9:00 A.M. EDT 
MODERATOR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Foreign Press Center and we're very happy today to have General Robert Holmes, who's the Deputy Director of Operations of the U.S. Central Command. And he's kind enough to give us about an hour of his time to talk about his work and we'll get some opening remarks and then take your questions. And if we can start by going around the room -- if you guys can just introduce yourselves by name and what your news organization is and then the General will begin.
QUESTION: Hi. Adrian Novac with Antena 1 television, Romania.
QUESTION: I'm Regis Le Sommier. I'm with Paris March magazine, a French magazine weekly.
QUESTION: Martin Suter, Sonntags Zeitung - a Sunday newspaper.
QUESTION: Arturo Zampaglione with Italian newspaper, La Repubblica.
QUESTION: Halvor Elvik from Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.
QUESTION: Tatiana Rodzianko from the U.S. Department of State International Visitor program working on Iraq, just here to listen in.
QUESTION: Eva Font from El Punt from Barcelona, Spain.
BGEN HOLMES: Well, I'm Bob Holmes, right now from Tampa, Florida, the Central Command where we have responsibility for, you know, all of the military operations in the Middle East.
I'm going to start out by telling you I used to be a New York taxicab driver. I don't know if you want to put that in the story or not. They may -- can I say that?
STAFFER: Sure.
BGEN HOLMES: I have to check with the PAO on things I can say. (Laughter.) But it's great to be here in New York because this sort of brings me back to some memories of over 30 years ago.
This is a very important opportunity, I think for me to be able to meet with you. One, so that we talk through, I think, things that are important to all of us with regard to a very important and dynamic region -- the Middle East. It's important to the international community as we look at the great opportunities that we share there in a very dynamic and rich region that offers so much to us; one, historically that we all know about. But also now in more recent future, we see the challenges of this region and as we together as an international community seek to partner to bring stability, moderation against a very violent and extreme culture that we see growing in that region that manifests itself in terror cells or terror organizations like al-Qaida.
What I'm going to do -- there's some prepared remarks here, I don't do very well just reading remarks. There are a couple of things that, you know, we'll just hit up front and then I do want to give you, and I think we can actually provide you a printed copy of our Commander's priorities. Can we do that? Yeah, I think that's important. Our Commander, Admiral Fallon, is the Commander of U.S. Central Command.
First, Central Command, as I said, has regional responsibility for military operations in the Middle East which spans 27 countries. Often we focus on just Iraq or Afghanistan, but for Central Command it's 27 nations. And our mission there, as we say that we're responsible for the military operations, our mission is to partner with the militaries of those nations in order to bring stability, peace, provide humanitarian operations in the region. And then ultimately, as we do those things, seek to find those violent extreme elements that are really impacting our global security, again, as they manifest themselves in terror cells like al-Qaida.
So it's not about U.S. military operations with regard to combat that we see as our prime mission there. If we look at Iraq, Operation Fardel Kaloon (ph) continues. We do see progress. We do see successful activities with regard to the Iraqi security forces. Our mission there as Central Command and the U.S. military is to partner with the Iraqi security force to coach them, to mentor them, to offer them training, to assist them as they support their government in giving the Iraqi Government a stable, secure platform to provide governance to grow and emerge as a free and independent nation.
Now, in having said the security operation continues, we see successes, I would be disingenuous with you if I said that, yes, there is still violence. We see violence that we want to assist the Iraqis in curbing because that is essential that we do that.
In Afghanistan, NATO remains committed. Their operations are well underway in continuing to route and engage the Taliban, which creates the conditions for continued development and reconstruction and the economic development of Afghanistan as that nation also stands up its very fledgling government.
In the Horn of Africa, we partner there. A lot of good news stories in that we do have a joint task force that is there for humanitarian operations in the Horn of Africa. And as we look at the very importance of not only the Horn of Africa but its relationship to the other African nations, so many ungoverned spaces that have so many challenges that we must remain committed there. Because in those ungoverned spaces is what allows the undesirable elements of terrorism or extreme violent activities to nurture, manifest and grow.
I think now rather than me continue to talk on, I just want to share with you the five primary areas that Admiral Fallon, our present Commander at Central Command, has said, first, is prime is setting the conditions for stability in Iraq. That we, as the American military partnering with other coalition forces and the Iraqi security force, that we set the conditions for stability and success in Iraq.
