in the political leadership circles, that interest in a deeper relationship is fairly, fairly universal. i think the challenges that pakistani public opinion tend to be very critical of the united states, precisely because they felt we abandoned them and sanctioned them in an earlier era. so we have a ways to go to create the space in terms of their domestic political opinion for a more robust partnership njt qureshi and flournoy coming up. ♪ ♪

if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: shah mahmood qureshi is here. he is the foreign minister of pakistan. they are a critical ally in the

u.s. fight against terrorism. ties with the country historically suffered from distrust, but last fall announcing his strategy for afghanistan, president obama committed to building a new relationship with pakistan. >> in the past, we too often defined our relationship with pakistan narrowly, and those days are over. moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. >> rose: as part of that commitment, the u.s. and pakistan hel two days of wide-ranging talks in washington this week. foreign minister qureshi led his country's delegation. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you sdpl so here's what i want to know. you came to this believing that the united states was genuinely interested in eliminating whatever distrust they might have between the two countries, and pakistan was interested in gaining the confidence of the united states for its

institutions. >> uh-huh. i think in the last two years, to be more precise, in the last 18 months, we have covered substantial ground in narrowing the trust, in converging our interests, and today, i think we are speaking from the same page. what president obama just said the last 48 hours, i was working on that, trying to convert this relationship into a partnership. and if you look at the sacrifice, if you look at the decisions, if you look at the resolve and the determination shown by the pakistani people, the pakistani armed forces, you would recognize that pakistan has taken concrete steps in that direction.

you know, the army, the military operations in tribal belt have paid off and there is recognition for that. i was at the senate-- i met members of congress, and i could feel the difference. you know, i could see the change in mood for the better. so i think we moved on. >> rose: what is the accomplishment that this new relationship might achieve? >> see, the accomplishment, the immediate accomplishment is that we achieve our shared objectives >> rose: which are? >> peaceful, stable. >> rose: what role for the tald ban?

taliban? >> pakistan is seriously fighting the taliban today. >> rose: in pakistan. >> in pakistan. and our fight in pakistan has had a very positive and backed across the border in afghanistan. >> rose: because the two have connections? pakistan and-- afghan, taliban, and pakistanital bin. >> our operations have curtailed the border crossings. today taliban, al qaeda, and their associates are on the run. pakistan was once considered to be a safe haven.

no longer. people are running away from pakistan. because they have seen the seriousness, the resolve of the people and the armed forces. where is mullah omar now? >> i wish he was in my pocket, but he isn't there. >> rose: if you knew where he was, you would call for a drone missile attack? >> we'll get him. if we knew where he was. we would go for him. >> rose: most people believe he's in pakistan. >> people speculate about it. it's all a guessing game. >> rose: the central point you've made is you've begun to close the borders so people are running out of pakistan knowing it's not a safe haven, correct, because you're coming after them? the best evidence of that is what? >> the best evidence of that is recognition by you as our allies that many of, you know, the big

names have escaped, and they're looking for new disindestinations. >> rose: people like mullah omar? >> no, i can't take names, but many are trying to escape and go into places like yemen, somalia-- whatever. other places. because pakistan is no longer considered to be a safe place for them. >> rose: this is general petraeus on this program several weeks ago, talking about north wazirstan. here it is. >> they have been in north wazirstan. there's a little bit of popular misperception that they have not conducted operations. they have conducted operations and they've conditioned. they have not done a clearance operation. they're not going to do what they call-- they explicitly ruled out a steamroller operation, and certainly they

can't do it until they consolidate some of the gains. they've done a lot. thief taken significant losses, frankly, the military, and the civilian population, too. and what they need to do is do some transition. remember, it's clear, transition and they need to do some transfer. they're working on that? >> rose: that's general petraeus. >> that's recognition of our effort. >> rose: but with respect to north wazirks rstan, do you expect to see the kind of operation he talked about? >> certainly. see, we are moving in a systematic manner. we cleared the insurgents from some of the settled areas that they had intruded into. we moved into the tribal belt. we have moved into different agencies of the tribal belt. south wazirstan, which was considered to be the headquarters of the taliban, has

