Press Conference: Senator Robert Bennett; Senator Bob Corker; Rep. David Dreier; Rep. Darrell Issa; Rep. Joe Wilson - Pakistan, India and Afghanistan

Press Conference

SEN. BENNETT: Good morning, everyone. I'm Senator Bob Bennett from Utah, and I'm here with Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee and Congressman David Dreier from California and Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina. And we will soon be joined by Congressman Darrell Issa from California.

The five of us have just returned within the last 24 hours from a nine-day trip. We were primarily in India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We did stop going both ways for refueling in Prague and Budapest, but the primary focus of the trip had to do with the World Economic Forum in India. We were scheduled to be there, participate in those discussions, but took advantage of the fact that we were in the area to take one day in Afghanistan and one day in Pakistan.

It was my first experience in both countries, and I found it fascinating. The group met with President Karzai in Afghanistan and with President Musharraf in Pakistan, as well as Benazir Bhutto and other Cabinet officers in both places. I will have to up-front tell you that my experience in Pakistan was spent entirely getting acquainted with the insides of my hotel room. Somewhere along the way I picked up bad shrimp or whatever it is they serve that reduces you to 24 hours of not wanting to get very far --

SEN./REP. : At least out there.

SEN. BENNETT: -- (inaudible). (Laughter.) So I will let my colleagues discuss their experience in Pakistan.

That part of the world is optimistic. It is focused on growth, focused on change and progress, even those portions in Afghanistan where the war is raging. The people are optimistic and looking ahead to their future. It's also a part of the world where there's a great deal of pro-American feeling as opposed to some of the anti- Americanism that you run into elsewhere.

We visited with the American military officials and got their attitude and their concept of where things were going there, and come back with a renewed appreciation for the American military and its capabilities, capabilities that go far beyond what you see on the news when they're engaged in purely military operation. And there is no question that no one can stand up to the American military in any kind of fight confrontation; but what they do with respect to training, with respect to actually diplomacy, in helping other countries gain their own footing and begin to take control of their own destiny.

I for one came home very proud to be an American, very glad to be an American, and feeling that we are moving in the right direction. This is not to say there are not serious problems. And the economic as well as political problems were the focus of the discussions at the World Economic Forum. With that, I will yield to Senator Corker, who did go to meet Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf. And then we will hear quickly from each of the other members of the delegation and respond to your questions.

SEN. CORKER: Thank you, Senator.

And we had an outstanding trip. I will keep my comments focused on Pakistan -- there's a lot of subject matter here -- and just say that it was an honor for me to travel with all of these individuals. I think that our trip was very fruitful.

We began in Pakistan at the embassy, where we met with a number of local business leaders, educators, politicians for a briefing the night we -- for actually open conversation the night before we started.

The next morning, with former Prime Minister Bhutto, we met with her in her dining room at her home. I will say that she -- (consulting materials) -- and I started on the wrong page here -- she -- we had a -- our message to her was that we were glad she was back and that we want to make sure there were fair and free and transparent elections. She saw the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan as tied and asked a great deal about our meeting with Karzai the day before.

She sees internally the biggest challenge that we have had there is in the northern areas, where we have terrorism activity taking place, and talked a great deal about the madrassas that obviously are taking advantage of the economically impoverished folks there, brainwashing them, and talked about the two fault lines that now exist in Pakistan between democracy and dictatorship and certainly moderation and extremism.

She's very concerned about the free election, as you might imagine; wanted to make sure that independent election groups were in country, something that we also very much support. But again, summarizing her comments, concerned about terrorism -- and I actually was struck by her focus on that in our meeting -- concerned about the fact that we work with them to win the hearts and minds of people there in Pakistan to really move away from terrorism and also focusing on elections.

We talked a great deal about the two dates, December 16th, moving away from military state, and certainly the elections on January 8th.

She very much views herself, I think, as the next prime minister and already figured out the delineation between the president and what she would do, the president focusing on defense and foreign relations, and her focusing on domestic activities.

Our meeting with Musharraf, I thought, was also outstanding. Our message to him again was talking about fair and free elections, freeing detainees, political detainees there, and then also concerns about the Swat area, FATA and terrorism. We -- he talked about his complaints obviously with judicial activism, the chief justice, which he thinks began what's occurred over the last several months.

