tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 7, 2010 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
they have been a part of that. >> there has been talk about the vacancies at these federal courts. they say the judiciary has a heavy caseload. what will the white house do differently either with the remaining time in recess or afterwards to get people appointed to office? >> i don't have the statistics in front of me. we have sent up a comparable number of judicial appointments. >> we will leave this white house news briefing to go to the national press club parody islamic society of north america is holding a news conference to discuss the islamic cultural center near ground zero. this is live coverage on c-span. . .
posted this with the islamic society of america. it is extraordinary work that they did in putting this together on such short notice. for those of us who are jews, , some jewish we know what it is like when people have attacked us verbally, attacked us physically and others remained silent. it tcjhhn>'n, americaw"# in 2010 without the response of the religious community. we speak out because we know that hate crimes and hate speech are not mere acts of
the statement that we have worked together collectively reads the sleeve. religious leaders denounced anti- muslim bigotry, call for america's respect for tradition a religious liberty. as religious leaders in this great country we have come together in our nation's capital to denounce categorically the derision, misinformation, and outright bigotry being directed against america's muslim community. we bear a sacred responsibility to honor america's very -- varied faiths and traditions in accomplishing freedom for all. after the attacks of september 11, 2001 we announced a new era of interfaith cooperation.
>> thank you. we are profoundly distressed and deeply saddened by the incidences of violence committed against muslims in our communities. and by the desecration of islamic houses of worship. we stand by the principal that to attack any religion in the united states is to do violence to the religious freedom of all americans. the threatened burning of copies of the holy koran this saturday is a particularly egregious offense that demands the strongest possible condemnation of all that value stability and public life and seek to honor the memory of those who lost their lives in september 11. -- on september 11. as religious leaders, we are appalled by such disrespect of a sacred text have for centuries has shaped many of the great cultures of our world and continues to give spiritual
comfort to more than 1 billion muslims today. >> we are convinced that spiritual leaders representing the various states in the united states have a moral obligation to stand together and denounce categorically derision, misinformation or outright bigotry directed against any religious group in this country. silence, silence, silence is not an option. only by taking the stand can we -- can spiritual leaders to fill the highest calling of our respective faiths and, thereby, helped to create a safer and stronger america for all of our people. >> thank you so much. now i would like to call up the rev. cardinal theodore mckellar, the archbishop emeritus of
washington. we were let -- we were together last in rome, where we both signed a document, a statement after meeting to discuss the common word document in which we supported international religious freedom, freedom for religious minorities everywhere in the world. i was very honored to be with him there that weekend in rome. and also, to join him today. >> thank you. i am honored to be here. i am really representing archbishop gregory, the archbishop of atlanta and the chairman of the catholic bishops' conference on interfaith relations. i am delighted that i have a chance to be with you. i was there 47 years ago, too, when mark -- when dr. martin luther king spoke up so
beautifully. it is something you will never -- you never forget because it was such a powerful moment in our history. i think what my brothers and sisters have been doing is to give a prayerful and firm and constant response. why are we doing this? for two reasons. we are doing it because we have to do it. i think that document that was just read talking about the responsibilities of religious leaders is the document that tells the story. the religious leaders cannot stand by in silence when things like this are happening. when things are affecting so many good, wonderful people around our country who have brought islam to the issue, who are playing a role in society. i think we have to reach out to them and say, look, we are
happier here. but we love you and we understand your bearing false witness against your neighbor, it is against the koran. it is against the bible. it is why we are here. there is another reason we are here. i have a great fear that the story of bigotry, the story of hatred, the story of animosity toward others is going to be stake -- is going to be taken by some as the story of the real america and is not. this is not the story of our country. we need to make sure that our country is known on a world as a place where liberty of religion, respect for your neighbor -- these things are the most prominent in society. america was not built on a tree. america was built on love. -- america was not built on hatred. america was built on love.
we need to make sure that we try to live, everyone together, in a good and holy life. that is what america is and that is the message i predict we would get out to all the people of the world -- i pray that we would get out to all the world. it is a great joy and privilege for me to be here. thank you. >> thank you cardinal. next we will hear from the rev. richard seisnick, a truly visionary leader. >> thank you for inviting me. cardinal, and my distinguished colleagues, we represent one of the largest constituency is that america has, that is, religious constituency with all its breadth of that you see here, from roman catholic to mainline
protestant, too evangelical, muslim, orthodox, we are all here and we are here together to say what has already been said, namely, that we are governed in this country by a constitution, whose first amendment guarantees the exercise of religious freedom. and everyone has to respect that right from the largest city to the smallest burrows. protection of religious liberty is what evangelicals most of all have come to appreciate. is the one practice, i think, that is most exceptional about america. and by the way, millions have come here through the centuries because of it, including millions of evangelicals questions. we know the controversies that began with article 51, you see,
it has become exhibit a between this passion and constitutional principle. but the contest has moved into the smallest of communities around america. i'm here to say on behalf of my community, the evangelical constituency of america, that those mainly conservative christians who are responding to their muslim brothers and sisters, their fellow americans, with anti-muslim bigotry, they're openly of -- openly rejecting the principles of religious liberty, which we, as evangelicals benefit from daily. and to those who would exercise derision, bigotry, open
rejection of our fellow americans for their religious faith, i say, shame on you. as an evangelical, i say to those who do this, i say, you bring this honor to the name of jesus christ -- dishonor to the name of jesus christ. if you directly disobey his commitment to love your neighbor. you violate the command not to bear false witness. and not least of all, you drive the watching world and further away from any interest in our gospel message. lastly, let me say one more thing. watch out for so casually trampling on the religious liberty of others. you may be able to do that when you are the majority, but if you
undermine liberty for other people's children today, and your own children may one day see their religious liberties deprived from them. and the principles that protect muslims today here in this country will protect christians, jews, and others tomorrow. that is what makes us a great country. i thank you for being here. >> thank you so much, reverend. now we would like to hear from dr. michael cankennemen, the general secretariat of the national council of churches. >> i am the general secretary of
the national council, but i'm pleased to say that behind me are the heads of our member churches. the national council is an umbrella group comprised of 36 of the major denominations in this country and behind me are the leaders of the greek orthodox, the armenian orthodox, the episcopal, methodists, lutherans, baptist, and other communions. and together, we want to say as strongly as we possibly can that we identify ourselves with the statement excerpt that you just heard, that we denounce the kind of anti-muslim bigotry that we see across the country at this moment and we identified ourselves strongly with the call for religious tolerance and acceptance. we believe at the national council of churches that the diversity of this country strengthens our faith, that we are made deeper and richer in our own christian commitment by virtue of the relationships that
we have with the muslim and jewish communities. it is a great pleasure and honor to be with those colleagues at this meeting today. at this meeting, we, as you heard, adopted a statement which we present to you which we hope will be read across the country, perhaps in congregations and mosques and synagogues. but we also talked about next steps that we can take as communities of faith to carry these words farther beyond these walls and these organizations. we talked, for example, about calling on our networks, our constituencies to replicate this in settings around the country. so that what happens here in washington will also happen in targeted cities. we talked about how we might do that using our own media networks, and also thanks to you.
