The US Senate Committee on Armed Services conducted a full committee hearing on Thursday 14 May 2009, to receive testimony in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Future Years Defense Program. What appears below is a rough selective transcript (from live webcast), of the discussion on Pakistan, in the early part of the over 3 hour long discussion that took place.

Opening Remarks by Committee Chairman

Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman

In his opening remarks, after overall observations on issues relating to the budgetary process and defence strategy, Senator Levin turned to Pakistan:

Sen. Levin: … [21:30]the Department [of Defence] faces no more immediate challenge than implementing the President’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. [Remarks on expanding Afghan army and police] [23.00] Reflecting another major component of the administration’s new strategy in the region, the FY2010 budget includes significant funding for Pakistan. This includes authorization for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Contingency Fund, to train and equip the Pakistan Frontier Corps, and to build the capacity of the Pakistan Army to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

I raised directly with Pakistan’s President Asif Zardari last week My concerns that  unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat of militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance would be effective.

I sincerely hope that Pakistan’s recent military operations in the North West frontier Province reflect their long overdue realisation that the extremists pose the single greatest threat to Pakistan’s survival. If Pakistan makes the fight against those extremists their own fight then the United States should be willing to help Pakistan achieve a more secure and stable future. But we can’t buy their support for our cause  or appear  to do so, since that would play into the hands of their and our enemy.  We can and  should support their cause, assuming it is aligned with ours, of course,  and if they make their case openly and clearly to their own public… END QUOTE

Opening Remarks by Secretary Gates

Robert M. Gates, Secretary

In his opening remarks, secretary of defence, Robert Gates, made a case for his budget request, without any specific reference to Pakistan. In his prepared statement, however he referred to the PCCF [transcript, pdf]:

[QUOTE] … $700 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF). This program will be carried out with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and will complement existing and planned State Department efforts by allowing the CENTCOM commander to work with Pakistan’s military to build counterinsurgency capability. I know there is some question about funding both the PCCF and the Foreign Military Financing program, but we are asking for this authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan – for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires military and civilian capabilities. This is a vital element of the President’s new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. [END QUOTE]

Opening Remarks by Chairman JCS Mullen

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chaiman JCS

In his opening remarks, chairman, joint ciefs of staff, Mullen, reported on the posture of the US armed forces, in relation to the  proposed budget, which he praised both for the process by which it h been prepared, and for its embodient of the new military strategy — strong civilian support to the boots on the ground, that he said has worked in Iraq — that it would finance. He made only one reference to Pakistan, to say that this new strategy, to be applied in Afghanistan, was equally applicable to Pakistan, “where boots on the ground isn’t even an option” and where helping the “Pakistani forces help themselves is our best and only recourse.”

In his prepared statement, however, Adm. Mullen had a great deal more to say of Pakistan [transcript, pdf]:

[QUOTE] Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan. In my nine trips to Pakistan, I’ve developed a deeper understanding of how important it is that we, as a Nation, make and demonstrate a long term commitment to sustaining this partnership. We are taking multiple approaches to rebuild and strengthen relationships and address threats common to both of our nations. One key approach in the near term is to help Pakistan’s military to improve its overall – and specifically its counterinsurgency – capabilities. Beyond the trainers we will continue to provide, the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and Coalition Support Funds. These funding streams provide us the means to address this issue directly, and I ask the Congress to support these initiatives and provide the flexibility to accelerate their implementation. We will ensure that accountability measures are in place so that these funds go exactly where they are intended to go and do not compromise other USG humanitarian assistance objectives. These programs will help the Pakistanis take continued action to combat extremist threats in western Pakistani territories which will complement the reinforcement of troops and special operations efforts in Afghanistan to maintain pressure on al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership. In addition to these initiatives, steady support of the Foreign Military Sales and Foreign Military Financing programs will help us to address the needs expressed by Pakistan’s leaders. We will also be well served by the substantially larger request for International Military Education and Training exchanges with Pakistan, to help reconnect our institutions and forge lasting relationships. Military programs must also be supplemented by non-military investment and continued engagement, which further confirm our Nation’s long term commitment.

