, -- with nato, russians were not against nato in the early '90s. when the soviet union agreed for german reunification within the nato alliance, russians looked very well at the at and considered data to be -- looked very well at nato and considered a dead to be good and there was a top of russia eventually joining nato. yeltsin wins even made a very conspicuous statement saying russia will put the question of joining nato [unintelligible] and it produced such a reaction that corrected it in a few days, saying the typist made a mistake, that russia will not participate. but then, the attitude toward nato started to change. the crucial turning point was the bombing of serbia and. after that, at russia's started to see nato as an aggressive alliance that used its force arbitrarily out of united nations security council framework, out of for a mark of international law, at will. what is more importantly that it did not change the official attitude toward nato, but the grass roots, russian attitude toward nato. i lived at least half of my professional

that is about nato. in principle, there are political and psychological biases with respect to nato and nato expansion. economic and other interests in each particular neighboring country, the west might look at it in a much less hostile way rather than one russia says this is our area of national interest which is often seen as neo-imperial attempts to dominate. russia does not want nato to take over post-soviet space under whatever pretext and deprive russia of its legitimate interests toward russia as nec minorities and economic investment and everything russia has with respect to that space. there is concern that some conflict in the caucuses, which still remains quite likely, may bring russia and the wet sand and to direct confrontation -- and the west into direct confrontation. if nato comes right to the russian border from the west and from the south, that is why russia says that. in the new military doctrine, it is formulated in a very cautious way, just like the formulation on nuclear-weapons. i

now, what member of nato did serbia attack? none of them said the russians said what is happening here? what they're seeing is an alliance moving into the area they had given in breaking of the communist bloc and the soviet union. american military dominated. now the motives and have been to some more calls but the point is a different strategy from the beginning could have brought i believe russia to a position whereby if they could not control molosovich and the serbs they would vote with us in the u.n. authorizing whenever action needed to be taken, so different diplomacy could have had a different result. as it was, buy overriding these things baker says he didn't make a promise, but the record is it was not exactly a promise but it was a statement nato wouldn't move its jurisdiction to the east and that is a complicated question of the way that gorbachev understood and i will say as the american ambassador if i'd been asked what the policy was i would have made that clear because there was my understanding that the policy

there's a huge debate over what role nato is playing. is it a global nato? is it nato back to basics? or how can the two be combined? and there's different views in how this should be structured. and three, the contours of the new missile defense system. i remember president obama cancelled the bush version and he's talked about his own version to which several countries in central eastern europe have already quickly signed up including romania, possibly bulgaria, certainly the poles and the czechs are interested. the question is there exactly how this will be an integrated nato system. how will russia and if russia will be included in the planned system as the nato secretary-general has been offering over the past few weeks. it is worth remembering in this context that one of the reasons warsaw and prague initially signed onto the bush version of the missile defense was not so much defense against iran. but to try and establish a closer bilateral link with the united states. bilateral military link with the united states at a time when doubts over nato soli

and it started with the expanding of nato to other countries after all nato expansion to the east to the pact countries began before that, and my point is we could have gotten more russian cooperation. i believe in either country when milosevic and the serbs or else voting in the u.n. for the united action to protect them if we hadn't begun the expansion of nato for no good reason actually other than domestic politics in the united states, and that's why at the time i very much opposed the expansion of nato knowing that we had convinced gorbachev to allow east germany and united germany to stay in nato with the promise that nato would not move to the east. now that wasn't a legally binding promise but this was one of the things that convinced gorbachev to let germany unite and stay in nato with the understanding there would be no further expansion and when the clinton administration simply ignored it in fact the hearings on the hill if the we both went up to testify would not even ask for the documents that indicated the diplomacy earlier. so i do think that that was the area where w

now, what member of nato the serbian attack?one of them so the russians say what's happening here? they are seeing is an american military alliance is moving into the area of that and they had given up in breaking up the communist bloc and a breaking up the soviet union. american military dominated and. our motives may have been a purist but they're going to be seen differently summer house and my point is that a different strategy from the very beginning could have brought i believe russia into a position whereby if they could not control milosevic and the serbs they would vote with the u.n., authorizing whatever action be taken. so a different diplomacy and in could have had a different results. as it was, by overriding the stands, now baker says that he didn't make a promise, but the record is it was not exactly a promise but it was a statement that nato would not move its jurisdiction even 1 inch of the use and that's a complicated question that that's the way gorbachev understood. i will say is the american ambassador, if i