for example, at the national council of churches we have made national statements that call for acceptance of muslim neighbors and we have stricken out as strongly as we can about the issues you have heard today -- we have spoken out as strongly as we can about the issues you have heard today. but we have also called on state leaders, for example, in florida, to initiate movements in their own committees that will say no to this kind of bigotry. that was part of the meeting today, not simply to stop with the statement, although, in response to the moment and must be heard. but also, to carry that word of education, and hope into the future by calling on local communities, our own networks to replicate it. i want to say one other word. you heard this from the rev. and i appreciate his comments. christians in the west have often been responsible for the
kind of intolerance rhetoric that we now hear from various places in this country. it is important for us as a christian community to say an unequivocal no, that is not who we are. our own faith calls on us to bear not false witness, but true witness, and that means to speak out on behalf of islam, for example, as a peace-loving mps teaching faith -- a peace- loving and peace, teaching faith. but we also know that there are minority christian committees around the world now that also feel themselves to be threatened by extremist voices in situations that are predominantly muslim because extremists in those settings may use the rhetoric in this country as a pretext. and so, it is also in christian self-interest to speak out strongly now a word of
tolerance, knowing that our muslim colleagues in other places are doing the same on behalf of minority christian communities there. we live in an interdependent world. it is very important that we speak this word of interfaith acceptance and hospitality together. thank you. >> we will take questions and answers in one minute. let me say quickly, just falling -- falling on the rev. point. for the last several years muslim americans have been trying to get the message out that we reject the extremist, the muslim extremists in view of islam, there -- and their justification for violence and militancy. it has been difficult for people to hear that message because the actions and statements of the extremists are more dramatic and get more attention we have had our friends in the christian
community and in the jewish community consistently support us in saying the majority of the muslims that we know are law- abiding, good people. i just want to say for any muslims in other parts of the world that are listening, yes, you may have heard some of the loud voices of some christian extremists and others in this country who hate islam, who hate muslims, who are making very hurtful statements. but they do not represent america. they do not represent christianity or judaism. these people who are here with us today represent the true values and views of the vast majority of american jews and christians and just american citizens. do not view these incidents, as of hateful and hurtful as they are, to justify any kind of
hatred against america, or american christians or jews. with that, i would like to open the floor for questions. >> if i could ask -- >> please identify yourself. >> scott from -- >> we will get you next. >> i wonder if you could tell us a bit about the next step, and also, how many of you were at this meeting? >> in terms of the next steps -- oh, my name is rev. richard killmer. i am the executive director of
the campaign against torture. we have been concerned since 2006 that the victims of u.s. torture have been muslims. one of the next steps we have discussed is the possibility of another meeting like this one, but much larger, with people of various faiths across the country coming together to talk about what the real strategies are that we need to do together. to end this anti-muslim bigotry. because the people in the pews are the potential -- the people who are in the pews have the potential to bring about the kinds of changes that we want. to bring those folks together, soon we hope -- a month perhaps -- come together and figure out what strategies we need now to make sure that this blight on americans soles of dissipates.
-- on american souls dissipates. >> cardinal, if he might, so much of the past 24 hours has talked about this plan in florida with the burning of the koran. at the same time we heard from general patraeus where he indicated that it could put minarik -- military overseas in greater harm's way if it were to go worldwide, this video, and it most likely would. but what is your concern about the potential danger? and what does it say about interfaith relations right now? but that is one of the reasons why i said we need to get the right message -- >> that is one of the reasons why i said we need to get the right message out. this is not a country where these things happen by the
majority of the people. these are the acts of very small, extremist people, who feel they are doing the right thing, i am sure, but have taken themselves out totally from what is mainstream christianity, what is a judaism or what is islam today. i think is important that we get the message out as clearly as we can. this is not the real america. and it never has been and it never should be. one thing that we are doing in this document is saying, well, this is what we believe is the real america. it is a place where religions are respected. the old saying that you attack one religion and you attack them all. this is true. we are all believers. we have the right to exist and not to be attacked by others. this is the first point.
basically, we want the message to get out to all the people around the world that america is a country that is open, that is guaranteeing freedom of religion and everything else that you need to live a good life. the with regard to what the general said, if he is correct, then we are really in trouble. because if somebody does something like this, it will create all kinds of problems all over the world. i think we must be aware of that and some of our own people are going to be hurt by this they happen to be americans and christians and jews. i think that is another reason we have to say to people to be careful what you do not just the wrong thing, but because you can do more harm to your fellow americans in dangerous areas around the world.