In all, we must recognize the limits of what can be accomplished at what price and at what pace in both countries. This will be a long campaign. We are committed to providing sustained, substantial commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be halting and gradual, but we can steadily reduce the threats to our Nation that emanate from conditions in those countries. [END QUOTE]

Questions and Answers

In the question and answer period, the following interchanges refer to Pakistan:

Levin: First, as it relates to Pakistan, Secretary, the FY 2010 requests include signifcant funds for Pakistan, including $ 700 million for the Counterinsurgency Contingency Fund, up to a billion for Coalition Support Funds. I believe all of this is going to be ineffective if Pakistan’s leadership has not convinced itself and its people that its own security interests require them to take the fight to the militant extremists within their borders who are destroying Pakistan militarily, economically, and

India's Brahmo Missiles

diplomatically. If they continue to try to buy off the support of militant extremists by allowing them to control areas of Pakistan, or to give them safe havens, or to look the other way as those militants extremists use Pakistan as a launching platform to attack Afghanistan, their neighbour. There is some evidence, as I indicated, that in the recent week or so, that they are now beginning to take the fight to those extremists and that of course would be a good direction, if they continue to move that way.  However, when President Zardari was here last week, I remained unconvinced that the leadership of Pakistan believes that the greatest threat to Pakistan was the danger posed by the militant extremists, inside Pakistan, instead I think they continue to put huge resources on the border with India, acting as though India is the bigger threat to them.

So, my, my first question… –

And by the way I was not at all pleased by President Zardari’s use of the funding that we provide to AIG in our budget as  somehow or other a comparison of what he considers to be totally inadequate in comparison to funds we provide Pakistan. Our taxpayers’ are being asked to provide billions for Pakistan; as far as I am concerned, hey have been asked to provide much, much, too much for AIG, but that’s a different story, that’s a domestic story. So I wasn’t at all pleased with his comparison, or his analogy, in that regard, as a way of saying that we are not providing enough support to Pakistan.

So…, let me ask you first, Secretary Gates, do you agree that a commitment on the part of Pakistan’s leadership, to take the fight against militant extremists on their territory is a pre-requisite for success and effectiveness of our assistance to Pakistan in confronting the terrorist threat.

Gates: Yes, Sir, Mr. Chairman, I do; and I think that’s central to the administration’s new Af-…, policy with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that is the recognition that without success on the Pakistani side of the border our efforts on the Afghan side will be significantly harder.

Levin: Well, but do you also agree that that will require the Pakistan government to not only take the fight to the extremists, but to tell their public that they are doing that, and why they are doing that.

Gates: Yes Sir, they, they… but they face a, they face a difficult challenge and that is that for all of Pakistan’s history India has been the existential threat. And I think actually it was only with the Taliban’s going too far, in moving their operations into

The Taliban Threat

Buner, just 60 miles or so from Islamabad, that for the first time they really got the attention of the Pakistani government. The Pakistanis during these last decades have always felt that because the Punabis so outnumber the Pushtuns that they could just take care of that problem, the generally ungoverned spaces in the West, by doing deals with the tribes, playing them against one another, or occasionally using military force. They’ve never considered it a threat to the stability of the nation. I think that has changed in the last three weeks or so, and I think that the senior leadership of the government gets that. Being able to communicate it to the rest of the country is the next challenge that they face.

Levin: Well, unless they meet that challenge our aid could be counterproductive, if it looks as though we are trying to buy their support for our goals, instead of supporting their goals, that would be used as propaganda by the people who are out to destroy them and us. So I would hope that this direction continues, and that the public statement, statements are made by that government, as to what is in Pakistan’s interest, and they are not just being controlled or dominated by the United States.

UAV Controls

An article in the New York Times this morning, Secretary, asserted that the United States has provided Pakistan with notice of drone operations, but stopped doing that because the information has leaked to the targets of the operations. Can you comment on that?

Gates: Let me ask Admiral Mullen to answer that.

Mullen: Mr. Chairman, in fact there has been articles with respect to this, in the last couple of days, and where we are, we have evolved over time in support of the Pakistan military, and opened up a board of coordination, or joint coordination centre few months ago to, to support them, in operations, and, and that continues, continues to evolve. And, the specifics of this article in terms of what we are actually providing really, are classified. That said, we don’t do any of this without their requests to, to assist and support them in their operations. And, in fact, those operations have… those requests, have ceased over the period of about the last month.

Levin: Have ceased?

Mullen: From the… Yes Sir, the specific requests that are mentioned in this article, have… They haven’t asked for any additional assistance along those lines over about the last 30 days.

Levin: And… They, uhm… received any control over our operations, as reported in the press; over our drone operations?

Mullen: No, Sir.

Levin: So those reports are inaccurate?

Mullen: The report in the LA Times, yesterday, was very inaccurate.

