Gates Assures Iraqi People of Steadfast U.S. Support
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, Dec. 21, 2006 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today assured the Iraqi people that the United States is firmly behind them and is working with their government to solve Iraq's political, military and economic woes.

"I especially emphasized to the prime minister the steadfastness of American support and our enduring presence in the Persian Gulf," Gates said in a news conference at the residence of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The new U.S. defense secretary arrived in Baghdad yesterday to talk with U.S. and Iraqi leaders to help him formulate recommendations for President Bush. He met yesterday with top U.S. generals and today with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and senior Iraqi leaders, including President Jalal Talabani, Maliki and Defense Minister Abdul Qadir.

Qadir accompanied Gates at the news conference. Through a translator, Qadir said he and Gates discussed "the possibility to develop the capabilities and abilities of the Iraqi army forces."

Gates characterized all his meetings with Iraqi leaders as "very positive and in-depth." He said he and Maliki discussed "ways (the United States) can best support the Iraqi government as we move forward."

"We are partners in this process," Gates added, "and it is important that I understand first-hand the views of the prime minister."

Gates said yesterday that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq is one possibility, but stressed that no decision has been made and that other options are available. Today's meetings didn't include discussion of upping troop strength in Iraq, merely the need to focus strongly on security.

"The success of our partnership cannot happen without the security of the Iraqi people," Gates said today. "To that end, we discussed a wide range of options. And, as we said yesterday, all options are on the table."

The secretary cited a few things he considers positive signs: Iraqi forces assumed control of the security situation in Najaf from Multinational Force Iraq yesterday, and the Iraqi government seems determined to improve the security situation in Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad.

"Much of our discussion here today was focused on how the United States can be helpful in the Iraqi government's efforts to accomplish that goal," Gates said. "In our partnership, with the Iraqis in the lead, we can best play a supporting role, and that was really the focus of our discussions."

During the news conference, Qadir displayed a get-tough attitude regarding security in Iraq. "Anyone who carries weapons outside the law and ... is not from the armed forces is going to be considered an enemy, and we're going to deal with him on this basis," the Iraqi minister said.

He said the Iraqi government also is working to improve its intelligence capabilities, "because the work to combat terrorism is mainly intelligence work."

Gates announced he'd be in Iraq "another half a day" and would continue discussions with U.S. and Iraqi leaders. "We have to take into account the views of the Iraqi government, the views of our own leadership, the views of our own military leadership," when making decisions on the way forward in Iraq, he said.

Gates also used the news conference as an opportunity to praise U.S. Army soldiers with whom he had breakfast today.

"What impressed me above all was the extraordinary quality of the young men and women that I met with this morning," he said. "(They are) representative of those who are serving our country here and serving the Iraqi people, in terms of their willingness to say what they think, their commitment to the mission, their dedication and their determinations to be successful in this mission."
Biographies:
Robert M. Gates

Mexican Soldiers Freelancing for Drug Cartels on US Soil
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
December 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Gun-toting members of the Mexican military are crossing regularly into U.S. territory, where they are partnering with drug cartels and criminal gangs to protect sophisticated smuggling operations, according to Texas sheriffs and lawmakers.

Some of the Mexican infiltrators are suspected to have been trained by the U.S. military.

U.S. Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement officials operating along the southwestern border have come under attack from the Mexican side in recent months, with automatic gunfire frequently erupting, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) told Cybercast News Service.

Mexican military units and drug cartels have access to weaponry and communications equipment far more advanced than resources made available to U.S. officials on the state and federal level, Culberson said.

"The U.S. Border Patrol is telling its agents to just lay low and report on what they see," he said. "They are instructed to determine the size of the [Mexican military] unit, the number of personnel, the direction of travel."

The U.S. ambassador to Mexico has sent diplomatic notes to the Mexican government complaining about incursions into U.S. territory by "individuals dressed in military uniforms," according to a congressional report.