is it a global nato? is it nato back into the basics that there are different views on how this should be structured. the contours of the misfiled defense system. president obama canceled the bush version. he has talked about his alternative vision to which several countries have already signed up, including romania and possibly bulgaria. the question there is, how will this be integrated? how will pressure and will russia -- how will pressure and will russia be included? it is worth remembering that one of the reasons prague signed on to the bush version was not so much defense against iran but to try to establish a link with the united states. this was at a time when doubts were growing. several countries reset their relationship with russia to quite warm. this troubled some countries in the region. the central states bordering russia are concerned about russia's ambitions, including georgia and the possibility of another war in georgia. it is not to be discounted. the pressure moscow cannot exert even

, -- with nato, russians were not against nato in the early '90s. when the soviet union agreed for german reunification within the nato alliance, russians looked very well at the at and considered data to be -- looked very well at nato and considered a dead to be good and there was a top of russia eventually joining nato. yeltsin wins even made a very conspicuous statement saying russia will put the question of joining nato [unintelligible] and it produced such a reaction that corrected it in a few days, saying the typist made a mistake, that russia will not participate. but then, the attitude toward nato started to change. the crucial turning point was the bombing of serbia and. after that, at russia's started to see nato as an aggressive alliance that used its force arbitrarily out of united nations security council framework, out of for a mark of international law, at will. what is more importantly that it did not change the official attitude toward nato, but the grass roots, russian attitude toward nato. i lived at least half of my professional

it's fine to say nato is a threat, but what is it that russia has what is the military action nato would take against russia that causes all of this concern? >> the russian military doctrine is something like [unintelligible] music, it's not as bad as it sounds. the globalization of nato and movement of data to russian borders is the number one military danger, not threats. russians make a difference. threat is something that is already here that threatens war. danger is something that potentially might lead to bore. in the list of dangerous, this is number one, but it is not on the list of threats. there is a specialist of threats and nato is not mentioned there. second, moving nato military infrastructure, moving alliance to russian borders, this may be hair splitting, but it's different from saying nato movement to russian borders. russia is concerned about infrastructure. ballistic missile defense structure in romania, air fields in lithuanians. russia cannot understand why it is going on. there is no

nato did not respond. even to position some nato infrastructure on their territories, this is why the deployment of a battery of patriot missiles with a small american contingent in northern poland is considered extremely important because it ties nato closer to the defense of these countries. they also want greater clarity as to how all nato countries interpret article 5 which is subject to some debate. and proof that the alliance is an effective deterrent policy. if you have any questions, i am happy to answer. we will open it up to questions. >> i was wondering if you could elaborate. you talked about the political capital the president has and the capital he has with european leaders because of the treaty and how that will play out with other issues this year. >> that is a great question. it is hard to quantify. i think that 56 says the administration has experience in the last month, international leaders in europe and elsewhere have to regard the administration as one which is, there was a tendency g

and nato policy toward russia. for this reason, there's several landmark developments ahead that will prove significant to the new allies, and i think these will be discussed at the dinner. countries that are seeking not only reassurance but an upgrade of nato's security commitments -- let me mention to read. the framing of nato's new security concept which is being worked out as we speak. and how russia is depicted in the documents. secondly, naidas summit in lisbon in november and what commitments were made to an enlargement, mutual defense, and there's a huge debate over what role the nato is playing, is it a global nato, or how can they be combined? there are tw -- two different views on how this be structured. and the new missile defense system -- remember, president obama canceled the bush version but now is proposing his own version to which several countries have already quickly sawn off, and the czechs are interested. the question there is exactly how this will be an integrated system or how will russia an

nato has already drastically reduced its nuclear posture.after the cold war, i was there some remembered. they slashed the stockpile of nuclear weapons, eliminated entire categories of nuclear weapons and reduce the readiness of delivery forces. and the scope of further reductions or consolidation and changes in declaratory policy a serious discussion is warranted before the alliance sets its planning target as nuclear zero. together with conventional capabilities and adapted missile defense, nato's nuclear forces have a contribution to make in two ways first by deterring the leaders from trying to exploit new nuclear arms and second by reassuring allies and partners who might otherwise seek their own nuclear weapons. beyond having strong security relations with would-be proliferators what can the u.s. do to prevent another generation of proliferation? first we should continue to discourage the spread of sensitive technologies that can be misused for nuclear weapons. it is good and important to countries like the you a e and saudi arabia hav