>> in response to the last two questions, one of the things that we did also at the table was to identify best practices that are going on in our local communities. what are we doing to promote interfaith relations in various places? for example, a doctor shared with us out muslims and christians are taking trips overseas. part of the problem is that we have not share these things widely enough. we have taken them for granted and assume that if we do with locally that is enough. now we are realizing that we need to be able to share these with one another, that the word about interfaith relations, tolerance, dialogue will be lifted up as the dominant voice and not simply hidden in ways that we may have done too much of in the past.
if this fails -- >> if this fails, all across the country and there we protest for neutral diversity and religious freedom in america. a lot depends on you. it is certainly valid new story of a sacred book is burned. but it is also a valid new store when good people of good conscience representing the vast majority of americans gathered together to denounce it and say that it has no place in american life. if you accurately portray that in a balanced way, it will be significant toward lifting up the truth in terms of what america is and what the religious communities of america are. >> cardinal, i'm wondering, are you planning to speak to the
pastor in this issue? >> i do not know the gentleman. i am willing to do that. it probably would be better if he spoke to someone in his own religious community because he probably will feel like i have a different point of view on things. i would be happy to do it, but i think some of my friends from the evangelical community who are equally troubled as i am by what they are going to do, that might be the answer. i'm not trying to put it on somebody else, but it seems to me that is the road to travel. if he were a catholic pastor, i would be happy to talk to him right away. >> hello and peace to everybody. i am the president of african hilton international.
my question goes to the teachers. as a teacher by profession, i see a heavy challenge. how are we going to help our students in school when we have so many challenges, as you know. we have issues in the public school. thank you. >> we did talk about students, muslim students that are finding themselves distressed and anxious because of all of this
negative information and attacks on muslim and islam. there have been a number of studies over the last several years have shown that american children have shown highly increased levels of anxiety, depression. but there are scientific studies of this and ensure that will increase -- this will increase that. our general message to the american public is that we would like teachers and counselors and health care workers and others that interact with muslim children who are in the vast majority to be mindful of that and to try to seek help with the interfaith resources to manage to help the children. it is a pastoral issue, and
mental health issue and it is a security issue because you do not want the majority of the muslim children to be alienated from muslim society. but let me just say to those around the world, again, the issue of the karan burning, yes, it is hurtful. it is intended to hurt. and yet, especially during ramadan that we are just finishing, muslims know that the correne will not -- that the koran will not disappear. most muslims have memorized the koran. they have in their heart and they have as their source of ethics and compassion. we, as muslims, also need to take a step back and although we
feel hurt and although we are up said, although we are alarmed by what this might mean, because book burning in history does not have a very good proceed in for the right -- precedent for the rights of people. it is alarming, but our community should feel confident that god's word is eternal and it will not be harmed by fire. >> ready with talking points memo. >> ion welton gaddy, president of the interfaith alliance. -- i am welton gaddy, president of the interfaith alliance. i want to be very specific with what we can teach our children. one, hate is neither a religious nor a democratic value. two, the difference is not a moral category -- the difference
is not immoral category. it is a reality from which we can learn to appreciate and benefits. thirdly, for americans, the first amendment to the constitution is the best friend that religion have in this nation because it lets religions thrive without establishing one religion over another. if we can inculcate those three lessons into a curriculum to respond to your -- into a curriculum, to respond to your question, we would make tremendous progress. >> next question? >> reihan riley with talking points memo. i want to get a sense of how you would gauge the government's reaction to this, both at the white house level and the justice department'. how would you gauge their reaction to any crimes going on?
>> later this afternoon, some of us will be meeting with the attorney general. i think many of you know about this already. it comes from an earlier meeting and that reverend gatty and i were pleased to participate in in which we met with the staff over at the justice department to talk about at this crucial moment, the need for there to be a visible response by the government to put together -- they are doing a lot of very effective things. they're prosecuting hate crimes. they are active in the community service division to work together to help reconcile different groups and to diffuse the kinds of problems that have arisen. and this is true throughout the
housing division, in terms of the pursuit of land use protection act it is celebrating its 10th anniversary on the camera 22nd to ensure that religious houses are able to be built -- on september 22 to enter the religious houses are able to be built where there is need for them. there is a need for more vigorous action right now by the government. so, at the eternal -- attorney- general request we will be meeting later today to try to figure out what we can do to parallel our actions over this next week to try to " lift up the clear message that this has no place in american life. >> jim zogby.
>> i am pleased that the attorney general will be meeting with us to talk about it later in the day. but i think as our statement notes, some political figures have attempted to make this a wedge issue in this election. and while individuals ines contest, senator durbin for one, and mayor bloomberg, the mayor of new york city, have made extraordinary statement, many other political leaders and many other people running for office in this year's election have been disgraceful, and they have fueled the fire. and i think they have done great damage to the electorate in how this issue is being framed. it is not just a religious issue. it is not just a media issue. it has become a political issue. it should not have become that kind of issue and i think we need to speak out against that. >> just to add a another thing,
this morning, to talk about the administration, we had a representative of the administration with us up the neighborhood planning and also, the white house initiative on faith based initiatives. all of this information will be fed to the white house so that they can have a depreciation of the breadth of this body. -- a deeper appreciation of the threat of this body. >> do you think there has been a robust enough push back or demountindebunking of the propat has, perhaps, laid the groundwork for this reaction we are seeing now? i'm thinking of movies like "obsession" or "relentless" that the public might have seen and taken as true. do you think there has been enough push back against that
and truth telling about what islam is really about? >> this is a great question. the response of the muslim community or other educators to the distortions of islam, the reality is, they are very well funded initiatives to spread misinformation about islam. they take a lot of resources and their people that are finding these initiatives and these projects. i tell you, from the music -- the muslim community, we are finding ourselves so stretched. we are at a young community -- we are a young community. but we are still at the mosque- building stage. much less, what about schools? what about out region? to be able to make movies, feature-length movies about islam, or a documentary, to
have dozens and dozens of people on the internet to make sure that a google surge brings up and accurate information about -- search brings up accurate information about islam. if you'll remember, in the last few years there has been a lot of questioning from -- about the muslim-american community. what are you doing about those trying to lure muslims into extreme ideology that this is not our expertise. we are trying to -- into extreme ideology? this is not our expertise. we're still trying to figure out how to arrange our web page so that something good comes out. we are really stretched and we have not been able to offer a robust enough response.
