Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I have one brief opening statement and then we can get right into your questions.

We are deeply saddened by the tragic deaths of Ecuadorian Defense Minister Guadalupe Larriva and her daughter Claudia Avila and five members of the Ecuadorian armed forces after two helicopters collided near the Eloy Alfaro Airport in Manta, Ecuador on January 24th. We stand ready to assist in the investigation of the cause of this accident if asked and our thoughts and prayers are with the families and the people of Ecuador.

And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Can you say something about the apparent smuggling attempt of enriched uranium into Georgia from Russia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. I have a couple of facts for you, George. But off the top, I think any specific questions about the -- any trials or prosecution or the specifics of the evidence and prosecution; I'd refer you to the Georgian authorities. But here's what I can tell you about our involvement in this case. In 2006, Georgian authorities requested a joint FBI Department of Energy team to help the Georgian Government look into the seizure of nuclear material and the prosecution of those that were involved.

The seized materials were brought back to the United States and this was consistent with all the safety and evidentiary controls that are needed in a prosecution of this type as well as for the safe handling of this kind of material. The FBI and DOE did an analysis in materials. They were able to confirm that it was highly enriched uranium. And those facts and not analysis were used as part of the prosecution in Georgia.

And that is really what I can offer you in terms of the U.S. involvement. I think that beyond that, any specific questions about the case, the Georgian authorities are probably in the best position to handle.

QUESTION: Russian officials are described as not being very forthcoming on this. Do you think they should be willing to show more cooperation than they have?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we do have an initial -- that was actually just recently started up in terms of preventing nuclear terrorism, nuclear smuggling with the Russian Government. And I can tell you we have good cooperation with the government -- Russian Government in that venue. I think it really is incumbent upon all states if they have information that might pertain to the smuggling of these kinds of extremely dangerous materials, that they should offer up that information. The forum and particular venue in which they do that I think is up to them. But I think as a bedrock principle that it is important that we do develop the kind of mechanisms and operating principles that encourage the sharing of this kind of information. These are very dangerous materials and falling into the wrong hands can be put to use that would harm innocent civilian populations.

Mr. Gollust.

QUESTION: It kind of begs to question is there -- are you concerned that this was a sample size? Are you concerned that there are larger amounts of this material that are loose?

MR. MCCORMACK: Dave, I can't say. What you do know is that there was some small amount that was part of this prosecution. And certainly if there's a small amount, you have to be concerned that potentially individuals might have access to larger amounts. Now, I can't tell you that for certain, but certainly you must be concerned about that. And I think that we would -- we all have to be vigilant to make sure that there aren't these sort of smuggling attempts with larger amounts. It could lead to real tragedy.

Lambros.

QUESTION: On Greece, Mr. McCormack.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Anything to say about the unknown terrorist organization which is using Greek language announcement has taken the responsibility for the attack against your Ambassador in Athens, January 12th?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I can tell you what we know. We saw the same newspaper report. They apparently published a form of manifesto in a Greek language newspaper in which they said that they claim responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Embassy and said that these kinds of attacks were going to continue into the future. They were previously unknown to Greek authorities and to us as well. We are working very closely with Greek authorities on this case in order to find out who is responsible for the attack on our Embassy and to hold them responsible. We've had great cooperation from the Greek police and the Greek Government. The Greek Foreign Minister immediately after the attack came down to the Embassy and met with our Ambassador there. So we're really pleased and really happy with the kind of cooperation that we've gotten from Greek authorities on this and we're going to continue to remain engaged with them.

Somebody want to get their phone?

QUESTION: That's mine. Of course.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, Lambros. (Laughter.) You're the culprit. I was answering your question. (Laughter.) Yeah. That's okay. (Laughter.) No more -- you don't get any more questions, Lambros.

QUESTION: Do you have any result on your investigation so far about the provoked attacks since the FBI told me twice, Mr. McCormack, that only the Department of State is in charge?

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't -- I don't have any more information for you, Lambros.