as long as there are nuclear weapons that threaten nato, nato will need to maintain a nuclear capability. this is one of the issues that will be addressed in the strategic concept that nato is undertaking. i would say and invite secretary clinton to comment but basically, what is the npr does is draw attention to the number of tactical nuclear weapons and also to the number of non- deployed weapons that we are looking at and of these clearly should be part of the arms control agenda as we move forward. >> he is absolutely right. there is a section for those who have not had a chance to review it, including a picture, and in the chapter called strengthening and reassuring u.s. allies and partners, we make it very clear that any changes in nato's nuclear posture should only be taken after a thorough review within. those conversations have begun in connection with the new strategic concept that is being worked on and will hopefully be ready for consensus discussion at the nato conference in lisbon. >> your concerns about iran and what role the those play in formulating this review? the pres

nato has already drastically reduced its nuclear posture. after the cold war, i was there, i remember it. eliminated entire categories of weapons and radically reduced the readiness of delivery forces. while there may be scope for some further reductions, for the consolidation, a serious discussion ask warranted before the alliance sets forth its target at nuclear zero. nato's nuclear forces may still have a contribution to make in two ways. first by keeping iran's leaders from trying to exploit new nuclear arms and locate those who might try to seek nuclear weapons. beyond having stronger security relations, what can the u.s. do to prevent another generation of proliferation? first, we should continue to discourage to spread of technology that can be misused to build nuclear weapons. it is good and important that countries like the u.a.e. and saudi arabia have committed to forego uranium enrichment technologies. they recognize that foregoing these technologies, every line in the market for the nuclear fuel makes sense economically and helps

that threaten nato, nato will need to maintain nuclear capability. this is clearly one of the issues that will be addressed and the strategic concept that data is undertaking. -- that nato is undertaking. what the review does is draw attention to the number of tactical nuclear weapons and also to the number of non- deployed weapons that we are looking at and of these clearly should be a part of the arms control agenda as we move forward. >> there is a section and the review for those of you who have not had a chance to review it, including a picture of the russian minister, it is in there somewhere, page 19, in the chapter called strengthening regional to terence and reassuring u.s. allies and partners, -- deterrence and reassuring u.s. allies and partners, action should only be taken after a thorough discussion with the alliance. those discussions have begun with connection to the new strategic concept being worked on that will hopefully be ready for consensus discussions at the nato conference in lisbon. >> your concerns about iran and did those pl

nato authority drastically reduced its nuclear posture. after the cold war, and i was there so i remember, the alliance/to stockpile of nuclear stock weapon and illuminated entire categories of weapons and radically reduced the readiness of delivery forces. while there maybe scope for some further reduction, further consolidation and perhaps changes and declaratory policy, a serious discussion is warranted before the alliance sets its force planning target as a nuclear zero. together with conventional capabilities and faced adaptive missile defense, nato's nuclear forces may still have a contribution to make in two ways. first, they drink iran's leaders from trying to exploit new nuclear arms and second by reassuring allies and partners who might otherwise seek their nuclear weapons. excuse me. beyond having strong security relations with would-be proliferators, what can the u.s. do to prevent another generation of proliferation? first, we should continue to discourage the spread of sensitive technologies that can be misused to build nucle

the allies tend to be japan and some of the nato states. in japan, the japanese government actually came not and said, please do take away the cruise missile the u.s. had been detaining, even though we did not feel we needed it, but we retain it as a reassurance. the japanese of the be removed in support of disarmament, and in nato, the foreign ministers of germany, the netherlands, norway, belgium, and luxembourg, they ask that nato take on this issue of taking on deterrence with the agenda of seeking disarmament, so the environment is changing from the cold war, where in europe after one was worried about a massive soviet invasion, or the allies would not feel secure if we did not have nuclear weapons to deal with massive superiorities, so now the situation where it is reversed, the russians are going to be slowing the disarmament process because they're worried about nato security against russia. none of that the with the middle east, except -- none of that dealt with the middle east, except turkey. basically, those weapons can stay in t