but it really should not be only our responsibility. when there are so many so-called experts about islam, i have to release a live television here as the main place, but these are people who have no expertise, no academic credentials, no true institutional representation. if you go to the american academy of religion to study of islam section or the middle east studies association, there are hundreds of professors in the u.s. who are experts on the middle east, on islam, on muslims. they are completely in debt -- completely neglected. maybe they're not charismatic enough for tv, i do not know. but it is not only our responsibility to have accurate information out. there are resources available. there are people available. there are excellent books that are available. there needs to be a bit more of a partnership between the
people who have the accurate information and those who are living up who is an expert on islam in the general media. -- lifting up who is an expert on islam and the general media. >> and the president of the jewish council for public affairs. you know, listening to professor mattson causes me what -- to want to stand up and say, it is not just movies like "obsession." it is not just theology. it is significant. it is no longer an option to be silent. it was in our statement. those that were possibly to
quiet, and where we see these biases, we need the thinkers and the common people to stand up and say, this is not the america that we came from. it is not the america that we are going to accept. it is the end of silence now. it is not an option anymore. those of us that care about this country, we have learned that we have to stand up for our muslim brothers and sisters and say, this is not ok. that is what i wanted to answer to you. >> we want to tell you that this
council has been consistently involved at the grass-roots level. we have been working with these leaders threw their grassroots organizations and synagogues, churches, and so on. for example, we have a program with the jewish community, several programs. when we have jointly with the union of reformed judaism. we have islamic centers and synagogues bring together congregations and discussing islam and judaism. there's a lot of new literature and a lot of new understanding and a lot of partnerships at that level. similarly, we have been celebrating for the last several years bringing together muslim organizations, islamic centers, mosques, and jewish organizations. we have one weekend together,
the and rabbis, choose -- we have one weekend together, the imams and rabbis, jews and christians. it we invite -- we invite imams and rabbis from different countries. the successful celebration of a new islam in america has become -- the successful persecution of islam in america has become an issue overseas. similarly at the grass-roots level, we have different states
where the national council is working. islamic centers and churches have gathered together and they're giving more lesson, giving more programs and dialogues in bridge building. gainesville itself has become robust within the dialogue. and it's ugly act that is going to be performed -- of this ugly act that is going to be performed, it is nothing compared to the love and respect and appreciation. muslims are so much motivated --
so much more motivated because of ramadan toward their compassion. it is amazing to see how these religious groups and grass-roots groups and synagogues are getting together. >> he is the national director of the office of interfaith and community alliances of the atlantic society of north america. -- islamic society of north america. >> i know you say in your statement that people of good conscience can have different positions on the part 5k 51 islc center and i know the state and is not explicitly about that. there will be many people who want to know how you, as religious leaders, stand on
that. did you attempt to come to consensus on that question? did you decide to avoid it, and why? is there anything you can say affirmatively about how, as a group, what position you take on that? >> we really felt the meeting -- the reason we were meeting today was much bigger than that particular issue. we did not discuss it other than to say the reason that we are meeting is that what happened because of that are round about or, using that as an excuse for this intensifying of anti- muslim rhetoric and hate crimes against muslims, it was not our focus today.
i do not know the views of the of the people here unless they have made public statements about it. one more question and then we need to close. >> i have many friends from different religions, cultures, our heritage as -- heritages. do you think there needs to be more effort to promote diversification and embraced different points of view and belief in the church setting, ministering in preaching, as opposed to, this is the way it should be. if you do not play this way, that things happen. more of a unity, hey, your friend across the street is a good person. >> i have sympathy with ministers and pastors and others who lead congregations because they teach them. i do that in my javed hereford
seminary. it is difficult -- i do that in my job at her first seminary. it is difficult. it is challenging for congregational leaders to integrate other messages into their other -- into their weekly sermons or to their teaching. but it is not an option anymore. we live in a world in which we are neighbors with people of all different faiths. we have to know what our own traditions say about other people. that is part of our of -- our religious education. what do you as a jew, or as a christian or as a muslim believe about other people? what does your religion say about how you speak to them? this is one of the reasons why we have done the kind of curriculum that has been mentioned.
there are people in our community and that understand at least, the basics of jesus of that they do not distort the views of their neighbors. christians, similarly, just to understand some basic things about their muslim neighbors said that at least they are not, as you have heard a number of times, bearing false witness. it is one of the violations of the commandments to bear false witness. also in islam, it is a sin to bear false witness. i do think that there are many religious leaders who are struggling to find ways to do this education. it is difficult because many people do not get their information even about their of own religion -- of their own religion from their own creature. they go to the internet and try to get information. we are struggling with the new
ways that people get information about anything, including their faith or their ethics and these days. we are doing the best we can to catch up with that reality. >> roy matlimedley, american bat churches. i share the concern with local pastors with regard to your question. some of the most offensive statements about islam, unfortunately, have come forth from the baptist community. some of us as about his leaders felt it was important to join with our muslim brothers and sisters in order to put together our program that would help us with this very issue in our local congregations of understanding other faiths. at this particular point, the islamic faith, in order that we
might be about our values of religious liberty. we were born out of persecution, as about this, in england -- as baptists, in england. it was for that reason that roger williams founded new england. religious liberty for the first time in a geographical unit of history. that is very dear to us. we cannot hold that unless we teach our people what that means and to respect one another, while also a hearing to our own faith. an understanding that deeply and practicing it. >> a final word. >> let me address your question because i am a pastor as well as president of the interfaith alliance. i'm a pastor in monroe, louisiana. it is not the hotbed of liberalism in this nation, but i would not say anything here that
i would not say in the pulpit to my congregation. there is the implication that if you are going to talk about into religious cooperation, that is an addendum to what you are talking about what questions would say is the gospel. and that is a fallacy. it is not an addendum. it is at the heart of what we are talking about. if someone in our congregations says you need to be preaching the gospel, we are preaching the gospel. it is not exclusive. it is inclusive. it is not about hate. it is about love. you have to understand, please, that the people standing here right now are not doing this in spite of our individual fates. we are doing it because of our individual fatefaiths.