been cleared and not just cleared. we are holding it successfully and winning the support of the people, the local tribes. north wazirstan is a challenge, which we will take, and which we have accepted. but we have to move in line with our resources. we do not want to overstretch as general petraeus said. we move, and we want t. once we've cleared an area, we want to hold an area. we want to consolidate opposition. build area. restore the confidence of the people, and then move on. >> rose: how do you measure india's interest in afghanistan? >> they have relations. obviously, their interests cannot be the same as ours because we share a border. they do not share a border. we have been impacted. they have not been impacted to

that extent because even today, we have three million refugees living in pakistan. afghanistan is a land-locked country. the bulk of their trade is carried through pakistan. practically our economies are one. culturally, linguistically ethnically, there are commonalities, which afghanistan shares more with pakistan than india. >> rose: drone strikes on the afghan-pakistan border, including north wazirstan, are seriously disrupting al qaeda. that from the american c.i.a. director. how do you see it? what is your appriseal of al qaeda's disruption? >> he's correct. they've seriously disrupted them. they have successfully taken out

many high-value targets. yes, that's correct. >> rose: is al qaeda on the run? >> i think so. >> rose: so what happens to osama bin laden? and zou hiry. >> i think they're losing support, certainly in pakistan. the overwhelming majority of public opinion has turned against them. >> rose: because? >> because they do not want their way of life imposed on pack because the people of pakistan do not want to see talibanization of pakistan. we are a democratic society. we are a moderate society. and we want to move on. we want economic development. we want growth. we want jobs. and their presence, their

existence, and their activities hamper what we want to achieve. >> rose: you've had very successful capture in the last six months, a very high-level taliban figures, both killed and captured. >> uh-huh. >> rose: so you assume that the information is being upgraded, and you have more access to intelligence about the way the taliban and al qaeda are operating than ever before. >> we have been-- we have been asking for that. we have been asking for intelligence sharing. we have been asking for realtime intelligence sharing. >> rose: with the united states. >> absolutely. >> rose: and they refused because they are not certain that i.s.i. has not been infill trated or some other reason? >> you can see the cooperation going up. >> rose: right. >> you can see the understanding going up, right?

>> rose: right. >> you can see the coordination going up and you can see the results are obvious. the more the united states cooperates with us, we are willing to cooperate. we have demonstrated that in the last two years. since the democratically elected government has come into office that we mean business. we are serious. and we have demonstrated our seriousness. look tsacrifice the people of pakistan have made, the armed forces of pakistan have made. you name me one country that has lost so many people since 9/11. we have lost almost 31,000 individuals. you name me one country that has had 31,000 casualties. >> rose: and to you think-- do you think the united states government appreciates that? >> i think they do. when i went to the hill, when i met senators and congressmen, this time around, i could see --

>> their response to you as the representative of the pakistani government, as the foreign minister was more-- >> was very positive. i could see a shift in mood. i could see appreciation. i could see recognition. and i see that today, the united states administration executive branch and pakistan's government on the same page. >> rose: but they are not sharing as much intelligence as you would like for them to. >> it has improved considerably. the confidence level has gone up. it can go up further. >> rose: back to al qaeda, you have basically said they are not as hierarchical and structured organization as we might presume. >> uh-huh. >> rose: therefore, it makes it more difficult to know where some of the leadership moeb. >> that's my reading. >> rose: and some of al qaeda is shifting to yemen or somalia or wherever? >> to different places, but

leaving pakistan. because they see the seriousness on our part. >> rose: we mention taliban in pakistan. what is the relationship between i.s.i., your intelligence agency and the taliban leaders in afghanistan? >> the way the i.s.i. has been operating and the way the i.s.i. is being targeted by taliban, is in front of you. look at the-- look at their casualties. look at the number of people that have been injured in the last year and a half. directly, you know, i.s.i. operators. look at the way their different officers have been attacked in lahore, in pashar. it is very obvious that i.s.i. is no longer considered to be a

friend of theirs. >> rose: this final question before i let you go-- or you can go without me letting you go. ( laughs ) this question: is opinion on the street about the united states, about pakistan's role that it can play in partnership with the united states changing? is respect for the united states changing? on the street? >> i think a lot of ground that needs to be covered. i think this messaging that has been sent out, this interaction that we've had in the last 48 hours sends the right message back home. >> rose: and it goes out to the street. >> it does go to the street. but a lot has to be done. it's not going to be easy.