germany, the netherlands, norway, belgium and luxembourg as greg mention asked that nato now take on this issue of how to reconcile deterrence. not necessarily nuclear deterrence but deterrence with the agenda of seeking speak, so i think the environment is changing from the way it was in the cold war were in your everybody was worried about a mass soviets invasion through the coli gap or they wouldn't feel secure if we didn't have nuclear-weapons to deal with mass of some of the superiority to now the situation where it's reversed. the russians are going to be slowing the disarmament process because they are worried about nato superiority against russia. none of that dealt with the middle east which is the region here except turkey were the administration's position as i understand it on turkey is basically the weapons can stay there as long as the turks want them. the u.s. will do nothing unilaterally to remove even these tactical nuclear bombs in europe which all the military and you know this better than i do are obsolete. we would never use those in the military operation but we

it's a nato ally. and with turkey abstaining, it's basically sending a signal to iran that you're being successful. in dividing the international community. you know, turkey abstaining, brazil abstained, too. that's a problem. and turkey and brazil also happen to be on the security council right now. big victory for iran as we look in the security council to put sanctions in place. so i think -- you know, it's very tempting for the countries in the region to try to be neutral. but how can you be neutral on something like this that has such major implications for regional security. and where most of the rest of the world is not on the side of iran. is not sitting at the middle. but is joining everyone else in condemning what they're doing and urging them to comply with the international commitments and to take advantage of negotiations and so forth. >> thank you, greg. well, of it leaves me to bring this session to the end. thanks for being such a good audience. and coming up with some interesting quest

what we concluded -- there were allegations filed because of the nato airplane -- the nato air campaign over serbia. the prosecutors did not reject those complaints out of hand. they eventually concluded, for a variety of non-substantive reasons, not to bring prosecution. but the court that we created, the security council, was examining the conduct of a nato offices pyrrhic even though every nato member is a member of a democracy and follows our laws and training on the rules of war. the implicit threat to the united states seems to me to be so real. this is why efforts to come back into the icc in whole or in part are something that we should resist. yes, in the back. right here. >> thank you. i am from greensboro, north carolina. i have had the pleasure of the voting for senator helms three times. my question for you is regarding abu ghraib and also, most recently, guantanamo bay. closing guantanamo bay would pose a huge danger in the united states, especially bringing these terrorists to illinois. what are some alternatives you would suggest to the obama administration? >> i think t

in the south, all of our fuel, we buy through the nato system.ecause the nato has been there for a while, they have a good system set up. we pay for it at the fob gate. i don't know how you got here, i don't care how you got here, that's your problem, i'm buying by the ga gallon at the fob gate and the truck shows up from the independent contractors and we test the fuel and then accept the fuel. that system is run by isaf in the south. in the north, we do it ourselv ourselves, it's a logistics agency task. down at bastion leather neck and the bits, work and in hand, try to -- brits, work and in hand, try to share our logistics and do, and we do it with all of our other coalition partners whenever we can. >> mr. secretary, mike mitchell with lockheed armin. counter-i.e.d. as well as logistics capability, in the sense that a number of firms are developing unmanned helicopter capability that could fulfill niche resupply missions, it would take truck convoys off the road, and in hand area whereas you've cited, there's limited road infrastructure in t

before nato toppled the taliban regime, there was no where one here at all. the day, there is at least 30,000 drug addicts in mississippi alone. across town, at the journey home is nearly over. lord, my son. my little boy. why did you leave me, she says. >> we don't want anyone to go through what we have been through. he was under 20. drugs are held and you can see the results. -- hell and you can see the results. this woman knows nothing of the taliban or the drug war. she only knows that her son is dead. >> more than 7000 servicemen and women have been killed in afghanistan since 2001. they gave their lives, we have been told, to keep us safe by turning afghanistan into a functioning democracy. suddenly countries have started to sound unpredictable. president karzai has said that he would join the taliban. >> he has a way of testing the patience of his friends. >> what i see a but the addiction to the troops. we are clarifying that afghanistan is a country. they must make sure that this is seen by the government's and they must recognize that there can be -