QUESTION: And the last one. Do you have any information which you could share with us from the serious (inaudible) in Athens to this attack?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, (inaudible) violence is taking place or still taking place right now?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we would appeal for calm -- and I've seen certainly on the TV screens and the press reports about the violence that has broken out at one of the universities there. I can't pinpoint for you the origins of this violence, but the initial reporting from our folks on the ground seem -- would indicate that this is an outgrowth of the political tensions that we're seeing within Lebanon today. I understand that there was a loss of life and that's tragic.

Again, I can't pinpoint for you who started this or exactly the motivations behind it, but what you -- it is fair to say that there are certain irresponsible parties in Lebanon who have been provoking an atmosphere of confrontation and antagonism within the political system. And the links between those individuals and groups and outside entities are well known and they have been engaged in a cynical manipulation of public perceptions in the political process.

And I do think it is fair to say that those attempts at cynical manipulation of the political process certainly have had an effect on the overall atmosphere in Lebanon and I think it is fair to say likely played a role in these kinds of tensions that you're seeing manifested at -- today in Beirut and at the university.

QUESTION: Could it affect the results of Paris-3 conference?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think what it underscores is the fact that we and the international system stand behind those who are implementing -- proposing and implementing the political and economic reforms that it is going -- that are going to make Lebanon a more democratic, prosperous country. And we stand with those people.

It's well known who is on the other side of that fence, those individuals who are ready to use violence, use extremism to whip up emotions within the Lebanese political process in ways that are unproductive and detrimental to Lebanon and to the Lebanese people.

QUESTION: Sean, do you think that weakened Siniora inside Lebanon, just as he's getting all this international support, to have the violence on the streets? Has that weakened him at home politically?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't do a political analysis for you, but what it -- I guess -- I don't know what the intended effects of this violence were. Again, I can't tell you what the motivations were behind it, but the reaction from the international community is that we stand with the Siniora government and the Lebanese people who are fighting for a better, more democratic, prosperous Lebanon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you think that this money, this $7 billion or so that's been pledged will somehow help the political situation there? Is that your wish that it will somehow embolden the Siniora government and improve his standing within his own people in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, he -- his standing with his own people in Lebanon is quite strong, it would appear. The money is intended -- there is a twofold effect here. One, there are very real, practical effects in terms of budget, support, reconstruction, security assistance. So those are very, very real, tangible effects. But the other effect is an expression of political and diplomatic support for the Siniora government by the international system. And what that is intended to do is intended to support the forces of freedom, democracy, and reform in Lebanon and Prime Minister Siniora is at the lead of those -- at those forces. So the net effect is to strengthen Prime Minister Siniora, I believe, within Lebanon.

QUESTION: But with all of this political turmoil, you have been speaking about seeing various companies that are interested in investing. How are you going to encourage investor confidence in Lebanon when the political situation is so unstable? You have -- you know, riots on the streets, people being killed. It's a very difficult situation.

MR. MCCORMACK: It is a difficult situation and it's an important moment in Lebanon's history, but you have private sector individuals, hard-nosed businessmen who take a look at the situation in Lebanon and say, "We are going to invest in Lebanon." You have countries like -- companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Occidental Petroleum, who say that, despite some of the political turmoil in Lebanon right now, we are making a bet on Lebanon and Lebanon's political future. And -- but that is that the Lebanese people are going to succeed in overcoming the forces of violent extremism and oppression in that country. Now, it's not to say that that is going to be an easy task. The Siniora government and those forces for freedom and democracy in Lebanon need support. They need support from the international community and you just saw a very strong tangible demonstration of that today, not only from governments around the world, but also the private sector, as well.

QUESTION: How much did the private sector put forward? Do you have a number or is it just promises?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have a specific number. There was the $150 million OPIC facility that was worked with Citigroup.

QUESTION: Is that a loan guarantee or something?

MR. MCCORMACK: The -- you can check with OPIC as to the term of art that is associated with that. I don't want to get in cross wires with the bankers. But it is a tangible demonstration of support for Lebanon.