perceptions on both sides are have to change. perceptions of pakistan in the u.s. have to change. and u.s. perceptions in pakistan have to change. then only can we have a long-term partnership. the people-to-people relationship has to improve, and that is why when i was in the strategic dialogue, when i was trying to expand our... tracks, what hi in view was areas that affect the ordinary people so that the people of pakistan can realize and see that this american help, this american assistance has made a difference to my life. >> rose: does your government believe the taliban can be stopped in afghanistan and the present strategy is the way to do it? >> the present strategy is a far better thought-out strategy. it's wider. it's more comprehensive. and it's not just talking of the

military option. >> rose: it engages the people. >> it engages the people. it talks of development. it talks of governance. it talks of building civilian structures and institutions. so it's a better strategy, and i think we should give it time to work. but it has to be a very careful balance between engagement and the application of force. >> rose: thank you very much. pleasure to see you again. >> thank you. sglt foreign minister of pakistan shah mahmood qureshi. back in a moment. michele flournoy from the pentagon. stay with us. the united states military is engaged around the world. it is withdrawing combat troops from iraq it as builds up troops in afghanistan. it is partnering with pakistan

in an aggressive counter-terrorism campaign, including drone attacks in the tribal areas. it is working with the yemeni government to counter a reinsurgent al qaeda there and u.s. troops are still in hate for the humanitarian relief efforts. but the military must do more than respond to the conflicts of of the day. it must prepare for future wars and shifting security environment. the person at the pentagon who spends the most time working on these issues is michele flournoy. she is the undersecretary of defense and the highest reasoninging female official in the defense department. i am pleased to have her with me. tell me what it is that do you at the pentagon, how you define this responsibility? >> well, my job is to advise the secretary of defense on all matters of policy, ranging from current foreign policy crises of the day to how we use the military as an instrument of national policy. i also represent him in the interagency process that tees up

decisions for the principal and the president. >> rose: are any of those things in conflict because, as some people have said, sometimes the urgent gets in the way of the important. >> that is a challenge in government. you can have the tyranny of the in box. every day there's too much to do. and, really, i define my job as being one of the people that forces us all to step back and think more strategically about what is over the horizon. what is coming that we haven't even anticipated yet? and i have a wonderful staff to help us do that for secretary gates. >> rose: what do you think the most important experience you have gained that gives you the kind of skills necessary to do the job? >> that's a great question. i think it's a combination of time in and out of government. when i've been out of government i have been able to serve in the think attention world, either as a scholar or as the president of one, and to basically pack my intellectual suitcase when i'm out of government and bring all

of that in with me. i also have had the opportunity and the honor to work with a wonderful array of very seasoned practitioners who yif learned a great deal from over the years. and then secretary gates himself i think, he's one of the great secretaries of defense, and is just a pleasure to work for and very clear about what he needs from his staff and how he wants to move things forward. >> rose: what are the new security challenges? >> well, where do i begin? you know, we face an incredibly complex and dynamic environment. you have globalization that on the one hand is bringing countries together, integrating economies, bringing peoples closer. at the same time, you have some who are sort of left out of that process, and you have greater fractioning of the community, if you will. and i think a lot of the negative trends we see-- terrorism, proliferation, and so

