Brussels, Belgium 4 Oct. 2006

Weekly press briefing by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai Multimedia Audio file of the briefing (.MP3/18.181Kb) JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Thank you for coming. We've a relatively small turnout today for reasons to do with, I think, the fact that there's not necessarily anything great for me to announce today, but also because of the EU Defence Ministers' Meeting and a lot of people are just on their way back from there. Let me give you a quick update on a few issues. We'll make it short and sweet today and I'm happy to take your questions, of course, at the end. Afghanistan , let me confirm that of course tomorrow is the day for transfer of authority for the forces that are in the east from the Coalition to NATO. NATO will therefore complete the expansion of its mission to the east. There will be, at that point, some 32,000 to 33,000 troops under NATO command in Afghanistan , and some 25 Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Remember that these numbers will change as time goes on. That's a snapshot of the situation for tomorrow. In political terms what it means, or what it indicates, is A, the ongoing progress in the operation, that is meeting its mandate from the United Nations to conduct operations throughout the country in support of the Afghan government and to create the conditions for reconstruction and development. So we are meeting, as I say, this United Nations mandate to provide these operations throughout the country. I think it is also important to note, and it is particularly important in the Afghan context, to note that with the U.S. bringing some 12,000 troops under NATO command it is an illustration, or demonstration of continuing U.S. commitment and engagement in Afghanistan, both through the NATO framework, and of course with Coalition operations, both in terms of counterterror and training missions, which will continue. So there should be no doubt of the continuing U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and to the NATO mission. So that was the point I wanted to make on that. Second point, let me turn to Portoroz, the Defence Ministers' Meeting and give you a flavour of a read-out of the meeting, but also looking forward to the Summit . I just confirmed TOA, but you already knew that. For tomorrow. Now there were a number of issues discussed, and let me give you a flavour of where the discussions are now going, as we look forward to Riga. One principal topic was, of course, Afghanistan, and you heard, of course, not only the decision on Transfer of Authority, but also the agreement amongst NATO nations to immediately, or as soon as possible, being providing equipment to the Afghan National Army. And many countries around the table made specific commitments for equipment provision. I will leave it up to them to provide these offers centred around small arms and ammunition, many thousands of small arms, many millions of rounds of ammunition, which NATO countries will provide to the Afghan armed forces. There was also discussion around the table of the importance of closer cooperation between NATO and other international organizations and the Afghan government. In particular in the field, and I can tell you that the Secretary General's representative, the Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan, Daan Everts, has already stepped up his efforts in Afghanistan to participate in that improved cooperation. On Kosovo there was the beginnings of a discussion of a post status role for NATO in Kosovo. And to my understanding that was the first time that there's been a ministerial discussion of what role NATO might play, looking forward to the conclusions that President Ahtisaari will bring forward when he brings them forward, and what role NATO might play subsequent to that. There was, of course, discussion of the NATO Response Force; not only looking towards full operational capability for Riga, but also the longer term measures to ensure its effectiveness, in particular two issues. One, to set up a long-term rotation for what we call force generation. In other words, to have a long-term horizon for commitments to the NATO Response Force so countries have predictability in their planning. And also to look at the funding for, in particular short notice deployments of the NRF, and of course, also simply of airlift requirements for immediate needs. That discussion is ongoing, but I think it has certainly moved forward in a positive way, in Portoroz. There were discussion and general support around the table for the many initiatives on capabilities, which are being discussed in NATO. You have seen progress on airlift, the C-17 initiative. You have seen progress on missile defence progress in moving forward to set up a test bed for theatre missile defence, where NATO's deployed forces. Their issues are under discussion, including air-to-ground surveillance. I think I saw a nice piece by either Nick or Brooks on that subject in the last little while. So, again, support for these initiatives, and I think recognition of progress, as we look towards Riga. Partnerships. There were two main thrusts to the discussion. One was a shared perspective to strengthen and focus the EAPC, so the existing partnerships in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, to see how we can do better in those partnerships, and in particular, as I say, to focus them, to focus the EAPC on the requirements of individual countries, individual regions, or around