9:00 P.M. (Local)

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, if I could get everybody’s attention just for one
second.  This is going to be a background briefing, as a senior administration official or
officials, in this case, only, not -- so senior administration officials traveling with the
Vice President, you can say.

Q    Just at the top, since this is on background, the Associated Press would like to formally
request that you put this on the record and reconsider the background rules.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  I hear you, but no, we’re going to keep it on background. 
Thank you.

Q    And also, just before we start -- hi, I’m from National Public Radio -- is there going
to be any opportunity for us to have a press conference with the Vice President?  Because
it’s a long three days, and to have absolutely no press opportunities and no way to ask
questions seems a little bit -- I hate to use the word “undemocratic.”

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have no plans for a press conference at this time.  But
we’ll be here for a little while, so we’ll see what happens.  But why don’t we do this
briefing now, and I’ll turn it over to my colleague.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me just say a few things at the top, then I’m happy to
take questions.

As my colleague said, this is the Vice President’s fourth trip as Vice President.  He took a
trip, as some of you may remember, right before the inaugural in January, so it’s -- five
trips as either Vice President-elect or Vice President.  And the purpose of this particular
trip and the focus is really twofold.  Mainly it’s to be here on the Fourth of July with our
troops and also with the folks who are working incredibly hard in our diplomatic mission.  And
as you know, tomorrow he’s going to have a chance to do what he did last year, because he was
here on the Fourth of July last year, which is take part in a naturalization ceremony for folks
who have been fighting with us and who are about to become American citizens. 

And for those of you who were here last year or have seen the ceremony before, it’s an
incredibly powerful thing and very moving.  So he very much wanted to take part in that again,
and in that time also to meet with a number of the senior military American leadership here
working with General Odierno, and have lunch with troops in the dining hall here at Camp
Victory tomorrow.

And then we begin the second piece, which is meeting with virtually the entire senior Iraqi
leadership, in terms of the folks who are both leading the government now and/or playing a part
in the formation of the next government.  So those are really the two points of focus for the
trip.

I think there are just a couple of things that are worth pointing out in terms of what the
Vice President is likely to say.  The first is he’s going to underscore to the Iraqis with
whom he meets our long-term commitment to Iraq.  It’s a message that he’s carried in the
past; it’s a message that he continues to carry with them going forward.

You read somehow in the press occasionally that we are not focused or disengaged from Iraq. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.  What is going on, as I think all of you know, is not
that we’re disengaging but the nature of our engagement is changing.  We’re moving from a
prominently military lead to a civilian, diplomatic and economic lead.  As our military
presence ramps down, our diplomatic, political and economic engagement is ramping up.  And
there’s a major transition underway as we make good on the commitments of the United States
to end our combat mission in August, but also to significantly increase our diplomatic,
political and economic engagement going forward.  So it will be a focus on that and on that
particular message.

In terms of government formation, which is on everyone’s minds, he’s really here to
listen.  He’s here to listen to the Iraqis, to get a sense from them of where they are and
where they think things are going.  Let me just be very clear, there’s no American plan,
there’s no secret plan.  We don’t have a slate of candidates, we don’t have favorites. 
This is up to the Iraqis.

And the one thing that’s become extremely clear over the last year and a half is that, as
the Vice President likes to say, politics has emerged in Iraq.  Virtually every time there’s
been a roadblock or a so-called crisis, the Iraqis have found a way forward.  It hasn’t
always been easy.  It’s taken time.  But using a political process, Iraqis have found a way
to advance their interests. 

We’ve seen this time and time again.  We saw it before the election with the difficulties
over the election law; the Iraqis worked through it.  We saw it with the concerns about
de-Baathification; the Iraqis worked through it.  We saw it with concerns over recounts; the
Iraqis worked through it.  We’ve been able to be helpful, but this has been an Iraqi lead.