forth-- are due to a lack of that integration. >> rose: lack of effective globalization and integration of these economies has not included them. >> exactly. and so as the department of defense, we have to really be prepared for the downsides of this security environment for the contingencys that could come out of proliferation, the aggression, terrorism, the failure states and the creation of chaos in certain areas. and those are the kinds of things that we have to grapple with. >> rose: that's a term that we hear "failed state." people have talked about a number of countries. they worried that afghanistan could have become a failed state and, therefore, it becomes a venue for terrorism. and it happened, i assumed, you could motorcycle that argument. how many failed states are there? >> i think there are dozens of potential candidates and probably a few that are really in the process of failing. i think the one that everybody

thinks of right now is sonaulia where you have just the bare bones of a government that's struggling to have any real control over its territory and over its-- to provide for the basic needs of its people. >> rose: what else? who else? >> i think there are a number of others in africa that are probably border line, and the real challenge here is these require the efforts of multiple states to try to help, multiple tools-- certainly the military is usually the last, but the-- all kinds of efforts to build past the development and so forth. >> rose: how do you see our place in the world today? >> i think because of our history, because of our economic power, because of our military might, because of our values and our cultural influence, we are uniquely placed as a leader of

the international community. what matters is how we use that leadership. and i think one of the things that this administration has been trying to do is restore america's place as a leader to really build and strengthen an international order that is based on mutual interest, mutual respect, and common action for the common good. i mean, that is really sort of the vision that a lot of the administration's individual policies are seeking to promote. >> rose: and is pakistan-- u.s.-pakistan, one of those you would point to? >> i think pakistan is a really important country for the united states. we are trying very hard to build a strategic partnership with pakistan. in the immediate term, because they are a critical partner in the war against al qaeda and its allies -- >> and the war in afghanistan as well. >> and afghanistan, across the border. but also because south asia is such a critical region. and it's very important to build

up the conditions for stability in that region. and for reduction of tensions in the region. so pakistan has got to be a critical partner in that equation. >> rose: the impression is that the pakistanis have become a better partner in the last six months. >> i think that one of the things that's happened in the last year or so is the extremists really crossed the line. they brought terrorism to the pakistani heartland, to the cities of pakistan. and so the pakistani public now feels very much under siege and they're very strong domestic political support to combat those violent extremists. so that has increased the pakistani military's willingness to conduct operations, to try to clear out some of these safe havens, to work more closely with us, according operations on both sides of the border and so forth. so i think that overreaching by

the mill stants has actually created a groundswell of support for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. >> rose: in the sense the pakistani government recognized that the taliban was an enemy of theirs, even though it had been a friend of theirs in afghanistan earlier. >> well, i think there's a network of these groups, and some of these groups are more in the krops hairs, if you will, for pakistan than others. but that's an ongoing area of dialogue where we're -- >> are they doing everything that the president and the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and you want them to do? >> well, that-- they have done a tremendous amount. they have sacrificed a great deal. we can always both be doing more. and that's what we're going to be talking about. >> rose: fair enough but what would "doing more" mean? >> doing more would include going after some of the groups that are coming across the border into afghanistan and targeting our soldiers. some of the groups that are less focused on targeting pakistan and more focused on targeting

us. >> rose: this would be the hakani group and people like them? >> exactly. >> rose: because the hakani group has a relationship with i.s.i. and other pakistani institutions, do they not? or they did? >> i think one of the things-- historically they have. i think one -- >> and us, too, when we were all engaged in supporting-- >> i think the real name of the game here is convincing our friends in pakistan that the suz not going to leave the scene again. we did that historically. we walked away from this area with fairly catastrophic effects. that's not going to happen again. and i think if they trust that reality, that we are going to stay invested in the region, even as the contours of our operations and our military footprint in afghanistan changes over time, that that-- if they trust that, they will be able to make a different calculus about

how to hedge their bets and make sure their interests are protected. >> rose: are they prepared to engage in north wazirstan as they were in south wazirstan? >> i think that's something we'll see over time. right now the challenge for their military is they are very much stretched by the operations they've taken on so far? >> rose: have you convinced them they should think less about india and more about enemies within? >> well, i think that's something that's a big part of the dialogue is trying to understand their threat perception, having them understand ours. and helping to talk that through. >> rose: one of the interesting things that i've learned from talking to people like you is listening. you know, you want them to define how they see their national security concerns. and ask if there's something you can do to help alleviate those concerns, or help change those concerns, that they feel threatening. >> i think that's job number one next week is to listen.

