Rick: Welcome to T2A for our first chat of the New Year, January 2, 2008. Today, Al Pessin, VOA Pentagon Correspondent, joins us for a look at U.S. Military Policy and U.S. Military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're delighted to have Al join us today so if you have questions, please join the chat!

-------------------------------

Richard (email): The Vietnam War was a difficult time for the American people and it cost the American government much money, now the U.S. is involved in Iraq, how do American people react to such policy?

Al: That's an interesting question to start our chat. The wars in Iraq and Vietnam are very different, and the United States today is very different than it was in the 1960s and 70s, during the Vietnam War. But we can draw some parallels. First among them is that money is not the main issue. Although the wars are expensive, Americans are much more concerned about the casualties. The American people do not like to see their young men and women die in foreign wars, particularly when those wars have at best an indirect connection to American security. In addition, Americans do not like to see additional troops die due to poor planning or execution of a war plan, which has been alleged in both Iraq and Vietnam. Perhaps Afghanistan is a good counter-example. You see little if any domestic opposition to the U.S. invasion and ongoing operation in Afghanistan, even though the fighting has dragged on much longer than had been expected. I believe that is because the vast majority of Americans recognize the importance of clearing out the terrorist safe haven created by the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and of not allowing the Taliban to return to power. In Iraq, and in Vietnam at that time, the connection to U.S. security is much less direct, and the conflicts involved many more casualties. As a result, many Americans oppose the Iraq war, and opposed the Vietnam War. But there's another impotant thing to note: in recent months, the Iraq War has slipped off the front pages of the newspapers and the opening minutes of the newscasts. Certainly, it is there sometimes, but on a daily basis. The reason for this is that the war effort is going better and U.S. casualties are down. Fewer than 25 U.S. troops died in Iraq in December, compared to more than 125 in May. In short, Richard, Americans don't like to see their young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines die on foreign shores, particularly when they don't see a direct connection to American security and when the conduct of the war is questionable. But most Americans also recognize the need to sometimes use our military power. So even in an unpopular war, like Iraq, when things start to go better and the casualties come down, some of the heat goes out of the anti-war rhetoric, and the government and the military have a chance to pursue their effort.

-------------------------------

Sorosh, Afghanistan (email): Will the current situation in Pakistan have any effect on Afghanistan? Is it possible that goods coming from Pakistan to Kabul could be halted?

Al: There is certainly concern in Washington about the impact of the unrest in Pakistan on the effort to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaida. Pakistan has a very important role to play in getting better control over its border region with Afghanistan, and in rooting out terrorist safe havens there. That effort has increased recently, and there are plans to increase it more this year. But the more domestic unrest distracts the Pakistani government and ties up the military, the less attention they will be able to pay to the counter-terrorism mission in the border region. The hope in Washington is that Pakistan's democratic traditions will see it through the current crisis to a more stable period after the elections, and that the government will be able to move forward with the border security effort without too much delay.

-------------------------------

Imo-Obong, Nigeria (email): Will there be any change in the current U.S. Military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008? Is the use of force the only U.S. military policy? Is there no social orientation and education for the Iraqis and the extremists in her policy?

Al: No major policy changes are expected, but that doesn't mean the situations will be static. In Iraq, the draw down of U.S. troops, which began in December, will continue until July, circumstances allowing, resulting in a reduction of about 20,000 combat troops. In March, military commanders will make recommendations about troops levels for the second half of the year, and the hope is that the draw down will continue, as Iraqi forces become more competent and insurgent forces continue to lose capability. In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces are expected to continue their fight against Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Afghanistan's Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told me in an interview in Kabul last month that he plans a surge of Afghan forces, with increased training resulting in a significant increase in the number of troops available to fight the Taliban by the time the winter weather eases in May. But you ask a good question about whether the use of force is the only policy. It is not. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. military, and other government agencies, are involved in development and reconstruction efforts, and in helping the two countries' new governments expand their authority and provide services to the people. U.S., NATO, Iraqi and Afghan officials all recognize that counterinsurgency involves removing the reasons that people support insurgents, and they continue to work that side of the problem with increasing intensity.

-------------------------------

Triloki (email): Regarding Iraq, is Iran and Syria direct interfering there by sending sophisticated weapons and running terrorist training camps? Has this impeded the progress of democracy and killing of innocent civilians in Iraq?

