abcnews:thisweek: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

thisweek:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-defense-secretary-leon-panetta/story?id=16437246

TAPPER: So, turning to Afghanistan, which might be one of the biggest challenges – definitely one of the biggest challenges that the nation faces right now and you face. At the NATO summit, President Obama and the administration made it clear that the combat mission ends come midnight December 31, 2014. But the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees just returned from Afghanistan and they say that from their briefings there, they believe that the Taliban is actually stronger now than since the surge began.

Do we have a plan in place in case after the U.S. combat mission ends, Afghanistan or parts of it start falling to the Taliban?

PANETTA: Well the most important point is that we're not going anyplace. We're gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan. We'll continue to work with them on counterterrorism. We'll continue to provide training, assistance, guidance. We'll continue to provide support.

So, we're going to be there. And so will ISAF - will be there for awhile. The important thing right now is the mission that Afghanistan is all about. And the fundamental mission is an Afghanistan that can secure and control itself so that the Taliban never again or al Qaeda never again is able to find a safe haven from which to conduct attacks in this country.

...

TAPPER: So, turning to Afghanistan, which might be one of the biggest challenges – definitely one of the biggest challenges that the nation faces right now and you face. At the NATO summit, President Obama and the administration made it clear that the combat mission ends come midnight December 31, 2014. But the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees just returned from Afghanistan and they say that from their briefings there, they believe that the Taliban is actually stronger now than since the surge began.

Do we have a plan in place in case after the U.S. combat mission ends, Afghanistan or parts of it start falling to the Taliban?

PANETTA: Well the most important point is that we're not going anyplace. We're gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan. We'll continue to work with them on counterterrorism. We'll continue to provide training, assistance, guidance. We'll continue to provide support.

So, we're going to be there. And so will ISAF - will be there for awhile. The important thing right now is the mission that Afghanistan is all about. And the fundamental mission is an Afghanistan that can secure and control itself so that the Taliban never again or al Qaeda never again is able to find a safe haven from which to conduct attacks in this country.

This is a country that still is critical in that region of the world. This is a country in which we have to go after an enemy that's located in their country as we have. So we have to continue to try to work with them. It's an up-and-down relationship. There have been periods where we've had good cooperation and they have worked with us.

And there have been periods where we've had conflict. But both countries have a responsibility to work together because we're dealing with common threats. They're dealing with the terrorist threat just like we are.

They've had huge numbers of Pakistanis who've been killed by terrorists. So our responsibility here is to keep pushing them to understand how important it is for them to work with us to try to deal with the common threats we both face. And what they did with this doctor doesn't help in the effort to try to do that.

APPER: Let's move to Yemen right now. We saw this past week a suicide bombing that killed 100 soldiers. The Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has attempted at least twice to bring down a U.S. plane. You've said Al Qaeda in Yemen poses the greatest threat to the United States. But you've also said you will not send American troops into the country.

We only have, I think, about 20 U.S. advisers right there. First of all, why so few U.S. forces in the country? And second of all, if this is the biggest threat to the U.S., why would we not try to play a bigger role?

PANETTA: Well, our whole effort there is aimed at going after those terrorists who threaten to attack our country. Al Qaeda, elements of Al Qaeda have located in Yemen and the result is that we are focused, just as we were in the Fatah in Pakistan, we are now focused in Yemen to make sure that they never get the opportunity to attack our country.

We've been successful. We've gone after a number of key targets there. We'll continue to do that, counterterrorism is what we're all about in Yemen. And that's the number of forces we need in order to be able to do the job that we feel is necessary in order to protect our country.

TAPPER: But I think, I think the question is whether or not the smaller counterterrorism is -- approach to this is enough. What we're seeing in Yemen seems to be a possible nightmare scenario of a terrorist state. Let me just show you a map.

PANETTA: Yeah.

TAPPER: Our Martha Raddatz was there earlier this week, helped us put together this map. The portion shaded in red are territory in which Al Qaeda has a strong and significant presence. As you can see, that's most of the country, and they're starting to hold those territories. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but can we really fight them without boots on the ground there?

PANETTA: The answer is yes, because very frankly, what we're targeting, the operations we're conducting, require the kind of capabilities that don't necessarily involve boots on the ground, but require the kind of capabilities that target those that we're after who are threats to the United States.

That's what this mission is about. It isn't about getting into, you know, their tribal differences and controversies. It isn't about getting into a civil war. It's about going after those who threaten our country. That's what this mission is about.

TAPPER: President Obama recently said that -- recently told John Brennan, his counterterrorism adviser at the White House that he wanted a little bit more transparency when it comes to drones, which are the -- is one of the approaches that you're alluding to in Yemen, and of course in Pakistan.

Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence wrote the following in "The New York Times," quote, "As the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan. American officials may praise the precision of the drone attacks, but in Pakistan, news media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed. Our reliance on high-tech strikes that pose no risk for our soldiers is bitterly resented in a country that cannot duplicate such feats of warfare without cost to its own troops."

And "The Times of London" reported last week that the civilian casualties in Yemen as a result of drone strikes have, quote, "emboldened Al Qaeda."

Is there not a serious risk that this approach to counterterrorism, because of its imprecision, because of its civilian casualties, is creating more enemy than it is killing?

PANETTA: First and foremost, I think this is one of the most precise weapons that we have in our arsenal. Number two, what is our responsibility here? Our responsibility is to defend and protect the United States of America.

