Peter Müller:  Ambassador Nuland, is Germany doing enough in Afghanistan in your assessment?

Amb. Nuland:  You know I think it is really important at this moment for Germans to be reminded by their government how much you are doing in Afghanistan.  You are the third-largest troop contributor.  You lead in an enormously important and huge section of Afghanistan up in the north more PRTs than any other ally besides us, frankly doing some very good work also in other important lines:  reconstruction, supporting education, supporting good governance and now doing a lot more in supporting the Afghan counter narcotics effort with some good success in your sector.  We are working a lot together in Kunduz on these issues.  We’ve had good success in [inaudible] province on counter-narcotics.  So let me first thank you all for what you are doing and express our strong hope that the Bundestag will re-up the mandate but equally importantly I think what I worry about more is that there aren’t enough Germans telling the story of what your soldiers and civilians are doing in Afghanistan and explaining here why it’s so important that we are making progress and that the role you play in the alliance is to manage a very important part of Afghanistan.  I forgot to mention also that the training commitment, which is very important with your two outlets now.  We hope to become [inaudible] training teams.  So you know I think all allies want to see shared risk and shared responsibility.  That’s one of the founding principles of the alliance.  I think it was very important when the chancellor came to Riga and said in an emergency situation we will be there.  We did not have that before and now you have this contribution of tornados, which is Afghanistan-wide.  I heard just yesterday some of our allies in the south say that the tornado contribution makes a very big difference to their operation.  So that is allied behavior but every ally has to make their own decisions within the national conversation.  But I think the national conversation here needs to be stronger about why Afghanistan is important. 

Peter Müller:  But isn’t there some [inaudible] on the American side that Germany does not want to take part in combat operations in the south?

Amb. Nuland:  Germany has been involved in some combat operations in the north.  The north is not completely quiet.  You are also doing extremely important counter-IED work up there and in some ways leading in the way we manage that.  You know, again I am not going to get into the middle of your national debate.  I think you should be prouder and more public about what you are doing and I think if more German people understood the depths of your commitment, the fact that is not only military, it’s not even primarily military, the reconstruction, the governance, the counter-narcotics are just as important.  That it is going well, that that is something to be proud of, that that will help the debate here.  And it will help the debate about futures where all of us can do either more because we are going to have to. 

Peter Müller:  You have been very polite about what Germany’s doing.  You’ve been outlining your assessment.  You also talked about training.  I mean there is this lead role Germany has in training the police in Afghanistan.  Now it’s an EU mission but before it was in a way Germany’s lead-role and this didn’t get started very well, one can say.  Is that something where Germans could do more?  Commit more trainers, commit, I don’t know, more manpower, more money?  That’s the exit strategy politicians talk here about all the time, right?  We train Afghans to take care of their security on themselves and then we might be able to leave some day. 

Amb. Nuland:  More importantly it’s what Afghans want.  They don’t want us -- they don’t want to have to be dependent on us for security support either in military terms or in police terms for the rest of their lives.  They are very proud people.  And I think one of the things that we are seeing is that all of us who made commitments under the original Bonn process are having to strengthen and reevaluate the effort that we are making with the U.S. leads in the training of the Afghan national army; and last year we took a hard look at what we were doing and decided that we needed to vastly increase our investment, asked the U.S. Congress for eight billion dollars for army and police training.  And the Brits have greatly increased the effort that they are making in counter-narcotics including with their effort in Helmand.  So one of the things that we talked about on this visit was the absolutely critical moment it is for police as well.  And I think there are some ideas to strengthen the police component.  From our perspective we need to not only do the classroom training that we have been doing, that Germany has been leading in the development of the police, the national police structure.  But what is equally critical today is doing embedded work with police units out in the field.  So the contribution the U.S. is trying to make to this effort is to use some of our military police and others to embed out in the difficult areas.  It’s particularly critical in the south and east of Afghanistan because as NATO forces go in and with the Afghan national army and do operations and clean areas neither we nor the ANA want to stay in those towns and villages for ever.  We need to get clean competent police in and they can have the best training in the classroom but they also need mentoring when they get out in the field.  So from our perspective, the EU effort is welcome but it’s 160.  We need probably 5,000 police mentors in Afghanistan.  So if there were one message we would leave with Europeans but also with you all, let’s really look hard at increasing that investment as well. 