With regard to Afghanistan, to expand the governments -- or as the military provide that, again, stable platform for governments and security in Afghanistan. Then turning to those violent extreme organizations, the terrorist networks and their operations, that we degrade, disrupt and as we can defeat those terrorist elements.
We look at our partner nations in the region as we seek regional stability and that we strengthen those relationships, the voice of moderation within the region is very important. It does not need to be a U.S. voice; it needs to be a partnered voice and that's very, very important that we strengthen those partnered relationships with the other nations in the region. And then we posture, always, as a very confident, very prepared and sustained military fighting force to support our interest and the interest of our partners in the region.
So with that, I think it's very important that you know we're not there just to prosecute combat operations. In all that we do and all that we've said, and this is not new, in this day and age, a military solution only will not achieve success. Nations, not only the United States but all nations, must use a full range of their elements of power to include diplomatic information, economic, societal, cultural, in addition, to their military plans of operation. And that does not go unnoticed in Central Command. I think you'll see that all along we've said with regard to our military operations, without the covering diplomatic, economic, social and informational lines of operation, the military solution will not achieve the success that I think the American people want and the other members of our coalition and the international community desire.
I think with that let me stop and see what questions you've got.
QUESTION: I've got two questions regarding what's going on in Ramadi at the moment. It seems that the Marines over there have developed a very interesting relation with the local chief tribes and it seems to be working in cutting al-Qaida from the population. I wanted to ask you why has this not been experienced earlier? I know that Paul Bremer had cast aside the idea because it was undemocratic at the time and isn't it too little, too late?
BGEN HOLMES: Well, in terms of the policy that would say we would do that or not, I think that's out of my lane to address. I think from a military perspective, we've always said that to engage the hearts and minds, to work with the local leaders, to assist them in securing their neighborhood, their province, is ultimately very, very important.
For the military, all along we've said we need to make sure that we are in an assisting, a coaching and a mentoring roll, and I think this is an example of that. I think maybe is it too little too late? No, it's working now. I think that's a sign and mark of success when that -- and this ultimately is what you want to see throughout not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but throughout the region. In that we're partnered so that countries, provinces, tribal leaders, share in the responsibilities for security, for stability and progress. So we're happy to see this successful line of operation there in Al-Anbar with the Marines and the local leaders.
QUESTION: About -- do you feel alone there? I mean feeling alone and (inaudible) dangerous situation for your troops in Iraq. Are you seeing that? You need more economical (inaudible) support. That's a problem you have now.
BGEN HOLMES: We've always said that we feel like the focus may have inappropriately been on military operations, particularly those with direct action kinetic kinds of displays of military power. In saying that, we've said we need to see -- as the military leaders our plan is built on success in these other areas: diplomatic, informational, economic because we can lay that secure stable base. But unless there is the element of governance in the political process, unless there are those diplomatic efforts with the neighboring states, unless there's good economic progress so that as you secure an area and people return to the area, they feel good about being there, they're prosperous. So that's all very, very important. So as those things work together, as you take the bad element out, then there's no place, when they come back, that wants to support that bad violent actor. So it all has to work together; very, very important thing that you point out there.
QUESTION: Then what do you mean -- what do you think now -- what's the need now, the need --
BGEN HOLMES: Yeah, what do we need to do now?
QUESTION: Yes, sorry.
BGEN HOLMES: We need to continue supporting the Iraqi Security Force, okay, so that they can secure -- provide the security for their government to then nurture this element of diplomacy and political governance. We're seeing now, in the last few months, more and more activities on provincial reconstruction teams that are not only people in uniform, but include, you know, people from State Department and from other areas of power, to include the monetary and the judicial as well as the diplomatic [and] political; so more focus on these kinds of teams that are able to work with the Iraqi populace, to work with the Iraqi nation. Not that we do this for the Iraqis, but that we assist the Iraqis in doing this for themselves.
QUESTION: First off, (inaudible) -- you are saying that thing -- simple than us support from Iraq to (inaudible), either -- country or from American countries?
BGEN HOLMES: From all of -- not just from America, but support from all of the coalition nations that are engaged there to further those non-military instruments of power as they work in conjunction with the military to lay that secure, stable platform, if you will.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) said in a speech about (inaudible) what's the army -- the role of the army and of the President of the USA. And he's saying that the army now is being alone because you are doing a hard investment in Iraq, many people and soldiers are dying now, many young people. And he said that you don't have soldiers and you have to replace people that have committed felonies and --
BGEN HOLMES: I'm not familiar with that.