Did talk about the fact that this was the first time in 60 years that we've actually had a peaceful transition. We hope that to be the case. And he seems -- seemed very emotional about the fact that he had taken off the uniform. I think sometimes we underestimate, if you will, what that has meant to him and what a big issue that was for him.

We brought up the issue of several international groups talking about visas being denied, people that want to come and observe the election. He genuinely seemed surprised about that and acted as if he wanted to do everything he could to make sure that that did not take place. And we talked about the fact that, if just two or three of those people taught the international media about being denied access, that that in many ways would taint the entire process. And he seemed like he was committed to doing what he needed to do to make sure that was not the case.

I do want to say that this election is not going to be perfect, and I think that we all need to understand that. But I think there's a genuine desire on his part to be viewed as legitimate and having done the right thing. So I have a number of other comments that I'll make later but I'd like to turn it over to David Dreier, who was a great traveling colleague and has tremendous international perspective.

REP. DREIER: Thank you very much, Senator.

And let me say what a great privilege and honor it was for me to travel in CODEL Bennett along with my two House colleagues, Darrell Issa and Joe Wilson. And I have to say that Joe Wilson, Darrell Issa, Bob Bennett and I have been in the Congress for quite a while, and we've been involved in international affairs. Bob Corker is just completing his first year as a member of the United States Senate. And I have to say that you can see, from his remarks there, the seriousness with which he has taken this very, very important issue. And I think the people of Tennessee are very fortunate to have him representing them here.

It was 20 years ago, exactly 20 years ago, that I had Thanksgiving dinner at the Khyber Pass, between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Interestingly enough, I was there in a codel led by the man for whom this great movie, "Charlie Wilson's War," is going to be coming out in the next couple of weeks.

And Charlie Wilson took us to that area, and we saw the kind of conflict that was going on. The United States of America 20 years ago was in the midst of providing very important military assistance to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan who were seeking to liberate their country from the Soviet Union. It was a very difficult time, a challenging time.

Not (sic) to say that Pakistan is a country that has gone through many, many serious challenges, and as Senator Corker said so well, it is true that Pakistan has not had a glowing model of Jeffersonian democracy. We had the opportunity to meet, as Senator Corker said, with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and she has made a wide range of very important requests, and she's doing everything that she possibly can to encourage a free and fair election in Pakistan.

Similarly, when we met with President Musharraf, it was very impressive to see that while not a Jeffersonian democrat himself, he understands that it is in his best interest and in the interest of the people of -- the 165 million people of Pakistan to have the freest, fairest election possible.

And I will tell you that when we look at the litany of requests that have been made by the United States of America and others throughout the world of President Musharraf, he to this point has complied with those requests, first resigning as the army chief, which -- as Bob has said, we were able to see him on his first day not having the choice as to whether or not he would wear his uniform or civilian clothing. And he made that decision because he understood how important it was.

The second thing is, there was a request that he comply with the January 15th deadline, a constitutional deadline, to have an election held. And that election is scheduled for January 8th. And that's something that Secretary Negroponte asked of him two weeks ago, when he was meeting in Islamabad.

And also, as Senator Corker has said, the December 16th deadline for the lifting of the state of the -- of emergency -- and I will say in our meeting one of the things that did come up is, he first indicated that he was looking forward to that, and we were very insistent that he comply with that date, and he said that he absolutely would.

And one of the other things was there has been a lot of attention focused on this issue of international observers, and he made it very clear, as did the Foreign minister and others, that they want every single foreign observer possible to come into the country to ensure that we can monitor those elections.

My colleagues and I have worked actively with the International Republican Institute, and I know the National Democratic Institute has also been active in Pakistan as well. And in fact, Mr. Issa has a staff member of his who's worked with the International Republican Institute, and there has been some concern about whether or not he will be able to stay.

I will say that President Musharraf was very, very insistent on ensuring that the observers for the January 8th election are able to participate from all over the world, and we certainly take him at his word on that and encourage the continued effort of so many great nongovernment organizations as well as governments to make sure that that process is as free and fair as possible.

As Bob has said, there is no such thing as a perfect election, and we know that there are 87 precincts in Pakistan that have had a history of irregularities at best. And so the international observers will be focused on January 8th on those 87 precincts, and I know that we will do everything that we possibly can to encourage a fair process.