QUESTION: Sean, are you confident in the stability of Siniora's government? You said his standing is quite strong? I know there were some concerns awhile back about his government being toppled. Are you guys confident that he can stay in power?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're confident that he has been a tenacious advocate for freedom and political reform in Lebanon and we are going to continue to support him. We believe that he has the support of large swaths of the Lebanese population, despite the best efforts of countries like Syria and Iran and their proxies, Hezbollah, the Siniora government has continued to govern in the face of difficult challenges by those groups, by those countries who want to turn the clock back in Lebanon. And Prime Minister Siniora I think has earned the respect of other leaders around the world and that respect has manifested itself today in Paris with the donations that you've seen.

QUESTION: Could I just -- one more, just --

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean, do you still have concerns though, first as against him toppling his government?

MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly we are concerned that those who want to turn the clock back. And it's our job as an international system to do everything that we possibly can to see that that does not happen, that the role of the Lebanese people for economic political reform and a better day for Lebanon to succeed.

QUESTION: But, can I --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Go ahead, Charlie.

QUESTION: Well, I want to follow up on part of it which is that earlier you made a comment to irresponsible parties --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- in talking about today's activities.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And you didn't name anybody in particular. And just now in answer to the last question you mentioned Syria, Hezbollah. Do you include the Government of Syria in terms of irresponsible parties in today's activities?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm trying to make a -- excuse me -- a settle point and that is that I can't tell you exactly who is responsible for fomenting the violence at the university today in Beirut. But what I'm trying to indicate is that the atmosphere that allowed that to move forward was created by those parties like Hezbollah and their outside supporters, Iran and Syria. They have created an atmosphere of political tension in Lebanon where they have directly challenge the role of the Lebanese people for political and economic reform and for freeing the Lebanese people and their country from the oppression that they lived with for 20 years during Syrian occupation. So that's -- I'm trying to get at the point, they have created this atmosphere in which these kinds of political tensions have now begun to manifest themselves in violence in the streets.

Yeah, Elise.

QUESTION: Sean, you have the violence on the streets which seems much more of an urgent, immediate problem than the money that you're pledging today is ultimately for long term reconstruction to help the government with the debt problems, strengthen its hand on the government. But I mean, how can you help with the situation that's on the ground today to prevent it from overtaking the kind of seeds that you're sowing right now for the long term stability of it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in the immediate term, it's the Lebanese security forces that are going to have to deal with the current tensions and the Lebanese political leadership. Now, I understand that across the board, the political leadership has called for calm in Lebanon and certainly that is an important action. But in the immediate term, it is going to have to be the Lebanese that deal with the violence that you're seeing in Beirut.

QUESTION: Three or four months ago, the -- maybe a bit longer - the White House and yourself issued, this is to follow on from Libby's question --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- issued a very strong statement saying that you feared for Siniora's -- Prime Minister Siniora's life and that there were forces working to get him, basically. Do you still stand by that statement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the situation still the same or is it even more dire than when you --

MR. MCCORMACK: It hasn't -- I can't tell you if it's anymore dire at the moment. But certainly, there are forces that want to stop progress towards a free democratic prosperous Lebanon. We've seen that. We've seen them assassinate and attempt to kill numerous individuals. They succeeded in killing a former prime minister. They succeeded in killing people like Pierre Gemayel. And we have no reason to believe that that threat has abated in any way. It is I suspect that that threat will continue while those forces that are responsible for violent actions feel threatened by things like UN Security Council Resolution 1559, 1701 and the International Tribunal that is going to bring to justice those responsible for the murder for former Prime Minister Hariri. So as long as those -- I would suggest to you, as long as those threats remain to those individuals who are responsible for this violence, then the threat of violence will likely continue.

QUESTION: But do you think it was a good idea for him to leave his country at this time to go to Paris? I mean, doesn't the threat that -- of him being out of the country that things could become even more difficult for him?