this is what religion is all about. >> i'm from the foundation for ethnic understanding. we have the honor of doing the twining programs with mosques and synagogues and want to talk about why the best practices here are so vital. when people get to know each other, when jews go into a mosque, when muslims come into a synagogue for the first time -- and many of them are apprehensive. of what is going to happen to me there? maybe there are terrorists. they hear crazy stuff. but they do not come out the same way they came in. they come out inspired, having been hugged and connected and having seen islam being
>> [unintelligible] >> against any group, they have held, working with local law enforcement officials, giving them training. they are prosecuting hate crimes in community reconciliation. so, they are doing a lot of good work, but the problem is that not enough americans know about it. >> you think that the problem is not so much the hate crimes, but speaking out as a moral voice for the administration? >> exactly.
to let everyone know that if you participate in a hate crime, you will be prosecuted. to make that known to the country. >> [unintelligible] >> build them where they want to build them, it is perfectly appropriate. it is an effective institution. >> [inaudible] >> from what i have seen, in national organizations they have spoken out.
for it to be built here, the muslim community, there is unanimous support over the legal rights. they have been some of the most vigorous in fighting against discrimination and that that is important to be understood. vigorous over the years in defending the rights of muslims to be free of hate crimes and build mosques under the law. >> [unintelligible] >> christian community? i am speaking for the jewish community. you'll have to speak to christian religious leaders.
there's a majority feeling that there's a right to have it built their. but i think the leadership is more supportive. >> [unintelligible] >> it is probably not legally a crime, but morally it is a hate crime. legally, the burning of a book is not a crime, not a criminal offense, no matter whose book. it is one of the fundamental freedoms in america that allows people to do wrong and protect their right to do wrong.
[unintelligible] >> now we are going live to a discussion held by the u.s. institute of peace on the future policy towards iraq. u.s. policy, that is. we will now hear remarks from the national security adviser to vice president biden and a director for the national endowment of democracy. this started about five minutes ago. >> we are watching television at night and you might come away with the impression that not much has changed, that iraq continues to be more of the
same. suicide bombings and attacks. to be sure, extremist groups continue extremist attacks. iraq remains a dangerous place. our civilians, diplomats, and troops remain in danger. the facts are these, the number of weekly or monthly security incidents in iraq are at the lowest level since 2003. there has been a dramatic decline since the dark days of 2006 and 2007. two quick examples, the week that ended september 3, last week, the total nationwide tax decrease from 136 to 102, below the average of 111. during the darkest days of the insurgency in 2007, their work 1800 attacks in june and for a few years the average number of
weekly attacks was 1400. if you are a victim of one of those attacks, that might not be much solace, but there has been a clear trend and a clear picture. in another context, the quiet blessings of a normal life are within reach. in baghdad people are going out to shops, restaurants. there are traffic jams and they are not all caused by security checkpoints. if you speak to reporters in iraq, they will tell you that for all of the remaining problems, they have more freedom of movement and access that they have had at any time in recent memory. while these attacks have continued, they have not achieved their strategic objective, which is to
undermine constant -- confidence in the government. when you talk to iraqi leaders from across the political spectrum, they characterize this not as an insurgency, but as acts of terror from a relatively small group of extremists on different sides who are not getting traction with the iraqi people. the problem we have seen is of course do in substantial measure to the extraordinary skill and professionalism of the u.s. military forces that have been and remain in iraq. we had an opportunity to talk about that last week. admiral mullen, general maddison and others. this progress is also due in no small measure to be increasing capacity and professionalism of iraqi security forces. we have trained about 660,000
iraqis. there is evidence of this increased capacity and professionalism, they took the lead in securing the recent elections, doing a very good job. operations based on intelligence have help to capture and kill extremist leaders. most important, the iraqi people have decisively rejected violence bandleaders have embraced the political process as the best way to secure the interest of the various iraqi communities. that political process is really pretty and almost never linear. evidence in recent months is that it is working. we have been through a series of sky is falling moments in iraq. consider the events with election laws and controversy that erupted around that. the challenge to the election
itself. every time, people said that this is it, this is a crisis, the sky is falling. each time iraqis used constitutional means to work through a crisis. this guy did not fall. of course, it is also true that the sun has yet to rise on a new government in iraq. the length of time it has taken to get that new government is in some ways not unexpected. last time it took about six months. this time the election itself was extraordinarily close, as most of you know. only two seats out of 325 separated the coalition and neither is anywhere close to getting the majority to forming a government on its own. we have had this process of coalitions working together to form a majority in parliament.
of course, this time the stakes were higher. as the iraqis know, we will remove our remaining troops by the end of 2011. they are determined to get government formation right, even if it takes a bit longer. unlike last time, however, there is a dangerous power vacuum that has yet to develop. the lack of government formation does not mean the lack of a government. there is a caretaker government that is basically doing just that, taking care of basic business, providing security, expanding the budget. of course, the absence of an elected government is not a durable solution for iraq. major challenges remain for the iraqis, including disputed eternal -- internal boundaries, laws that govern oil production and revenue sharing, constitutional reform, and the
integration of kurdish and soon the military forces. all of these issues will benefit and probably require the legitimacy of of a resolution. in the united states we would like to build a long-term partnership in iraq that i will talk about in a moment, but to build a partnership, we need a partner. here as well, moving forward requires the legitimacy of an elected government. finally, most importantly, the iraqi people voted in large lumber -- in large numbers across all communities four new representatives and a new government. they expect a new parliament, a new government, and they deserve one. let me talk a bit about how we see things going forward. president obama has been focused on iraq since day one.