There are those who have no other intent but to attack this country. We saw three potential bombers that were trying to get on planes to come here and attack this country. We've seen past attacks taking place. We've seen those that continue to – to indicate that they're planning every day to try to attack this country.

We have got to defend the United States of America. That's our first responsibility. And using the operations that we have, using the systems that we have, using the weapons that we have, is absolutely essential to our ability to defend Americans. That's what counts, and that's what we're doing.

TAPPER: Let's turn now to Iran. Our diplomats were in Baghdad this week negotiating as part of the international coalition, trying to convince Iran to stop its suspected nuclear weapons program. But we recently saw an Iranian diplomat seemingly bragging to "The New York Times" about out-negotiating us. David Sanger has a new book out in a week called "Confront and Conceal" in which he writes, quote, "White House officials blanched a bit in December 2011 when Leon Panetta suggested that despite all the roadblocks that Washington had thrown in the way, Iran could move to a weapon fairly quickly if it made a political decision to do so." Quote, "'It would be sometime around a year they would be able to do it,' Panetta said. Perhaps a little less, the one proviso is that they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran in which case a nuclear weapon may be within their reach sooner."

The U.N. Atomic Agency has found evidence at an underground bunker in Iran that could mean the country has moved closer. This is just news in the last few days.

Given the urgency of the timeline you describe in the Sanger book that you told to the White House last December, are they not just running out the clock? And are these negotiations once a month enough?

PANETTA: We begin with the fundamental premise here. The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. We will do everything we can to prevent them from developing a weapon.

International community's been unified. We've put very tough sanctions on them as a result of that, and we are – you know, we are prepared for any contingency in that part of the world. But our hope is that these matters can be resolved diplomatically.

TAPPER: Right.

PANETTA: And that's what's going on. That's what going on in Baghdad, hopefully that's what will continue to go on in Russia. And we have to put pressure on them to suspend their nuclear enrichment and to operate pursuant to international rules and regulations.

That's our goal. We keep pushing on it. Hopefully this can be resolved diplomatically. But make no mistake about it, we will prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon.

TAPPER: Well, the ambassador to Israel, the American Ambassador to Israel said a few days ago that the U.S. is quote "ready from a military perspective to carry out a strike on Iran." That's true?

PANETTA: One of the things that we do at the Defense Department, Jake, is plan. And we have – we have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves.

TAPPER: All these hot spots we just touched on, and yet the administration is talking about how it's focusing now on the Pacific. Even though everything we've just spent the last 20 minutes talking about --

PANETTA: We do have a few problems!

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Yes, exactly!

So, you are headed to Asia, and you will be meeting with your Chinese counterpart in Singapore. You've said that we face the possibility of a cyber attack. This is one of the things you talked about last time with me, about how this was a very big, serious issue of concern for you. And you said it could be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

The Pentagon has acknowledged recently China is the biggest source of cyber attacks against this country, including stealing our military secrets. Newt Gingrich spoke about this threat on the campaign trail often. He said cyber attacks, cyber spying, are quote, "acts of war." Do you agree? Are they acts of war, and how would the United States respond?

PANETTA: Well, there's no question that if a cyber attack, you know, crippled our power grid in this country, took down our financial systems, took down our government systems, that that would constitute an act of war.

But what we're involved with here is the effort to make sure that never happens. And in order to do that, we've got to engage. You know, I think it's important for us to engage China in this effort. That's one of the issues I raised when the minister of defense came here from China. How can we better engage on this issue, to share information and to ensure that those kinds of attacks never happen, because this is an area where the technology is developing quickly and where clearly it is becoming an adjunct in terms of any country that moves against another country militarily.

This is something we've got to pay attention to. And it's not only with China. We've got to engage Russia. We've got to engage other countries in an effort to try to develop some kind of standards here that will assure us that just as we did in the nuclear area, we can take steps to prevent a mistake that could be very damaging to our security.

...

TAPPER: There's been a lot in the press in the last few days about the fact that the Obama administration cooperated with the filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Michael Boal, who are making this Bin Laden film. What is your response to the controversy and can you assert that nothing inappropriate was shared with these filmmakers?

PANETTA: Yeah – nothing inappropriate was shared with them, Jake. You know, we get inquires everyday from the entertainment industry. We get inquiries from people writing articles, from people writing books, people doing television shows. And the process that we've established is that you know, we will work with those individuals. We'll try to make sure that we give them accurate information so that the historic record is protected. But you know, we do not share anything that is inappropriate with anybody.

TAPPER: You were head of the CIA when bin Laden was captured. Now you're head of the Pentagon. There was an effort by the Obama campaign to talk more about the capture and killing of bin Laden. What is your take on this? Are you uncomfortable at all with what some have described as chest-thumping? Are the Navy SEALs and the Nightstalker pilots getting enough credit?

PANETTA: You know, I guess my view, having participated in that operation, is that it was something very special in terms of both the intelligence and military communities working together to go after bin Laden and doing it successfully. And whether you're Republicans, whether you're Democrats, whether you're Independents, I think this country ought to be proud of what our intelligence and military community did. And you know what, I'll let history be the judge as to whether or not that was a successful mission.

TAPPER: Well, obviously it was a successful mission but the politicization of it, that doesn't make you uncomfortable at all?