MR. MCCORMACK: He's the head of government. He has to be able to represent the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese people. And we think that it is absolutely appropriate and right for him to represent Lebanon and a hopeful future for Lebanon in Paris today.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, how does the U.S. read reports that Saudi Arabia and Iran are basically intensifying efforts to broker a solution in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look. If we are regional actors who want to play a positive role in Lebanon in trying to help the Lebanese reach the political accommodations that they need to reach in order to move their political process forward, then certainly, that is positive. Amr Mussa has made very, very public efforts in that regard. He has briefed Secretary Rice on those efforts, so we're fully cognizant of those.

If there are other efforts, then certainly, that would be positive as long as they are welcomed by the Lebanese Government. What would be of great concern to us as well as others would be any attempts to negotiate or broker solutions over the head of the Lebanese people and not with the full consent and participation of the Siniora government.

QUESTION: Has the Saudi Arabian authorities been keeping you -- keeping the United States informed about such diplomatic efforts?

MR. MCCORMACK: They can speak for themselves about what they may or may not be involved in.

Yes.

QUESTION: Switch topics to North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Lebanon --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, we'll go with North Korea.

QUESTION: No, she had Lebanon.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, you had Lebanon -- oh, Lebanon, then we'll come back, sure.

QUESTION: Are you going to see any positive action to come from Iran regarding the Hezbollah in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Have we seen anything?

QUESTION: Are you -- do you expect anything like that?

MR. MCCORMACK: They have, over the past 20 years or so --

QUESTION: No, any positive action?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let me just -- let me put it in historical context for you. They -- Iran helped create Hezbollah and they have continued to support Hezbollah during the 20-plus years that they helped create it. And I don't, at this point, see any intention on the Iranians' part, at least any sort of public intention, to try to play a more positive role via Hezbollah in Lebanon's future.

Yes.

QUESTION: North Korea, we've heard all sorts of bluster dismissing these allegations that the UNDP funds have been diverted. They're saying it's a smear campaign, a plot that the UN operations are being conducted in a transparent manner. Can you react to that at all to what they're saying, the claims they're making?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, this is not a U.S.-North Korean issue. This is -- this has to do with the UN and good management and oversight practices of UN monies and UN programs. And that's how Secretary -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has framed the issue. That's how we see the issue. He has ordered a review worldwide of UN programs, so this is about management and oversight practices. This is not about the U.S. and North Korea.

QUESTION: And could you tell me when the State Department was first aware that there was a problem here or there could be problems?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that this has been an issue that got people's attention over the past several months. I can't tell you exactly how far back it extends. It's not limited to the United States either.

QUESTION: What about the Secretary herself? What was her initial response?

MR. MCCORMACK: She, of course, wants to make sure that UN programs, including UNDP programs, are properly administered and that there's good oversight and that the money that you allocate to those programs and reaches those who are intended to benefit from them. That's her general attitude. I haven't spoken to her specifically about this particular case.

QUESTION: I understand it's in the hands, very much in the hands of the UN.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But North Korea is acting as if they're very insulted. Did this have any potential to derail the next round of six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: It shouldn't. It shouldn't. Again, as I said, this has to do with UN management and oversight.

Yeah, Elise.

QUESTION: This follows on a topic we discussed earlier this week about President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Now Mr. Rafsanjani, the former president, is -- looks to be taking over some more of the nuclear issue, meeting with British officials, saying that Iran is ready to have full verification of its nuclear programs, things like that. Do you see an opening here and do you think that this signals that President Ahmadinejad is being increasingly isolated? And is that -- do you have --

MR. MCCORMACK: Hard to say, hard to say. The internal dynamics of Iranian politics at the top level of the Iranian regime is pretty opaque. I couldn't tell you what the intentions of various actors within that system are. But one thing you can say, just looking at the public reports, press reports, is that there is now a debate about the stance of the Ahmadinejad government on the nuclear issue that has broken out into the public.

There was, for quite some time, some suspicion that that debate was taking place behind closed doors, but now it's broken out into the public, which is certainly interesting. Now where that debate will lead to, I can't tell you and I can't -- certainly can't speak to the motivations of various actors like Rafsanjani or others who might be involved in that debate. It's fine for people to express intentions and good will, but what the Iranians need to do now is to act and they need to do so in tangible ways that meet the conditions that have been laid out for them by the Security Council as well as the IAEA. Thus far we haven't seen anything that comes close to meeting those standards.