even before that, he sent the vice president-elect to iraq for a baseline on the administration. one of the first things he did was ordered a full review of iraq policy, laying out a new policy going forward, then asking the vice president to oversee iraq policy because he was determined to have a sustained, high level focus from the white house on iraq every day. the president shares -- the vice president shares a month the cabinet meeting, in contact with iraqi leaders every day, in deed with leaders throughout the region. as i said at the outset, we are not disengaging from iraq. the nature of it is changing to a civilian leader. concrete evidence is our
decision as announced last week in baghdad to open consulates in embassy branch offices. we want to make sure that our engagement continues to cover the breadth and depth of iraq. the state department is going to bear the heaviest burden in this investigation. dozens of tasks that were previously the responsibility of our military have reverted to the department of state, including a nationwide police training program starting in october of next year. the vice president and the president are determined that the state takes this responsibly. especially when it comes to our commitment to build up strategic framework agreements. those agreements commit us to strengthen ties of commerce and trade by an investment, culture of education in diplomacy and security. we have already held a major investment conference in
washington that brought 1100 officials and private sector representatives together. later this fall they will take a delegation to baghdad with more than one dozen companies looking at potential business deals. this june the department of agriculture brought those services to iraq for business opportunities and we have seen a major contract flow from that engagement. specialists from across the government, including treasury, justice, agriculture, health and human services, u.s. aid, they're working closely with the iraqi departments. the largest fulbright program in the middle east is in iraq. we have an active visitors program where members came to the u.s. to study how local governments interact with washington. i am sure that they've learned some interesting lesson.
this summer 25 iraqi administrators and professors will spend 10 weeks at our university programs, and we are moving forward with efforts to strengthen cultural ties as well. as part of the iraqi cultural heritage project, the state is working with the government to make improvements to the iraqi national museum, established a training institute and provide training opportunities in the u.s. for heritage professionals. we will open it up to the security parts of our embassy where we have done this around the world. working from that office, civilian and military professional experts will help to provide advice to the military. not to mention our diplomats in the military being on call to
help any iraqi people in their requests for provision services and working through the continuing obligations to the united nations under chapter 7. let me conclude where i began, the president's commitment to ending the war in iraq responsibly. the word responsibly is there for a reason. this is not a rush to the exit. this is as much about what we leave behind as it is about leaving and we are determined to leave behind a sovereign, self- reliant, stable iraq. there is a lot of hard road left to travel for the iraqis and for us. perhaps it is an occupational hazard, but i am hopeful about the future for iraq and a potential for new relationships with the united states.
thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, bill. thank you for inviting me. that was a nice statement given by tony. when it comes to the stated the administration that was outlined for iraq, one can hardly disagree that they are putting more emphasis on the politics and not on the military presence. i think that the developments that took place in iraq, without question the u.s. military presence and search had something to do with it, but more importantly it is the shift in emphasis and iraq has developed an army that can be sufficient, but the question is -- sufficient for what?
on this question of dissent, everyone agrees, it has emerged, the iraqi army is not where it was four years or five years ago. they have taken up many of the duties in iraqi cities. you do not need foreign troops, you do not even need an army of a quarter of a million, what you need is strong intelligence and professionalism. this business where iraq needs the u.s. on that front, certainly the division that was outlined is much in line with iraqi needs. the reality is a perspective of that vision. that perception is important. and that shift is going to be perceived by the players, not
only inside iraq, but outside of iraq. is as important as the policy itself. it is not about outlining the policy simply, it is about objectives. there is no question that al qaeda will try to take some practical of vantage of the policy as it took place in iraq, not posing any serious challenge. they can be dismissed as being secondary. more of a concern amongst the iraqi people themselves and the u.s. commitment, the u.s. is pulling out of iraq because it has been exhausted. they have followed up all the speeches with views on the economy. the expression is a choice that has been more or less forced on the u.s. by reality and the concern is very real month iraqi
players and the consent -- extent of the commitment in the u.s.. it is one area i would flag and raise as being critical. a second issue that is very much the elephant in the room, it needs to be talked about and spelled out, is the u.s. withdrawal, currently, a month iraqi neighbors. iran is the most influential in many ways, often to an extent dictating what goes on in iraq. i think that the perception and reality seems to be very careful. i cannot foresee the next 45 years without factoring iran into the equation. everyone knows that the u.s. is concerned about those programs,
the regional position, very much it is a subject zero open debates and private debates. you cannot detach debates about the future of iraq without directly addressing the iranian influence and how this will materialize in the future. internally, the most important achievement that the u.s. had after these long years and sacrifices, iraq has a constitution and a political process. but it concerns me a great deal that this constitution has recently been weakened by the politicians. not only initiatives started by delaying prevention, in that sense, but by looking for the outcome of the election
themselves. that constitution is not adhered to. a weekend constitution in a country full of problems is not a good sign. the only point of reference that they have is the constitution, and it has been marginalized, or the iraqis have been allowed to marginalize it to that extent. on the second point, the political process, there have been three elections in iraq, iraqis participated by 70%. they were really very proud to have the first real democratic elections take place in iraq,
but they are not happy with the results. the iraqis see the outcome of elections as highly corrupted and indicative of a dysfunctional government. time is running out. i think if there was a strong iraqi army today, it would be welcomed by many people. iraqis would like to see a form of government. that issue is not talked about often, but there is that growing sentiment of frustration and despair over the process itself. there is another, third, important factor. part of the u.s. strategy is to strengthen the iraqi army, so
that it can be strong enough to hold security in iraq of to a point. it cannot do anything if the political process fails. if the issues between baghdad and the kurdish region are not resolved peacefully, the army cannot enforce anything meaningful. there's a prospect for a worry for violence that can erupt in any region excluding the ones that petraeus strategically and incorrectly attempting to integrate them in the political process. today they are in a much stronger position.
there is a balance of fear, older groups are armed and everyone knows that violence is not an option. everyone wants the political process to succeed, but the reality is that if it does not the level of violence erupting in iraq would require intervention. if that does not come from the u.s., it might come from other sources. on my final point, the u.s. has brought a lot of hope to the iraqis. not only just something, but said it -- setting up the political process. advocating a set of values for human rights, the rule of law, respect for the constitution, and under day-to-day politics and under many pressures, the
u.s.-iraqi relationship, maybe the issue becomes secondary. there are other, more important, urgent issues that are forced on government. but i think it is an important strategy in a long-term, the u.s. should keep the pressure, politically and otherwise, over the iraqi government. these achievements in the areas of human rights and the will lot, the freedom of the press, is not challenge yet. but all of these areas need to be maintained, they need to be central in the approach that the u.s. government takes. as far as iraq, other neighbors, one view that i have always held
and advocated but, if the u.s. wants to leave iraq, they should put some kind of political pact down that involves the neighbors in iraq, to avoid a vacuum or a power grab it to -- it could take place on a much bigger scale. the power grab after the fall of saddam hussein was messy, but it can be much worse if the u.s. wants to leave iraq in a vacuum without a pact on how to bring order to the region. thank you. [applause] >> i actually have a question. tony, if you agree i will give you the opportunity to say a couple of words in response or answer some of the questions. in terms of the extent of the u.s. commitment, the obvious
question is -- if the iraqis are ambivalent about the carter, we need to be clear that it is not departure. the americans of leaving. there have been conversations about the question of proposing a delay, but the question about iran is a good one. the possibility of frustration, the arab kurdish dispute being one, groups that are rearmed, and a pact with the neighbors to maintain stability that was not their earlier. tony, would you like to deal with any of those? we will then open it up to questions. >> thank you, bill.