because the nato has been in the south for quite a while. they have got a good system set up, as you probably know we pay for it. i don't know how you got a, i don't care how you got here, that's your problem. i am buying by the gallon at the foggy. that's how we do. truck show up on these independent contractors and we test the fuel and accept the fuel. that system is run by isaf in the south. in the north we do it ourselves, defense logistics agency task. down at bastion leathernecks, we and the brits work hand-in-hand, try to share our logistics, and you. and we do with all the other coalition partners as appropriate, whenever we possibly can. >> i think i saw question back here. >> mr. secretary, mike mitchell with lockheed martin. i would like to explore a language between the third and fourth topics. and this has a number of firms are developing unmanned helicopter capabilities that could fulfill niche resupply missions. it would take truck convoys off the road and in an area where as you said there is a limited road infrastructure in

their domestic politics and foreign policy can be bland but the united states and nato contributed a lot to that feeling of insecurity and russia. nuclear weapons now look as the only reliable assurance and pillar of national security. the military doctrine of dr. clearly spells that out without and reservations. nuclear weapons are one of the few legacies of the superpower status of the soviet union of which russia has a share. after the economic crisis, it greatly diminishes the role of gas and oil exports as an instrument of russian foreign policy influence and role in the world. nuclear weapons, relatively, have become that much more important. certainly, nuclear weapons are looked upon by experts, by the professional community, has the greatest equalizer and an instrument to make up for russian inferiority in conventional forces, in particular with nato getting very close to the russian borders and acquiring multiple superiority over russian conventional forces as an instrument to make up for russian inferiority in missile technology and space technology. foremost, the long-rang

could the russians have said, well, we don't really mind if ukraine is a part of nato? only if you don't have russian history. where, in 1932, germany is weak, prostate and help us. and in 1938 it is at their throats. the russians are aware how quickly the nine military forces turn, and they play the worst case. in both europe and in russia, we see the limits of policy. and the limits of intent. and above all, the limits of goodwill. for all the goodwill in the world, and i give it all to obama, it was a matter of great goodwill on his part. in the end when the things had to be done to genuinely forge a relationship with the european union, he could not help himself but to ask for things that the europeans could not give under any circumstances. when it came time to reset relations with russia, he could not make the concessions that the russians had to have. and the russians could not make the concessions that the americans needed to move forward. when we look at the arab-israeli conflict, and a very telling point made last week which is this is more complicated than i

, calling on them to set up a strategy within the nato-russia council for going after the drugs. now, our policy under the mcchrystal plan is to -- hands off the heroin, let them do what they're doing. and in effect, we're actually defending the heroin trade, and our soldiers are fighting and dying to create an afghanistan in which drugs, the heroin, is flowing. isn't that a contradiction? and don't we have a responsibility to do something to get together with these nations like russia, which is heavily affected by that, to deal with the drug trade? >> well, bill, i do not agree with your characterization of our strategy or its implications. clearly, narcotics is a major concern as it pertains to afghanistan and the region and beyond, including europe. this was a subject that came up during the secretary's recent trip to moscow and her bilateral with foreign minister lavrov. we are looking to have -- we have a strategy. we've made some adjustments over the past year. our focus is on going after the middlemen, those who are responsible for the drug trades. as you've had people her

but in relation to nato security investment program and the military budget came to 176 176,41600 of which 50 million and half came from the reserve. to our figure 11.5478%. and in relation to the eu missions that we're engaged in, again, for '09-'01 -- '09-'10 we pay 13.876%. >> what about international constitutions. iaea, there's a hole issue here about what i'm trying to do is get the sense of the totality of the spend. >> right. well, i think -- >> the institutions that you made on progress in the united to the european -- >> i know the formula. i'm trying to get the figures. i don't know how you candy having this and get a clear handle on it. let's, for example, say to you we have nine and a half in afghanistan, all of the air and logistic capability with supporting a united nations sanction operation in the 44 nation coalition, now if you want to mention the cost on that, then you need to add that on to the figures that chris is just given you. we provide, you know, security in the green zone in cyprus, you know, there are -- there's capability that we're providing in differen

great equalizer and instrument wake of russia and purity with the forces and the dick killer with nato getting very close to the russian borders and acquiring multiple superiority. as an instrument to make up for russian superiority of ballistic missile defense and space technologist but for most they're relying and systems and and those who feel the most vulnerable. and now going back, you can see russia as a growing and rising country on the threat two of view and a guided system on the united states has the greatest threat of the russian national security. if you look at the military doctrine, the list of priorities he may find that native expansion is not one. ballistic missile and the decision guide call our number four and nuclear proliferation so those threats are never seven and then national terrorism is pretty 11 it may prove that is a issue. but the prevailing opinion of the strategic community both in a government and part of the government. >> taken as a political reality. >> the main argument will be used against the new treaty is easily predictable and does not limit the