QUESTION: But the fact that new players seem to be involved and seem to be opening a door that Ahmadinejad closed, does that give you some optimism that there might be an opening here?

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, you know, words are great, but what you need are actions. The door has been opened by the international system for the Iranian regime and we'll see if they walk through it. Thus far, they have given no indication that they are going to.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, is the Secretary planning to pledge any more financial support for Afghanistan when she -- well, she's already out there in Brussels by now, maybe soon will be, but tomorrow there is a meeting at NATO.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: What kind of support is she planning to announce for Afghanistan?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're going to see some very substantial pledges on the part of the United States, both for reconstruction support as well as for military training and equipping of the Afghan army. So you're going to see a substantial number that the Secretary is going to propose. Now I have to point out that this is just a proposal because the supplemental budget request has yet to be submitted to the Congress, so I want to make clear that this is a proposal, not a firm pledge that all of that money is going to be forthcoming. We certainly intend that it will be, but Congress has a say in this.

QUESTION: You're talking about a '07 budget.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, a '07 supplemental

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Request, right. So this is going to be a very substantial amount that she talks about tomorrow.

QUESTION: Sean, can you talk a little bit about the review that -- I guess there's been a review going on of Afghanistan policy within the Administration? Can you talk about that a little bit and what's sort of the state of play is over there, what you think Afghanistan needs from our government?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the review was begun -- I can't tell you exactly when -- it's been ongoing for several months. And what senior policymakers wanted people to do is take a look at what has worked in Afghanistan, what are we doing right. And in areas where we need to improve, what is it that we need to do to improve our efforts with the eye to -- how can we help the Afghan people and the Afghan Government succeed? There are real challenges to that success, namely the Taliban as well as terrorist groups that are seeking to take that country back to where they were three, four, five years ago.

So the assistance that we are going to propose is intended to focus on a few key areas: Afghan reconstruction; helping with the building of roads. This is terribly important in Afghanistan. It is critical in a couple of respects: the practical effect of people being able to move around more easily in Afghanistan; the very practical effect of the farmers being able to get their goods to market. For example, Afghanistan could be a real producer of various types of agricultural products, but some of those are perishable and by the time -- with the current road system, by the time you get those goods to market, they're no good, they're spoiled. And therefore, farmers who might otherwise be involved in that kind of agricultural production might look elsewhere -- look to ally themselves with other kinds of forces, so roads are very important. Basic infrastructure, electricity grid, irrigation, also all this goes hand in hand with our counternarcotic strategy to make sure that the people of Afghanistan are involved in activities that help build up a legitimate economy in Afghanistan as opposed to being involved in the production of illicit narcotics.

There is also the other part to the assistance pledge is going to be helping to train and equip Afghanistan's national security forces. I think the bulk of this looking to expand the capabilities of the Afghan army and the police forces. They've made real strides in putting together their security forces, but they're going to need some help. The Afghans want to take over responsibility for being able to secure their country. Right now they can't do it by themselves. We're there to help. NATO is there to help. And there are serious challenges to the Afghan Government, especially in that southern region where NATO is operating. So part of this -- what this is intended to do is to help reinforce the successes that we have had in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: What do you make of these reports that Pakistani intelligence services are actually contributing to the rise of the Taliban again?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I can't -- this has been a continuing issue and certainly the Afghan Government has some strong feelings about it. We have -- what we have been trying to do -- we first and then NATO -- is try to bring the Afghans and the Pakistanis together to work on security issues along that border region. The forces that threaten Afghanistan also could pose a potential threat to Pakistan as well, so there's a real mutual interest there. A stable Afghanistan, a stable, prosperous Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan as well as the rest of the region and vice versa. So there -- you've seen in public, there have been tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan on this issue. They have put in place at least the groundwork for better cooperation to get after that security issue along the border region, they need to build on that. They also need to make more effective their cooperation and there are two sides to this. So what we are doing here is trying to help with the Afghan side of this and to, like I said, help them succeed beyond where they have been able to succeed thus far.