individual issues. No decisions taken, but as we look towards Riga , I think that will be a focus. And second, to look at setting up more flexible formats for working more closely with countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic area, the Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, potentially as well. So we will see where that goes. Let me turn to a third point, and that is that the Secretary General and then the entire North Atlantic Council today, met with the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan. Tokayev, I believe, is the way to pronounce his name. It was a very good meeting. The Foreign Minister and the Secretary General discussed Afghanistan quite extensively in their meetings. Kazakhstan , of course, has an interest in what takes place in Afghanistan. We are working closely with Kazakhstan, for example, through their individual Partnership Action Plan, but there was a long discussion of the regional security situation in Central Asia, and how all of the countries, including Kazakhstan, can work more closely with each other, but also with NATO in support of Afghanistan. And really, Kazakhstan has been very forthcoming in trying to provide support to President Karzai and to Afghanistan more generally. Sintra. There will be tomorrow high level NATO-Ukraine consultations in Sintra, in Portugal . The Secretary General will travel there. He will chair the fifth Informal High-Level NATO-Ukraine consultations. There will be participation of Defence Ministers and other senior officials from Ukraine and NATO countries. I cannot for the moment which Defence Ministers will show up because I simply don’t know. The conference is co-organized by NATO and the Portuguese Atlantic Committee. Participants will discuss, amongst other things, progress in implementing Ukraine 's defence and security sector reforms and broad approaches to security in the 21st Century. His Excellency Mr. Lech Walesa, which whom you are all familiar, former President of Poland, Nobel Prize Laureate, will also be there. He will deliver a keynote speech at the meeting. On the margins of the conference, the Secretary General will preside over the signing of a Letter of Intent for Nations Expressing their Support for the NATO-Ukraine Partnership Network for Civil Society Expertise Development. It's a nice title. It will be endorsed by a group of NATO allies in Ukraine. In essence, it is not a NATO initiative, but an initiative endorsed by NATO to help to promote civil society in Ukraine , which we consider to be, of course, a very important element of any country's democratic development. Monday, there will be a NAC PSC at NATO. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be present at the meeting and participate in it. There will be, of course, a discussion of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would not be surprised if there would be a political discussion amongst the many ambassadors present there, and the Secretary General, the High Rep, and Mr. Schwarz-Schilling on the elections that have just taken place and the results of which I think remain to be confirmed. That was everything I wanted to mention to you. I'm happy to take your questions.... Q: Maybe you've noticed Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday outlined the chain of events which in his view led to the Georgia-Russia crisis. And that chain of events was in particular the visit of President Saakashvili to Washington, then NATO decision to increase the cooperation with Georgia, and then the arrest of Russian officers, and he connected it tightly to... one to each other. How could you comment on this? APPATHURAI: NATO's perspective is that there is no link and no link should be seen between Intensified Dialogue between Georgia and NATO and the events that we've seen over the past few days. NATO is certainly not playing an active role in this immediate crisis, but you know that the Secretary General has called in Portoroz, for all parties to lower tensions, de-escalate the situation, and he asked his Assistant Secretary General to speak to the Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister in that regard, and that was done. He, and NATO, welcome the release of the Russians that had been detained. Also welcome the decision by Russia to continue meeting its Istanbul commitments that it had on the withdrawal of its bases from Georgia. And hope for the sanctions to be lifted as quickly as possible. Q: Concerning today's visit, Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan, have you discussed something about assistance to mission... NATO mission in Afghanistan? I mean, in particular what kind of cooperation was discussed in the framework of action plan? I mean, if something concrete things. And another question, why the intelligence will be looked through, in Sintra, I mean. Those committee, certain(?) committee on the civil control of intelligence will be considered in your official statement, it was mentioned. Why this particular topic is on agenda? APPATHURAI: Yes, to answer the first question, obviously I cannot go too much into the specifics of the Individual Partnership Action Plan. What I can say is that Kazakhstan is one of the most active members, certainly of the region, in its cooperation with NATO. We focus on two things and you're not surprised: political dialogue and practical cooperation, where we can provide support. The tone around the table was very positive. Cooperation is going well. Of course, the full range of issues are