Al: U.S. civilian and military officials have repeatedly complained about Iranian and Syrian actions that have hurt Iraqi security. But in recent months the situation seems to have improved. The U.S. military says there has been a reduction in the use of the type of weapons Iranian agents have been providing to Iraqi insurgents. They say they cannot be sure whether the flow of such weapons has slowed or stopped, or whether there are other reasons for the change. But they note that top Iranian officials promised their Iraqi counterparts they would end the weapons flow, and the American officials hope the Iranians are living up to those promises. Meanwhile, U.S. military officials in Afghanistan are concerned that Iranian weapons are also turning up there. The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, Admiral William Fallon, told me in an interview last month he would like to see Iran formally and officially end its aid to the insurgents. The Iranian weapons are among the most deadly in Iraq, including high-powered roadside bombs that shoot molten copper and can pierce armored vehicles. At a U.S. military hospital last month, a soldier handed Admiral Fallon a large piece of copper shrapnel from an Iranian bomb that had been removed from his leg. Regarding Syria, the main problem involves allowing foreign terrorists to transit through the country, and to sneak across the border into Iraq. There, too, the situation appears to have improved somewhat, but U.S. officials want the Syrian government to do more.

-------------------------------

Kemal, Ethiopia (email): Of what is the use of war in Iraq and Afghanistan to the American people? How many civilians have been killed in Iraq? Is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is considered to be political business or petroleum exploitation and will it control terrorism?

Al: Kemal, I would refer you to my answer to the first question, from Richard, regarding the why the United States became involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As to the number of civilian casualties in Iraq, there are many estimates. One, from a group called icasualties.org, indicates nearly 40,000 Iraqi civilians have died in violence in the last three years. Many of those deaths came as a result of terrorist and insurgent attacks, some were ordinary criminality and some were caused by U.S. and coalition military actions. U.S. and coalition commanders note that their forces do their best to avoid civilian casualties, while the insurgents and terrorists intentionally target civilians. Your question about 'petroleum exploitation' is interesting because people outside the United States frequently ask it but much less frequently inside the United States. Certainly, the United States is interested in the free flow of the oil trade, but that was not a motivation for U.S. military action in either Iraq or Afghanistan. For Afghanistan, the goal was to eliminate the terrorist safe haven that facilitated the September 11th attacks in 2001. For Iraq, the motivations were more complex, involving concerns about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's influence on the region, but oil was not a major issue. The answer to your final question, about whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will control terrorism, cannot yet be answered. Certainly, that is the goal, and eliminating the ability of terrorist groups to operate in those countries, and in the Pakistan border area, would certainly go a long way toward defeating terrorism. But, as I mentioned earlier in the chat, U.S. officials also know they need to eliminate the reasons some people support terrorists, and not only in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States is involved in trying to make governments more responsive to their people in many parts of the world, including Africa, and also in helping foreign militaries do a better job of keeping terrorist groups out of their territory. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are important parts of the counter-terrorism effort, but the effort is much more extensive and will take many years of both military and non-military action by dozens of countries around the world.

-------------------------------

A.C. Rathinavel, India (email): Do you think that U.S. military activity will soon end in Iraq? Are any tough U.S. policies about to be implemented there?

Al: Well, A.C., I would refer you to my earlier answers about the U.S. military plan for Iraq in 2008. I'm not sure what you mean by 'tough U.S. policies.' In recent months, the surge of U.S. troops has taken the fight to insurgents and terrorists in many parts of the country, resulting in many enemy deaths and captures, and in the discovery of many weapons caches. The hope is that an increase in the number and competence of Iraqi forces, combined with the degradation of insurgent and terrorist capability, better control of the Pakistani side of the border, the 'awakening' of support for the government in many parts of the country and several more months of U.S. military 'surge' operations will result in a permanent change in the security situation. But, as I have noted, at the same time the U.S. government is 'surging' non-military efforts, working through the Iraqi government and Provincial Reconstruction Teams to deliver development, reconstruction and other services to the people. U.S. and Iraqi officials believe the combination of intensified military and non-military efforts will move Iraq toward stability as we move through 2008, and that the Iraqis will increasingly be able to sustain that on their own.

-------------------------------

Boman, India (email): Now that Al-Qaeda has been weakened in Afghanistan because of military intervention over the last few years, it is now moving its base to neighboring Pakistan. Is the U.S. contemplating any moves to tackle this new development? If so, what are its options?

Al: Bowman, since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001, it has been believed that the Taliban and Al-Qaida leadership has been hiding in the rugged mountains of western Pakistan, along the Afghan border. So that is not a new development. In recent months, the Pakistani government has been trying to do more to get control of those areas, but it is difficult for several reasons. First is the terrain, but perhaps more important is the tradition of autonomy in that part of Pakistan. The tribes there are very strong, and do not like the central government to exert its authority in the region. Pakistan's border patrol is small and not as competent as the regular army, but the army largely stays out of the region. Talk of moving army units to the border area is controversial, and the current unrest in Pakistan may make it more difficult. But the government has expressed the desire to make it more difficult for the Taliban and Al-Qaida to operate in the border area, and the coming months should tell us whether it is able to follow through on that desire. At his year-end news conference last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said there has been a 40 per cent reduction in the number of foreign fighters crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan along the northern part of their border. And he noted that the terrorists are taking out their anger at the Pakistani government by making trouble in the Swat Valley, north of Islamabad. Regarding the U.S. role, American officials want to help Pakistan deal with the issue. There has been improved communication between U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistani forces on their side of the border. This has caused some of the reduction in the cross-border flow of insurgents. But responsibility for security on the Pakistani side rests with Pakistani officials and their military. The United States provides aid and advice, but has no plans to take direct military action inside Pakistan.