Culberson plans to meet with the Mexican ambassador to discuss border issues early in the new year.

More than 200 incursions by the Mexican military of the U.S. southern border have been documented since the late 1990s, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) said in an interview.

"Our federal government denied it occurred until the Texas sheriffs took photos," he said. "There is no nation in the world that would allow this invasion to occur except for the United States."

Mexican military personnel have been observed crossing the Rio Grande into Hudspeth County, Texas, in an apparent effort to safeguard drug shipments.

On one occasion early this year, deputies in pursuit of suspected drug dealers encountered "heavily armed soldiers in a Humvee," while trying to apprehend individuals driving "load vehicles" for drug shipments, Hudspeth Sheriff Arvin West told a congressional hearing subsequently.

Although some of the narcotics were seized, the deputies were forced to suspend their pursuit once the Mexican soldiers intervened, according to West's testimony.

Sheriffs in neighboring parts of Texas are also familiar with the techniques used to protect drug shipments in Hudspeth.

According to Sheriff Leo Samaniego of El Paso County, Mexican soldiers perform "flanking maneuvers," forcing deputies into defensive positions.

"They are very involved in safeguarding these drug shipments," he said of the Mexican troops.

Samaniego said he was in contact with farmers in the area who reported witnessing such incidents regularly.

Samaniego recalled another Mexican military incursion he said had taken place in Santa Teresa, N.M., located across the state line from El Paso. Mexican soldiers in two Humvees "chased after" a U.S. Border Patrol agent until backup arrived while another U.S. agent also came under gunfire, Samaniego told Cybercast News Service.

"Mexican officials gave the excuse that it was a new military unit that got lost and didn't know it was in the U.S.," he said. "But I find this hard to believe."

'Trained in the US'

Some of the Mexican soldiers collaborating with drug cartels were trained at one time at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga., said Sheriff Rick Flores of Webb County.

Although they were trained to combat "narco-terrorism" many such soldiers are ultimately lured by the fact they can make substantially more money working with the cartels, Flores said in an interview.

"We train people to fight bad elements and help restore order but they end up defecting," he said. "Then we end up fighting them after we train them."

The power and influence of the drug cartels is difficult to overstate, Flores contended. They are in control of almost "every type of business" in Mexico and boast almost unlimited resources.

Webb County has also experienced an influx of Mexican soldiers who appear to be working on behalf of the cartels and other criminals, Flores said.

"Our drug enforcement taskforce came across soldiers dressed in black clad uniforms near Highway 83. They were marching in cadence and pretty much scared the hell out of our people. They had fully automatic AK 47s wrapped around their arms and they were carrying duffle bags with their free arms. It was pretty freaky," Flores said.

A report on security threats to the southwestern border, provided by the House Homeland Security Committee's subcommittee on investigations, refers to a growing nexus between drug cartels, criminal gangs and Mexican military personnel.

Some of the gangs mentioned in the report include the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), the Mexican Mafia, and the Texas Syndicate.

Zapata County Sherriff Sigifredo Gonzalez told Cybercast News Service the cartels were equipped with a military grade arsenal and an intelligence network that poses a threat to American local and federal officials.

Cybercast News Service reported previously that some cartels have the ability to eavesdrop on U.S. law enforcement agencies' communications.

Last July, deputies from Hidalgo - two counties away from Zapata - responded to an emergency call and found themselves targeted by "300 to 400 rounds of automatic gunfire from the Mexican side, for about 10 minutes," Gonzalez reported.

With such incidents continuing along the border, the Zapata sheriff said in time there would inevitably be casualties on the U.S. side. In just the past few weeks, he added, U.S. National Guard members had come under fire in neighboring Starr County.

'Cartels diversifying'

There are also signs the criminal gangs are becoming bolder.

Rick Glancey, the interim executive director of the Southwestern Border Sheriff's Coalition, says drug cartels have diversified operations and are now smuggling both narcotics and humans.