QUESTION: And an editorial from New York Times said that a few months ago and John Edwards say that in his speech about -- if the meaning about that is that you have -- you are lost many soldiers there. You don't have enough people.
BGEN HOLMES: That we've lost, that we don't -- well, we're meeting our recruiting goals and our standards for entry into the military are very high. Our military is very professional and capable, smart. I'll tell you, the young troops that are coming today are much smarter than I ever was, so they -- so I'm not sure -- I didn't read the editorial, so it really would be hard for me to comment on it, but I -- we're not lowering our standards by any means.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: What John Edwards said yesterday at this Council of Foreign Relations was that the army met recruiting goals by lowering the standards and having more waivers for people that have committed the misdemeanors and even felonies.
BGEN HOLMES: Well, right now, at Central Command, we're the war-fighting headquarters. I would have to -- it's out of my lane. I would go to the military services about that. And I'm -- I am personally unaware of the standards being lowered. But I think we could find that answer out for you, but I would have to go to the individual services and let them answer that question.
QUESTION: My question was when you say that you have (inaudible) violence, are making progress in Baghdad and other provinces, what is that -- your figures in terms of casualties and people wounded in total and in terms of regions?
BGEN HOLMES: Yeah, I don't have those figures at my fingertips. I don't know if we publish those are not. I would won't --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
BGEN HOLMES: Yeah, the media would track it. I know of trends. Now, let me sort of clear the record here in that I said that we see success with the Baghdad security plan. We still see some spikes in violence. We don't ignore the violence and we're not saying that it's going away. And General Petraeus, when implementing the new emphasis with the security plan, anticipated that there would be continued violence for a while. And the reason for that is as we increase the presence, as we increase the capability and capacity of the Iraqi security forces, that becomes a very -- that becomes a center of gravity for the various threads of interest that are in Iraq that want to defeat the success of the Iraqi Government are now going to prosecute more violence to try to disrupt the security effort. So I don't want you to say that I'm saying that it's necessarily getting today. We've admitted that we need a secure, stable environment and that in getting there we expected and we're seeing violence continue.
But there's a window now -- an opening opportunity that will not go on forever, and that's been made clear by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and our Command Admiral Fallon that we've got to take advantage of this opportunity with security, quell the violence so that the political processes can take hold in Iraq.
QUESTION: And the new strategy, the way I understand it, is that you are not (inaudible) and then (inaudible) going out, but you are staying and you are holding the areas that have been sort of cleared from violence.
BGEN HOLMES: It's a counter-insurgency doctrine so that you become part of a neighborhood. You become part of a community, much like we see law enforcement in many of our states where the local police, the local law enforcer is part of the community. In military strategy, just pure military strategy, yes, you take an objective, you clear it and you move on. Okay. That does not work in an insurgent or a volatile violent situation. You've got to remain. But in remaining you don't remain with what I call battle rattle. You remain with those things that mean something to the people, the governments, economic development. So in remaining you don't stay there with your body armor and your weapons as you're first line of engaging people. You engage people with the things that are important to all of us, which is a prosperous life. I think that's what most of us want, a chance to live to go to school, to be educated, to take care of our families. And those are the things that you now hold with, if you get me.
QUESTION: Yeah.
BGEN HOLMES: You hold with those kinds of things, okay.
QUESTION: You are stretching the non-military part of the activities. Is the army and the armed forces are they the right organization to do that? I mean, just the other day there was a news piece about the State Department having a hard time, you know, filling slots for jobs in Iraq. I mean, do you feel kind of -- that you have to do things that other governments should be doing?
BGEN HOLMES: For a while we have used our military in those jobs where we really, really desired partnering with civilian agencies to do those kinds of things, because admittedly there are things that we as warriors don't do very well. You know, what we do we do very well when it comes to the warrior that you expect. When it comes to other things, we need to partner with those people who are good at, you know, community development, that are good with developing a judicial system, a criminal system which, you know, the nation of Iraq is building right now.
So, yes, we do need to partner. And for a while -- and I think Central Command had made that point on several occasions in the last few years is that your military is here to do what you ask us to do, we're partnering to provide the security forces that train in that coaching they need. We now need these other instruments of power to fall in on top of what we're providing for you.