Levin: And, that report was that they have joint control …

Mullen: Yes, Sir. ‘n that was completely inaccurate. Uhmm, the report today was a much more accurate portrayal, but in terms of control, absolutely not. In terms of support, and information, we certainly… they have asked for that, and where they have asked for that we have supported them.

Levin: I wish they would tell their public about their support of our operations, instead of attacking us for them, because that is one of the things that just creates propaganda fodder for the very people who are out to destroy us and them. Senator McCain.

McCain: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Following along the lines of the Chairman’s questioning, Secretary Gates, a week or so ago, General Petraeus said the next couple of weeks were critical as far as the stability, the political stability of Pakistan is concerned. What is your brief assessment of the political situation, and the stability of the government in Pakistan?

Gates: Let me comment, and then ask Admiral Mullen, ’cause he is frankly much more familiar with Pakistan than I am at this point. I believe that the actions of the Pakistani government and army of the last ten days or so and particularly since driving the Taliban out of Buner, have been reassuring; that, the government does understand the nature of the threat to it, and is prepared to take action, to deal with that threat. So I actually think, if you look at that two week time frame, which is probably too short a time to consider, but I think the events of recent days are, are encouraging.

Mullen: I would concur with that Senator, I think, and to speak to the Pakistani politician, prime minister… [waves his hand, can't remember the name!] last week, or ten days ago, spoke very strongly about the need to recognise this threat, throughout his country. There is, as I understand it, increasing support from the Pakistani people that this threat, is, is a very serious one. My biggest question about these operations is their ability to sustain them over time. Historically, they haven’t done that. So, right now, I am encouraged by what has happened, but I certainly withhold any judgment about where it goes, because of the lack, the historic lack, of sustainment, and they know they need to do that.

Sen. John McCain, Ranking Member

McCain: You have developed a excellent relation with General Kayani. Do you believe that the Pakistani military now believes that the major threat comes from Taliban and, religious extremists, as opposed to India?

Mullen:   Ahm, ehm, I, I, my assessment would be that they come from both. They have, they still have, you know, a heavy focus on India. They are… when I was there recently, they, I actually went out and observed, some, some effective, fairly effective, counterinsurgency training, that General Kayani has put in throughout all of his Divisions. So there’s much more focus on counterinsurgency, and on the West, than there has been. He’s moved troops to the West, but I still think that we’ve got, we’ve got a long way to go, with respect to the entire army, thinking that the only existential threat they have is from the West.

McCain: Do you still worry about the ISI cooperating with Taliban?

Mullen:   Yes, Sir. I, I have believed over the last year, since I’ve been involved, and visited Pakistan that the ISI, that in the long run it has to change its strategic thrust and get away from working both sides. That’s how they’ve, they have been raised, certainly over the last couple of decades. And that’s what they believe, until, they think that we are going to be there for a while. I mean one of the first questions… [62]

McCain: We have to provide them with the assurance that we are going to be there.

Mullen: Yes, Sir. I think… the relationship. The relationship is going to be a sustained relationship.

McCain: How confident are you about the security of their nuclear arsenal?

Mullen: I’m, I’m, I’m comfortable that, that it is secure. We’ve… they have actually put in, an increased level of security measures, in the last three or four years, but there are limits on what we know — in terms of, of, a lot of the specifics, but I am comfortable that, that from what I know, of what we actually know, and from also what they told us, that right now they are secure.

[Discussion turns to Afghanistan]

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Member

Senator Lieberman: Secretary Gates, I wanted to ask you a quick, immediate question about Pakistan, and then go on to the budget. The Pakistani military offensive in Swat, which we appreciate and support, has created an enormous refugee problem; probably the most significant refugee problem since the partition of the forties in Pakistan, and this may create problems of domestic instability if not handled correctly. I also noticed a news story that Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the terrorist group, the one we associate with the Mumbai terrorist attacks is already out offering humanitaria… assistance to the refugees. There’s no force in the world that is better able to operate in this circumstance than the US military, that doesn’t mean we can handle all of these crises. But in this case, particularly mindful of what an extraordinary indigenous public reaction there was when we helped after the Tsunami and after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, are we considering giving any assistance, humanitarian assistance to the Pakistani government in handling this refugee problem?

Gates: Yes, we are. The State Department, and our Ambassador, and Admiral LeFevre in Islamabad, are being very proactive in this, they are working with the Pakistanis, and obviously, we are prepared to do everyhting we can to help them.

[Discussion turns to budget... Testimony continues...]