And finally, I think it's important to note that President Musharraf has been an extraordinarily important ally in our quest to prosecute the global war against Islamic extremism. He got most engaged when we talked about the military offensive taking place in the Swat Valley, and I believe that it is wonderful to find this area of agreement. Former Prime Minister Bhutto talked about the war on terror and President Musharraf did, as did others involved in the political process, and so that is the shared goal that the United States of America and the disparate interests within Pakistan have. And so that's why I'm confident that we will be able to see success as we move into the next year.

Thanks very much, and now I'm happy to call my colleague, Darrell Issa.

REP. ISSA: Thank you. And when you've got so many different people dealing with a three-country trip, it's usually best to limit to something different than the three before you.

In a nutshell, the country I've been to the most in the region was Afghanistan. What I found in Afghanistan very hopefully is that we're no longer talking about defeating the enemy. It is not about the Taliban, it's not about al Qaeda.

It is in fact about how long it will take to finish training up the police and military and how much it will cost on an ongoing basis, because of the relative poverty of Afghanistan, to ensure that they have the resources to continue that fight. I think that's very promising for us, it's very promising for our NATO allies, because it's quite clear that the Afghans are prepared to take on the charge of defending their country, forming an appropriate and benevolent central government that in fact is not looking to dominate, but is in fact ensuring that poppy production is reduced or eliminated and that they are one country.

So if there was any challenge I saw in the take-with that I came back with is that although we're doing a good job, the timeline is probably too long, and that on a bicameral basis, the House and the Senate need to look at whether we should and how we should make sure additional resources are applied in Afghanistan to accelerate the rate at which those -- both police, which in Afghanistan are more like the military than police here, and their actual military are prepared to finish taking over the job that today is in no small part borne by American troops and our NATO allies.

And I thank you.

REP. WILSON: I'm Joe Wilson from South Carolina, and indeed, I've been to Afghanistan five times. I want to back-up what Congressman Issa has indicated.

I believe significant success is being made. I have actually been there three times this year. The reason for my multiple visits is that the National Guard unit that I served with for 28 years is now in Afghanistan, 1,600 troops. I know firsthand -- and I appreciate very much Senator Bennett arranging for us to visit with the 218th Brigade of the South Carolina Army National Guard. The persons that I have worked with for many, many years are very excited about their service, they're very honored to be there helping train the Afghan police and army.

A country, indeed, that we visited that was so exciting was India, and I want to commend Senator Bennett. He was the representative who participated in the World Economic Forum, and it was an extraordinary opportunity of business people from throughout the world, particularly the world's largest democracy, the world's largest capitalist country, which is India. We were able -- and the senator made it very clear of his optimism that the world's oldest democracy would continue to establish the extraordinary relationship that has developed between India and the United States.

And it was an extraordinary visit, but I was really honored to participate, and I want to echo, too, that Senator Corker filled in with the remarkable visits that we had with Prime Minister Bhutto and President Musharraf. It was an excellent trip, and I was honored to participate.

SEN. BENNETT: All right. We'll be happy to respond to any questions that you have. I will make this one additional observation. I'd never been to Afghanistan or Pakistan before, but I have been to India as a businessman before I came to the Senate. The change that you see in that period of time is dramatic. These are economies that are growing, they are on the move. They still have many problems, and I don't think they're a threat to the American economy in the way that some commentators would suggest here.

But these people are excited about their own future and working hard to shape their own future. We had a very illuminating country team briefing with the U.S. ambassador to India, who outlined all of India's areas of growth and areas of problem, and that was also an area where we were very grateful to have an on-the-ground understanding of what's going on.

With that, let's have the questions, and we'll be happy to respond.

Yes, sir.

Q Senator, I was hoping you could -- (off mike) -- a little bit about your experience in Afghanistan, your meeting with the president there, if you agree that the timeline right now is too long -- (off mike)?

SEN. BENNETT: Yes, I do think that we need to focus more on what needs to be done in Afghanistan. It's being overshadowed a little with respect to Iraq.

President Karzai is a very charismatic person. He speaks flawless English. He has what we say in America a very high energy level. He was very animated in his conversation and, at the same time, relaxed.

He's very comfortable with who he is and what he is doing. Now, we also met with the speaker of the House of Representatives, who gave every indication that his number-one goal in life is to replace President Karzai. And he was a little more intense and a little less relaxed.