Richard Herzinger:  It is debated very strongly in Germany about the participation in the Operation Enduring Freedom.  They say, ISAF, yes, but OEF, no.  Could you explain to us why this is so important to continue engagement with the OEF and there can be a separation between ISAF and OEF. 

Amb. Nuland:  Well, let me start by saying I’ve been surprised on this visit by the enormous mystery surrounding OEF in German understanding and I think it’s important for all us who’ve been involved in OEF, particularly for Americans, to help explain what today’s OEF is because the mission of OEF has adapted over time, particularly as NATO has come in strongly.  So what is today’s OEF?  The vast majority of OEF soldiers, more than half, are involved in training the Afghan national army and Afghan national police.  Our structure is a little bit different that the German structure but we use our special forces in this embedded training both with the ANA and with the ANP and to provide the logistical support for that.  That’s one OEF mission.  There is also traditional special forces work that OEF does and which we are doing throughout the area of operation where ISAF is also working and we are doing it hand in glove with ISAF.  We are doing it also hand in glove with Afghan special forces.  So, for example, if ISAF soldiers working, you know, north of Mazar e- Sharif encounter what they expect is a big cache of IED making materials or of weaponry and they are not equipped for a direct assault on it, they will call in combined U.S. and Afghan special forces to work with them to handle it and it’ll be very much a joint operation.  It’ll be coordinated very much in harmony with your commander in the north.  What’s left is a very small contingent which does the hard-core counter-terrorism hunting, going after bin Laden and his associates and that piece of OEF is also important.  So when we talk to Germans about staying with us in OEF it is about all those missions.  It is about support for training.  It is about what you can do either as ISAF or as OEF and it just depends on the kind of training that you are doing.  It is about being prepared to support ISAF at that higher level when ISAF needs it, and it’s also frankly about joining us in doing the very good and hard work that we’ve still got to do -- looking for Al Qaida and the most hardened of the Taliban; and you know Germans of all people understand that this a mission that is of vital, vital importance and we had a reminder here last week that those who got their training and get their direction from the Hindukush are not stopping. They are still coming after us.  So we’ve got to do this.  And we need your help. 

Peter Müller:  Again, you have been quite polite saying that there are a lot of mysteries around this OEF mission.  I mean some members of certain parties on the more-to-left spectrum, they say, in a way, well, you know, we are doing this good work in the north; we are training; we are kind of doing a lot of engagement with the civil society there, and then there are the Americans in south and they are doing kind of war in a Rambo style.  What do you say to these people?  I mean this is something which is in the public debate, not only it’s that mystery but I mean it’s quite unfriendly, I guess. 

Amb. Nuland:  I would say let’s take a trip to Afghanistan because what you are going to see is soldiers and civilians, allied, OEF, and Afghan in the north, in the south, in the east, working hand in hand on a common campaign strategy that addresses all of these things together.  We’ve got to do the showing of presence and security that gives the Afghan people confidence.  We’ve got to be enabling the building of roads and schools.  We’ve got to be helping get the Afghan drug-enforcement people to the places where they’ve got to interdict and they’ve got to eradicate; and we’ve got to be training the Afghans, army and police and, frankly, civil servants.  That’s what they want.  They don’t want us there forever.  So I think there is too much mystery that there is somehow in American terms a Mason-Dixon line across Afghanistan.  There is good Afghanistan and there is bad Afghanistan.  There is our partner Afghanistan, who we’ve committed to help in common purpose throughout the country, and I think district by district, village by village the circumstances are different.  There are hot pockets in the north.  There are certainly more in the south and east but this needs to be an integrated mission all the way across.  And our goals are the same everywhere.  It’s just that the balance of security and development is different in different parts of the country, depending upon the challenges. 

Richard Herzinger:  People in Germany don’t really know how much the United States spent for purely civilian.  How much is America doing on the purely civilian context? 

Amb. Nuland:   Above and beyond the -- well, first of all let me say that we have put four billion into Afghanistan so far.  We have just asked Congress for this additional 11 billion.  So the total amount for both security and development and counter-narcotics at the end of 2009 will be, how is my math, fifteen, a total of 15 billion dollars.  On the development side I believe it is close to four billion dollars and most of that money goes to the construction of road because it’s roads that connect communities, it’s roads that enable farmers to get perishable crops to markets.  It’s roads that provide security and ensure that communities can’t be isolated and intimidated either by drug lords or by Taliban.  It’s market centers, places to bring your food.  We are doing, your product.  We do a lot of that, you do a lot of that.  It obviously goes into wells, clinics, schools but increasingly it’s also going into the training of the next generation of Afghan leaders, who are going to be tomorrow’s teachers and judges and governors, those good, clean Afghans who will stand up against corruption,  who will stand up against drugs, who will stand up against Taliban. 