in general, we have concerns about nato expansion.nd of course if the intention of nato were to go to the caucuss that would be something which would create a serious problems and something which will need to discuss. so there is a concern which is only exacerbated by the unpredictability and venture of mr. sakakibara -- >> restoring relations the president said when he was ining arated he wants to restore a good championship relationship with russia. vice president biden used the word reset, i think. and this is-- puts that in play. >> i think we're on track. i think we're moving well and another important development in prague it has been announced there that president medvedev will pay a visit to washington in summer. with the intent to focus on our economic relations. as you know, during the first meeting of the two presidents last july they set up a special presidential committee coordinated by secretary clinton and the foreign minister in 16 different areas of our relations. and so the agenda has been drawn. some first steps pai

it is the same reason which made nato maintain technicoltechnicar weapons years ago. it is the ratio of conventional imbalance which is about the same but is in favor of nato and against russia compared to what it was 20 or 30 years ago. in this situation, tactical nuclear weapons, russia will look to be an equalizer in that situation. this differs from the technical and legal part. the united states trying to achieve new success in the treaty created a serious problem for potential future negotiations on technical minuks negotiations on technical minuks @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ u)s@ @ >> if you proceed on the legal precedent, of the new treaty, then you would be in people's minds. you will be able to say a year from now that all technical nukes did not exist. they are all in storage. if they are put on delivery systems, you cannot use that pre principle of doing away with weapons through dismantling or limiting delivery systems because you cannot dismantle and eliminate heavy colorable artillery and short-range surface-to-surface missiles with which used conventional

the nato ally most exposed. no country that aspires to middle east leadership will want to be the last to have nuclear weapons. the nuclear arms race is not inevitable, nor would it necessarily be fast, with the exception of his rail and iran, most countries in the region are far from having bond-making capabilities but we must prepare for surprises. remember how in the mid 1980's, saudi arabia suddenly had c.s.s. 2 medium range missiles. remember how more recently, syria built a nuclear reactor in the desert with no one noticing for at least five years. fast and surprising or slow and fitful. a nuclear arms race could involve miscalculation or a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. the united states must prepare to contain the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed iran. we should do so in several ways. first the u.s. and nato should reinforce our collective ability to protect the territory and population and regional

-nato assurance that is associated with the nonproliferation treaty, and if tht is quoted. and to remind you, if any of the state's use chemical or biological weapons, the least a three clearly that they face devastating witmilitary response. as the secretary of defense noted, we explicitly reserved the right to adjust this assurance in the future if biological weapons grow significantly. this combination of policies is intended to give incentives to states to join an adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but to also take steps to reduce the threat of biological weapons. for nuclear weapons states and states that are not compliant with obligations, there is a different rule sets. we still say that the u.s. would not use nuclear weapons [laughter] -- would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances. we specify that for the states, there's a narrow range of contingencies. as was discussed by the secretary of defense, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we see the fundamental role of u.s. nuclear weapons to defend ourselves. we will look to strengthen capabiliti

>> it is very explicit but that nato's nuclear capabilities will be handled within nato.re are nuclear weapons that threaten nato, nato will need to maintain nuclear capability. this will be addressed in the the strategic concept that nato is undertaking. what the npr does is to draw attention to the number of tactical nuclear weapons, and also to the number of non- deployed weapons that we are looking act. these clearly should be part of the arms control agenda as we move forward. >> there is a section, for those of you who have not yet had a chance to review it, in the chapter called "strengthening regional a deterrent and reassuring u.s. allies and partners at," we make it very clear that any new nato posture should only be taken after a thorough review. those conversations have begun in connection with the new strategic concept that is being worked on, that hopefully will be ready for consensus at the nato conference in lisbon. >> i would like to ask about your concerns about iran, and what roles those concerns played in formulating this review. the president of iran