discussed, both practical and political, and they were all discussed around the table, but I couldn't go into any more specifics. Let me specify what this is. It's a NATO-Ukraine, I repeat the title, Partnership Network--you probably know it--for Civil Society Expertise Development. This is, of course, something which the representatives from Ukraine wish to carry forward. It is endorsed by the government of Ukraine , as well as certain NATO allies, so it is entirely uncontroversial. And I think the logic of it is clear, as I mentioned, and I certainly speak as a Canadian, we invest heavily in civil society because we think that that is a very effective instrument of democracy. And NATO hopes to support it, or NATO partners wish to support it. Q: ...another topic. In your official, you know, announcement, about the Sintra event it was mentioned that in the second part of the day it will be endorsed, a commission on the civil control, on the... APPATHURAI: Civil control of the intelligence network. Q: Yeah. APPATHURAI: Indeed. Q: So why intelligence? This is subject of concern? APPATHURAI: Well, I think it's a subject of interest and the second thing that will be discussed there, there will be an inaugural meeting of a NATO-Ukraine Working Group on Civil and Democratic Control of the Intelligence Sector. It is, of course, an issue of interest. And again, I should stress it's an issue of interest to the Ukrainian government. It is the Ukrainian government that wishes to work on NATO on this subject, and we have an expertise to offer on this subject. As you are well aware some of the newer NATO countries have also gone through a transition process, whereby they focused on this and we have quite a bit of expertise in NATO on how to improve precisely the civil and democratic control over the intelligence sector. So at the request of the Ukrainian government, with our full support, we're concentrating on that as well. I think Brooks was next and then... Q: Just a couple of questions on Kosovo. I mean, other than keeping an eye on events in the north as they transition to the independent status, I mean, what role would there be for Kosovo other than... for KFOR, other than what it's doing right now? And secondly, what are the implications for the size of the force? APPATHURAI: Good questions. And all of these details have to be worked out, you understand. I don't want to prejudge in any way that President Ahtisaari will conclude in his discussions... or in his deliberations. You know now that NATO has stepped up its patrols in the north in the immediate sense, but throughout Kosovo. We are working more closely with the police and with the authorities in Kosovo, as well as with the UN, to ensure that we do the maximum to ensure a stable environment. What role might NATO play afterwards? I think there is a general sense that NATO will have an enduring presence, but what that presence will be, whether it will change in size, whether it might have, for example, a training element to it, for any new... and again, I'm now speculating, for any new potential security structures, all of that remains to be determined. President Ahtisaari must make the first step before we can decide what the form and size of NATO's support will be. Sorry to waffle, but it just simply is not yet clear. Q: No one doubts that NATO will... that it will continue under the NATO flag. It's not going to be the UN or anyone. APPATHURAI: That's correct. Q: But if it's principally training you don't need that many troops to train such a small territory's forces. Doesn't this argue for shifting troops over to Afghanistan where they might be needed, or other places in the world? APPATHURAI: Well, I guess I didn't say principally training. I just said a training role might be considered. But I really don't know whether or not... President Ahtisaari might come back and say keep it exactly as it is. He might say change it... I recommend you change it totally. It is totally open, and it is totally open for him to make a recommendation and I don't want to prejudge that. Sorry, we're just not there yet. Q: James, will now the situation, the crisis between Russia and Georgia , intensify already existing Intensified Dialogue between NATO and Georgia, and is it possible that it will create a shortcut to Georgia into NATO? APPATHURAI: to answer the second question, there are no shortcuts into NATO. NATO has its standards that must be met. There are many countries that, as you know, have worked for many years to try to meet those standards. So first point, no shortcuts into NATO. Will it intensify our dialogue? Well, in fact, we took the decision to intensify dialogue before the crisis began, and this will give us no reason to diminish it. Let's put it that way. We will continue these discussions. We have a special representative for the Caucasus in Central Asia , Bob Simmons, Ambassador Simmons, and he, of course, will continue his discussion there. But the decision to take Intensified Dialogue preceded this. But this will certainly not shortcut anybody's accession to NATO, any country's accession to NATO. Q: In Slovenia, was Alliance ground surveillance actually discussed and also theatre missile defence? And then these possibilities for the future of Kosovo, was that also part of the discussions in Slovenia, or has that preceded that? APPATHURAI: Again, to answer the second question first, there was a general discussion amongst the Defence Ministers of the need to look forward to now the conclusion of the status process and the role