George.

QUESTION: Could you be a little bit more definitive on the numbers attached to the -- both the reconstruction and the military side? What do you have in mind?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to get ahead of my boss in terms of making those announcements. It'll be pretty -- it'll be substantial. I've seen press reports out there of multiple billions of dollars and I think those are in the right neighborhood.

QUESTION: Could you also say why, so many years after the Taliban was driven out, the opium poppy production is so high?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not an expert in this, George, but there are a number of different reasons, I talked a little bit about them, is you had -- Afghanistan, prior to the overthrow of the Taliban regime, had a very, very rudimentary economy and Afghanistan is not a place that has a lot of natural resources. So what you are trying to do is not necessarily rebuild Afghanistan; you're actually trying to help the Afghans build Afghanistan so that it is a state that is fully integrated with the modern international system.

And as a result, because you have a number of these shortcomings in terms of infrastructure, people are seeking to spend their time in, what we would view, less productive ways and counterproductive ways. For example, you mentioned growth and production of illegal narcotics, poppies. And what we are trying to do is encourage those individuals who may be tempted to spend their time cultivating poppies and to instead engage in other kinds of activities. You don't want to build an Afghan economy that is built on foreign aid and illicit narcotics production. That is not good for Afghanistan, nor the Afghan people, nor the international system.

So I think that the short answer to your question is the roots of this are in Afghanistan's -- the lack of development in Afghanistan and the particular historical circumstances of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Don't you have to move aggressively against it, the way you're doing it in Colombia with the eradication?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there is a lot of discussion about that. There are a lot of different techniques that you can employ to get after the narcotics production. You can have spraying, you can have manual eradication, you can have mechanical eradication. And President Karzai and his government obviously have a big say in this and we want to respect the fact that they are a sovereign government. We can offer our best advice and -- but ultimately, these decisions are up to President Karzai.

The bottom line is everybody wants this to be effective. President Karzai understands that getting after the production of illicit narcotics in Afghanistan is in the interest of his government and the interest of the Afghan people, so we're going to do what we can to stand with President Karzai and the Afghan people. Part of the money that Secretary Rice is going to propose tomorrow is intended to help with counternarcotics, so we're going to remain deeply involved in those efforts, as are other interested actors in the international community.

Kirit.

QUESTION: Are there any parts of the strategic review that are specifically designed to expand the reach of the Karzai government and to cement his support with Afghanistan?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what you want to do is you want to cement the democratic system in Afghanistan. You have it at the federal system, you want to get it down more and more to the provincial as well as the local levels. Now again, you're building on the existing social political structures in Afghanistan, but you want to formalize those and help the Afghans build those institutions at those lower -- at the grass roots level. So that's part of what these funds are intended to do as well.

And part of -- and when you have the construction of infrastructure at those regional as well as local levels, that helps reinforce those fledgling institutions at the local and regional level as well.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility that the Afghan model can be used in Iraq? In the near future is more (inaudible) involvement possible for security reasons and rebuilding Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you have -- I'll let the folks on the ground in each of those places speak to the specifics, but very generally, you do have a counterinsurgency approach in which you have to take on those forces that are seeking to destabilize the country; in the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban and in the case of Iraq, multiple actors.

And there is a military component to that counterinsurgency strategy, there is a political component, and a reconstruction/development component and they all have to work together. And you will see, when Secretary Rice talks about this tomorrow, that that is present certainly in the -- in our Afghan strategy and you heard from President Bush and it's very clear that that's at the core of our Iraq strategy as well.

So I think certainly, in general terms, there are commonalities in approach. You have to tailor those to the specific circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan and I'll let others speak to the commonalities at a more specific level, but certainly at a general level, yes, there are some common approaches.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Again --

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: You have mentioned expanding the Afghan army and police, do you have specific numbers or a percentage increase in mind?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll talk a little bit more in detail about that in the coming days.