According to the congressional committee report, the Texas-Mexico border includes 18 points of entry into the U.S. that are attractive to drug cartels and other criminal enterprises.

Further complicating security concerns, Gonzales pointed out that an extensive train system, with trains ranging from 90 to 160 cars, also travels from Guatemala, through Mexico and ending adjacent to the Texas border.

The train system enables the smuggling operations to access major interstate highways in Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo and El Paso that serve as a gateway into the U.S., providing cartels with enormous opportunities, Glancey said.

Currently, competing cartels are fighting for control of a highly prized corridor into the U.S. called "the plaza," said Flores. He voiced concerns that inter-gang violence may spill over the U.S. side and threaten citizens in his jurisdiction and in other parts of Texas.

The Mexican Embassy in the U.S. this week declined an invitation to comment on allegations of Mexican soldiers' presence in Texas. The embassy did make available a Mexican foreign ministry statement on the incident in Hudspeth County in early 2006.

It said the Mexican government concluded that the "uniforms, insignia, vehicles and arms" used by the individuals involved "do not correspond to those used by Mexican armed forces."

The government contended that "no members of the Mexican army participated in the incident" and that the armed individuals were attached to a "drug trafficking organization."

December 21, 2006
Iran President Facing Revival of Students’ Ire

By NAZILA FATHI
TEHRAN, Dec. 20 — As protests broke out last week at a prestigious university here, cutting short a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Babak Zamanian could only watch from afar. He was on crutches, having been clubbed by supporters of the president and had his foot run over by a motorcycle during a less publicized student demonstration a few days earlier.

But the significance of the confrontation was easy to grasp, even from a distance, said Mr. Zamanian, a leader of a student political group.

The Iranian student movement, which planned the 1979 seizure of the United States Embassy from the same university, Amir Kabir, is reawakening from the slumber of recent years and may even be spearheading a widespread resistance against Mr. Ahmadinejad. This time the catalysts were academic and personal freedom.

“It is not that simple to break up a president’s speech,” said Alireza Siassirad, a former student political organizer, explaining that an event of that magnitude takes meticulous planning. “I think what happened at Amir Kabir is a very important and a dangerous sign. Students are definitely becoming active again.”

The protest, punctuated by shouts of “Death to the dictator,” was the first widely publicized outcry against Mr. Ahmadinejad, one that was reflected Friday in local elections, where voters turned out in droves to vote for his opponents.

The students’ complaints largely mirrored public frustrations over the president’s crackdown on civil liberties, his blundering economic policies and his harsh oratory against the West, which they fear will isolate the country.

But the students had an additional and potent source of outrage: the president’s campaign to purge the universities of all vestiges of the reform movement of his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

Last summer the newly installed head of the university, Alireza Rahai, ordered the demolition of the office of the Islamic Association, which had been the core of student political activities on campus since 1963 and had matured into a moderate, pro-reform group.

Since then, students say, more than 100 liberal professors have been forced into retirement and many popular figures have been demoted. At least 70 students were suspended for political activities, and two were jailed. Some 30 students were given warnings, and a prominent Ph.D. candidate, Matin Meshkin, was barred from finishing his studies.

The students also complain about overcrowded and crumbling dormitories and proscriptions against women wearing makeup or bright colors, rules that were relaxed when Mr. Khatami came to power in 1997.

Amir Kabir University of Technology, a major polytechnic institute, has been a hotbed of student activism since before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution of 1979. Drawing on networks at universities around the country through an office that links their Islamic associations, students can organize large protests on a moment’s notice. There are also student guilds, which are independent, and more than 2,000 student publications.

Mr. Zamanian, the head of public relations of the Islamic Association at Amir Kabir, said that while the situation had not been ideal in the Khatami years, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s antireformist campaign had led students to value their previous freedoms.

They were permitted to hold meetings and invite opposition figures to speak, he said, and could freely publish their journals. Now, he said, their papers are forbidden to print anything but reports from official news agencies.