that NATO might play. But without specific discussion of options, precisely for the reasons that I mentioned to Brooks, they're waiting to see what President Ahtisaari would propose. In terms of AGS and missile defence, these issues were raised, were discussed. Not in any extensive detail, but they were certainly discussed as Defence Ministers should discuss major capability initiatives within NATO. Q: I have several questions. First of all, about the NRF. You said that NRF will be up and running in October. Do you have details on, for instance, the total number of the troops and for instance, which country's the biggest contributor of troops? Secondly, about Kazakhstan, you said that Kazakhstan is the most active player in Central Asia in cooperation with NATO, but Kazakhstan is also at the same time a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Do you see any conflict in the two roles? APPATHURAI: In terms of the Kazakhstan issue Minister Tokayev spoke with the Secretary General, indeed, on the SCO and stressed that there was no issue of competition and no one should ascribe any competition to the two organizations... between the two organizations. For his part the Secretary General stressed that he, too, saw absolutely no competition between the two organizations or between NATO and any other party in that region. So they were very clear on this subject. Just to be clear, I said one of the most active, not the most active. I think it would be hard to assess that. In terms of details on the NRF, let's wait a little while, because we are getting closer to the time where full operational capability, I believe and hope, will be declared. But there are still some shortfalls to be met, and the Supreme Allied Command is working with nations. We will have a complete picture in a few weeks of where we are, that would be the appropriate time to discuss it. Q: James, about Afghanistan, how is the Transfer of Authority going to happen? Is it going to be a ceremony? Are they all going to change their badges at the same time and sing an anthem, or, you know, and say, hey, now we're ISAF? And another question, when this means... the transfer means that there are going to be 12,000 troops less persecuting terrorists in Afghanistan . At a moment when there seems to be more terrorist attacks and so on, isn't this going to give these people more leeway to move around or... you know, because the rules of engagement are different. So I just want to know this. Thank you. APPATHURAI: In terms of authority, Transfer of Authority, I believe the precise time of Transfer of Authority, though I can confirm this, is 00:00 GMT. So midnight Greenwich Mean Time. Q: Tonight? APPATHURAI: Yeah, tonight. And at that point, yes, they transfer over. There will be a ceremony and some speeches tomorrow in Afghanistan, speeches by Commander ISAF, General Eichenberry, and the Senior Civilian Representative all together. So that's what's planned. The precise time of that has not yet been determined, but we'll let you know through a media advisory, and we will send out a statement by the Secretary General at the exactly the same time. It will not be a very high profile event. This is simply an extension of the mission. But we do want to take note of it, because it is significant for a variety of reasons that you mentioned. I do not expect any diminishment in the overall effort or effectiveness in combating terrorism. There will still be a very significant U.S. force there, with a specific counterterror mission. As well as another separate, but related, Coalition force to do training. We're talking about many thousands of troops. The other point to mention is, of course, NATO is being very robust in carrying out its specific mandate. And those who are committing terrorist acts against us are being met with very robustly. I can tell you that a significant number of... the leadership of those opposing NATO, the NATO mission, were killed during Operation Medusa, so we also have had some effectiveness in addressing, let's say, the leadership behind some of the opposition to this mission. Q: (inaudible)...? APPATHURAI: That is for the operational commander to decide. I couldn't speak to it. But to make the point, these troops in the east have a mission in the east, so when and where they will be used is up to the commander, but they have a mission in the east. Ah, okay. Ten o'clock Brussels time will be the ceremony. Carmen strikes again. Q: Tomorrow. APPATHURAI: Tomorrow. She knows it all. Thanks. Q: But the transfer itself takes place before that or (inaudible)... APPATHURAI: Yes, the transfer itself takes place before that. Q: The ceremony in Kabul ? APPATHURAI: Yes. As far as I know, yes. Could be in... no, could be and it should be in Kabul . I won't confirm where it is. I will send out a media advisory and I take that under advisement. Ah, two more here. Q: Yeah, James, you know in details what kind of support Denmark on Czech Republic will provide to NATO in Afghanistan ? APPATHURAI: Well they are already providing, as you know, troops, but you're talking about what extra they might provide. Q: Yeah. APPATHURAI: Until they announce it I can't say it. Sorry to be so blunt. Q: When is dealing with the chain of command in Afghanistan , there will be the... the general command here and two generals, one for ISAF the whole country and the other, the American one for... APPATHURAI: Exactly. Q: And the first one will be the British one... (Break in Transmission)... continue. APPATHURAI: Yes, General Richards