and i think they are coming-- what we've asked them to do is come tell us how you see the world and what your strategic concerns are, and what you need. 00 and we will do the same. but our first job is to listen. >> rose: what's the constancy here? >> the constancy is the president's focus on how do we disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda in this region, and take this region off the table as a safe haven now and in the future. how do we replace the instability of today with a much more stable and robust region in the future. that is the constancy throughout. >> rose: that's where you began and that's where you are now. >> we had an initial review that really was about what do we need to do immediately just to start out on the right foot? we were facing elections in afghanistan. there were all kinds of near-term challenges we needed to face. then we had a fundamental review

that went back to do we have the objectives right? do we have the mission right? do we have the strategy right? that is what was announced at the west point speech. what's really important is it's the first time in eight years we have the mission defined right, we have the strategy, we have the leadership in place, and we've actually put the kind of resources against the problem to really have a chance of success on the afghan side of the border. that said, the pakistan side of the border is equally important. >> rose: do we buy into it, the idea that we have to be here, to try to influence the circumstances on the ground? >> right. and i think that was the key question. the president was facing the decision of whether or not to send tens of thousands of additional americans into harm's way in order to do that-- which is probably the toughest decision that any president makes-- he had to check his math. you know, do we have the -- >> check his math. >> right. do we have the strategy right?

do we have i shot at success to take-- to put these people in harm's way? and i think we took the time for the review, which we were criticized for, so that the president had very high confidence in every aspect of that equation by the time we got to a decision and we were actually deploying forces. he had what, 10 to 20 meet necessary which he was involved in? >> i have never seen or heard of a president take that much of his own personal time to really own and take hold of a foreign policy problem. >> rose: so when you say "own a foreign policy problem," how would you define that? >> well, we inherited -- we have quite-- we inherited quite a lot from the previous administration. and, again, when you're in a war and you're making decisions that put americans in harm's way, i think president obama really needed to make sure that he personally was comfortable with

the way we were defining the mission and that he had high-- that he had confidence in the strategy going forward and that he was-- he understood the risks and the costs, and the potential benefits. and so, i think that process of working through it, looking at it from all angles, considering a robust range of alternatives, that was a process he had to go through to make the tough choices that he's made. the good news is that we are already seeing those choices pay off in terms of early -- >> success on the ground. >> early, positive-- it's too early to declare-- to declare success, but we see the kinds of indicators we would like to see that suggest we are moving in the right direction. >> rose: what are they? >> i think, first and foremost, you see a very strong support among the afghan people for the new strategy. you see much greater partnership with all levels of the afghan government in terms of getting

them involved in owning not only the problem but the solution to the problem. very much partnered in every operation we conduct, and so forth. >> rose: are you confident that this afghan government under president karzai is on board and is trying to correct those problems that cause great question in america? >> i think the-- president karzai and his government understand the stakes involved. they understand that we are really giving them a very unique opportunity here to stabilize the situation and emerge with-- in a way with a political landscape that could actually create the basis for longer term stability and development for afghanistan. it is not an open-ended commitment. it is something that they need to act on in the near term. and i think they understand that.

but the truth is00, most afghans experience their government at a very local level, at the village level, maybe at the district level. so one of the things the strategy review did was shift a lot of the focus to that local level where afghans have very basic needs and they're looking to the government to help get -- >> do we have a relationship at that level? >> we do. and that's what's a big change in the strategy. not only have we partnered with afghan forces, but we've also brought in afghan ministrys with our own i.a.d., state department agriculture, and we're really working intensively at that sort of subnational level to try to create some sustainable governance at that level. and that, i think, is really going to be the foundation for the long term. >> rose: is this or is it not nation building? >> well, i think that over time