The students also complain about the president’s failure to deliver economic growth and jobs. At last week’s protest, which coincided with a now infamous Holocaust conference held by the Foreign Ministry, students chanted, “Forget the Holocaust — do something for us.”

A student who identified himself only as Ahmad, for fear of retribution, said: “A nuclear program is our right, but we fear that it will bring more damage than good. Our country is in a sensitive time, and we need to have a peaceful attitude. Why should we hold a conference on the Holocaust when it creates more enemies in the world for us?”

Another student said: “It is so hard and costly to come to this university, but I don’t see a bright future. Even if you are lucky enough to get a job, the pay would not be enough for you to pay your rent.”

Mr. Zamanian said that the protest had not been planned ahead of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit, but that students were further enraged when they saw supporters of the president being bused in.

Although the auditorium was almost filled with the president’s supporters by the time any students were let in, the protesters forced their way inside, chanted, “Death to the dictator,” and held banners calling him a “fascist president.” They also held up posters of the president with his picture upside down and set fire to three of them. Many of the students are now in hiding.

At one point, the head of a moderate student guild complained to Mr. Ahmadinejad that students were being expelled for political activities and given three stars next to their names in university records, barring them from re-entering. The president responded by ridiculing him, joking that the three stars made them sergeants in the army.

The president was eventually forced to cut his speech short and leave. But angry students stormed his car, kicking it and chanting slogans. His convoy of four cars collided several times as they tried to leave in a rush. Eventually the students were dispersed.

An entry on Mr. Ahmadinejad’s Web log, posted Wednesday, played down the scale and significance of the protest, writing that the president had a “good feeling when he saw a small group amid the dominant majority insulting him without any fear.”

A few days after the protest, former Amir Kabir students affiliated with the Islamic associations’ coordinating office wrote a letter to Mr. Ahmadinejad. In it, they turned down what they said was his invitation to share their problems with him, because they believed that he wanted to use the occasion to bolster his candidates in the local elections.

The students also wrote that the president had insulted their intelligence by talking to them in the same language he uses in remote villages on his provincial trips.

“You should know that what happened at Polytechnic University was the voice of universities and the real voice of the people,” they wrote. Tehran Polytechnic was the university’s name before the revolution.

December 20, 2006
Op-Chart
The State of Iraq: An Update

By NINA KAMP, MICHAEL O'HANLON and AMY UNIKEWICZ
AS 2006 winds down, two developments inside Iraq stand out: the failure of the previous year’s election to produce any sense of progress, and the commencement of Iraq’s civil war, dating back to the Feb. 22 bombing of the hallowed Shiite mosque in Samarra and escalating ever since.

It is still possible to find signs of hope in our running statistics on Iraq — the number of Iraqi security forces who are trained and technically proficient, the gradually improving economic output, the number of children being immunized. But those same children cannot feel safe on the way to school in much of today’s Iraq; economic growth is a top-down phenomenon having little effect on the unemployment rate or well-being of Iraqis in places like Anbar Province and the Sadr City slum in Baghdad; and those increasingly proficient security forces remain politically unreliable in many cases, just as inclined to stoke sectarian strife as to contain it.

Despite some unconvincing comments from President Bush in the prelude to the November midterm elections that “absolutely, we’re winning,” most Americans now agree on the diagnosis of the situation in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group warned of a further “slide toward chaos.” Colin Powell said on Sunday that he thought we are losing, even if all is not yet lost. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted in his confirmation hearings that we aren’t winning, even if he holds out hope that we also aren’t losing. His predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, in a memo leaked several weeks ago, recognized that Iraq is going badly and put out a laundry list of potential options that we may have to consider, including multiparty negotiations modeled on those that ended the war in Bosnia.