for the most part i find myself in violent agreement on everything that we were warned about. the concerns expressed are many of the concerns that we share and are vigilant about. most specifically, in terms of ongoing commitment, there are two things going on. when you look at the polling is clear that an overwhelming majority of iraqis want to see us remove troops from iraq. 75% to 80%. one of the things that has benefited our relationship is that we are making good on our commitments. many iraqis did not believe that we would get out of the city's one year ago, but we did. many did not believe that we would finish our combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops, but we did. there are probably iraqis that do not think we will remove them
by the end of 2011, but we will. making good on these commitments is an important way to build credibility and a relationship with iraq. as he warned, we have emphasized again and again, we are not disengaging from iraq. it is just the nature of the engagement is trait -- changing. we are ramping up our civilian presence in iraq. this is something that the iraqis seem to want. every political leader from almost every coalition or party, with the probable exception of one, have made it clear that they would like to develop a strong relationship with the united states, bringing strategic frameworks to life, and we are committed to doing that with the iraqis. when it comes to the iranian influence, let me say a couple
of things. on one level, they will always have influence and engagement simply because of geography and history, as well as religious affinity. that will not stop. on one level, it should not stop. that is just a part of the facts of life in the region. however, it is also clear to me, too many of us, that iraq has developed very strong antibodies against excessive foreign influence and intervention from wherever it might be coming, including us. what we have seen in recent months is a strong resistance to meddling by anyone, including the iranians. iranians spend a large amount of money on the election and got very little to show for it. no doubt they are trying to
influence government formation as we speak, as are a number of other countries in the region, but i would suggest that what we are really saying in iraq, beyond the emergence of politics, is the emergence of the new nationalist. @ positive development of nationalism has taken over sectarianism as the dominant feature of iraqi life. i do not see any signs of a coup or military takeover. what we see are iraqis committed to a political process. the evidence i have suggested in each crisis, iraqis have not reverted to extra-constitutional means. they have pushed the envelope, but i would argue that everything they have done has been within political process
and constitutional framework. again, i would argue that there have been positive developments, although they are not by any means definitive. first, we worked very hard. i have to grit -- give credit to general odierno, who had set up a mechanism for joint patrols and checkpoints along the fault line in the north. which really had an important effect by and minimizing tensions, averting problems that might arise, and the integration into the iraqi forces, also something important
going forward. there is another important element. right now, based on the results of the election, the kurdish alliance is the anti-government formation that makes kingmakers, perhaps too strong, but clearly absent their support it will be hard, if not impossible, or anyone else to live with them. think about it this way, the weakness of a coalition government is also its strength. any one member of a coalition, unhappy with how they are acting in government, can walk away and collapse the government, giving a tremendous amount of strength to any participants in the next government. in terms of old groups, the critical thing is to move
forward with integration, militarily and in the draft. the sons of iraq can actually move forward quite well. there is still a lot of work to be done, but our sense, based on the budget allocation, is that the iraqi government is serious about this and it is something that we continue to urge them to be serious about. in terms of a pact with the neighbors, we have spent a lot of time in gauging the neighbors in iraq. the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and others have been regularly and deeply engaged with virtually every native, but i think it is important to again emphasize that iraqis are not looking to have something done behind their backs. this is about helping them develop normal relations with their neighbors. we used to say this in a very
different context, but the basic approach is nothing about you without you. we will not try to build around iraq, we will try to help them fully integrate. that is actually an area where iraqis will continue to look to the united states for help and assistance. >> as expected, we have some immediate questions. yes, sir. there is a microphone that you can use. >> is your last point not built on terrible sensitivity? that you have to know the exact point at which iran is being helpful neighbor or being a obnoxious neighbor? there are people that have argued, james dobbins prominently among them, that when there was an opportunity to bring iran into the situation,
it might have been better than what happened. i do not know how you measure that. how are you going to measure that? if the event last weekend involved al qaeda groups, except where al qaeda might be involved? >> you are right about the sensitivity, but it is not for us to gauge your judge, it is for the iraqis. we will follow their lead. as i suggested, the assessment is that strong anti bodies built up in iraq from outside influences. we have not seen, at least in recent months, the iraqis reacting well to receive
pressure from iran or anyone else. i think that the gauge, the measure, is really from the iraqis. we will follow that lead. we will see, going forward, the role that the neighbors play in iraq going forward. again, it is really up to the iraqis to make that decision. >> [inaudible] >> the mission going forward of the 50,000 remaining troops, there are a couple of important things to point out. first, the combat mission has ended, but the 50,000 a do remain do include combat troops that are not in combat brigades. these are folks prepared for any contingency. second, while the primary mission is to advise and assist
iraqis in their capacity, they will continue to take part in what we call partner counter- terrorism operations. our guys will be there and, if necessary, they will take part directly in these operations. something that continues. the iraqis have made tremendous progress against al qaeda in iraq in recent months. as i mentioned, since the election, iraqi lead operations led to the killing or capture of 32 of the top 42 meters in iraq. we have seen them develop significant capacity to take on these flights, but part of the former mission, the combat mission is over, but there are still troops in iraq.