will remain as Commander ISAF. The command arrangements will not change with the expansion of the mission. They were agreed for the expansion to Stage 3. Q: (inaudible)... that was agreed in the past. APPATHURAI: Exactly. Q: And the other question was in relation with Bosnia and Herzegovina . Yesterday the European Ministers of Defence in Finland decided that (inaudible) is mature enough as to being able to retreat(?) and get some sort... some policemen back. What about our NATO operation there, because we left a small group, trying to catch up with the bodies in (inaudible)... APPATHURAI: (inaudible)... Q: Yeah. Are they going to stay. I mean... or what is the situation right now, with this issue, yeah? APPATHURAI: Good question. And I don't think I know the answer. I have not seen any decisions taken in that regard, but maybe there's something I've missed in the last week and a half so I'll check. But I have not seen any discussion in terms of eliminating altogether the NATO presence there. But there's something in my head so, let me check and I'll call you back. I take a note. Unless Carmen is watching and has some brilliant answer. (Laughs). Q: James, it's about Japan or Australia , etc. You said set more flexible something, I couldn't catch it. Could you explain more? APPATHURAI: Sorry. APPATHURAI: Arrangements. Q: Formats. APPATHURAI: Formats, thank you. Q: Right, could you a little bit more explain the state of affairs now and one more UN or Deputy Secretary General was here for a couple of days and he didn't at all go to your institution. Don't you think it was impolite... APPATHURAI: Not at all. And in terms of the UN I think it's worth pointing out that my Secretary General spent a week in New York and met with Kofi Annan quite extensively, so we had a good opportunity to exchange views on all the issues between the two organizations. So no accusations of impoliteness. In terms of the details on what more flexible formats mean, that is precisely the discussion that was, in a sense, launched at Portoroz. Now that discussion will come to Brussels and the ambassadors will look to put flesh on the bones and see what exactly this might mean in terms of detail. So wait a few weeks and I'll be able to give you a better answer on that. By the way, Carmen confirms that it is in Kabul, the ceremony. Q: Just sorry, could you repeat the set of figures regarding the transfer of command. APPATHURAI: Twenty-five Provincial Reconstruction Teams, 32,000 to 33,000 troops under NATO command. My understanding, though I don't want to speak for the Coalition here, is some 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers still remain in the Coalition doing these two jobs of counterterror and training of the Afghan security forces. Q: Twelve thousand... APPATHURAI: Twelve thousand is the number of Coalition, principally U.S. troops, that will come over under NATO command at 00:00 GMT. Please. Q: Again, Afghanistan . First question, what is done to close, to control the borders? And what are you planning to do to control the borders? And second question about border prisons, because what happens now on the level of prisons, because there was a lack of prisons and also Afghans didn't know what to do with captured criminals. There were two prisons declared, one next to Kabul . It's a new (inaudible) prison and the other is American prison, but it's apart from NATO. It has different stages. So what is undertaken in the terms of the system of prisons in Afghanistan ? APPATHURAI: You raise some interesting points. In terms of controlling the borders it is not NATO's mission to control the borders. It is, of course, for the Afghan government, principally with all of its neighbouring countries, all of its neighbours to control the borders. The principal issue... well, there are two principal issues. One is the Pakistan border, of course, and there it is no news to you the two governments are in extensive contact. But also with NATO, NATO is part of a tripartite commission, we call it, precisely to discussion how to minimize to the maximum extent possible traffic across that border, particularly those who oppose the extension of Afghan authority. So you're quite right to mention it. We are engaged on it. Including with the Pakistani government, but it is enormously difficult for all the reasons that you know of. For reasons of geography and politics it is very, very difficult, but it is vital. So certainly, sure(?), we are very focused on that. The second border issue relates to narcotics, and narcotics transiting out of. Afghanistan , and NATO has set up with the Russian Federation a program, which has now already begun, to train counternarcotics officials, including those working the border, in neighbouring countries. And they are participating... I think there are six.neighbouring countries to be part of this, as well as the Afghan authorities. So we've started a training program there as well, on the narcotics issue. In terms of prisons you're very right also to raise that question, because it's a serious issue. In terms of NATO's detention policy it is very clear, and it has not changed with the expansion of the mission. And that is, that NATO forces can detain captured individuals for up to 96 hours with the possibility of a small extension, but that would be really only in the most extreme circumstances and would have to go up the chain of command. So in principal 96 hours at which point they're handed over to the Afghan authorities. And that is what has been done, almost without