Significant changes are clearly needed. At a minimum, we will probably require some combination of the options now being offered the president by the Iraq Study Group, the Pentagon and others — a large program to create jobs, a surge of perhaps 25,000 more American troops to Iraq to improve security in Baghdad, an ultimatum to Iraqi political leaders that if they fail to achieve consensus on key issues like sharing oil, American support for the operation could very soon decline.

If such steps fail, last-ditch options may well be needed within a year, including the sort of “soft partition” of Iraq by religion and ethnicity that Mr. Rumsfeld and Senator Joseph Biden have been discussing, combined with a plan to help people move to where they feel safer within the country. Although it has been said before about previous new years, it seems very likely that 2007 will be make or break time in Iraq.

Nina Kamp is a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at Brookings and the co-author of “Hard Power.” Amy Unikewicz is a graphic designer in South Norwalk, Conn.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, Commander U.S. Central Command Gen. John Abizaid and Commander Multinational Force-Iraq Gen. George Casey
December 20, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD News Briefing with Secretary Gates from Iraq
GEN. CASEY: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to a lot of you. A great opportunity here for me to welcome our new secretary of Defense to Iraq. I think when we first met here in late August, early September, I don't think either one of us thought that we'd be back here doing this today.

So, Mr. Secretary, welcome. It's a great honor to talk to you today, and I look forward to our further discussions.

Thanks.

SEC. GATES: Well, I had very good meetings today with General Casey and General Abizaid as well as with General Odierno and General Fil. I think it was very important for me to hear firsthand candid, honest assessments from our commanders on how to proceed in Iraq, particularly since they'll be the ones to implement whatever decisions are made. I value both their advice and their service to our country.

The purpose of this trip is to get a sense from the situation on the ground -- of the situation on the ground and listen to a wide spectrum of views from the top commanders down through the ranks, and I've had the opportunity to start doing that today. The other purpose of the trip, though, is also to talk with the leaders of the Iraqi government, above all, Prime Minister Maliki and talk to them about how best we can support them going forward and how best we can -- particularly in improving the security situation, but also in terms of strengthening and supporting the Iraqi government.

I'm also here to thank directly on behalf of the president and, I believe, the American people, our service men and women here in Iraq, who have sacrificed so much to serve our country. I had the opportunity to meet a number of the troops, including one group that was just heading out on a mission. They're incredibly dedicated, brave and committed to their -- to the success of their mission, and I hope that everybody at home here at the holiday season will remember that all these men and women are away from their families. And they have their buddies here, but it's not like being home. So I hope everybody will remember them in their prayers and be thinking of their service.

The trip is part of the overall assessment that the president has asked me to do, as I indicated at the confirmation hearing. I've been participating in NSC meetings. I've been participating in a lot of briefings at the Department of Defense after the Senate confirmed me.

But this trip is really an important piece of that in terms of getting a feel for what we in the agency used to call "ground truth."

I think there's nothing more important than succeeding here in Iraq. I'm confident we can do so, and I've talked before about the consequences of failure to do so.

So I'm glad to be here. It's just at the start of the trip. I'm looking forward to the meetings that I'm going to have with our friends the Iraqis, and look forward to getting as much good information over the next day or two as I've already gotten today.

Let me ask General Pace if he'd like to say a word or two.

GEN. PACE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's a great pleasure for me to join Secretary Gates in thanking General Abizaid and General Casey for their sustained leadership and dedication to the mission that our country has given to them, have a chance to also thank our troops, who are delivering for our country in every way that we've asked them to and beyond, and especially to their families, who are missing their loved ones today.

It's good to be able to be here on the ground, to listen to the leaders of our own forces and of the Iraqi government, and that's what we'll be doing today in the time we're here.

With that, we'll turn to your questions.

Q Mr. Secretary, we're hoping to get an idea about what kind of advice the commanders are giving you about the way forward here on the ground, and whether or not that advice has differed now that you are Defense secretary from what they told you when they were working with the Iraq Study Group.