QUESTION: Are they coming?
BGEN HOLMES: They are coming. I don't know the exact numbers, but we see -- I am very enlightened by what I see now as a greater spirit of partnering across all of the elements of power, not just in the U.S. but with all of our coalition partners. I am encouraged by what I see.
QUESTION: Can you please tell us something more about the operation for this in the
BGEN HOLMES: The naval exercise in the Arabian Gulf.
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, my question -- there is something like (inaudible) test that the Navy want to do like (inaudible).
BGEN HOLMES: Okay. If I think I understand your question, we've recently put -- just yesterday -- two carrier strike groups and the expeditionary strike group into the Arabian Gulf. We are -- you know, we've got our military presence is strong, not just in the Navy, in the region right now. As our military is there our training must go on. In order for us to continue to give the United States of America a very competent and capable military, you have to train where you are. In this case, the commander of our maritime component, Navy Central Command, saw the opportunity because of the movement of the strike groups and the delivery in case of the expeditionary strike group of some military forces to now combine that for an exercise, which had been on the books, had discussed it with Central Command and the decision was to do this naval training exercise.
QUESTION: So it was something that was already in the program.
BGEN HOLMES: It was --
QUESTION: It's not something that happened now.
BGEN HOLMES: It was in the program to conduct -- because the movement of these forces, if you look at the way we do our global force lay down and the movement of forces, you know, things come together opportunely and he said I want to take advantage of this as a training opportunity.
QUESTION: And is there any specific, you know, side of the operation that you want to test like technically like --
BGEN HOLMES: Well, for the Navy it's a pretty big operation to look at the air activity associated with two carrier strike groups, to integrate and synchronize the movement of those kinds of airplanes. So that's an exercise in integrating and synchronizing the fleets air power and at the same time still supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. So the training piece plus the piece of supporting the naval aviation activities in Iraq.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Despite some success in the surge and despite all the -- what General Petraeus says, there is a big push in this country to withdraw. We see all the candidates. We see a big part of the Democratic Party in Congress. And my question has two aspects. First, if Congress, if the Department of Defense, if basically Central Command was obliged to withdraw, how difficult is it technically? How long would it last? How -- and this is the first part. Second, would it be -- how would it be felt in the military? How -- would it be felt as a defeat? I mean, you could say that in this case politics has gone in the middle of a military process and you could say it's their fault in Washington or wherever. On the other hand, the country has given you a big chance. Four years ago, there was a big support for the war and the support disappeared. And some blame the military for what has happened in Iraq. So I mean, first of all, a technical question, how long would the withdrawal last? How difficult is it? Second, how would it be felt all this in the military as morale and --
BGEN HOLMES: Okay. First, with regard to how long, I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure because as it takes awhile to build up forces, it would take awhile to redeploy forces from any location, okay, because that has to be a very -- you know, redeployment is -- takes as much planning as deployment does. So it would be difficult for me to tell you and to attach a timeline because other things get a vote in how you redeploy.
Now, don't take -- right now we have no plans for deployment, so, you know.
QUESTION: No contingency plans?
BGEN HOLMES: (Laughter.) With regard to how would the military view that, first and foremost, the American military officers understand -- not officers, but our entire force, understands the policy and the oversight of our civilian leadership is key and paramount and that we serve at the direction of our civilian leadership. Right now, the military has done what has been asked to do with regard to bolstering and working with the Iraqi security forces. So would we see this as a defeat? What we would see this as is if there was a determination of national and international leadership, then we would do what we're asked to do.
But I think we need to go beyond Iraq in saying it's not about getting out of Iraq, it's about what we do in this region of the Middle East with, you know, 27 states of which we're -- you know, we don't pull out of that region. We're there, we're a partner. I think you look at the moderate states in the region, understand the importance of a successful Iraq. Look at many of Iraq's neighbors who understand how important it is for success in Iraq, so that's bigger than just a U.S. decision to stay or not stay. And the U.S. decision is not just about Iraq, it's about the region.