-------------------------------

Dennis (email): What is the U.S. military policy regarding the situation in Iran?

Al: Dennis, I would not say there is a U.S. 'military' policy regarding Iran. Rather, there is a U.S. 'government' policy regarding Iran. And President Bush himself has expressed that. The United States has no intention of taking military action against Iran, but the president says he cannot rule out such a move in the future if it becomes necessary. In the meantime, the United States is using diplomatic means to try to convince Iran to stop meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, to fulfill commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding its nuclear program, and to play a more constructive role in regional and world affairs.

-------------------------------

Anil, India (email): Regarding the US policy on Iraq and Afghanistan… has the Bush administration really considered the interests of the Afghan people in Afghanistan, because Taliban is again rising in that country and President Karzai is only based in Kabul not in whole Afghanistan? In Iraq UK troops have left and are not willing to cooperate with US forces in Basra where they were stationed, why and what impact does this have on US efforts in Iraq?

Al: As I mentioned in earlier answers, the United States is actively engaged in many non-military efforts to improve the lives of the people in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, it is working to help extend the authority of the Karzai government. But it is wrong to suggest, as you do in your question, that the government is only in Kabul. The president works with provincial governors throughout the country, and has recently replaced some who were not doing a good job. During my reporting trip to Afghanistan last month, a consistent theme I heard from senior U.S. military commanders was that in areas where there is good local leadership, the security and development efforts are going well. In areas with weak local leadership, the efforts go much less well. In addition, U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams work in most of the country, using American diplomats, aid workers and other experts to help the local governments begin to function and to deliver services to their people, ranging from electricity to education. In Iraq, British troops have withdrawn from Basra, leaving it under local control, which is what the coalition has done in a few other areas and wants to do throughout the country. British troops are in an 'over watch' role outside the city, ready to help Iraqi security forces as necessary. The British forces are part of the U.S.-led coalition, and their move was approved by the coalition command in Baghdad.

-------------------------------

Dr (Col) V K Wadia, India (email): Why have USA and its allies not been able to check 'hide & seek' game of Taliban despite of such a long occupation? How long, you think, allied forces would be required to physically occupy the region?

Al: Colonel, I think a lot of people are asking the same question you ask: Why is the Taliban still active after six years? There is no simple answer. It is the result of many factors, including the difficulty of travel and communications in many parts of the country (which makes it difficult for the government to expand its authority), the tribal nature of Afghan society, the fact that the government and the military had to be built almost from nothing, the lower priority the Afghan war has had since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the transition to NATO responsibility for the military effort in Afghanistan last year, foreign support for the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and many other factors. Now, U.S. and NATO forces, the Afghan government and the Provincial Reconstruction Teams are engaged in a new, multi-faceted effort the end the game of 'hide & seek.' But it is not easy. U.S. and Afghan officials say the Afghan Army is developing well, but still has a long way to go. NATO countries are doing some good work in Afghanistan, but many countries restrict the way their forces can be used, hurting the NATO commander's ability to make the best use of his forces. Iran and other foreign supporters of terrorist groups continue to help the Taliban and Al-Qaida. And because of the much larger number of U.S. troops needed for Iraq, the United States is not in a position to increase its troop presence in Afghanistan. On the positive side, U.S. and Afghan officials, and some in NATO, recognize the need for a concerted civilian and military effort to put down the Taliban, and they appear to have some success this past summer. Now, NATO and U.S. officials are reviewing the situation, with a view toward doing an even better job this year. And Afghanistan is planning to sharply increase the size of its army in time for the spring fighting season, which usually begins in May. So, you're right, it has been a long game of 'hide & seek,' but a major effort is underway to change that. As to how long it will take, well, certainly longer than anyone would want. But I would add two things. First, it's not exactly an occupation. Afghanistan has a sovereign government and its own military, and foreign forces are supporting those institutions. Second, the stated goal of all the allies and the Afghan government is for Afghanistan to take over all responsibility for its security as soon as possible -- without starting a new all-Afghan game of 'hide & seek.'

-------------------------------

Abo, Nigeria (email): Why is there constant fighting in Iraq. How is this affecting the U.S. and U.K. governments?