SEC. GATES: Well, I would say that the questions I'm asking are different than the ones that I was asking when I was a member of the Iraq Study Group. I didn't dream at that time I would actually have some responsibility for what goes forward.

I would say we've had -- you know, we've discussed obvious things. We've discussed the possibility of a surge and the potential for what it might accomplish. I think it's very important in this case to hear above all from the Iraqis and from the prime minister on how best we can help. I think that that's a very important consideration. As we look at the different options that are being discussed in Washington, we need to remember that there is an Iraqi government and that the Iraqi government needs to be a partner in this, or we need to be a partner with the Iraqi government, with them out in front. And so it's one thing for us to have a discussion about some of these options, but their view is really important.

And so we've discussed the obvious things that have been in the press in Washington. I've heard the commanders' views. They've been very candid with me. It's been a very useful conversation. But I'm especially looking forward to my meetings with the Iraqi leadership.

Q I wonder if we might ask Generals Casey and Abizaid -- both of you have said over the past year that you don't think more U.S. troops are the answer to what's going on in Iraq. And I'm wondering, now with all this discussion about the possibility of surging additional forces in for some period of time, if you could tell us if your views have changed.

And also, General Abizaid, if you could just put in context for us -- around Washington the news is swirling about your plans to retire in the spring, and some people have characterized it as you resigning, some people have said it's precipitous. So maybe if you could just put in context for us your future plans and whether you -- (inaudible word).

GEN. CASEY: I wouldn't characterize what I've said about not necessarily thinking more American troops are the answer. What I've consistently said is I will ask for what I need to get the job done, and I have consistently done that. And I think probably three or four times I've asked for additional troops, but they've been for a purpose. They've been for an election or to take advantage of an opportunity that was presented as a result of the operations in Fallujah.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but what I want to see happen is if we do bring more American troops here, they help us progress toward our strategic objectives. And that's what I'll be interested in.

GEN. ABIZAID: As far as the surge forces are concerned, I think it's safe to say that absolutely all options are on the table. We're looking at every possible thing that might influence the situation to make Baghdad, in particular, more secure.

As far as retirement rumors, et cetera, are concerned, I don't think it's much news to many of you sitting around that spring of 2007 is the target date for when I would retire. It's certainly not considered precipitous by the Abizaid family. After 50 months out here, I think it's okay to think about retiring. But again, I serve at the pleasure of the president and the secretary.

Q Well, some people wonder why perhaps you haven't been given another assignment, or did you want to -- did you feel like this was the time to end your Army career? Is it totally your decision?

GEN. ABIZAID: No decision that anybody makes in a position like this is ever totally their decision, but I think the time is right, and it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction.

Q Mr. Secretary, can I ask you, on the surge question, are you personally concerned that adding more American troops, even for a short period, will delay the Iraqis taking responsibility for their security and ultimately may not lead to permanent increases or permanent improvements in security? Can you give us sort of your -- I realize it's early days, but can you give us your impressions of that question at this point?

SEC. GATES: I think before I draw any conclusions on that, I want to talk to the prime minister and others in the Iraqi government.

It's clearly a consideration. I think that the commanders out here have expressed a concern about that. But as General Casey indicated, they also have called for more troops when they felt that there was a specific mission and a specific purpose. So I'm reserving judgment until I've had an opportunity to talk to the Iraqis.

Q Mr. Secretary, the president has also asked you to consider a look at an overall increase in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. Can you give us a little bit of your thoughts on that, how big of an increase do you think is warranted at this point, and where you think you're going with that?

SEC. GATES: Well, the answer is, we're just beginning that process. I have had a concern from outside the government that with all of the missions that the Army and the Marine Corps have had in recent years -- not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but the challenges that we potentially face in Iran and North Korea and elsewhere, not to mention other things, like rescue missions related to Hurricane Katrina -- that frankly the question arose whether the Army is in fact large enough to carry out all the missions it's been assigned. We're looking at that.