QUESTION: I want to go back to the Iraqi security forces, especially the IP and the IA. It seems that, I mean, in order to keep Iraq together, there's some way you have to put the Sunni back in the game. And we see -- I mean, that's political, the reluctance of the Maliki government to actually make a move toward the Sunni, a distinctive one, not some just talk. From a military perspective, how can you -- when it comes to you, to the ISF, how can you attract the Sunni back there? How can you, like, I mean, I was embedded in December in Alamadiah, that northern -- west part of Baghdad and most of the people joined -- were doing with either the IP or the IA where they were Shiite, I mean, most of them. They had the supervision of detention center, some MPs there -- American MPs were helping them. But like 90 percent of the detainees were Sunni and 90 percent of the people guarding the detainees were Shiite. How can you from a military perspective keep the proportion of Sunni and attract the Sunni back in there instead of leaving them in their --
BGEN HOLMES: Well, you make an excellent point. Here again, the U.S. advise, our advisors, would certainly advise, based even on our own understanding of what makes a military great is the diversity. That's what in my mind makes our military a great organization. So we would advise and encourage that. We do see some success, some positive movement in that more homogenous force that you describe as a more desirable activity, although not our decision to dictate; ours to advise, if you follow me.
I think as we look at the challenge that the Iraqi security force faces there and then ultimately the political leadership is it's how to reconcile all of these threads of interest, if you will, that have competing expectations and how to reconcile that and that takes time. These institutions of security, these institutions of governance are not built over night. So we've got to assist -- one from the military level -- the security force to walk them through that -- to acquire that diversity. And training and trust is what helps builds that, okay. So we see there are bright spots in the Iraqi's army, in the police force as they are vetting, as they are going out to find that more homogenous mix.
For, ultimately then the government, it's important that we start that first in the security force and then hopefully led to that reconciliation process, to bring the disparate elements together. It's those lines of interest that then erupt in some lines and threads of violence because it's not just one single violent activity. It's many violent actors with these various interests that come together in the same space and create this violence. So ultimately it's all very, very important that we seek this compatible diversity.
QUESTION: But the Shiite it's their time in history to have -- they have the power. And it's awfully hard to, you know --
BGEN HOLMES: That is a challenge. And we've got to assist the Prime Minister and his folks in, I think, seeing that and being able to step up to that challenge.
QUESTION: Can we talk about a second about Afghanistan? You know that in Europe there is a big debate about this caveat -- so the limits of the forces -- call it alliance of NATO. What do you think -- how does limits, for example, Italian, German and French troops affect the military capability on the field practically speaking?
BGEN HOLMES: Well, it's very important that militaries who can bring a capability to the fight that it be factored in and that it be part of the overall force structure so that you can count on it. How does it impact if you can't? You know, that's a challenge. But often we find that if a nation -- if I can cross out of the military part -- often a nation's contribution may be other than its military. So from the larger perspective of things in a coalition, rather than set these kinds of things that say you must offer military, we would say, in the coalition what is it you offer and what is you can do very well. And that's welcomed, okay. And it's not all about the military power, which then again goes back to success in the region, success in Afghanistan, success in Iraq. It goes back to all the elements of power.
So in a coalition it's what do you what to do, what can you provide. If it's economic development, if it's assistance in provincial reconstruction to build schools and hospitals that's more important than a lot of the lethal fire power that people bring. And ultimately for the military what we want to do is shift the weight of effort from the lethal things we do and the lethal expectation of what a coalition partner brings to the fight to those good things that mean development and prosperity and peace to a community.
QUESTION: That's true. But, for example, a few days ago President Bush said this war has to be shared on the field, on the combat field. So really technically speaking for a military like you, what does it mean to -- you cannot count on the -- I don't know, on the deployment, on --
BGEN HOLMES: For a military planner there's always change, there's always a dynamic environment that you've got to adapt to. So it brings us to what we do as military folks and we do very well, which is we adapt and we press on, okay. What you'll find is -- and we've said this many times -- is you can take a plan off the shelf and the very minute you start to execute that plan it's going to begin to change. And the key component of that is the adversary always gets a vote in that and often world -- the world's political situation will get a vote in that plan and we adapt.
QUESTION: Okay.
BGEN HOLMES: But that does not stop us.
QUESTION: It's a complicated job to adapt --
BGEN HOLMES: It's a complicated job.
QUESTION: Let's say the Italian, French, German skills on the field --
BGEN HOLMES: But everybody brings something to play and everybody supports it.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I wanted to get back to what you said about withdrawing. I think it was this week that Hillary Clinton wrote a letter asking for -- asking the military to set up withdrawal plans, just to be prepared for the case that this might be ordered from Congress or whoever. And you said right now we have no plans for redeployment. Are you saying that you have not received any order to plan for that from the White House or are you saying that independently of that we are not planning anything in this regard?