I think the other thing that’s increasingly clear and that the Vice President has commented
upon, and we may see it again as we fly into Baghdad tomorrow, is just the tremendous change
that you see on the ground.  And some of it is anecdotal, some of it isn’t scientific, but
it’s very real.  Last time we were here, flying it at night, from here, from the airport into
Baghdad, the level of activity in the city, whether it was traffic jams, whether it was
restaurants open and people congregating, was demonstrably higher than it had been in previous
trips over the years.  And so we’re really seeing the reemergence of Iraq.

Other than that, we’re really going to get -- hope to get a sense from the Iraqis of where
things are, where they think it’s going.  And we’re here to be helpful if we can.  But
again, we’re not here to offer a plan, a solution.  We’re here to hear what the Iraqis have
to say and offer our advice if they want it, if they choose it.

Let me stop with that and take any questions.

Q    What’s the Vice President’s thinking if Ramadan comes and goes and the August 31st
deadline comes and goes and there’s still no leadership seated or agreed on?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  There’s a linkage between these events that we think really
shouldn’t exist for a number of reasons.

Of course we would like to see -- the Iraqi people would like to see -- a government as
expeditiously as possible.  And they’d like to see, and we’d like to see, a government that
is inclusive, that brings in the major groups, that’s representative of the results of the
election.

But that said, in terms of our own plans on the military side -- that is, ending the combat
mission on August 31st, drawing down to 50,000 troops, the relationship between that and the
existence or lack of a permanent government really isn’t there, for a number of reasons.

First of all, there’s a caretaker government in place, and it’s doing exactly that. 
It’s taking care of business.  It is providing security.  It is, for the most part, providing
services, despite the problems we’ve seen with electricity.  It is answering the basic needs
of the Iraqi people.  So that’s there.  And in previous -- 2005, 2006, it was a very
different situation.

Second, while the combat mission will be ending, the presence of combat troops will not. 
We’ll be at 50,000 troops.  That’s still a significant number of troops.  And these are
folks who will have combat capability.   

Third, we are not flipping a light switch on August 31st.  The transition that is taking
place, moving from a combat mission to basically stability operations, which involve advising
and assisting the Iraqis, working in partnered ways with them on counterterrorism, protecting
our own forces, and also protecting the PRTs and NGOs and so forth, that’s been a process
that started, actually, a year ago.  We got out -- remember, we got out of the cities in Iraq
exactly a year -- almost exactly a year ago.  And the Iraqis have been in the lead in the
cities ever since.

So this has been an ongoing process.  And really, on August 31st, what we’re already doing
is what we’ll be doing now -- we’re already in this advise and assist posture.  And the
only difference on August 31st is that there will be some fewer number of troops on August 31st
than there are today.  For all of those reasons -- it’s a long answer -- whether or not there
is a government doesn’t change the plans that we have to end the combat mission and to be
down to 50,000.

Q    Don’t you think it could change the tempo?  I mean, isn’t there some impact?  Or it
doesn’t matter, the caretaker government will be here --

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  We just spent time, Andrea, with General Odierno.  And he
expressed, as he has in the past, absolute confidence in the plan.  We’re actually ahead of
schedule, in terms of moving equipment out.  We’re moving people out very much on schedule. 
And he told us he sees absolutely nothing that would move us off of that plan.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me add to that, he also has expressed a great deal of
confidence in the performance of Iraqi security forces as they continue their operations.  And
he’s quite pleased -- and you can ask him, and I won’t speak for him -- but he seems to be
quite pleased with the progress they’re making and the kinds of operations they’re carrying
out.

Q    And yet, even so, so many of the ISF don’t want American troops to start withdrawing. 
They say that they don’t feel ready, and the fact that Maliki remains in government and
remains -- especially the Sunni-based ISF feel like it’s a flash point that could cause more
violence.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, it’s not as if we’re going to be at zero, and
it’s not as if we’re not going to have combat troops here on August 31st.  Fifty thousand
Americans will still be here.  And again, they’ll have combat capability.  But the mission
that they will formally be undertaking is the mission that, as a practical matter, they’ve
already transitioned to, which is essentially advising and assisting the Iraqis.