One of the things that I think people have not fully appreciated has been the Army's success and their plans in creating more combat capability out of the existing military force. There is this temporary authorization that the Congress has provided of 30,000 additional troops over the 482,000, and that's really a bridge toward this modularization of the Army and creating more combat brigades. And there's been significant progress in that.

And so the question is, it -- in a way, it goes back to the same basic question of the surge itself. And that -- they're not related, but the question is, what's the mission? What's the purpose? Can we do this? How big should an increase be? And then there's always the question of how big an increase can we afford, given the modernization programs that are under way.

So all of those are questions that have to be looked at in this context. And the reason I say it's not related to the surge is that a decision to increase the size of the Army today really won't show up in troops, if you will, trained troops, for some period of time.

Q Mr. Secretary, you mentioned you were here to thank the troops. But what would you like the troops, and particularly here in Iraq, to know about your priorities -- and the families -- as you come into this new position?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that one of the things that has become clear to me is that -- and because, if I may refer back to my old job -- when I was president of Texas A&M, I got a lot of e-mails from troops here in Iraq who were Aggies. And I would say there were three themes to the e-mails that I received from the troops. The first was, they obviously would like to come home. But second, they don't want to come home until their mission is accomplished. They feel very strongly about the mission. And the third was, they also don't want the sacrifice of their buddies to have been in vain.

And so I think my sense is that the troops -- the young troops, especially -- are really committed to this mission. And so I think that the priority is accomplishing the mission; is accomplishing the objective of an Iraq that is sustainable, that can defend itself, that can govern itself, so that at the proper time we can withdraw a lot of these troops and let them go home. And I think that's their priority as well.

Yes?

Q But can you bring down the sectarian violence in this country without going after Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, and is that something that you're going to push with the prime minister when you meet with him tomorrow?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think where I would leave it is simply to say that both in my conversations with our military leadership here and with the Iraqi government is how best can the United States help the Iraqi government bring down the level of violence here in Baghdad and in places like Anbar. And that will be a principal theme of the discussions, I think.

Q Would that include a more proactive stance on the militias?

SEC. GATES: Well, that's what I'm here to find out.

Q Sir, can I just challenge one thing that you said about the increase in the size of the military not being related to a possible surge of forces in Iraq? Because it seems as though -- I mean, one of the reasons that a permanent increase in the size of the military was resisted in the past was the argument that by the time the troops were here, they might not be needed anymore. But now it's three years down the road, and the troops are needed, and it seems that by contemplating an increase in the size of the military, what you're saying is that you don't see much potential for a lessening of the demand on the force in the future, particularly at a time when you may be surging troops into Iraq.

So it does seem that the size of the military is related to --

SEC. GATES: I'm just looking at the history of the last dozen years or so and the multiple missions. When I was last in government, we had no idea that the United States would end up with tens of thousands of troops in the Balkans. It's a very unstable world, and if you look at the multiplicity of missions that the Army and the military, the Marine Corps and others have been given over the past dozen years, that's really the basis on which I think you evaluate whether or not an increase is necessary.

We also, I think, are looking at the increase -- have to look at the increase in the context of can we get back to the original arrangements, where the military serves active duty, the regular Army serves one year deployed and two years at home, and the kind of commitment to the Reserves and the National Guard in terms of one year at home -- one year deployed and five years at home and so on.

These are all the -- these are all the considerations that I think we have to take into account. The only reason I said it was unrelated to the surge is that any increase in the end strength of the military today is not going to impact what we can do in terms of the surge over the next few months.

Q Secretary Gates, you seem to be the --

STAFF: Last question.

Q Secretary Gates, you seem to be the swing vote on the whole question of more troops or less troops. Have you heard anything today that pushed you in one direction or the other of a conclusion?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, let me be very clear about one thing. I am not the swing vote. There is only one vote that matters, and that's the president of the United States. What I'm here to do is talk to all these folks, talk to the Iraqis and see what advice I can give to the president that will help him make the decision.

Thanks.