Richard Herzinger:  There is always said that there is a failure in Afghanistan then this will be very bad for NATO, it will be a failure for NATO as well.  Which way would not being so successful in Afghanistan affect NATO actually? 

Amb. Nuland:  You know I am a big believer that NATO should not be, excuse my American slang, a self-licking ice cream cone.  NATO [laughter] … good luck.  NATO was founded to help us, to help us defend our security and our values.  At the founding we thought the main challenge would be to -- those things would be on this continent for obvious reasons.  NATO is not in the business for NATO’s sake.  NATO is in the business for the sake of defending the security and values of our people.  So today’s NATO has to go where those threats are emanating, which is why we are in Afghanistan. So I would say it’s less about NATO succeeding for NATO’s sake.  It’s much more about NATO succeeding because we have a security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never goes back to being an ungoverned dangerous space where drugs and terror, from which drugs and terror emanate.  So part of it is our shared understanding and our shared commitment that the democratic community, not only in the alliance space, has to be strengthened.  It has to be strengthened on the periphery of the alliance and increasingly anywhere people who want to stand up for democracy and want to stand up for freedom are threatened.  But if we don’t support them out there then eventually the entire democratic system will corrode and erode.  And we have got an obligation now to expand the community of security and this community of freedom in our own interest.  And that’s what NATO is about.  So it’s NATO serving our shared global security interests and needs.  It’s not NATO for NATO’s sake. 

Peter Müller:  The last questions …

Amb. Nuland:  Oh sorry, the last point obviously.  NATO is where we work together well.  I mean we have done it for almost 60 years.  I think none of us has done enough.  We haven’t done enough.  We certainly haven’t done enough in Germany to remind people that if you believe that our security challenges should be tackled together, if you oppose unilateralism, if you oppose any nation going off on its own, then invest in that round table where we sit as equals and decide together what the security challenges are and invest in the missions that we commit to because NATO is the multilateral organization on this planet, which is delivering the most, I believe.  Not granted I am paid to believe that.  But my President believes it, too, that NATO is a multilateral organization that is truly delivering and it’s precious in that sense and we have to invest in it, if you want to work together. 

Peter Müller:  It’s an open secret that stability in Afghanistan cannot succeed as long as Pakistan is not, go harder on militant Islamism and the Taliban.  So what do you think should happen to change in Pakistan?  Is there a chance for democracy there?  Is Musharaf the right man to do it?  What do you think? 

Amb. Nuland:  Let me start by saying that from a U.S. perspective that Pakistan is obviously our ally in this fight against terror and they have to be.  They have to be because the terrorists are not respecting international borders, neither the mountains of the Hindukush nor the sands of the south.  So it’s a problem that we share.  It’s a problem that Afghanistan and Pakistan share.  So I think the role that all of us can play is in strengthening Pakistani capacity, Pakistani resolve to do what they need to do on their side of the border.  But I also think it’s important to remind Europeans that you know Pakistani security forces have had some 80,000 soldiers working those border regions and they work them in coordination with NATO forces on the other side.  We now have this trilateral commission, which meets monthly along the border, NATO, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  It’s a mechanism that is improving command in control.  It’s improving operational technique.  It’s difficult but as you said Pakistan is in a very important political season.  It’s important for Pakistani democracy.  It’s important for Pakistani security that there be the constitutional principles maintained and strengthened through this period and that politicians work together to strengthen both democracy and the counter-terror effort, the challenges, the sovereignty, integrity, and democracy of Pakistan and of the whole region.  So I think at this period we owe them our support.  We owe them our commitment that as they move forward in an increasingly democratic and committed way, we’ll be there with them.  And from a U.S. perspective, not only are we supporting the developing and strengthening of Pakistani security forces.  We are also, at President Musharaf’s request, some of this money that we asked the Congress for last year is going to go into development and better quality of life in the FATA, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, that part of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan, because the problems are the same.  People need to see quality of life improving because they are loyal to the government.  Otherwise the intimidators will dominate.  So that’s a place where all allies can invest as well, in the development of a better, a stronger, more democratic Pakistan. 

Peter Müller:  Thank you very much.