QUESTION: Do you have an announcement yet on Bob Joseph, when he's going to be leaving, why he's leaving? And simply by my count, I think there are about five senior positions that are open and does this hinder your diplomacy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we -- Bob has submitted a letter of resignation. We can make that available to you after the briefing. I'll let his letter speak to the reasons for his leaving, but I would suggest to you that we're six years into the Bush Administration and Bob, for example, has been with President Bush and Secretary Rice for nearly all of those six years.

And these jobs are demanding in many, many different ways. And so you are going to start to see some people, after six years, take leave and return to different endeavors. In the case of Bob, Secretary Rice has the greatest respect for Bob personally as well as professionally. He has been an important voice in the Administration's policymaking on nonproliferation as well as other matters.

He is -- the President proposed it, but I think Bob is -- I'll take some liberty, Bob is the godfather of the Proliferation Security Initiative. He really was the driving intellectual force behind that and we -- certainly, we in the Administration wish Bob all the best. And he's going to be -- the Secretary would like to find ways to draw upon his expertise and his experience in the coming two years, so we're going to see what we can do in that regard.

QUESTION: And what about the other five spots, roughly, that are missing? Is that affecting your diplomacy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in each of those five spots, each of those individuals had different and unique reason for leaving. Ambassador Negroponte has been nominated to take the job of Deputy Secretary of State. I believe he has a confirmation hearing next week. And we are moving forward in filling each of the other remaining positions. The personnel process grinds forward relatively slowly. That's certainly not a slight on people involved in that process, because there are reasons why this process is very careful and methodical. It's the right way to do things.

And for each of the remaining positions they're at a different point in that personnel process. So I would hope in the coming days and weeks you're going to hear more about nominations to fill those other positions. In the short term you have people who are stepping up and backstopping on various issues that were -- that are handled by the bureaus in which you have people leaving. Over the long term we're certainly confident that we're going to get good strong people to replace those who have left. And in the meantime, we have some very good people who are filling in.

QUESTION: There have been some commentators like Robert Novak a couple of weeks ago wrote a column under the headline "The Mess at State," saying that the State Department was very slow in filling positions and that this was jeopardizing the work that you were doing. I wonder whether you --

MR. MCCORMACK: Just ridiculous. Sorry. Secretary Rice, as evidenced by the nomination of John Negroponte, wanted to find good strong people to fill these positions. There -- when you get to the senior most positions, there's a relatively small pool of people who you want to have in those jobs. You want to have good qualified people with solid experience who are going to be able to work within the policymaking process of this Administration. And she has done that and we are going to do that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, do you know the reason for which your coordinator on counterterrorism, Mr. Hill, comes from is leaving the office after two years only in service? Who's going to replace him?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, it's -- I think it's a part of Sue's question. We're going to have somebody fill that position and we're actively looking at who the best candid is to do that.

QUESTION: And on Turkey, may I go to Turkey?

MR. MCCORMACK: Do you have your cell phone turned off? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I'm closing the door. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused in this press room.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's okay. It's okay.

QUESTION: According to a report the Turkish army has gathered its forces in southeast of Turkey ready for an invasion of Northern Iraq. They've used the Kurdish people, something has provoked already a reaction from the Iraqi Government. Any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: General Ralston, our special envoy on this issue is working very closely with the Iraqi Government and the Turkish Governments. We want to find a way to address Turkey's legitimate concerns about terrorism from the -- emanating from the PKK. So we're working on ways that are constructive, both for Turkey and for Iraq to resolve the -- any concerns that might exist on both sides of the border.

QUESTION: One more question.

QUESTION: You don't want to confirm any buildup?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, you can talk to the Turkish military about that.

QUESTION: One more question. A car bomb exploded in Kirkuk, killing 10 Turkomen and the Iraqi Turkomen Front claim that the bombing was the provocation as a part of a plan to annex the city to the Iraq-Kurdistan region. Any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: The issue of Kirkuk is addressed in the Iraqi constitution and the Iraqis have a process that -- by which they are going to address the status of Kirkuk. It's a thorny issue. It's admittedly a very tough issue. But it's going to be the Iraqis who have to deal with the solution, whatever that may be.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:25 p.m.)