their relationship dated to ike's tenure as nato supreme commander, where general goodpastor served as the assistant to ike's chief of staff, general alford grunther and in that capacity, general goodpastor organized nato and formulated policy in the political and military aims of the alliance. ike had long since come to trust the soldier-scholar who had graduated second in his class at west point, in his class of 1939. and so important that he become to the president as an adviser and as a policymaker that he was soon known as ike's alter ego. general goodpastor was successful, precisely because he never let his ego get in the way of his cyst. -- his duty, and when he preferred to stay in the background to entering the limelight, he was not afraid to challenge his boss when he believed it was the right thing to do. and during discussions over troop reductions in europe, which eisenhower adamantly wanted, general goodpastor made the point that it was not possible until the europeans possessed the ability to fill a gap that we ourselves had created. and at that point, ike's legendary te

now, the predominant opinion in russia is that nato is an alliance that tries to take the ground that was liberated and left by the soviet union and russia. they want to come to the russian borders and prevent russia from exercising its legitimate interests. second, nato wants to become a global. -- become global. >> before i turn for the last question, i was reminded, and it is a point that you have made a number of times. that, first of all, the only nuclear arms control experience in the world is between the u.s. and the soviet union and the u.s. and russia. the treaties and the experiences that we have had thus far have never actually verify the the part that goes boom. . . briefing members of congress a few months ago and i realized they did not realize that arms control had never dealt with the part that goes boom. that's how i explain it. there is the part that flies the thing and a part that goes boom. we have destroyed this parts that fly but never dealt with the parts that go boom and he said, you are kidding. i said there are weapons that have been dismantled, it just was n

, nato units and nato officers.s a democracy and every nato member would insist on its military following our doctrine and training on the laws of war. so that's why this, the implicit threat to the united states seems to me to be so real. and why efforts to come back into the icc in whole or in part are something we should resist. yes, sir, in the back there. right here. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i am from greensboro, north carolina. i've had the pleasure of voting for senator helms three times. my question to you is regarding a abu ghraib, and also most recently guantanamo bay. closing guantanamo bay would pose a huge danger in the united states, especially bringing these terrorists to illinois. what are some of the alternatives that you might suggest to the obama administration? thank you. >> well, i think the clearest, most logical alternative is to keep guantanamo bay open. it's not like when the administration, bush administration found itself in possession of terrorists captured on the battlefield in afgh

and nato forces is admitting responsibility.uded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men. the force went to the compound based on the liable information and we now understand the men killed were only trying to protect their families. >>> now for the really horrible twist. the "times of london" is reporting that not only did u.s. special operations forces try and kill these women but tried to cover it up. ", they dug bullets out of their victims bodies. and then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened. nato officials are denying any cover-up even as they admit responsibility for the deaths. finding out what really happened that night after the shooting is going to be very difficult. the victims have already been buried, repairs have been made to the building that was damaged by gunfire. we will be keeping our ear to the news ground on this one. i doubt very much this is the last we will hear of this. >>> also, late news this evening from t

also, are you in touch with your nato allies? >> we are in touch with our nato allies every day. we have these same strategic goals, objectives as the afghan government does. we want to see it take the lead, but we recognize that afghanistan tragically is one of the poorest countries on earth and for a time afghanistan is going to need all the help the u.s. and international community can provide. in doing that, there is tension over how to do that best. we'll return with the afghan central government. we are working to develop a more effective government at the local level. we will continue to do that. we value our partnership. we have bumps in the road, we will manage them. >> what issues do you have with the karzai government? >> probably in some cases it is not so much -- it is the pace. we want to see the afghan government emerged, take a more aggressive leadership role. we are working to build up capacity within specific ministries. in doing so, accountability will be very important to us. make sure that the resources we provide are effectively spent. that does create tensi

delahunt, 10 years ago when we fought to make sure that poland was a member of nato. in your career, ironically as you stand to manage this resolution, resolution 1246, has been filled with building bridges between community. it is ironic that this tragedy hopefully will lead, and the signs are there, to greater relationships between russia and poland. poland is our ally. in st. john's church in cliffton, in my district, in wallington and garfield, polish americans who send out their deepest sympathies to the families. a picture, a president of the united states got and all the dignitaries of the government, the f.b.i., the head of the c.i.a. going to 9/11 commemoration in new york city and the plane going down and the whole government wiped out. this is the magnitude that we're looking at today, and our prayers go to the polish people. we are all poles today and we wish them the best and their families the best. and in closing, this is -- this is a very special friend of the united states of america. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fro