This is about putting the Iraqis in the lead, having Iraqis take responsibility for their own
country, which is exactly what they want to do.  So we really don’t see a tension there, as
my colleague said.

It’s striking that in the last two to three months, not only despite the spectacular and
terrible attacks that we still see, the level of attacks is at, overall, is at historic lows. 
And second, we got through the election with the Iraqi security forces in the lead providing
security and doing a very good job.  And third, the senior leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq over
the past two months was either killed or captured with the Iraqi forces in the lead, acting on
intelligence developed by the Iraqis.  The number one, two, three and four, depending on how
you count, senior members of al Qaeda in Iraq have all been taken off the field by the Iraqis. 
So they’re doing, as my colleague said, quoting General Odierno, a very good job.

Q    A lot of senior government officials in the past two weeks have told me, in this
caretaker government, that there’s a definite link and that it would be a disaster if the
U.S. stayed on track if there’s no government come September 1.  They called the policy here
right now weak, disengaged on the diplomatic side, and they said that it’s being seen as a
sign of weakness to countries like Syria, Iran and the Taliban.  Can you explain --

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I’d be very curious to know the names of the
officials, because --

Q    Well, I have one named in my story right now, Fawzi Hariri in the Ministry of Industry,
and there’s others -- you’re not going on the record now, but senior officials are saying
this, and it’s not one or two, it’s a lot.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, we’ll see what they say to us in the next couple of
days.  It’s certainly not what we’ve been hearing from them.  We’ve been, as you know,
with our ambassador, with General Odierno, and with their respective teams, engaged very
intensely with Iraqis across the board every day, every hour.  And that’s not what we’ve
been hearing from them.  So it will be interesting to compare notes, but that’s certainly not
what we’ve heard.  And the professional judgment of our senior general, General Odierno, as
well as our ambassador, is that the plan that we’re on makes sense, and we’re not seeing
anything to change that assessment.

And again, let me just emphasize one thing, because I think it’s very important -- we’re
not flipping a light switch on August 31st.  This change in mission has been underway for a
year.  And it’s largely already occurred.  That is, our troops are already in an advise and
assist posture, and that’s where they’ll be on August 31st.  So there’s no dramatic
change.

Q    Is there a legal obligation that you have to leave in the end of August, because --

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s the President’s policy, and let me tell you why
it’s important.  We’ve made commitments to the Iraqis over time.  We said that we would
have our troops out of the cities last year.  We said that we would end the combat mission on
August 31st.  We said that all U.S. forces will be out of the country at the end of 2011.  And
when we demonstrate that we’re good on our word, that we make good on our commitments, we
build trust and confidence with the Iraqis that makes a huge difference in the relationship.

A lot of Iraqis did not expect that we would be out of the cities last summer when we said we
would.  We did it, and I think they -- that paid tremendous benefits.  We kept our word.  I
suspect there are some who don’t believe we’ll end the combat mission or be down to 50,000
on August 31st.  Barring events that are right now totally unforeseeable, we will be.  And
again, that’s a demonstration that we keep our commitment.  We have a policy that’s stated;
we stick to it.  And we will move forward for the end of 2011.

Q    So you can’t rule out building back up beyond 50,000 should violence increase after the
August 31st --

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about the future.  I
can’t rule out lots of things in life.  What I can tell you with great conviction is that we
have a plan, we’re following it, and I don’t see anything that would take us off that
plan.