But I went away thinking this is the kind of leader I think you would want in this situation and the kind of leader that America can support over the long term. As we look at the other countries that America has had to deal with in my lifetime, where they have been devastated by war and then made an attempt to create some kind of permanent democracy after the war, you have Iraq, where we're having a very difficult time finding leaders that are capable of stepping into that responsibility, as compared, for example, to Germany, where Conrad Adenauer was there and available.

And Karzai -- he may not like the comparison, but Karzai reminded me very much of a Conrad Adenauer, a man dedicated to his country, a man capable of significant administrative and leadership skills. And I came away impressed with their ability to get the job done if we do not abandon it too rapidly. They're not capable of standing on their own feet yet, and we must understand that the stakes are high, the long-term rewards will be very significant, but it's not something that's going to happen as soon as many Americans would like.

(Pause.)

That was pretty painless. Anyone else?

Q (Off mike.)

SEN./REP. : You can be the Sam Donaldson for today. (Laughter.)

Q (Off mike) -- specifically said that we need to put some more -- (off mike) -- shorten that timeline. What is a reasonable timeline, and what's too long?

SEN. BENNETT: I don't think any of us would try to give you a specific number.

Q Just talking generally. Are we talking decades? Are you talking years?

SEN. BENNETT: I think we're probably talking decades. Now, I would expect the number to go down as the decades stretch out. But after all -- I made reference to Germany and Conrad Adenauer -- we still have troops in Germany 60 years after the Second World War. Now, we're not there to protect the Germans or to occupy Germany or to enforce any German law.

We're there because Germany is a valued ally, and it makes sense for our joint interests for America and the German army to have joint exercises and for us to be there. And I would anticipate that there would be an American presence in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.

REP. DREIER: If I can follow up the --

SEN. BENNETT: Yeah.

REP. DREIER: When I first went to Afghanistan, I went --

Q (Off mike.)

REP. DREIER: I'm sorry. When I first went to Afghanistan, I went with Chairman Duncan Hunter. And at that time, we inspected the training of their military. And what we found were used AK-47s that were not fit to be fired, so they were essentially training with wooden rifles. Each time I've gone back, I've seen a better training program -- and no surprise, never good enough, never quick enough. There are two reasons. One is that they're impatient to get very expensive fighting equipment -- aircraft, particularly high- performance aircraft.

Well, we're much more focused, appropriately, on making sure that the boots on the ground are well-trained and well-prepared, including police. And Congressman Wilson, of course, has been there specifically with the unit that's doing the training. When they're relieved, another unit will come in to do it. This is a relatively small amount of people, I think 1,600 --

SEN./REP. : Sixteen hundred.

REP. DREIER: -- sixteen hundred or so. If you make it 3,200, you may not get twice as many troops out. So I'm not saying that it's linear. But very clearly, when it comes to training small rifle units, units that can do mortar and artillery and getting them to where they can take on, in a military sense -- and also the police force, so they can occupy not just their big towns, but their smaller towns. I think that we could do more quicker. I think the resources needed to be provided.

But there is very much a diminishing return if you simply assume that we're going to give them lots of weaponry that they can't afford to sustain. So there's a balance there. Like the senator, nobody can set a timeline. My observation -- my take-away is that we need to push to accelerate that portion, because we -- I believe it not only saves American and NATO lives, but it also allows Afghanistan to feel very proud about its own ability to defend and support itself. And I think that an Afghan soldier or police officer is preferable to a U.S. military person whenever possible, and I think that's something that the military makes very clear, is they don't want to fight somebody else's war one day longer than absolutely necessary.

REP. CORKER: I might -- one --

REP. DREIER: Yeah.

REP. CORKER: I think there are two things we can do -- a number of things we can do, I'm sure, but two that we're focused on that actually call that horizon to be shorter instead of longer. Number one is, there is no question that with the activities that we have going on in Iraq right now, that we do not have the troop levels we'd like to have in the training of police.

And what's happening is, that leaves an insecurity in the various locales around the country and creates a place for terrorists and other activities to take place, which destabilizes the country. So I think the more quickly we can have proper staff levels there to train police, the shorter that horizon is -- horizon is.