we have been in nato together for a long time. characterizing the events of 1915 as genocide is not something that we can accept. it's a legal term, and we cannot -- we cannot make that decision. it's the historians. it's the scientists who have to look into this matter. with respect to the so-called genocide, our expectation is that our sensitivities are taken into consideration in the use of these terms because there was, at the time of those events, a lot of problems. and this was a time of war. there were many revolts going on in the country, and those events were as a result of that. >> have you been assured that president obama will not use the word "genocide" in his speech, in his address to the american-armenian community? >> translator: i will be seeing him. we will be talking. that would be my expectation because to this day no american leader has uttered that word. and i believe that president obama will not. >> and when we return, we ask why turkey went from ally to tense relations with israel ever since the gaza war a

but several of them were devoted to the threat of the pershing 2 missiles that nato was about to deploy in europe. the person whose frightened about the russian leadership and they went to the point of discussing him about thinking about how they could turn the moscow abm system to become an intercepter to stop them from coming from germany. in reagan's i second inaugural said the strategic defense initiative would be to render nuclear weapons obsolete. a global shield. this got their attention in moscow. and with 10 days after reagan gave that speech, the kgb sent out an alert to all agents everywhere to report as much as they could find out about the american policy on the militarization of space. of course, this triggered an avalanche of intelligence all of which came across his desk. and he was surprised that the large amount of it that was cut from newspaper clippings. he also also was surprised of the lack of the critical analysis. very much of it reflected the fact that the agents in the field were unable to really estimate the seriousness of the threat. and they certainly were a

delahunt, 10 years ago when we fought to make sure that poland was a member of nato.in your career, ironically as you stand to manage this resolution, resolution 1246, has been filled with building bridges between community. it is ironic that this tragedy hopefully will lead, and the signs are there, to greater relationships between russia and poland. poland is our ally. in st. john's church in cliffton, in my district, in wallington and garfie,@ @ @ @ @& k is a very special friend of the united states of america. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. delahunt: madam speaker, i now recognize the distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. berkley: i thank the gentleman forgiving me this time to offer my condolences to the people of poland. madam speaker, i rise today to join the polish americans, our nation and indeed the who

to check moscow's regional ambition and they hope that nato, not just the russians will be integrated into any missile defense program the president decides to build. chris? >> chris: james rosen reporting from the white house. james, thanks. we'll knock down what is apparently another myth about global warming. and those seeking to make their political dreams a reality head to new orleans. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] every business da bank of america lends nearly $3 billionollars to individuals, institutions, schools, organizations and businesses in every corner of the economy. america. ♪ growing stronger. every day. >> chris: in america's election headquarters, the grand old party comes to america's party headquarters. chief political correspondent carl cameron is live in new orleans. the site of the southern republican leadership conference to tell us who the players are and

nato said two of the victims were known insurgents and that their car was approaching it a nato convoy hamid karzai said all four victims were civilians, one a 12-year-old boy. >>> the crew of the shuttle "discovery" is home after 15 days and 6 million miles in space. the seven astronauts were due back yesterday, but weather postponed their return. "discovery" is nearing the end of its service. it has only one mission left. and there are only three total missions remaining before the entire shuttle program is retired. >>> and in wisconsin, a funeral was held today for the actor who played the munchkin corner in "wizard of oz"," meinhard raabe parlayed it in into a lifetime career, appearing at "oz" festivals for decades. he also worked as a spokesman for oscar mayer. he died at the age of 94. >>> and kal penn was robbed at gunpoint early this morning in downtown washington. two officials familiar with the incident say his wallet and cell phone were stolen, but he was not seriously hurt. penn starred in the film "harold and kumar go to white castle." he's said to be eager to return to a

and nato commander in afghanistan. and mcchrystal himself comes out of the special operations community. that's his entire background is in special operations. and you might wonder whether or not that gives him a better understanding of special operations to enable him to use that capability more precisely. or, you might wonder if it makes him too sympathetic to special operations. they're his guys, so give them a break. >> moyers: general mcchrystal himself has said that we've shot-- and this is his words, not mine-- an amazing number of people over there who did not seem to be a threat to his troops. >> i think that is... that's clearly the case. when mcchrystal was put in command last year, and devised his counterinsurgency strategy, the essential core principle of that strategy is that we will protect the population. we will protect the people. and the contradiction is that ever since president obama gave mcchrystal the go-ahead to implement that strategy, we have nonetheless continued to have this series of incide