Q    Will you talk with Prime Minister Maliki or others about, for instance, this secret
prison in Baghdad that had over 300 people who were tortured and were the force that detained
these people in the city of Mosul and brought them to Baghdad?  You know, they were attached to
the Prime Minister’s office.  It doesn’t mean the Prime Minister knew, but that’s an
aspect, I think, to think about as we have U.S. forces in advise and assist mode.  I mean,
there are actually U.S. forces on that facility where the prison was, and they didn’t know.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  We’re engaged in these kind of issues on a regular basis. 
Again, when something like this comes up, we have our ambassador, our general and others who
are very much engaged with the Iraqis on this.  In this particular case that you’re referring
to, what was particularly striking is this came to light as a result of the Iraqi government
finding it out and then taking corrective action.  That doesn’t excuse at all what happened,
but again, it is illustrative of the fact that increasingly, Iraqis are finding a way to use
the political system both to correct things that should absolutely not be happening, and also
to work through their problems.

Q    Are you concerned that U.S. forces could end up in a position -- like, there was a case
in The Washington Post about, in a town in Anbar, where the soldiers, who had U.S. advisers,
were brought -- they detained over 100 people over the course of several hours and beat them as
they were looking for some insurgents who had killed a few soldiers, and the U.S. advisers in
The Washington Post story had no idea.  I guess what I’m wondering about, are you concerned
in this next period, as you lose sort of a real overview of what’s going on, U.S. forces are
going to be in a position where they’re backing up troops that sometimes really commit human
rights abuses?  How do you address that, then, because it’s -- it can hurt the credibility of
the United States?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  In the first instance, again, Iraqis increasingly are
developing their own institutions and abilities when these kinds of situations arise and
problems arise, to find them out and to correct them.

We are extremely vigilant in everything we do.  That vigilance is not going to go away.  I
don’t think it’s dependent on the number of troops who are here.  It’s something that’s
built into what we do.

Q    But do you think you’ll know less?  I mean, obviously you’ll be knowing less of
what’s going on as the footprint shrinks.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s possible that we’ll know less in places that we’re
not.  I think we’ll know just as much in places that we are.  So the idea that our troops
would somehow unknowingly become involved in something -- and it’s more likely that that
would happen because there are fewer of them in the country -- doesn’t make a lot of sense to
me because I think if -- wherever the troops are, they will be vigilant about the mission and
about the requirements of the mission.

Q    Part of the problem now is that, delaying that government, the fear is that could this
destabilize the country, that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not want -- he has ambition
for another term or does not want to step down.  Is the Vice President, when he meets him, is
he going to try to convince him to step down and leave the way to Iraqis -- you know, the one
who actually won the election?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  As I said, we have no favorites, we have no candidates that
we’re either for or against.  We have no plan.  This is up to the Iraqis.  They had an
election; they now have to form a government.  That’s their responsibility.  If we can be
helpful to them, we’re prepared to do that, but we’re not proposing anyone.  We’re not
promoting anyone.  That is absolutely up to the Iraqis.

In terms of the concerns about the lack of a government, there are two sides to the coin.  I
think on the one side, as I suggested earlier, there is a functioning caretaker government that
for the most part is doing that, it’s taking care of the necessary functions of government. 
And what we haven’t seen, despite the violent attacks that continue -- that occasionally do
occur, and despite the lack of a permanent government, we have not seen a rise in sectarian
tension or violence.  We have not seen a rise in the lack of confidence in the political system
or governance.

So to that extent, we haven’t seen a problem emerge.  On the other hand, here’s why
getting a government in place is so important and why we hope that Iraqis can act expeditiously
on it.  There are, as you know, a number of very important outstanding issues that need to be
resolved for Iraq to move forward, including laws on how to deal with hydrocarbons, the
disputed internal boundaries and the status of Kirkuk, the integration of various forces into
the Iraqi military, constitutional reforms -- all of these issues are unlikely to be resolved
with just a caretaker government in place.  They require a full-time, permanent government. 
And until we get to -- Iraqis get to that point, it’s going to be hard for them to move
forward on these basic and serious outstanding issues.