exception and without exception as far as I'm aware. But what is the capacity of the Afghan government? That is a separate issue. I can tell you many countries are focused on this and are working with the Afghan government to develop their own prison system, because these people have to go somewhere. I know my own country, Canada , has been in discussion with the Afghan government precisely on this subject to try to help them build prisons. And so that is happening. There are detention facilities, of course, but... the first point to make is it is the Afghan government, of course, it is their responsibility to take care of their detainees. And we're helping them as much as we can, and as quickly as we can to build the facilities. Yeah, please. Q: (inaudible) United Nations responsible, Maria Costa, told that an extradition of criminals is an option if they run out of place. Do you think it's an option? Maria Costa called for that in his drugs report. APPATHURAI: I didn't see the report. No, I'm sure it's true, what you say. I didn't see the report. I wouldn't want to comment on it and I think that's probably for the Afghan government to comment on, rather than me. Extradition is an issue between governments, not... I believe, I don't think that's a NATO issue for me to comment on. Brooks. Q: Yeah, Brooks Tigner, Defense News. Just to follow up, a question to hers on the whole border patrol. You know, I've come back to this many times with you on it. I understand NATO's reluctance to... NATO's reluctance to start patrolling the borders of Afghanistan , but it still strikes me as disingenuous to argue that it's not NATO's duty to do that when if there's any threat to ISAF it's the threat of what will be coming across the border. So it's not a sovereignty issue here. I mean, the troops are already there. The Afghan government, we can all pretend like it's a sovereign state, but it depends heavily on the security which ISAF is providing, and I don't understand why the nations can't discuss some sort of temporary redeployment, or patrol or surveillance of the Afghan-Pakistani border on the Afghan side, because the Afghan government clearly doesn't have the equipment or the means to do it. APPATHURAI: You're absolutely right, that it is important. You also know that the U.S. government and the coalition have had 20-plus-thousand troops in the east, who of course have taken a close look at the border. And you will have no doubt that of course NATO, too, keeps the border under surveillance. And of course, the region between the border and the rest of Pakistan ... that goes without saying. In terms of measures taken to interdict on the border, of course, the Coalition has taken the steps that it has taken, and this is not news to you. The solution to the border issue must be a solution that is come to between the Afghan government and the Pakistani government. For, as I say, for reasons of geography, that is an impossible border to seal. And for reasons of politics, ethnic links which cross borders, etc. So the solution must be political, and it must be between the two governments, and the Afghan government, of course, has to play its role, as well as the Pakistanis. Can NATO support that? I imagine it is something our commanders are always looking at, but for NATO to take a lead role in sealing off the border, I do not think that that is either politically or militarily viable. Q: The 12,000 troops that get transferred from Operation Enduring Freedom, are they going to only be Americans or will... is it an oversimplification to say this? All... APPATHURAI: Yes. Yes, it's an oversimplification. Q: Okay, so there will be... APPATHURAI: Almost entirely American, but there will be troops from other countries as well. Q: So the only... I mean, basically one could say, maybe it's more accurate to say, U.S. plus all... all the foreign troops in Operation Enduring Freedom, except special forces, or is that also an oversimplification? APPATHURAI: I think that would be going a bit too far. But I can say that it'll be principally U.S., but it is 12,000 coalition that are coming over. Excellent, we're done. Oh oh, sorry, more questions, oh more questions. Sorry. Q: Every military operation has the beginning and the end, so we agree(?) that you tell me what you think about the end of Afghan operation? APPATHURAI: Well, what we have said for Kosovo is no end date, but an end state. And I think that is a principle that we have to apply here as well. It would be impossible to give an end date for this mission now. But what we are trying to do is create the conditions under which Afghanistan can provide for it sown security and can move forward. What does that mean? It means all the things that you know. Solid democracy, and I think they've made a good step in that direction. It means security forces that can provide for the security of their own country, and that's why we're doing things like training the Afghan National Army... well, that's what the Coalition is doing now. But we're providing equipment to them. So another area where much more progress needs to be made is training the Afghan national police. They need a justice system and a prison system, and all the other things... narcotics needs to be tackled by the international community. So there are a number of pieces to the puzzle. Until those pieces are there it would be very difficult to give a date. So I'm not trying to obfuscate. I don't think anyone in NATO, officially or unofficially, has never set a date for the end of this...