we will be engaged in a very long-term project in afghanistan that will go far beyond the military intervention, afghanistan is going to be a country that we provide development assistance to, that n.g.o.s are actively engaged in for many, many years to come as it was for many, many years before. but i think for our military intervention, we have described the objectives much more narrowly in terms of reversing the taliban momentum and creating the afghan government capacity to sudden secured instability so that a much longer term arc of development can happen. >> rose: west point speech became controversial because it was a specific day-- month-- and year, july 2011, in which the

process of withdrawal would begin. then you had the secretary of defense and others testifying saying it was dependent on conditions on the ground. >> let me clarify what july 2011 is and is not. july 2011 is the end of the surge. the 30,000 additional troops, the end of that surge. it is the point at which we fully expect that there will be provinces in afghanistan that have met conditions in both security and governance that are ready for a transition to afghan lead. that does not mean on july 2011 we've all rushed for the exists, we're done, and see you later. in the course of that transition period, the mission of some of military forces will start to change. some may be able to come home. others upon transition from a combat role to an

advise-and-assist role sglaz it happening in iraq. >> it's very much as is happening in iraq, a very responsible draw-down. so it's true that july 2011 is an influxion point. it's also true that that process of transition will be conditions based and will be really driven by the recommendations of the folks in the field, on the ground, who are closest to the situation. >> rose: one of the things that also came out of this review session and the west point speech is a narrow focus. what do they mean by that? or what did you mean by that? that our focus is more narrow. >> well, i think it was both narrower in the sense of defining more realistic, near-term objectives to the mission, but also in the sense of focusing our efforts. there were lots of development projects, lots of activities,

lots of people doing different things in afghanistan over the last several years. and yet, we weren't always getting the the benefits of really concentrating our effort on the thingdz that matter most. so a lot of the strat-- everybody talked about the military piece-- but a lot of the strategy review was really trying to understand what is most important on the governance and development side, particularly the governance side? how do you create the capacity so that afghanistan can be in the lead and manage with some help from us its own affairs. >> rose: if we can figure out a way to get them to be strong enough to take care of business then we create an opportunity to withdraw. >> right. and to responsibly transition the mission. >> rose: how do we define "victory?" or do we define victory? >> i think victory is a situation in which afghanistan and pakistan are no longer safe

havens or future safe havens for al qaeda, that the governments in those regions have the capacity to sustain that situation, to effectively combat terrorism on their soil, and to ensure that the conditions remain inhospitable, the violent tremism, over time. >> rose: is that achievable in within the next four years? >> i think it is achievable in the near-to-midterm. what does that mean to someone who thinks like you do? >> i don't have a set mindframe. but i do think the development of these countries is going to be on a much longer arc, you mean, really building their economic capacity and -- >> will we, like in south korea, have troops there fair long time even though we're not engaged in combat? >> you know, i don't think these countries want american troops

on the ground for a very long time. that said they are very happy-- i mean, let's separate them. afghanistan is very happy to have us there now as helping to stabilize the situation, training their forces, building their capacity to eventually take the lead. but i think this is an-- a region of the world where large, long-term bases is not in our interest. what's in our interest is staying engaged, continuing to support, but with primarily nonmilitary -- >> and not leave them at a moment when they desperately need you to be there? >> absolutely not. that's something we're trying to communicate. we're not leaving. we're going to stay committed to this region. >> rose: the c.i.a. director spoke this week and you're very familiar with him and the c.i.a. and what they're doing. what-- how do you account for the success that he spoke about

in terms of success in killing and capturing al qaeda officials? looking at communication communications between al qaeda members and the leadership they go, "saying, help us out. we're out here alone." >> i think there are a number of factors. most fundamentally, i think many of the population where's al qaeda has tried to hide out are pretty tired of them being there. they have-- they oftentimes have become victimized by the presence of these groups. they don't see that their ideology offers them much in the way of anything that can improve their lives. and so i think there is a-- there is a waning of the support for something thoof groups in

