possible. they don t believe their commanders will do anything. and they ve either witness order experienced retaliation for those who have reported crimes. and so you have a system that s not working and if you re unwilling do change the structure and really create transparen transparency, you re not going to solve the problem? how do you deal with that culture. if you want to talk about the culture in the police, it s nothing compared to the culture in the military b. what you say to whom and respecting your command chain. how do you deal with that? well, you need some level of independence. and i think that is the key that s missing. you need trained prosecutors, because right now the commanders who make the decision about whether cases go to trial, they re not trained as lawyers. they have no legal training. so they ll make that decision based on things other than evidence. and that s what s wrong with the system. so in order to guarantee civil liberties, both for plaintiffs an
we have rules and laws that specify when you kick these matters up the command chain. we ll find out if those rules were violated. looking at the fbi part of the investigation, if you re the superior of the guy who had linked to jill kelley. it would have to go to him, right sf. all of sudden, you guys started this, you re asking yourself, what do i real wily h here? what else you have here, you heard the general talking about it is that these are guys who have known for their intellect. flooeter of these women are slouch either. they somehow thought they could hide this stuff. it makes you think that every single person in a security position needs some digital
play its proper and constitutional role, that would be a frame work which would be a win-win for pakistan and the united states. i want to talk about the nukes. they have 100 nukes. it s grown 40%. they re the fifth largest nuclear power in the world. clearly something to be reckoned with. who controls those nukes? and is there a genuine risk given our ability just to fly our choppers in there and do what we do, somebody else could go in there, seize them, get control of them, do something that would be threatening to us? i think it s a very low probability. the pakistani military is a pretty hierarchical organized military. it s a british in origin of training. every coup that s taken place in pakistan has never been a colonels coup. it s been the pakistani military with its entire command chain intact moving to replace the civilian government and moving back out. so i tend to think it s pretty controlled. they have, you know, locks even keys on it with one caveat. the last year y
pakistani democracy more strengthened and the military to play its frorp and constitutional role, that would be a frame work which would be a win-win for pakistan and the united states. i want to talk about the nukes. they have 100 nukes. it s grown 40%. they re the fifth largest nuclear power in the world. clearly something to be reckoned with. who controls those nukes? and is there a genuine risk given our ability just to fly our choppers in there and do what we do, snb else could go in there, seize them, get control of them, do something that would be threatening to us? i think it s a very low probability. the pakistani military is a pretty hierarchical organized military. it s a british in origin of training. every coup that s taken place in pakistan has never been a colonels coup. it s been the pakistani military with its entire command chain intact moving to replace the seivian government and moving back out. so i tend to think it s pretty controlled. they have, you know, loc
kind of petraeus rules about how to run a counterinsurgency. and he talked about a balance. i mean, it s kind of a phrase which take the fight to the enemy but protect the afghan people and there has got to be a balance, because the price is so high for civilian casualties. the u.n. came out with a report this week saying the cal pan is responsible for the lion s share of civilian casualties and a message the u.s. is trying to drive very hard. the message is do what you have to do as a soldier to protect yourself always. and he wants to make sure that there aren t subordinates in the command chain who are signing off on missions that could ultimately leave soldiers waiting around and putting them in more dangerous situations. but the end of the day, the rules of engagement are, you know, take it hard to the enemy but you got to protect people. and figuring out that balance is something i think could still be a source of frustration in the field.