Al: Well, Abo, I know you submitted your question before we started. And if you've read the chat you have much of your answer for the first part of your question. As to how the fighting is affecting the U.S. and U.K. governments, well, in the United States the conduct of the Iraq war was the major factor in President Bush's Republican Party losing control of both houses of the Congress in the 2006 elections. But although the Democrats who took control of the Congress wanted to end the war quickly, they were not able to do so. Under the U.S. government system, the president has a tremendous amount of power to control the military as Commander in Chief. The congress controls the flow of money, but is reluctant to cut funding with U.S. troops in harm's way. The president largely won that political 'tug of war' last year. Interestingly, the war was a major issue in the early stages of the presidential election campaign early last year. But it has largely faded, as there have been more military successes and U.S. casualties have come down. Also, President Bush can not run for a third term, so criticizing him doesn't do the candidates much good, particularly in this stage of the process, in which the parties are selecting their candidates, not running against each other. I'm not an expert on U.K. politics, but clearly the Tony Blair government came under a lot of public pressure over its decision to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and to stay for the long haul. But Blair's Labor Party has retained control, at least so far.

-------------------------------

Compaore, Burkina Faso: Does the use of 'Private' forces in Iraq mean that we could see a 'privitization of war' by US Government. Also, do you think that US policy in Iraq could change if a Republican would be elected President in 2008?

Al: Private forces play a small and limited role in Iraq, compared to the military forces of Iraq, the United States and other coalition members. Most of the private contractors in Iraq work in non-military roles, performing cooking, cleaning and other support functions. The private security contractors provide security for bases and diplomatic convoys and have other limited duties. The U.S. government has no plan to privatize its broader military functions. The question of what a new president might do is a good one, and one being asked by many people in the United States and around the world. All of the people running for the nominations would change the current policies in some way. Most people expect bigger changes if a Democrat is elected. But keep in mind, the election is 10 months away and the inauguration is 12 months and 18 days away! A lot will happen in that time, which will affect what any new administration will do. Currently, the security and governance trends in Iraq are good, and there is a plan to reduce the number of U.S. forces. If the trends continue, and U.S. forces continue to withdraw, the new president may have to do little more than continue along the same track for a year or so, and U.S. involvement in combat in Iraq will largely end. But that is admittedly a rosy scenario. U.S. military commanders are quick to point out that the gains of recent months are fragile and there could be setbacks ahead. If the situation deteriorates, the new president could have some tough choices to make, just as President Bush did a year ago, when violence in Iraq was spiraling. It's just too early to say what the new president will face on January 20, 2009, or what he or she might decide to do. One important decision for the new U.S. leader, and for Iraqi leaders, will be what the long-term size and role of U.S. forces should be in Iraq, that is, whether a relatively small stabilization force will remain or whether the United States will withdraw all its troops.

-------------------------------

Rick: I've heard that there are some who would like to see that if troops are indeed reduced in Iraq - that more military attention be given to Afghanistan. Do you see this happening - if so how would it affect the handling of operations there by NATO?

Al: There are lots of dimensions to these questions. First, the U.S. military is seriously stretched providing the 'surge' forces to Iraq and maintaining their commitment in Afghanistan. Unless there is an emergency, or the president decides to suspend the rules that govern how much time U.S. troops spend at home after a deployment, the U.S. military will not be able to provide additional troops to Afghanistan for at least a year. At the same time, U.S. officials are eager for other NATO countries to provide the forces and trainers they have agreed are needed in Afghanistan. In other words, the NATO countries have agreed on the need, but have not provided the forces. U.S. officials are reluctant to let NATO 'off the hook' by providing U.S. forces, particularly with the U.S. military stretched as it is. NATO commanders are not shy about saying they need more combat troops and more trainers for the Afghan army and police. But U.S. officials say those forces must come from other NATO members. As to whether the United States would provide more forces for Afghanistan in the future, that will depend on the situation at the time, and also on the new U.S. administration. For now, U.S. officials believe incremental progress is being made in Afghanistan, even with the troop shortage. And as I mentioned earlier, Afghanistan is planning a 'surge' of its own later this year.

-------------------------------

Al: This has been an interesting chat, many thanks to all our questioners. I hope you all keep an ear on VOA and an eye on voanews.com to keep up to date on all these important issues!

Best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful 2008, Al Pessin

VOA Pentagon Correspondent

-------------------------------

Rick: That concludes today’s T2A web chat, many thanks to Al Pessin, VOA Pentagon correspondent and to all of you for being a part of today’s chat! We hope you all can join us on Thursday, January 3rd at 1800 hours universal time, for a special edition T2A chat when we discuss the first preliminary votes in the U.S. state contests to determine the Republican and Democratic nominees for President. VOA Reporter Todd Grosshans covers the Iowa Caucuses and joins T2A from Des Moines, Iowa. That’s Thursday, January 3rd at 1800 hours universal time on voanews.com see you then!

-------------------------------