BGEN HOLMES: Well, first of all, you know, to set that record straight, we could always plan to redeploy. I mean, it's just a backwards plan of your deployment, if you will, okay, so to be ready for any contingency. But for us to -- for me to tell you that we're engaged in an active redeployment plan, Central Command is not. And to my knowledge have not been instructed to do so.
QUESTION: Going back to insurgent strategy, the soldiers that you are searching for now they were in an outpost and (inaudible) reinforcement might be able to reinforce in a timely fashion. Does that situation -- that incident signal that you are stretched too thin?
BGEN HOLMES: No, in this case, they were at an observation post and were attacked. And it was a well-planned attack which -- but the attack and the killing of --
QUESTION: I think you have to expect a well-planned attack.
QUESTION: Well, they were on patrol --
BGEN HOLMES: Well --
QUESTION: -- when they were attacked.
BGEN HOLMES: As I read, Bill Caldwell -- Major General Caldwell's statement of that from Multinational Force Iraq, they were part of a large maneuver.
QUESTION: Right.
BGEN HOLMES: This particular group, this element, was at an observation post at a known hot spot where IEDs were in place historically, and they were at that point not in a convoy but were statically occupying an observation post. So they were attacked -- so the attack occurred and then you would call for response forces.
Now, it was a complex attack, as I recall. I think that was in Caldwell's statement as well, so that the responding forces were delayed in getting there. But that's not a matter of being stretched too thin. That is a matter of an enemy that carried out an attack, a complex attack.
QUESTION: Excuse me. My name is Jean-Claude Mvodo, I'm working for a magazine called ICI in Africa. So excuse me for my poor English. But I have two or three questions.
BGEN HOLMES: Okay.
QUESTION: The first one: Since the wars in Iraq began, how many soldiers has been killed there, American soldiers? How many do you think will be killed in the next time? And what you do to reduce the number of those Americans who are killed there? This is the first thing.
Second question is: Here in the U.S.A., there are many people who want the U.S. Army to leave Iraq and then to come back home. How are the U.S. -- how are the soldiers who are there and in Iraq feel? Do they really want -- do they want also to come back home? Are they obliged to stay there because of the role of the army? That's my question.
BGEN HOLMES: Okay. With regard to how many have been killed, I don't know the exact number, but -- Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, it's about 3,600 --
QUESTION: 3,423.
BGEN HOLMES: How much?
QUESTION: 3,423.
BGEN HOLMES: Okay, 3,400, okay. How many more will be killed? I -- that -- you know, I hope none. For a senior military officer, it's very important for me to convey to you that the committing of America's sons and daughters, or the sons of daughters of any nation, is -- into combat is the last of all options. We're trained and capable to conduct very successful combat operations, but for us to commit our forces to armed conflict is the least desirable option for a military leader, until the national leadership says, this is what we want you to do. So I would like to say that as we strengthen our security posture, that we would see the casualties decline, not just of the military forces, the U.S. forces, but of the entire coalition. And we very much would like to see the fatalities amongst the Iraqi civilians decline because all of these are very, very tragic.
How does the -- I think your next question was how does the military feel --
QUESTION: How does the military feel? Yes.
BGEN HOLMES: -- when it appears that public support --
QUESTION: Yes.
BGEN HOLMES: -- is in debate in our country. First, with the American military -- for me in particular, I'll tell you my personal feeling is the reason I'm in uniform is to protect that process of public debate. So the fact that my political civilian leadership debates this is why I wear the uniform. I think you'll find that throughout the rank and file of our military, our young men and women in service understand that and they're committed to that. I think for a very major portion of the time, if you go and interview these troops, you'll find that they can articulate why they're -- it is a healthy process to see debate. They may not like it, but it doesn't matter. That's why we do what we do, because just because you're in uniform, you still have an opinion as well, okay. But it does not impact the job that we do. In fact, you will find that with the U.S. military, they will be vocal, they may -- they will watch the debate, but at the end of the day, they still undertake and perform very well the task that they've been given. So we've been asked numerous times: Does the debate that we see going on in Congress, does it impact the morale of the troops? And from what I see, the answer is no.