some of these areas. i also think we have applied very consistent pressure on them for a number of years now, and that has had a cumulative effect. we've also seen increases in other countries' willingness to cooperate, and, again, over time that's had a cumulative effect. so gradually we're shrinking down the areas where they can hide and feel that they're safe. and that's had a-- and we've taken action against and killed or captured a number in the leadership ring. >> rose: where had vyou not succeed where you hoped you would be further along? >> that's a great question pop one of the things i aspire to is to really take a look at highway we build-- work with other droiz build their capacity. stewart assistants, the q.d.r., our national security strategy

tall talks about how important to u.s. interests it is to have capable partners who can work with us on common problems. the mechanisms we use to actually build capacity from from the cold war. they're slork they're burg, they're unresponsive. they're meant to deliver large numbers of big platforms over many years, not near-term equipment that somebody who is under attack needs tomorrow. so figuring out how do we reform that system for a new environment and in support of the right kind of strategy, which is one of -- >> it's like modernizing the pentagon, is it not? >> yeah. so that one i'm still-- that's a windmill i'm still tilting at. >> rose: where is the change in the world order that the united states has to understand and respond to? >> well, i think there are a number of changes. one is the rise of a number of new powers, particularly in asia. china, india, where you have new

countries who are developing economically, who are taking their place, if you will, in key regions where we have vital economic and security and other interests. and i think a lot of the dhj here is how to really integrate them into an international order with sort of common rules of the road, clear opportunities where we can seek to work together. but also, you know, clear communication where, if we do have dirnss, how do we resolve those differences without getting into conflict. >> rose: is this an extension of bob zoellick's famous speech in which he said to china you have to recognize you are a stakeholder, you have a place in the future but that brings accountability and responsibility. >> i think there was a lot to that idea, and that still

resonates. so that's very valid. >> rose: henry kissinger, who you know well, has said to me on conversations in this program, otherwise he's concerned that the united states build alliances within air,ia so that it is understood that we believe we have a role to play in the region. >> absolutely. >> rose: we intend to play that role. coming out of the global expectations of the united states. >> and i think you see us-- we certainly have some very strong long-term alliances with japan, with south korea, with australia. but we're also trying to really deepen and broaden our partnerships in southeast asia, for example. and in south asia, india and pakistan. and so, you know, i think we are working on that. we're also at

having an increasingly rich and candid dialogue with china about how do we see our interests in the region? how do they see their interests? >> rose: there is the impression of more conflict between china and the united states. >> i guess there are-- there are always going to be issues where we disgreat, elements of taiwan policy, for example. how we treat the dalai lama. human rights, those kind of things. take those two things, how upset were the chinese over the fact that we sold planes to taiwanese and the president saw the dalai lama? >> we did provide some assistance, military assistance to taiwan. but it was very much consistent with the kind of assistance that we've provided in the past, and the argument is, we believe one one of the things that drive the dialogue to become so productive in recent years is the fact you had a taiwanese government that

felt secure. secure enough to come to the table and have those discussions and part of that security assistance is all the defense of the nature, is to give taiwan the confidence to engage in talks and peacefully resolve the differences between china and taiwan. >> rose: we're trying to give them confidence so they can reach some kind of agreement with the chinese. >> yes, we're very-- we want to see their differences resolved without the resort to force on either side. that said, i think-- i actually see over the last year, again, a substantive change in the dialogue with china -- >> better? >> yes. >> rose: do you really? >> yes. it's not always in the press, but we are seeing more of them. we are seeing them at higher levels consistently. we are talking about a much broader range of things, and we are having a very candid exchange about where we can

cooperate and where we sadifferences, how do we work them through without letting them sort of drive the entire train. >> rose: so i hear from you, certainly at the level of the pentagon, that there is an increasing and accelerating communication with the chinese so there is no question of each other being misunderstood because the level of engagement is significantly higher. >> i would say across the government. and first and foremost on the diplomatic side, the state house, the white house, the pentagon as well. we are having strategic dialogue bringing all of the elements together and that's not happened in a long time. the economic piece, the energy piece, the diplomacy piece all pentagon. >> rose: i may have read this, i may know this because of you in all the reading i did about you. the soularium thing that generalize hour did as president. >> the solal an project was