It’s also going to be harder for us to move forward with them on what we’re committed to
doing, which is building a long-term partnership and bringing the strategic framework agreement
to life.  That is, developing increasingly not only political ties and diplomatic ties, but
economic ties, cultural ties, scientific ties.  People want a climate to engage in that
they’re confident in.  And that comes with a permanent government, and it comes with Iraqis
moving forward on these outstanding issues.

So that’s why it’s so important to get there.  But I don’t think we’ve seen any
evidence that the absence of this government has created the kind of vacuum that many people
feared that would lead to a lot of bad things happening.  Thus far, that hasn’t happened.

Q    Do you have any idea when you’re going to announce a replacement -- when the White
House is going to announce a replacement for the commander of CENTCOM?  There’s a big, gaping
hole there right now.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  I do not.

Q    Can I ask an Iraq-related question?  So he just told us that he expects to see a
government that’s inclusive, that’s representative of all the parties.  What’s his
thinking on this super Shia government that kind of came in post-election and grabbed more
seats than Iraqiyya, even though Iraqiyya won more seats in the actual vote?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, we’re not here to comment on Iraqi internal politics.
 We just have, I believe, what is the same desire and perspective that, as far as we can tell,
the Iraqi people have, which is they would like to see a government that reflects the results
of the election, and that means an inclusive government that brings in the major blocs.  And
that’s important, both in terms of the actual government formation process itself -- we think
everyone should be in on the formation process -- and it’s important in terms of the outcome,
that is, we think, an inclusive government that brings in all of the major players is the best
reflection of what the Iraqi people want.  That’s as far as we go.  We’re not -- again,
we’re not picking parties, we’re not picking candidates.  That’s not our business.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  And I would add to that that our sense is that that’s where
the Iraqi leaders are as well, that they understand the need for an inclusive government.

Q    Yes, the sense -- the fear here, I wonder if it’s mirrored or echoed in Washington, is
that if this stands and Iraqiyya has to take a back seat, despite having won more seats than
any other coalition in the vote, it will further alienate Sunnis and this will create more
destabilization and lead to more violence.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  As my colleague just said, our strong sense is that the need
for an inclusive government is one that seems to be shared more or less across the board by
Iraqis, never mind what we think.  But not only the Iraqi people, but also the political
leaders for precisely the reason that you cited, that is, there’s an understanding that a
failure to do that could be very destabilizing, and that the way forward for Iraq is to be
inclusive.

Q    Have you gotten a commitment from Maliki on that?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  We haven’t talked to --

Q    Okay.  Can we circle back with you afterwards?

Q    What does Biden bring -- the Vice President bring to the table with this trip?  How can
he help?  What does he offer?

Q    I mean, if you’re saying we’re not here to comment on internal Iraqi politics, I
mean, no offense, but what is he doing here?

Q    Yes, what can he do for them?  What is his being here -- how does it help?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m certainly not here to comment -- what he can do is to do
virtually everything I suggested.  One is to reaffirm our strong commitment to a long-term
partnership with Iraq, which is something the Iraqis want.  Second, it’s to listen and to
hear from them where they are on the process of government formation.  And if they ask us to be
helpful in any way, we’re open to being helpful.  But we haven’t met with them yet.  So
let’s see what they say.

Q    I mean, how could they hypothetically ask you to be helpful?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Because you said hypothetically -- (laughter.)

Q    Sir, one other thing.  We were really hoping that we could get some time with the Vice
President while he’s here as the Baghdad press corps.  I think it is a bad message in a way
not to do that while you’re here in this country, where you’re helping promote democracy,
and it would be --

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  We’ll see what happens.  He’s got a terrifically busy
schedule, as you can imagine --

Q    Just a chance, five minutes --

Q    Ten, 15 minutes.

Q    Photo sprays?  It’s not helpful for The Washington Post and The New York Times, but
we’re sacrificing a lot of our time and we’re getting none of his time.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I completely understand, having been in your line of
work for 21 years, till 18 months ago.  So I understand.  Thank you.

END
9:25 P.M. (Local)