QUESTION: Thank you.
BGEN HOLMES: Thank you.
MODERATOR: We have time for two more questions.
QUESTION: Yeah. There's intense debate in Bucharest right now about withdrawing Romanian troops from Iraq. And my question is did you talk anything about this with Romanian counter parts and what's your position about that? And also, I want to know, what do you think about the job that the troops from other countries, including the Romanians, are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? And also, I want to know if the United States are engaging in talks with insurgent groups in Iraq, including the al-Qaida. Thank you.
BGEN HOLMES: Okay, let me take the last one first. We engage hostile insurgents the way they should be engaged: to find them, fix them and defeat them, okay? So we don't negotiate with al-Qaida. If an insurgent says, "I'm no longer an enemy combatant, I'm no longer hostile," then we say, "Fine, put down your weapon and let's get on with the peaceful process of building an Iraqi nation."
With regard to Romania, I -- in Tampa, we have a coalition, a partnership. We have some 30 to 40 nations represented there all the time with senior military representatives from many countries and Romania would be one of those countries. We stay in contact with your senior military leadership. Have I specifically engaged over the Romanian decisions or not? I have not. I do welcome the Romanians. I know that here again, we look at the coalition as a team of very committed and important coalition partners. So we have welcomed the service of the Romanians and continue to welcome them.
As far as the jobs of our coalition partners, what you'll find on a team is that everybody has something they bring that adds value to what the team does. And with each of our coalition partners we see the value added because there are certain things that we find in many of our coalition partners that you do so much better in some ways than the American military does, particularly when it comes to some of our humanitarian operations, some of the community relations things. So, it's a team effort and we welcome -- very much welcome the partnership of all of our coalition partners, and see them perform quite well.
QUESTION: But are you concerned about the possibility of withdrawal?
BGEN HOLMES: Well, I think it's like the question that -- the withdrawal of coalition partners? It's like the question we had a minute ago. When we see a nation for whatever reason, and they say we at this point in time can't commit our military instrument of power, then what we welcome -- it's not just a coalition of military power, it's a coalition of all of the instruments of power. So, we still see that as an international community, an international coalition, that we stand up against ultimately, not just in Iraq, but ultimately this global, borderless enemy that manifests itself as terrorist cells. They're violent, extreme organizations that impact us all.
I think there was one more -- did you say one?
MODERATOR: I think we have time for one more.
BGEN HOLMES: One more? Okay.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Maybe something we haven't talked about, the Horn of Africa, but I wondered how exactly does the U.S. military involve in the Ethiopian actions in Somalia?
BGEN HOLMES: We assisted. In terms of support, I can't tell you about the exact nature of that. I wouldn't be able to disclose that, but that was clearly, you know, an action of a sovereign state; Ethiopia doing the things that it felt necessary. In doing that, they routed out some al-Qaida affiliates which are important to all of us, which quite frankly, we're glad they routed out. The importance of the Horn of Africa, and that's -- I'm really glad you brought that up -- the Horn of Africa is where we're engaged right now with humanitarian operations. We have a joint task force there that -- their mission is humanitarian.
As we see the challenge of not just the Horn of Africa, but many of the nations in Africa, the challenges -- ungoverned space, somewhat communities or gatherings of people that are in need of governments or in need of things that a government can provide so that they get those elements of life, those elements of living, that they so desperately need. If those go unattended, then that allows this culture that can then let the bad, violent, extreme organizations parasite, if you will, and grow. This is -- these would be those areas where training camps for terrorist organizations could begin to proliferate. It's an area where the recruitment of terrorist fighting elements could be manifested. We see clearly how many of the young people in a region where they feel like there is no government that wants to take care of them, there is no one that cares about their existence -- that if there is no hope to live, then that turns into a desire to be violent.
And that's why this region is so important. And quite frankly, we've got to focus there, not just as a military, but I think focus so much of that -- all of those instruments of power that I've talked about, the diplomatic and economic, has got to be focused there so that we nurture this region. We nurture the African states where they are so desperately in need of the support of the world community. If we do that, then we lessen the need for military action, we'd lessen the propensity for the violent actors to grow. So, very, very important region, and I really appreciate your asking that question.
Okay. Hey listen, thanks a lot, everybody. I really appreciated the opportunity to do this. Thanks for what you all do.
MODERATOR: Thanks.