Secondly, we have a number of groups from all around the world, rightly so, that are in there delivering humanitarian aid, delivering economic aid and there's a lack of coordination there. General McNeill related the fact that if we had a czar-like figure there, an 800-pound gorilla, if you will, that would coordinate that activity, we'd be much more expedient in delivering that. That could be perceived by President Karzai as a threat, if you will. That's obviously tampering, if you will, domestically within the country. But I think those two things were pointed out as areas where we could be much better in what we're delivering there now.

Q Senator Bennett, could you talk a little bit more about what you -- (inaudible) -- World Economic Forum -- (inaudible) -- role there?

SEN. BENNETT: The focus in the World Economic Forum was on power shift. And as I read the briefing papers prior to my presentation, I, an American, American vocabulary, thought primarily in military terms. And when I got there and sat down with my fellow presenters, I discovered they weren't talking military power at all. They were talking economic power. And the Indians and many of the presenters were talking about the power shift economically from the West -- United States and Europe -- to the Far East, India and China. And so I did my own shift in terms of the material that I presented to discuss that.

I was very interested to have the finance minister of India, the night before my panel was on, make the comment that he didn't see any power shift. He talked about three areas that were dominant, he said, in the economy. The first one was knowledge. And he said the best universities are still in America. The second one was resources.

And he said the richest countries are still in the West. And the third one was energy, and he said we don't have any of that. And he says until that begins to change, there's not going to be any significant power shift. He was very realistic. We met with him as well as the Commerce minister.

So it was a discussion of how these countries are growing in their economic influence, and I think pretty quickly, on our panel at least, we got away from the word "power" -- how these countries are growing and their economic influence and their economic importance -- and focused instead on how they will fit in to the world economy. So the almost provincial -- parochial desire that we want more power was tempered through the conversations to, well, we want to be part of the overall game, and while that's a subtle distinction, I think it was an important one to make to the Indians, to get them to understand we recognize that their economy is growing well and is doing well, and that's a good thing for the world. But at the same time, we hope they're not thinking in terms of trying to turn power into a sum zero game and they take things away from the West, but rather that they cooperate together. So that was the focus that occurred in the panel that we participated in.

One footnote, on the panel, the man who sat directly next to me whose name I had never heard, and I can't off the top of my head give it to you now --

REP./SEN. : (Inaudible.)

SEN. BENNETT: What's the first --

REP./SEN. : I don't know his first name.

SEN. BENNETT: Okay. (Name inaudible.) They told us he's the richest man in the world now because the stock value of his has now gone --

REP./SEN. : Reliant.

SEN. BENNETT: Reliant has now gone over a hundred billion dollars, and I'm sure Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are feeling somewhat deprived.

Now, they said the stock can come down as well as it can come up, but at least symbolically sitting just immediately to my right on the panel is the richest man in the world in a country where 650 million people live on less than $2.00 a day. And that is the challenge that the Indians have, and they want to focus on all of the things that have happened that have made their economy strong and productive, but at the same time, they recognize they still have an enormous challenge internally of dealing with that. That 650 million that live on less than $2.00 a day, 350 million live on less than $1.00 a day.

So the land of contrast was symbolized by being there in that panel with that contrast.

SEN. CORKER: And I'd like to say, Senator, I know we have Utah media here that -- and I said to this to my colleagues yesterday in the Senate --

SEN./REP : (Inaudible) -- before you're going to brag on him. (Laughter.) (Cross talk.)

SEN. CORKER: And I will have to tell you that we had some of preeminent world leaders that sat on this panel, and you know, I see Senator Bennett every day and, candidly, wasn't planning to be so focused on his comments, if you will, at this World Economic Forum. As it turned out, the entire panel focused on Senator Bennett's comments. I was extremely proud to serve with him and really appreciated the fact that this panel truly, obviously, was very interested in what Senator Bennett had to say focused on that, and I thought he represented our country in an outstanding fashion. I was really proud to be with him.

REP. ISSA: And the House delegation seconds the comments of Senator Corker.

REP. WILSON: And I do need to point out that I'm the co-chair of the India caucus, which is the largest country caucus on Capitol Hill. I deal with issues relative to India virtually every day, and indeed, Senator Bennett came across so positive, so optimistic in a re- affirmation of the relationship that we have between the United States and India.

SEN. BENNETT: With that, we'd better quit. (Laughter.)

SEN. CORKER: Thank you all very much.

Source