eisenhower's attempt to grapple with how to deal with the soviet union, and instead of coming to one consensus view he really tried to develop competing strategies and really understand-- sort of trade off some choices. while there is no salir yem project per se in the u.s. government right now, i think that philosophy is very much informing a lot of the interagency. the afghan strategy review we went through, it was all about look at different options for achieving our goals and sort of really examining those in a way that was no holdsed. i think that spirit of trying to speak strategically, trying to be open to the full range of possibilitys and really critically examining those and allowing a full debate. this is an administration that welcomes diversity viewpoints brought to the table and people have their say. you know, the worst thing that you can do in a meeting with the

president is scowl because sure enough, he will call on whoever that person is and say, wait a minute. it looks like you don't agree. what do you think?" he is someone who draws dissent, who wants to understand the other perspective as he makes decisions it's one of his strengths. >> rose: that's an interesting observation, that he can-- i've not heard that before-- he can hear where somebody is questioning where the conversation is going. he has a sixth sense about that is what you're saying. what else makes this person, in terms of the kinds of people you have known different, in terms of how he approaches problems, how he approaches decisions, how he listens, how he demands. >> i would say that he is someone who-- he doesn't have an ideological frame. he's extremely pragmatic. he's very analytic. he assimilates enormous amounts of information. he's very integrating, and he's

very incisive. he has the three questions at the end of the briefing, they are exactly the three most important questions. i mean, i never cease to be amazed-- i'm sure it's his staff who briefs him each time. but, no, he has an uncanny ability to go to the heart of the problem or ask the hard questions. and i think-- and he does that. and he's always looking to make sure that he's really heard all the perspectives. and yet he's able to make a decision. >> rose: russia, the secretary of state is there. we need their help in iran. we need their help because they're a member of the quartet, and i guess tony blair so far there and others. so where are we with russia? the one country in the world that has under nuclear weapons-- or many-- has a lot. i've lost count. >> we are in the process of seeking to reset the relationship with russia. and what that means is we are engaging with them much more full to, again, identify areas

of common interest. we are very close to completing a strategic arms reduction treat wethem, that is an example of that. we are working very closely with them to police up nuclear material around the world that could become vulnerable to theft or terrorist use. there's a whole range -- >> that's been there for a while-- go ahead. >> no, and we're continuing that. i think in the case of iran is an area where we engaged them with us as a partner this trying to reach out to iran, to offer iran ways to meet its legitimate energy needs while also trying to get it to agree to come back into compliance with its own commitments in nonproliferation treaty. >> rose: we're happy with what the russians have done with respect to iran? >> well, we've been working very closely with them on iran. i think that in the end, that will pay off in terms of their

willingness to work with us as we turn towards sanctions and towards a pressure track. they have been more cooperative on iran than they have been in the past, and we are going to be looking to -- >> when you say that you're speaking of this moment, right now, if i measure it against other times, they've been more cooperative about recognizing the iranian issue? >> they have. they have joined us in pushing iran on coming back into compliance with the nonproliferation treaty. they have condemned iran's-- when the hidden nuclear enrichment facility was disclosed, they condemned it. they have joined us in votes at the i.a.e.a. they worked with us in offering iran a deal on the tehran research reactor for its medical research needs. they have-- they have been working with us in this process, and now as we switch to sanctions, we are working with

them towards a u.n. security council resolution. will we have differences? yes. but we are seeing more partnership from them on iran than we have in the past. >> rose: when you look at the obama administration, in which you serve, is there a doctrine? is there emerging an attitude about the world we live in that can be defined? >> i would say there's a vision, and it's articulated in national security strategy that we're about to publish. so i'm not going to -- >> you're not going to give me a hint? >> again, i think it has to do with restoring and revitalizing american leadership and building the kind of international order that we've been talking about. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: it's a pleasure to you have here. >> it's a pleasure to talk with you. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh

access.wgbh.org ♪ ♪ if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic )