tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 12, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
marketplace in the same way aq kahne was doing it out of pakistan, the gentleman i referred to and others inside china are continuing to do the same thing today. i think it is preposterous to conclude that the chinese government isn't capable of shutting this down. i think it exists at the sufficient rans of the chinese government. i think it is critical safeguards be put in place to make sure that there are conditions that are attached to this agreement that ensure that there is not a continued recurrence of dangerous activity that will come back to haunt our country and the world because of china's unwillingness to actually police the export of these dangerous technologies into the hands of those who we know will endanger the world if they gain access to it.
i am not confident i can support this agreement. i think it needs additional strengthening if we are going to be confident that the policy that we have now doesn't help china far far more than it is going to harm the long term nuclear and ballistic missile nonproliferation agenda which we put at the highest pinnacle of american public policy. >> we look forward to your input in that regard and it is fascinating that our witnesses clearly state that china is in violation of the existing agreement and yet we are extending that agreement. senator perdue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general, and mrs. for your lifelong dedication and service to this country. and thank you for your testimony last night in a classified environment. i'm be very brief mr. chairman. i agree with senator markey.
i have done business in china. if it was consistent with their strategic initiatives and objectives, i believe they could police this but let me just -- you touched on several proliferation questions already so i won't belabor the point. in '97, china pledged that they would not begin new nuclear projects in iran. 2011 worldwide threat assessment by director of national intelligence listed missile proliferation from chinese industries as a concern at that point. again in 2011, same threat assessment said north korea and entities in russia and china continue to sell technologies and components to the middle east south asia that are dual use and could support wmd and missile programs. the 2015 statement did not include some more language. general, could you give us again just a highlight of your perception now, your assessment on the current proliferation activity in the region that china is initiating between iran specifically and north korea?
>> senator, that's not an area that falls under the purview of what we deal with. i think the issues in terms of chinese activities in other parts of the world more properly falls under the state department and the intelligence community. >> mr. secretary. >> i guess that's me. first to be clear the 1997 agreement was about official chinese government support to activities, research and development activities and construction of facilities in iran that could have contributed to a nuclear weapons program in iran. keeping with the terms of the pledge in 1997, china terminated those activities. the separate question of every entity and crooked business man in china stopped attempting to sell dual use materials to iran and north korea is a very
different question. i agree that it requires both additional resources and additional political will in china in order to put a stop to such activities but it is a separate question from direct chinese government assistance to a nuclear research program in iran. >> in this deal, do you think we could influence them to change their ability to detect that? i understand it takes investment but isn't that the question behind what we are trying to do here? either they're going to do business with us and prolive rate or do business with someone else and prolive rate, engagement is the higher objective, i get that. but before we get to that point is it not possible to influence them to enhance their detection capabilities? >> well.
>> they had an export outreach program that relies on the 123 agreement and the framework i mentioned earlier. it has been working since 2007 in china to train over 100 government officials each year from six different chinese agencies that have various role to play in export control internal compliance responsibilities. we also trained dozens of additional industry personnel on subjects of export control internal compliance, and best practices, and provided this successor 123 agreement comes into force we expect to expand significantly the number of industry officials that are engaged and the trainer approach to drive home the nondiversion to peaceful and military purposes as outlined under the 123 agreement or issues the chinese have to focus on.
again, if we are going to engage, if we are going to continue the journey of bringing the chinese more into what we consider to be the international norman standard related to nonproliferation, related to nuclear security and related to nuclear safety standards, it involves us interacting with them at the level from department of energy's perspective, at the level of the technicians and plant managers and scientists that actually have to carry out this work. we can't do that unless we have the legal framework that allows us to engage in those types of discussions. >> i understand. and i have supported engagement over the last 30 years personally and i agree with you technically that that's a better way to go if in fact we can influence through that engagement. specifically on a cap 1400 reactor, one that the chinese might reverse engineer off one
of our reactors, is there any way to -- would we consider that a u.s. design, even though it was reverse engineered off our design and would that come under the restrictions we have on our product? >> well, without talking about the specifics of that it is ultimately up to industry to decide which of its technology, patents, trademarks it is willing to part with in essentially a commercial business deal. they have to make the business case for what makes the most sense, either in terms of the meet sale or in terms of what they expect to gather from sale of spare parts or services down the road. what happens at the u.s. government level is all those requests to transfer a type of
technology a component material know how has to go through department of energy. we consult with the rest of government to again, eyes wide open, try to understand what the implications of that are from national security nonproliferation perspectives before that goes forward. under this new agreement, any decisions along those lines will be published in the federal register and it will take, you know a waiting period to make sure that we have dotted all of the is and crossed the ts with respect to technology transfer. >> very quickly on that one point, when we detect violations, what can we do to bring them back into compliance, if anything at all. >> well, within the terms of this new framework agreement we have the right to raise that, either party has the right to raise it with the other party and ultimately suspend the agreement if they're not
satisfied with the response. >> ranking member thank you so much. >> i thank you both for not only being here but the important public service that you are providing to people in this country. these are extremely important issues. i'm somewhat troubled by why there was not an effort made in these negotiations to deal with cooperation from china in regards to proliferation to iran and north korea by chinese companies. we all acknowledge there are chinese companies violating the international norms on transfer of material and equipment to north korea and to iran. we spent a great deal of effort to try to prevent iran becoming a nuclear weapon state.
it would seem to me we would want to use every opportunity we could. why wasn't greater effort made to use the 123 agreement which admittedly benefits both sides, don't get me wrong, but to use this as an opportunity to advance an important goal of nonproliferation. >> that's a very good question, senator. let me talk about it first in the past tense, with the current agreement, and then negotiation of the successor agreement. in the 1990s when the 123 was in effect but before any exports were approved as a consequence of the standards that the congress asked us to certify china made a number of specific commitments on nuclear nonproliferation and export control which they fulfilled and they included joining the nuclear suppliers group and adhering to those standards.
it included ending the cooperation that they had initiated with iran. it included ending certain forms of cooperation with pakistan and crucially it included them publishing for the first time the list of both nuclear material and dual use materials that were controlled under their national legislation. prior to that time they had no definition of what it was they were seeking to control. that's an example of the kind of dialogue within the context of a 123 but not in the context of a 123 negotiation that brought about demonstrable improvement in china's performance. what we seek to do today is the same. so well before my tenure began in 2011 but aggressively under my tenure we have engaged with the chinese not with a general
complaint that you've got to do more but with a combination of very specific bits of information upon which we expect them to act as well as concrete offers of cooperation, of training in customs enforcement of training in border security, of discussion of ways to change legislation and to change national control lists to make them more effective and as a consequence we see more and more cases in which chinese authorities have taken action on specific bits of information not only from the united states but that they've developed themselves in order to prevent transfer of dual use material. more importantly over the last 15 years or 20 years if you prefer, what we have seen is that chinese state owned enterprises are out of the business of proliferating
technology to north korea and iran. it is rather a very dynamic very high tech private sector in china which the state has not yet shown the capability and as senator markey i would agree, not yet shown the political will to control adequately. >> but is it your view that the successful completion of the 123 agreement will end up making china more sensitive, more effective in blocking the export of dual use technology? >> yes and i think this hearing will contribute to the same goal. >> thank you. appreciate that. i would like to talk about one of the selling points of the 123 agreement, jobs here in the united states. a lot of reactor work is done by americans and we have companies that are located here but the technology will be absorbed in china. china is interested in producing
reactors for export. and there's some fear that we are accelerating the international competition from china which may end up costing american jobs, knowing the way the chinese use their trade practices in the international marketplace. can you give us any assurances that this agreement, this 123 agreement, will not end up costing us our domestic jobs in this area because of the accelerating the chinese ability to compete internationally using american technology. >> thank you senator. our sense again is the decision as to what specific aspects of what is u.s. origin technology patented trade marked that u.s. companies decide in their engagement in the chinese market working with the chinese
in the export market is a decision -- >> can i cut you off one second. part of the entry to china is very much negotiated with the private companies which could very well effect china's ability to use technology. >> it does. but even if the chinese are engaged building reactors in their company or making export reactors, there's still u.s. content, there's still specialized components that the united states has comparative advantage and technological lead in providing after sales services consulting, engineering. there's a whole range of things which u.s. industry, not just the major manufacturers of reactors but a whole range of sub vendors will benefit from by being involved in this expanding and growing market. >> makes me a little nervous.
i hear what you're saying. let me ask one final question if i might on safety issues which is something we haven't touched on and that is what type of assessment can you give us that use of nuclear power in china will be with the highest safety standards recognizing the uncertainty of climate conditions as well as national security issues. >> for us department of energy safety is paramount in engagements with our own laboratories, plans, and facilities in the states, but also in china. as i said in opening oral statement, we had meeting under the punt joint coordinating committee in china in which a whole range of safety and
security related issues waste management concerns were raised. indeed, this is one of the reasons we think it is important as department of energy and nsa to be involved in the process is to ensure that we communicate with other countries, including china, best practices in the safety and security area. including lessons from the fukushima accident a few years ago. a lot of issues domestically, a lot of things which power plants overseas are implementing that draw from that. again, it gets back to the comment that was made earlier and it is that engagement of the nuclear safety experts, technician, laboratory experts in dealing with very very complex and technical issues associated with that that helps promote safety and security across the globe. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.
senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thanks for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for being part of the briefing last night as well. this is obviously very important strategic discussion we are having, securing peaceful cooperation with china to create significant business opportunities for u.s. exporters. china has right now about 26 nuclear reactors is that correct, with an additional 23 reactors under construction and plans to build up to 100 more by 2030. for comparison there are only 99 nuclear reactors currently in the united states. china announced in december of last year that it would spend about $11.2 billion on reactor construction in the next ten years. incredible amount of money to spend to invest in nuclear technology and for u.s. businesses to plan that activity. you heard concern from others, and i would echo that past
proliferation of entities in china and what may happen as they grow. we need ironclad commitment that since u.s. technology will be secure the duration of the agreement and not used for nefarious purposes by the chinese government or third parties. so as we look at the strategic implications of the agreement, we must use it as opportunity to raise with china pressing need to curb north korea's growing nuclear program and stop belligerence toward our allies in the region. seems to be a cooling in beijing towards pyongyang, but fundamental policy remained the same. recently heard from chinese nuclear scientists north korea has as many as 20 nuclear war heads which could double by next year. that's more than our intelligence community said a sign beijing may have had enough of pyongyang's antics. american diplomats and i hope
that we will continue to exploit this opening at every level. to assistant secretary countryman, 2011 as discussed on the panel today director of national intelligence worldwide threat assessment report stated north korean entities sell components in the middle east and south asia dual use and could support wmd programs. as we discussed, 2015 report made no mention of these concerns. i think there's been answers about whether or not chinese entities are engaged in these types of activities. i guess i would ask a specific question of you. i don't think i heard it answered today. which chinese individuals and companies remain under u.s. sanctions related to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missile technology. >> that's a good question. i will get you a list. they are not state owned enterprises but rather
individual brokers and technology firms that are not under direct state control. >> you'll get that list to us. >> i shall. >> talking about the terms of the agreement entered into, if we don't enforce terms of the bargain. doesn't that lead to a candidate willingness to ignore the plain letter of the agreement. >> absolutely. that's why we enforce it strictly strictly. >> the message the president sent to congress states this. it does not this is again from the message that the president sent on the announcement of agreement of cooperation. and i quote. it does not permit transfers of any restricted data transfers of sensitive nuclear technology nuclear facilities and major components of such facilities may only occur if the agreement is amended to cover such transfers. this conversation that we are having today, it sounds like this is not -- this statement is at odds with your testimony. would you agree with that? >> no, senator.
sensitive nuclear technology has a particular meaning in the nonproliferation and it is defined elsewhere in the text. it does not refer to major components of a reactor since it is reactors we are selling it could refer to other kinds of technology with noncivilian applications. >> the state department 2014 report on adherence to and compliance with arms control nonproliferation and disarmament agreements and commitment stated and i quote in 2013, chinese entities continued to supply missile programs in countries of concern. in this open setting, can you share more information of the type of missile programs in countries of concern? >> yes. as has already been mentioned, gentleman named lee fang way who uses the name carl lee as well has been a primary procurement agent for iran's nuclear ballistic missile program and
has provided a variety of dual use equipment from china and other destinations to the iranian ballistic missile program. so that would be the number one individual that we would be concerned with in that category. >> any countries including north korea, conversations? >> there are other procurement agents in china who work knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of north korea to acquire technology in china. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much for that question. just to follow up on that, what is china specifically doing, we are all aware of the carl lee situation. what are they specifically doing to get back to some of senator perdue's questioning to end that. >> we are engaged in an intensive dialogue, wem a long
standing dialogue about carl lee that intensified recently in which we are seeking to understand better each other's information and the capabilities in our legal system. for example, why we are able to indict him in the united states and whether the chinese would be able to do something similar in china. i will be happy to come back when it produces meaningful results. >> and again in questioning with senator perdue mention of the agreement being suspended if they violate it is that really real? i sit here and i'm just going to add to that question with another question. first of all y'all been great witnesses. i think last night and today, you're very transparent, all of the things that, you know even more so last night that we have concerns about obviously in a different setting.
but so we have u.s. interests that want to do business. we have a country like china that is not honoring the spirit of the law, they're not honoring previous agreements with the nuclear group. we know they're going to take the information and use it for military purposes even though the agreement says they won't do it. we have companies that want to do business with them. they're u.s. based with superior technology and we also know by the way that they're going to use the technology in ways they shouldn't. so talk to me a little about the dynamic. so you have westinghouse a division of toshiba, pressing you to do business pressing you to allow this agreement to go forward. we have other companies that
want to do business. you also have our national interests, if you will. you have a country that let's face it doesn't honor agreements. talk to us a little about the internal dynamic if you will to give us a flavor of the various pressures you're dealing with because it does feel a little bit like mercantilism is trumping the specifics of agreements being honored relative to nonproliferation. >> sir, let me repeat. i'll ask general klotz if he wants to comment on economic and commercial issues, but my job is to look after the nonproliferation policy of the u.s. that's been consistent across administrations, supported by congresses and that's why negotiation of these treaties falls within my bureau. and i repeat, we would still be negotiating if i weren't satisfied this is in the best
interest of promoting our strong nonproliferation policy. jobs are important. relationship with china is important. but my job entrusted when confirmed by the senate is to look after nonproliferation policy, and as we briefed a year ago on our general 123 policy that is the primary topic in all our negotiations. >> i guess, senator, i would look at it this way, is that our well-being as a nation rests on a number of different pillars off foundation, rests on national security and defense capabilities also rests on our economic strength as a country both domestically and in the international markets and it depends upon our scientific technical engineering infrastructure that underlies that. so the difficult challenge we face as decision makers, whether in executive or legislative
branch is to strike the right balance between those competing interests. i think what this agreement does, it sets up a mechanism by which licensing goes through the nuclear regulatory commission, approval to transfer various incendiary information and components goes to department of energy in consultation with the rest of the government. i know for a fact having spent 38 years in the military and the defense department that our colleagues over there will look very carefully and very closely as will the intelligence community when the issues of licenses and issues of approval for transfer come up and as they are reviewed, as they will under this new agreement on an annual basis in terms of what has been transferred and what's on the inventory list. >> senator. >> yes, sir. thank you, mr. chairman very much. little bit on carl lee. carl lee is wanted by department
of justice as a principle contributor of iranian ballistic missile programs. recent u.s. sanctions have confiscated $8.6 million in funds from chinese bank accounts. linked to manufacturing and exporting missile guidance components. extensive network of shell companies inside and outside of china to hide his activity. what they have done over time is every time we catch him, they change the name of the firm. so he's had a relationship with 12 to 26 firms many of which were just shell companies. and again, sending ballistic missile technology to iran he had 16 aliases multiple bank accounts. but he's kind of running this
nuclear ebay out of china selling into countries in the world we do not want to have access to these materials. we have a $5 million reward for information leading to his arrest. in april of 2014, he was charged with conspiring to commit fraud and bank -- wire fraud bank fraud, money laundering in manhattan. has a large network of industrial companies based in eastern china. so the chinese government says they can't figure this out. they can't figure out how to shut him down or guys like him. but the good news is they can figure out other things in china. they figured out how to arrest five women who belong to a feminist organization last year. they figured out how to jail 44 journalists last year. they figured out how to put 27,000 muslim minorities in prison last year.
they could figure that out. that they can do. but they can't figure out carl lee. just too hard for them. maybe it is too much evidence. too many shell companies. too many times. on the other hand, maybe china has just subcontracted this out to the private sector, huh? to america for cost cutting reasons, maybe china did this to protect the guilty, a chinese government, the people's liberation army you know so their fingers aren't on it yet they can do the favors for iran or pakistan or other countries. that's what i think is going on. i think it is pretty clear what's going on. when they want to crackdown, they know how to crackdown. they want to crackdown on facebook or twitter they do it. it is shut down overnight. shut that site down. they move in. they've got military all over these other areas of chinese
life that they believe are threats to their regime. but when it comes to threats to a nuclear nonproliferation regime, they shrug their shoulders. they can't figure it out. just too hard. and the reason it is too hard is that they've subcontracted to carl lee. he would be in prison right now. he would be paying a big price. pakistanis couldn't figure it out for like 25 years. we know why. we know why he is living in a nice private residence in pakistan, not under arrest. he was a hero, not a felon in the eyes of the establishment. that's how we're going to get in trouble here. china gets a lot out of this. china in nuclear power is a lot like the japanese were in the automotive industry in the 1950s. we were laughing at them. i had the honor, few of us can say this i had the honor of
bailing out chrysler twice with votes in congress. 1979 and again in 2009. japanese just kept coming rest of the world just kept coming. so they want this technology. they want to reverse engineer it, want to be the marketer of nuclear power plants, use the guise of their concern about climate change and we're going to pay a big price in the long term. so we have to start now where we want to wind up in the long run because it will be prettier that way from a policy perspective much prettier if we insist on very tough standards now on the chinese before we finalize anything with them. they have to prove to us that they're serious about this that people who violate nuclear nonproliferation policy ballistic missile policy pay a price. if we pretend they can't do it if we pretend that they don't
have an authoritarian government if we pretend that they're a capitalist, not a communist nation which they are, with state control over everything at a certain level, then we're just going to pretend away on nuclear nonproliferation policy, so this is a big moment for us. we have to attach conditions to this that don't allow them to derive commercial long term benefits of having access to our top of the line nuclear technology while simultaneously turning a blind eye to what we know is a simultaneous geopolitical agenda which they have, and which is a constant throughout the last four or five decades in pakistan iran, and other places so i guess what i would say to you is that from my perspective we have a big responsibility here to condition this in the tightest possible
way, to expect action from china and not words to not allow the short term diplomatic commercial interests of any administration to trump the long term nonproliferation goals which we all say are at the highest level. we are here today because we -- that's why you had to do a great job on this iran resolution. we turned a blind eye to it. we were selling six nuclear power plants to the shah of iran in 1977 '78, '79. thank god we didn't transfer it before it fell. that was jimmy carter policy. in each iteration we kind of dodged the big bullet but each year that goes by every compromise of the policy, especially when dealing with pakistan and iran we are running a big risk, so all i can
say here is i'm going to work very hard to make sure the conditions that are attached to this reflect the seriousness with which we should take the lack of seriousness to the chinese government has in their nuclear nonproliferation policy and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. and ranking member, i cherish the input that we have from all our members. i think we have an outstanding committee, and it is interesting on different topics the different input that members weigh in with. and i really appreciate senator markey's contribution as i do everyone's here today. i see your light on. >> i wanted to point out this is the second day of hearings first day was in a closed session, and i think the information we received will be very helpful to us, i appreciate the participation of all members, particularly senator markey's history and work you did when you were in the house
of representatives. >> just to follow up on his question before we close this out, on the carl lee issue with china do you think it is a lack of capacity or lack of desire to end that particular situation. >> i think it is a little bit of both. i think the quibbles i have with senator markey's description is first, he's not a nuclear ebay he's more a primary agent for the iranian ballistic missile program rather than all kinds of programs and all kinds of places, he has a primary sponsor. second point i don't think it is so much a question of subcontracting government functions to a private facility, you're right that happens in a lot of countries. i think it's a different problem that again is not unique to china. mr. lee has money and lawyers
and the weegers and ngos and others do not. >> my sense is that as we move ahead there may be a series of conditions the senate may want to place on this particular agreement. i would encourage members and staffs to work with us to see if that's the case. again, want to thank you both for transparency always answering questions the way you do. thank you for being here. the information the record will be open until thursday afternoon, so if you receive additional questions answer them properly. thank you for your service to our country. with that,
house foreign affairs committee will hear about how to handle humanitarian and security needs. on cspan310:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day, senate homeland security hearing on border security, focusing on infrastructure and fencing which we will have live on cspan3 at 2:00. this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on first ladies influence and image, we look into the personal lives of three first ladies. rachel jackson, emily donaldson
angelica van buren. rachel jackson was called a bigamist and adulterer, since jackson's 1828 presidential campaign, died of heart attack before he took office. his niece emily donaldson becomes white house hostess, is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. when widower martin van buren becomes president, his daughter-in-law, angelica van buren is white house hostess. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan's original series first ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama sundays 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on cspan3. as complement to the series, cspan's book is available. first ladies presidential historians on the lives of 45
iconic american women providing liechl stories of these fascinating women creating illuminating inspiring read. available as hard cover or e book through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. dan lamothe is a national security writer for "the washington post," joins us to talk about jade helm 15 and some of the concern it sparked in certain corners of the internet as well. dan lamothe, first what is jade helm, when and where is it taking place? >> jade helm is a brand new exercise beginning in june. it includes about 1200 special operations troops. going to span a good portion of the southwest, texas, utah southern california a lot of other areas in between, and really what the military says they're looking to do is kind of work on how they interact around the public. some of it is covert, they'll be in civilian attire and trying to
blend in. they've done other exercises similar, but this one sticks out because the scope and size is larger. >> why is the scope and size larger? why is it different from other ones in the past? >> you'll see 100 or 200 troops or something like that but what this say is they're looking to prepare for long range inserts where you take a helicopter from for sake of argument utah and land in texas on things along those lines. they're trying to prepare for future operations that may or may not come up overseas and i think we can take them at face value on a lot of that. >> is there specific places they're expecting to fight overseas, trying to recreate in some of the states where exercises are taking place? >> they would never tell you which operations they're
preparing for, but i think we can safely say they read the news, they're tracking events like everyone else. so yes, they're looking at where they may operate in the future. when we talk about where the military is likely to deploy, they're always trying to be aware of where they may be needed in the middle east africa. they're pivoting to the pacific, doing more there all of the time. i think really any of the above could be possible. >> why is this particular exercise raising concern among people who are worried about what the military is doing in this country? >> i think it comes down to the way this news first came out in march. there were briefing slides posted on the internet with lack of context i thought. it was cast as this devious exercise that if it want going to be martial law this summer it was going to be something where they're setting the stage for future martial law, and i think a lot of us who cover the
military, spend time around the military, we really have a hard time seeing that. you know there are things where you can look at it and say hey, they didn't tell the truth on this or that, the way a war is going or something like that, but this exercise is routine. >> explain the map that's causing concern, here's the labels of different states in red labeled as hostile, blue permissive, then uncertain in brown. explain this map. >> that map is, i mean, they're kind of setting the stage for what they plan to do. so one of the things that really caused concern is they did label texas, utah, part of california as potentially hostile. really that's a rehearsal. that's preparation. that's make believe in a lot of ways. they set the stage for what they might have to do in a fictional
country and they will you know a plan around that in this exercise. couple years back i covered an exercise called bold alligator. it was sort of the same scheme. they had an assault that went ashore from the atlantic ocean and they called it a treasure cove scenario. you had the same sort of thing a portion of the southeast was labeled as potentially unsafe area for american troops. they're just trying to work around okay, we need to pick a place, prepare for it, assault it and take over it. it is all dress rehearsal. it is not to be taken seriously in most people's eyes to track these issues seriously. >> talk about some reaction from elected officials for jade helm 15. the governor of texas submitting a letter to texas state guard, putting them on alert to watch
this training exercise, from governor greg abbott's letter we can read for viewers, during the training operation it is important texans know their safety constitutional rights private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed by monitoring the operation on a continually basis, state guard will facilitate communications between my office and commanders of the operation jade helm to ensure adequate measures are in place to protect texans. >> i mean, i read that letter. i think a lot of people tracking the military read that letter and said he's trying to play a middle ground here between taking the concerns seriously as far fetched as they may be and just doing nothing. so he looked and said hey if we're going to have hundreds or whatever of troops in my state i think it is important to know what they're doing. i would like to have communication with local
authorities. that i think is fair. but where the concerns were raised and where he received some mockery is by using texas guard as opposed to local police or something else like that which is common. it had the appearance of okay, i am going to use my troops to watch your troops. and i don't know if that's the message to send. >> what's the conspiracy for those that think a conspiracy is going on? >> there's a range here. one of the most common is that the american military is going to take over a portion of the southwest this year just take it over. in particular texas had been labeled as an area that's hostile and texas is an area that, you know, they're going to come in probably going to take our guns all the things you would expect in a federal government takeover. but there's no real sense that that would happen and at the same time you look at the
numbers of troops, 1200 troops spread out over the span of six or seven states. that doesn't really give you any kind of man power to do that sort of thing. >> our phone lines are open for those that want to talk about jade helm 15. the lines, democrats and republicans. start with dan in texas. markum, texas. dan, you're up first. >> caller: yes, i am a vietnam vet, i served in our military in vietnam as security specialist. smithsville when they had a town meeting with these people, they said that the commander used excuse that they were using this for terrain. the only problem is we have
bases all over the united states and most of the time when we do these exercises, they fly us to areas we need to practice in, so actually they're lying to the people that they need to use the terrain for the training exercises. we was always flown to where we needed to be trained for whatever area we was going into. so this isn't true what they're saying. >> the concern is about the military using public lands and private lands as part of the exercise as opposed to keeping it to the military facilities around this country? >> caller: yeah. i don't really understand what the reason is for the exercises. that's why people think it will be a takeover because obama doesn't like texas. as a matter of fact, states that are standing up to washington are on our borders. this is grounds for the federal government to come in try to do
something against the people. >> dan lamothe do you want to jump in. >> i would say that's part of the miseducation here, here. special operations command and u.s. army special operations command, i think they got caught by the surprise with the way the news was coming out. they were trying to say hey, here's what we're planning to do. i think the news got out in front of them and they've been trying to make people feel better after the fact. i would say part of what he says is fair. the military typically trains on bases. they've got bases that spand multiple acres, including texas. there are tens of thousands of troops at ft. hood alone. i's not accurate to say that the military never trains in public areas. one exercise that comes to mind is robin sage. it's a culminating exercise that
green berets at the end of their training goes through. and that spans multiple counties in north carolina and they do the same thing on a smaller scale where they set a scenario you know, they work through the scenario. they're wearing civilian attire. they have an arm band that identifies them. and that has gone well for years. you know there was one example i think back in 2002 with that exercise where, you know there was a miscommunication and you actually had a law enforcement official who thought that two american soldiers were you know basically out to get him based on the way they were acting and the lack of communication. he was not aware of that exercise. and in that case the deputy opened fire on the american troops and shot two of them. but since then there haven't been any of these incidents. i mean really, they're trying to work through, you know how do we blend in. that's what special operations
troops do. >> enough questions about this that secretary carter recently had to respond to one at a pentagon press briefing last thursday. here's the response from defense secretary carter. >> we're very responsive to any local officials who want to know about our training. we are very transparent. we've tried to be very transparent in this case and answer all questions give all information about what we're doing, about the need for it. and once again, i want to express the appreciation that we have to communities across the country who host our troops. it's very important. >> and we're talking about jade helm with dan lamothe from the post. he's the author from an article earlier this year. he's here the answer your questions, take your questions. brenda is up next line for
democrats. st. louis, missouri. brenda, good morning. >> caller: good morning to you. when i first heard this i thought what a big joke this is. i could not believe that people who are united states citizens would actually take that serious. all you have to do as a republican is try to scare everyone. it is not an obama. ebola is coming. obama is taking over. obama don't like texas. he's a united states citizen just like the rest of us. i just thought that was so unbelievable. and at first i just thought it was a joke and how easy people can be brought into things. and start believing something else. the first time something happens in the united states that's the first people they're going to call is the military up, then they will trust them. >> that's brenda in st. louis. let's go to our line for republicans. bea is weight in texas, flat creek, texas. bea, good morning. >> caller: good morning.
hello. >> go ahead, bea. you're on the washington journal. >> caller: hello? >> i thought we lost bea. sheila is waiting now in mentor, ohio. line for republicans. sheila, good morning. >> caller: hello. i don't know if, if they know the law. it says that you cannot have any army navy marines, air force doing the thing that jade -- >> jade helm go ahead. >> -- yeah is doing. >> are any laws being broken by the military in how they're going about this exercise? >> no in no serious way.
one thing that's relevant here is there's this sense, this message that's been pushed out that hey they're going to be operating in large scales on american, you know, public property and, you know, basically they're going to be coming through our streets in large number of troops. do we want that. i think what the reality is, is that even in these states you're going to be hard pressed to find them. they're going to be in small numbers distributed over very wide areas and in a lot of cases, they're going to be operating in for example, private ranches where they've been given permission. these are areas where the land sprawls miles with one owner. if that one private owner wants to give access to his ranch his farm, whatever, i mean, that's fair game. >> houston texas is next. roger is waiting, line for independents. roger, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead roger. you're on with dan lamothe.
>> caller: yeah about that jade helm thing. >> yes, sir. >> caller: the government tells us that -- the secretary of defense up there speaking. the one thing that most texans has a problem with is how many times have obama lied to us about other things. you can keep your health care you can keep your doctor. he's lied to us about a lot of things. his appointees are up there. you had the speaker of the majority senate up there. he was up there lying about mitt romney. how can you trust them if they lie about everything? >> didn't lamothe on the trust issue that's come up here. >> the trust issue has been underscored by this and a lot of that is fair. you look at things like the surveillance, the nsa stuff. some of the things the american government was going you know
that did involve american citizens that just weren't known. and i mean, they're going to do what they think is best for security. but at the same time, kruyou know there is a lack of credibility on the security issues that has been underscored by this. they can point to those things critics can point to these things and say you don't tell us the traut on this why should we believe you on that. >> do you think this dperexercise has blur into the political ring then in. >> absolutely. in this case you've got -- this takes a couple of things that don't usually square off against each other in political debate. you've got a military exercise and typically conservatives are very much for the military. and in this case the military has supposedly been aligned with the federal government and the president. and the president does not see eye to eye with the same
critics. it's easy to see and wrap your head around the mental gymnastic to believe that the american troops would be carrying out an exercise against the american people. >> a press release, a very long prez release. here's part of it. once i observed the map depicting the states and locations, we was rather a appalled that the hostile locations have a republican majority. games or kpesh sizes to consider any u.s. city or state in hostile control and trying to retake it the message becomes suspicious. the map that we showed a recreation of of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so that the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states.
>> i think one thing that was interesting to me when i looked at the map i mentioned the treasure scenario, that was where one state was labeled garnet, another one was labeled amber. and that was where they had other names. they don't do that. with that said one of the reasons they supposedly picked these states texas in particular texas does have a long history of being understanding of the mill tear and pro-military. the reaction in this case has been very much the opposite. >> roger is in des moines, iowa on the line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. vi a question here. does a 2010 pentagon directive number 3025.18.list as defense
part of civil authorities. in google it says it's an attempt to give obama authority to violate the posse come kaz zi attack. now i called my congressman and we went over there. and it doesn't really say what google says. however, it says we can do this and they can do that. and then i asked a simple question, what is the title of we and what is the title of they. who has the authority to do that. they could not give me an answer. >> dan lamothe do you know the document that the caller is referring to? >> i don't know the document he's referring to specifically. but what i would say is there is hundreds of years of history here in which really -- i mean with a couple of isolated understand accidents that are
not. i think interment camps in world war ii are where a portion of the american people were not treated the way they otherwise would have been. there is no real history to say, hey, you know, they're going to -- for example one of the rumors here is that there's trains that have shackles that we're going to take people away. i mean, that's new world order stuff. i don't see that happening. >> the headline from the "the new york times" on this from last week, military exercises stir conspiracy theorists. can you talk about where the theories start snd. >> yes. there's a number of websites in particular that peddle in this. they will take a grain of truth and spin it any which way they want. you know, but a lot of these places, some of these same individuals that are talking about this are people that say 9/11 was an inside job, for example. and you look at that and it's like if you go back over the history of what some of these
websites, some of these individuals have said, a lot of it seems to be out in left field. >> let's go to pine bluff, arkansas. ken is waiting, line for democrats. ken, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, ken. you're on the washington journal. >> caller: oh, good morning. i think that this is just all just crazy to me, you know. the army is trying to take over texas. i think that congressman hasting of florida when he said texas is a crazy state i really believe it. i don't see how your congressman could really think and the people of texas most of the people of texas who voted the
guy in really think that obama is trying to take over texas. that's all i have to say. and y'all have a good day. >> bill, on twitter asks what the heck is texas governor greg abbott and senator ted cruz doing playing sirius with conservative wing nuts on jade helm. >> governor abbott and you know the senator, i think they both they spoke out on this. they were asked about this. a lot of the concerns come from their own state. i understand that they would have to address these issues. senator cruz, the way he framed things, it's like well, you know it's hard to believe you know, the federal government so i understand why people would be concerned now. and to a degree i guess that's fair when you consider, you know, some of the other things i've mentioned, the surveillance and issues like that. but at the same time, i think it's important to note that you also have conservatives like
former governor rick perry who basically looked at this and shook his head. the vision even within, you know, groups that are typically pretty unified against the president here, it doesn't hold true. >> robert is in north port, florida. line for republicans. robert, good morning. >> caller: morning. dan, i think that there's a good cause for paranoia here. our government cringes at the mere thought of putting boots on the ground in any foreign place. however, these boots in our domestic soil aren't supposed to raise any questions? i think not. also, our current government has zero faith and zero respect with our police agencies. okay? thirdly, our government detests the southern viewpoint that our borders merit to be protected
and sealed. >> so -- >> caller: given this, plus the fact that our government is buying more ammo for a government that will not even consider boots on the ground and only drones, the government is buying more ammo than at any time before. it's unprecedented. given these facts dan, i think there's very good cause for people to say, something smells fishy. >> i guess i would say sir, that when you look at you know -- okay yes it's absolutely fair to say that we have an aversion as a government now to putting boots on the ground in a foreign country. or even calling them boots on the ground. i don't know if that's fair right now based on the situation in iraq. but at the same time we have been doing exercises of this nature. you know, i mentioned robin sage, the marine special
operations troops, bold alligator, another example of where you've got, you know, dress rehearsals essentially for what could be military operations overseas. how can you expect that at some point the military would be ready for an operation overseas that could come up whether or not the federal government likes it or not if we're not actually preparing and practice for contingencies that might come up. >> historically are there other operations that have caused this level of concern in this country, training operations? >> i'm not aware of anything quite this serious or quite this hysterical. but with that said there was a 1999 i believe operation in which there was some urban preparations that the military did in san francisco and around that area. and that brought out a lot of you know a lot of frustration and anger, what are they doing on our streets. the interesting thing in that case, it was largely a very
liberal tone to the criticism. and in this case it's quite the opposite. >> we have a special line for texas residents, if you have questions about jade helm 15 taking place this summer what are the dates for jade helm this summer? >> it spans ten weeks beginning in june. really through the summer. whether or not it's all those locations at all of those times we don't have that level of detail. >> we have a special line for texas residents if you want to call. otherwise lines for democrats republicans and independents. just about 15 minutes left with don lamothe with the washington post. national security writer there. how long have you been with the post? >> about 15. i've been embedded in afghanistan three times, i was with foreign policy magazine. >> and dan lamothe here with us for about 15 minutes.
dan is up line for democrats. good morning, dan. >> caller: actually independents. i want to preface my statement on i agree with due diligence and keeping an eye on what's going on. but, you know, with the amount of what we call it news that gets put out between the internet, the kind of crazy conspiracy stuff that goes on i guess i just -- i think that a lot of times issues like this too much credence is given to the fringe of view points and the fringe view points become the norm or what we're actually looking at as opposed to when journalists people that are supposed to be kind of finding
out what's really going on and letting the public know that's what you know, what free speech and a free press is supposed to be about. when you allow a quote unquote free press or you know journalist quote unquote journalist to propagate stories and to fan flames of this sort, to me this is exactly what you end up with. and when elected officials get involved in this stuff, i think that we should look back at the constitution and say, wait a minute. some of these people that are saying some of the things that they say as an elected official should also be put on notice that hey, that's against the constitution. >> dan lamothe. >> i think he hits on an interesting debate that even my colleagues have had on this exercise in particular.
and that is how much play to give it. you know how seriously to take it. how much of it you know do we perpetuate this conversation about jade helm being something other than what it is, an exercise. >> did the letter from texas governor greg abbott to the texas state guard take it to the next level here? >> i think it definitely did. i wrote about jade helm, that article you mentioned, back in march. that was when i had a couple of veterans that tipped me to it saying hey you should check this out partly because this is on websites that we spend time on but also partly because we're concerned. i talked to them and said, okay i'll look at it. i did the home work on it and i thought man, they're making a leap here without a lot of logic. we laughed about it afterwards
and they say okay, i get it, especially when you point out the context of the history of other operations, other exercises that have a sense of a familiar flavor. once the governor weighed in and said i want my own state guard monitoring this, it had the look of, you know, well the state guard, he's commander of chief of those troops. he is the guy that can activate those troops. and you know, to say that they would, you know, stand toe to toe with the american military is just way out there. but at the same time the fact that you would activate your own force like that, you know even a small number to monitor this, it had the look in a lot of people's minds of okay we're going to you know take this seriously and you know we'll be ready in case something, you know, bad or evil happens. and that's really hard to see. >> what has the response been from other lawmakers to
statements from louis gomer or the actions of greg on bot. here's a ad on politico, joe manchin, please come to west virginia. >> you've seen that a number of cases, utah as well. labeled hostile on this map. officials in utah said i see nothing wrong with this. we plan to participate. will do whatever we can to help. the diversity in reaction is very interesting. >> tom is in new jersey, line for independents. good morning tom. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for c-span. can i taukt about the coincidence of drills with real-world events? here's an example. president reagan's assassination attempt. at the time that occurred there was a presidential succession drill occurring. are you familiar with this in. >> not familiar with the facts
of that, no. >> caller: let me try another one. on 9/11 there was a number of drills occurring some of which interfered with the air defense ons that day. are you familiar with them? >> where do you go to read up on these issues? >> caller: where do i go to read up -- well webster harvey's book of "synthetic terror" has a great list of the drills. i think, you know to be fair and to be open journalism the people who are concerned about these drills to my way of thinking have a really good reason to be concerned. the national defense authorization act says the military can arrest people, keep them in custody until the end of hostilities and not give them a lawyer, not give them a trial not charge them. . this is the law of our country. and you know, this is not traditional constitutional
governance. >> let's go to freddie, line for democrats. you're on with dan lamothe. >> caller: thank you. good morning. >> morning. >> caller: i think this is as crazy as anything i have witnessed in my 65 years of living. and it seems to me that those people are the one who are maybe concerned with these drills are old white men who dislike obama. i mean obama is trying to free those captured prisoners down there in guantanamo. and now you've got an american conservative angry about that. >> question for you. is there any chance that this operation gets canceled if this concern continues to mount or if there's more pressure from political officials? >> there's been no indication that they would change their plan. i am curious, i've asked the questions, waiting for the
answers for more specifics. because i think it becomes interesting how you go about, a, keeping the american public safe with an exercise like this just because you have aircraft involved. but also sort of because of the potential implications. i mentioned the shooting with robin sage in 2002. that's something they don't want a repeat of. that's why they share this information ahead of time to make sure that when somebody hears blank gun fire there's not a freak out because of that. >> another comment, get the public accustomed to military on the street. got time for a couple more calls. chuck is in des moines, iowa line for democrats. chuck, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i wanted to express my opinion on a couple of things if i could. this jade helm thing i think i agree with the last calling, i believe, or the one before that. i think this is just completely
ridiculous. doesn't even merit discussion. one other thing i've been hearing, i don't know how many times they keep saying obama lied to them about keeping your health insurance, keeping your doctor. he did not lie. he didn't have anything to do with the insurance company canceling them. if they had to cancel them, they would have kept their doctor and their insurance. >> chuck, we'll stick to jade helm for the last couple minutes we have with dan lamothe. chris, fair view oregon, line for independents. >> caller: good morning. i'm served as a sergeant in the united states armed forces and familiar with a lot of the disaster response currently that we have. dan i was hoping maybe you could elaborate for the viewers who might not know what could be
expected from the jade helm as far as check points, you mentioned aircraft. what kind of things can the civilian population expect from this exercise? >> i think, you know, noise would be the first easy answer. you're going to hear aircraft overhead. you're going to potentially hear blank gun fire. in terms of what -- i think -- you know, the presence is going to be relatively minimal. i mean when you start talking about 1200 people spread out over seven states eight states i mean, you know, they're looking to do, you know long range movements where for the same of argument flying people from utah to texas. that's several hundred miles. and those mirror things that you might see in real life, in real, you know, in real operations. but you know, the specifics, you know, we're still trying to get more details on what this could resemble. and i think those are coming in time. you know this operation is still several months away.
but i think we can look back on what's occurred in other places. there's been role players where you have people who are hired or volunteer to you know, play you know play being the other side. they're the quote unquote insurgents. those sorts of things that have happened in those other exercises i referenced. i think they're likely to happen here as well. >> jason from ohio is next line for democrats. jason, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for having me. morning, mr. lamothe. my comment regarding jade 15, we already own texas and everything else. there's no reason to retake it. if this was a military takeover there's more than enough military equipment in texas to take care of the national guard and anybody else down there to start with. the conspiracies that keep coming out i believe are rooted in the dislike of this man in
the white house. he's not a white bred man. he didn't be trusted. that's the gist i get from everyone i talk to. it's bigotry. >> that's jason in ohio. last question for you. your expectation for the media coverage when the operation actually begins, is this going to be the most scrutinized military drill that the military will have seen? >> i am very interested in how that goes myself. you know i think it's -- you know, it's of interest you know for us to see pieces of it to cover parts of us. hey, you know, all of these concerns let us see it. whether or not that happens, you know based on for one being a special operation, those are typically much more -- they have a higher level of classification to them in terms of the tactics and those sorts of things. i guess we'll have to wait and see on how much we're allowed to view. >> have you ever heard of a
reporter getting embedded in a domestic drill operation? >> yes. there's an example that comes to mind, i mentioned robin sage. there was a very good report done several years back in a north carolina magazine in which they viewed aspects of that and interviewed people who were involved, including the civilians who lived in the area who was volunteering and participating. so yes. >> dan lamothe is a national security writer with the washington post. you can check out his stories on the washington post website. we appreciate you time this morning. >> thanks for having me. >> the house foreign affairs committee will hear from people who have been targeted by isis in iraq and syria. that's on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day a senate homeland security hearing on border security. focusing on infrastructure and fencing which we'll have live here on c-span3 at 2:00.
this weekend the c-span cities tour partnered with come koost to learn about the history anliterary life of ft. lauderdale, florida. >> this was culture tourism. when they het up their villages along the way sometimes only lean-two the buses would stop. here was a tourist attraction, seminols camping by the road. when they came in to the tourists attractions they were getting a weekly allotment of food and sometimes the remember tall of soy machines where coppinger would rent and let the people use them when they lived in the tourist attraction and they also sometimes get fabric because it behooved the tur rust attraction people to supply them with fabric so they were sitting there sewing things making
things for market. this was an experiment tall time for patch work and you can see that on the bottom this is not a design that's made it down today. this is a little interment tall design. the designs were big ner the 20s and sometimes they weren't used any longer than during that particular decade. >> you know the thing about devil's triangle and the bermuda triangle triangle, there's all kinds of things that have happened. fly 19 was a regular navigation training mission. they would take off from the base and then flight 19 they would go aes out towards the bahamas. there was an area called -- and go 100-something miles and then make a turn back west towards ft. lauderdale. they never came back. late at night after they were sure they were out of fuel they
sent out these big rescue planes looking for them and that disappeared. 13 on board. the next day they start a five-day search with hundreds of planes and ships and they never found anything. >> watch all of our events on saturday, 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2 book tv and sunday at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress to color photos of every senator and house member plus bioand dakt information. also district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org. now a discussion on the future of iraq.
two sunni leaders spoke at the brookings institution saying that sunnis are being squeezed out of the political system. during this 90-minute event they make recommendation frs best way to include june anies in the process of shaping iraq's future as well as combatting isis. good morning and welcome to the brookings institution. i am ken pollack. i'm a senior fellow at the center for middle east policy here at the brookings institution and i am absolutely delighted to bring this program to you this morning. as all of you know, in the last few months washington has seen two extremely distinguished visitors from iraq. the prime minister was here in march and just recently -- in april, and just recently we had president massoud barzani of the krg. as we all know, there are many different communities in iraq. all of them in great tension at
the moment. some of them virtually at war with one another, and as we all know, at the heart of iraq's communal differences lie its sunni community. we all now know that it was the alienation of the sunni community that began after the 2003 american invasion which drove the sunnis of iraq out of the political system and drove them into opposition and helped usher in iraq's civil war. we all know that it was in 2008-2009 that with help from the united states the sunnis were brought back into the fold. a new power sharing arrangement was forged in baghdad. the sunnis were once again given their rightful place, given political power, and economic benefits commensurate with their demographic weight, and that was a critical element in resolving the civil war, pacifying the country, and putting it on a pace and in a direction toward
real progress. we also are well aware, after the painful events of last year, that it was the unraveling of that agreement and the actions by the prior iraqi government that alienated the sunni community once again and that opened the door for isis or isil, whatever you prefer to call it, to come back into iraq. today one of the critical questions facing iraq and one of the critical questions for the united states and every country in the world that cares about iraq, that sees iraq's future as tied to its own interests is what the future of iraq will be. what kind of an iraq can bring all of its communities together again, help them to live in peace and tranquility. when you speak to iraqis in baghdad, in all other parts of the country, what you often hear from them, in fact, almost invariably when you talk about the course of the fighting so
far and what it will take to defeat dash and bring peace to iraq, what you inevitably hear is what will matter is what the future iraq government looks like. to the sunni community that's of intense interest. many sunnis feel they were badly betrayed in particular by the events of 2010 and '11 and '12 and '13, when they bought back into an iraqi political system only to find that political system used against them by a prime minister who saw many of their most important members as his enemies. if iraq is going to be safe, secure, peaceful, unified, the real question is not how fast can we defeat dash and how fast can we drive them out of the country. the real question is whether there is a political solution to be had, a political solution that will allow the sunnis to once again feel that they are full members of iraq's political
system. that once again they have the political strength and the economic benefits commensurate with their demographic weight and that they are not enemies of the state, that they are not objects of persecution by the government but full partners in that government. when you talk to iraqis, you often hear, and this is a paraphrasing of something that i heard directly from one person in particular, but i'm going to put a slight twist on it so it's not a direct quote. what you often hear from them is, you're asking me to fight for the future of iraq. until you tell me what that future looks like, i can't tell you whether i'm willing to fight for it. and for that reason i ask today two very important, very well-known, and very highly regarded leaders of the sunni community to come to washington to help us to understand the perspective of their community on these critical issues. i know that for many people in
this room both of these figures are well known to you, but i also know that for some they are not particularly well acquainted with them, so let me give them quick introductions. to my farthest right, to your farthest left, is dr. rafi al issawi. he was born in anbar, trained as an orthopedic surgeon, and rose to become the head of the fallujah hospital including most famously during the november 2004 battle for fallujah. he was elected to the council of representatives in 2005 and 2006 he became minister of state for foreign affairs. in 2008 deputy prime minister of iraq, and 2010 finance minister. in 2012 and '13, rafi came under attack by the previous government. his bodyguards were arrested. he was the target of an assassination attempt and he was forced to resign from the government. he is the personification of the events that led to the
alienation of the sunni community in 2012 and '13. to my immediate right, to rafe's left and to your immediate left, a governor nujaifi. he was born in mosul. he has degrees in engineering and law. i also found out, in looking over your bio, that you were an engineer in the iraqi air force during the iran/iraq war which is something i did not know. in 2009, the governor became the governor of nineveh province and at that time, excuse me, it was a tremendously important event in iraq, and i can remember some of your early adventures when you first took over the governorship which i think were critical in broaching or beaching the differences between sunni and kurd in nineveh province. in addition, the governor is still the governor of nineveh and his brother was the speaker
of the iraqi council of representatives from 2010 to 2014. now, as again i think many in these audience already know, if there was one thing that the previous government of iraq was successful at, it was fragmenting the sunni community. there are many different voices in the sunni community these days, and there is no question that there are other people who will claim to be this or that or speak for this or that community. the reason that we brought you dr. rafe and governor nujaifi today is because these two men have long-standing -- excuse
me -- histories as acting as eloquent voices for their community, as being committed to the peace and stability of a future iraq, and of being committed to a u.s./iraqi partnership moving forward. and we'll have questions talk show style and finally we will open things up to you in the audience to ask them your questions. for those reasons, i can think of no two better voices to help us understand the situation in iraq and with its sunni community than our two guests. we'll begin with some prepared remarks by both of them. dr. rafi has a bit of a power point presentation to give you a sense of what's going on. good morning, everybody. please join me in welcoming these gentlemen. [ applause ] >> good morning, everybody. i would like first to thank my friend ken on this invitation and thank you all for your attendance and thank my colleague and old friend. since you are talking about my medical history he was my boss.
please raise your hand. thank you very much. >> u made my comments on power point to make it easy on you for the specific topic on the situation in iraq. i agree with mr. ken. in order to talk about fighting to defeat in iraq to build back in iraq, we have to describe what's going on on the ground in iraq right now, political security and other aspects. excuse me. so now i will talk about defeating extremism and state of iraq. for the -- both on the isis side and daish or militia side.
simply i put this up to give you the impression what the exact picture looks like in iraq. we have to know the exact events and the causes that led to that situation. and i would like for you to just to focus on the next coming video which is about one minute. i divided the screen into two sides. one for the malitia. on the right side, these are the flags of the militias and the left side is the daish. the black of isis and the yellow of the militias working in iraq and one of the leaders threatening saudi arabia and that one threatening the neighboring countries.
they are identical in committing their crimes. and on this side this is the brutal dealing of the militias on that side isis are dealing with the shia on the other side. in front i would like to give you the impression these are identical criminal groups who are play in the fate of iraq. the same thing on the killing on the right side. i cover the picture because it is offensive pictures. on this side also malitia are killing sunnis. on this side and on the left side you see that the daish or isis are killing the shia. so this is the situation in iraq right now. in order to change you will come to the practical points we will tackle on government side, on american side, how to end this tragedy in iraq. it is such an identical that this is -- on the left side this is -- is killing one of the
shiite. and on this side the militia are -- is a new one. that is why we want to focus yes on short term. the real threat is isis damaging to the country and threatening the region and international community and global battle with daish. but on the long run you cannot deal with a country filled with a militia which is illegal and violent actor. now the question sunni arabs are iraq. i'm afraid this rapid presentation may not give you an expect picture of the situation. in 2003, and 2004, sunni arab divide into two groups. one who believes in the participation of the political process, others who boycott. i am some other colleagues of mine participated since 2005. the vice president the chief
of public affairs the sunni bloc in the parliament. and the foreign -- parliament and all of them are leaders of sunni and in exile now. they are outside the political process. they are wanted in political -- politicized judicially decisions. now sunnis are look is there any benefit of political participation? second, i'm talking about some legal constitutional steps taken by sunni and how the other partners dealt with the sunni. first one is participation, second, when sunni found it's difficult to achieve their goals they went towards demonstration, or before demonstration they went to declare regions. in order to get a little bit of decentralized to decrease the grasp of the central government over them.
what happened in 2011, militia enter the government building occupy the office of the governor and the governor was in -- for six months he was not capable of coming back to his office. while this is a constitution illegally, according to iraq -- so we moved into a third step which is the awakenings. awakenings to fight al qaeda. this was back to 2006 and '07. what happened almost all the leaders of the tribes who fight al qaeda have been assassinated and the government didn't protect them. after that, sunni said let us go to the streets for demonstration. more than one year sunni demonstrated the street. what happened? the former government said thanks and attacked them and they killed them who demonstrate
legally, peacefully. when sunni come to say let's come back to talk with the government to find some sort of recruiting sunni people for local national guard in order to participate in the security forces, and defeating isis and until this moment, unfortunately the draft of the national guard has not been sent or finalized in the parliament. and when it come to sunni now who stood after the control of isis in some of the big places, tribes want to fight them until the moment. thousands of people are not recruited officially by the government. keeping in mind we are talking about official legal recruitment, not war lords. we don't need to see sunni armed groups and shia armed groups. it will end in conflict. we are talking about
institutionalization of the security forces. so when they stood up to fight isis they didn't receive their ministerial orders and the weapons too. we are talking about almost 600,000 families displaced. and we are talking about 3 million people displaced out of their houses because of isis. and this put a challenge over everyone including the central government how to deal with the displaced sunni people. the latest wave of displacement was from anbar that unfortunately for that -- dealt with them as that you have to bring a sponsor. we have to bring a sponsor so some came to a dangerous and risky situation in anbar. and we are talking about sunni complete imbalance on top of the security institutions. as a model we are talking about 16 agencies civilian and security.
the 16 agencies in a sunni dominated province all the 60 leaders are shiite leaders. what sort of participation are we talking about? that's why i said sunni arabs are part of iraq. too many agreement with the previous government and with this government about reconciliation and amnesty law which is not even in the parliament and on the government side, i mean. so all this environment make the society of sunnis ask the question, is viable to be part of the political process? if it is yes, the government should include all iraqis. this is one. and you have to be received in security forces even when you come to fight isis, what sort of partnership the government can do if the government fail to make partnership with those who are fighting a global threat, which is isis.
now back to isis 2012. even knows that isis was in the western part of iraq and some good signals from the governor of anbar, former central government to prime minister isis are there in the western desert, you have to deal with them. who left isis to enter ramadi and other cities, those who are controlling the security situation. so the central government and iraqi central security forces which control the security failed to deal with the entrance of control of isis over our provinces. the question, we keep saying that iraqi security forces was not built on a proficient national model and this is the end. you see isis controlling our provinces. the many divisions have been defeated in mosul on a few hundred of isis. isis presented itself as a protector of sunni putting in
their mind this unjust dealing of the government. the marginalization of sunni. so at the beginning they are misleading sunni they will protect you. sunni started to discover that isis are threatening sunni more than anyone else. the kis placed people, millions are sunni are killed by the bombing, and infrastructure including hospitals, houses, everything bombarded in the sunni provinces. the first direct threat of isis is on sunni and then all iraqis and it's a global threat rather than a local one. and now talking about cleansing of sunni province from isis. why i highlighted this point because talking about sending sectarian forces, whether militia or anyone else, will complicate the situation.
we are encouraging everyone to keep the momentum of the people who are ready to fight isis in our province, that is sunni isis fighting. so we don't need to lose that momentum to change it into sunni-shiite fighting. which prove as i present at the beginning commit a very similar set of crimes like isis. malitia involvement in tikrit really complicated the situation. some of the militia bombarded houses, killed people. slaughtered like isis. so we were very frank with our colleagues in iraq saying, look, why you are sending from the southern part to fight for mosul. the sunnis can fight isis. your role is to recruit them officially and give them more weapons. otherwise you send your guys to
be killed and at the same time some sectarian behavior took place that give adverse action against them all of us will lose because the battle will be -- from fighting daish into fighting a civil war. we are talking about thousands of people in anbar and mosul and other provinces, thousands of them, they are coming to the camps of training even without uniforms now. this will come on american side and government what they can do to accelerate the liberation of iraq from isis and to restore back the state. fighting isis is a dual pronged approach. the other side should be political. talking about political, it means the government program that mr. haider al abadi commit himself in front of the parliament this is my governmental program to be implemented with all other
political partners. that include reconciliation, amnesty, sunni recruitment and training. and all these things are really not new topics or not new requests or demands of sunni. with the problem the government put a timetable but nothing is implemented yet. on the other side, the other threat is the militia. we talk about the men international global threat to iraq and division of the world is isis. militia, tens of militia working illegally out of the state of security force. unless we reach a point of institutionalization of security force, sunni, shiite, christian, muslim, all these groups will find war lords
who are fighting inside iraq. let us assume after post-daish you will find -- no one accept. that while putting that in institutionalized security forces not to reach a bad result. some sectarian actions of militia, including two days ago, they attacked one of the jails, released some of the criminals. they have been executed rather than killed in front of the jail. i said all these criminals, sectarian crimes will really not only -- it will prolong the life of isis. it will give them the justification they are protecting some groups and they are really not protecting. and i side ie malitia and isis, both of them, they commit identical types of crime, of crimes, i mean. utilizing militia on the short
term to fight isis is exactly like using -- to fight daish. is accepted to fight daish -- they are also a terrorist group. let us assume that isis later on divided into groups that fight each other. is it accept to -- no. we have to fight isis legally by legally constitutional institutional security forces that include all iraqis. on the short term all the resources should be focused on isis and defeating isis. but we cannot close an eye to the crimes of the malitia on the other side because it will pull into civil war. and when i presentation this short video, on the right side, one of the leaders of the militia is threatening a neighboring country we are coming to occupy you. on the other side he is putting the passport of egypt and jordan saying we are coming to occupy you. both daish and malitia want to
occupy the neighboring countries. that's why it's not only one threat in iraq. post-isis defeat. without having -- without institutionalization of security forces you will find everyone who is getting weapons who doesn't belong to the government will not be capable of controlling him. now some of the militias are outside totally the control of the central government. without the institutionalization of the security forces to trust the people who commit to fight isis and to bring back or restore back the state of law, there is much more tragedy. institutionalization, i talked about it. million of displaced people need to be compensated. i don't think the central government capable to do it
alone. help people. reconciliation is needed. iraq institution comes into the federal region. i mentioned when they declare a region on a level, sunni ask, what's the solution? the -- fighting -- that's not accepted. training national guard, national guard is very important. by the way, we agreed upon the national guard with the america, and central government, but it's been change and it's waiting in parliament parliament. it's not part of parliament yet. rebuilding the armed forces to see second model of mosul.
the iraqi army. defeat the iraqi army few hundreds of isis. we should not see it. the only way to rebuild the restructure the iraqi army on the background. and here with all those problems whatnotnot really accomplished. iraq is in a fragile situation. i already explain that. the political process by using policy judicial system, and agreed upon government programs, presented -- by the way it's a good program and the head of financial parliament when i was minister of finance. i think he's trying. but trying is a bad situation.
both americans, central government iraqis to stand united together to defeat that illegal violence minister objectives. the path to a democracy -- to now have a vision i think, when we need to adapt a new counter. i keep say it modify general petraeus model. when he was there, for example, he created the model of awakening because the president of the american at the time was huge, but now the president is different, so lid fie that model, and that means creating a joint comedy, america central government, whom else, to supervise the story of recruiting sunnis and arming them directly.
arming them rapidly. arming them without this democracy. these joint commodity would be overseeing, and americans supervise everything. central government will not say that, i'm not attended, and nothing coordinated with me. they will be attended in the story, and local people who complain government did not seven them or arm them also that everyone saw and they will be equipped, recruited officially again to fight isis. now after this -- as i mentioned, very rapid -- i'm sorry, i don't mean to confuse you, but i hope the answer can put muyou much more aware. we have the central government, local people what to do, central people whatted too, and america fighting isis what to do. a lot of stuff at the central
government. on the political side the program was the government, including reconciliation, counterterrorism, or things need to be implemented and, by the way, i'm talking about this i mean, restoring back balance, muslims in the security forces and other institutions. all these topics you see agreed upon. we are not talking about the new agreement, all agreed upon the implementation. on the security side should be directing to this, and access of america, and typing isis, and do you have to dismatten and decommission militia otherwise there's a weak army weak government, and strong militia.
no one expects that country to be in this model. restructuring the iraqi army talking about how it was devoted in mosul. divisions withdraw on few criminals like isis. they have precursor to be included later on in the national guard, legislation to the parliament because at the end of the day it's the local people in the national guard in control and force isis, period. the composition of displaced people because this is a very big problem now, millions of people outside their houses. on the american side, supporting political reform and recon reconciliation reconciliation, they keep support, but, i mean to start with despite all the sunni, we say the solution should be political. all these things. in order just to squeeze an
angle, would not accept this and next selection of government for negotiation agreement, the government permission agreement is an excellent program. the idea is to go over there, timetable, and implementation. assisting in rebuilding forces sectarian, provisional basis, we're talking about 50,000 soldiers. so minister of defense paid for them, and now only this point the 50,000 to be compensated by 50,000 good guys with the restructure of the iraqi army, you see? we can defeat its forces like we don't need to see that model in order not to see the forces, and the number's increasing. the national background -- just a moment i lost -- to develop
the law, i'm talking about state of law. that's restoring the law to the country, not state of law who damaged the law. >> technical assistance, the guard, dismantling, militia, we don't need to build the partnership with isis. the partnership and the frame work agreement with the state with iraq. help the central government regarding this location of many and creating a fund for displaced people. the story about arming sunni. i think the battle, i guess isis is an international one, but isis is stressing everyone so everyone should participate in that battle in a way. sunnis in iraq are the greatest potential ally in fighting isis. i don't think anyone can liberate sunni province without sunnis. they need the united states and international community in order to fight isis.
they need leaders and now on the ground fighting isis. the model, as i mentioned, the model of awakening direct army direct financing from american side encourage people to defeat in 2006 and 2007. there's talk about assuming arming sunni may use it now to fight against isis later on use against the government. the question why the sunni use -- why the sunni fight against the government, their own government, if they are participating, if why that? this is not accepted. the only way is to restore bad state of law and partnership of iraqis in order to come to this and the central government cannot be, if the central government cannot be a partner with sunnis who a fighting, who are fighting with international community against isis, so who is the partner of the central government? so this is the situation. threat in iraq is isis and
militia militia. it can be restored back again. it is difficult, but it is very possible. it depends upon all the partners. american sides, central government side, and local people and the tribes. and thank you. [ applause ] good morning, everybody. thank you for that introduction. you are an expert on iraq, but even more, you are a friend of iraq. you may have my special thanks
for that friendship with iraq and our friendship. thank you for organizing this forum. and i want to talk -- i want to take this opportunity to thank the people of the united states, all american forces, who support them president obama's administration and the congress united states congress assistance to our common fight against this. as you say here isis. i welcome this chance to express my view on iraqi's situation. a sunni political leader as one who born of many