>> in the back. >> hello, i am an independent consultant and my question is, in both speeches and your comments, there has been no discussion on how this change in policy from the pentagon to the state department advances critical u.s. interests in the region, like containing iran or securing a stable supply of energy. can you talk about how interests in the u.s. are advanced by this policy? >> yes, thank you. first and foremost, u.s. interests are advanced by fulfilling the president's commitment to finish the war responsibly. it is not in our interest to engage in endless war in iraq. it is not in our interest to
have those kinds of resources tied down, to continue to put our people in jeopardy. at the point in time that iraqis fervently wish across the community to regain sovereignty and they have increasingly developed the capacity to assume that sovereignty. the administration believes that the single best way, in the first interest to advance, is to make good on our commitment to end this war responsibly, in a pragmatic way, this engaging troops in ramping up the engagement of diplomats, continuing to develop iraqi forces. demonstrating that we are good to our word, good to our commitment, that we have no interest, sending a powerful and positive message rise, this was
not the picture that they had painted the the united states. we'll demonstrating the opposite, so i would demonstrate to you that moving forward in a pragmatic, careful, and fall away from family advances interests in the region. >> my name is bob dreyfus. i wanted to follow up, but let me ask first, are there any conceivable circumstances under which the united states would not withdraw the rest of its
troops by the end of next year? particularly if iraq falls apart or any of these bad scenarios occur? with the president back out on that commitment? i do not mean residual forces to protect the embassy, but is this an absolute commitment by the end of next year? regardless of whether or not they fall back into civil war? in that context, if iran, which has the capability of storing up militias and other forces, and so forth, does get involved, are we talking to them now? the bush administration had a dialogue that i have not seen replicated by the obama administration, with the iraqi ambassador in baghdad, working to stabilize iraq.
i know that we are of course trying to do stuff with the nuclear program, but are we talking about iraq? if not, why not? >> thank you. the united states has an agreement with the iraqi government to withdraw forces by the end of 2011 and we intend to make good that agreement. beyond that, the first rule of commenting on any hypothetical question is hypothetical, i do not want to engage in it. let me say, we still have 50,000 troops in iraq and i suggested that while the combat mission is over, the presence of combat troops is not. and the belief and expectation
is that we will use that time to help the iraqis develop their own security forces, putting them in a position to be able to help to deal with any problems that arise. in terms of iran, we do not currently have a dialogue with them. of course, the focus of the international community make important the obligations on the nuclear program. >> i am from "the philadelphia inquirer." turning up the risk of hypothetical, you said that iraq was the gauge. perhaps the more operative question is, if the iraqi government over the next year feels, perception in the region
will be of a vacuum if there is no u.s. military presence. if they raise the idea of a new agreement, are we pulling out cooperation on that front? as far as the civilian presence, this is not say something about the protection through the stories of a 6000 man private army? we all know that there are still some serious security problems. bill this grant -- greatly enhanced civilian preference. >> thank you. you are right, i do not want to get into a hypothetical discussion about the iraqi government, if the iraqis put
any issue on the table for discussion, we are prepared to discuss, but hypothetically anything they put on the table they can ask for including our personnel and gazed around the country in a number of very important missions, in our branch offices, police training programs we do diplomatic security but they cannot cover the entire stability.
it would not make sense to go forward with a civilian mission if they could not do their jobs and get out beyond the wire. we have a good plan that enables them to do that. i am confident that we will be able to do that, it is a difficult task that we have spent a lot of time working through. this was not the flipping of a light switch. this was a carefully planned project that took place over the next -- the last year and will continue to play out. we started to hand power back to the iraqi security forces over one year ago. it was not all of a sudden
handing them a ball and telling them to run with it, good luck. second, the transition to the state department in many of these tasks will happen over the coming month in the year. not until october of next year will we see full state responsibility for the police training program. so, this is a process, not a singular event. in that process we were able to evaluate, make changes where we have to. >> if you want me to make a comment, let me know. >> please, help me [laughter] ] -- help me out. [laughter] >> can you tell us about the sources of leverage that the u.s. will have less of on the iraqi government? and not just troops on the
ground, what other things the you have that influence? you are talking about how everything we were doing was in the framework of the constitution, but many people looked to see about the fact that parliament has not adjourn and did not meet for months, dragging the constitution and throwing it out. >> to the question of sources, that is a very important question, as there is this perception that there is a direct and proportional relationship between the drawdown of troops and influence in iraq. i think that that is a fundamentally flawed view and press. of course there is significant influence in having 150,000 troops in a country. but it does not go away as they brought down in the forests of
iraq, it changes in nature. i believe that we will have popular points of influence going forward because there are a number of things that iraqis are looking to us for assistance with, where we will retain influence. first and foremost, bringing the strategic framework agreement to life. we have made it clear in our interaction with iraqis that that is something we are determined to do, but it is not a one-way street. there are many things that they have to do to attract investment engage in trade and commerce, moving forward on cultural exchange and security cooperation in terms of the integration. they know that there are a number of things that are their responsibilities as we try to meet ours. second, iraqis have made it clear to us that they are interested in our help in
continuing to help them develop normal relationships with their neighbors, a position where i think that we can be very helpful. finally, when it comes to the iraqi obligations to the united nations, we have made a commitment to iraq to help them move out from under chapter 7. again, they look to us for assistance. in all of these areas, i think our positive influence will remain. but that influence is limited only by one thing, really, which is what do the iraqi people one and what do their elected representatives want? as long as they want u.s. engagement, as long as they want a partnership with the united states, our influence will be there. if they choose otherwise, that would be the marker, not the presence of our troops. in terms of the constitutional
framework and resolving disputes, as i suggested, in each of these areas where we have had problems or a crisis, election laws, so forth, there's no doubt that one group or another has tried on the constitution or interpretations of it. something that is probably not unfamiliar to many constitution based in countries around the world. i would argue that in each case, while they have pushed the envelope, they have not pushed through it. they have argued within the framework of the constitution. .
it's seems to mean that the initial intervention was a concern that the current constitutional system and not persist. it seems to me that is behind a lot of the problem you're facing in government formation. these guys are worried that this is their last chance at par. the question is whether there is really in any way of alleviating that concern. it is not an unusual concern. iraq is a difficult place because foreign intervention is not all that welcome. having thought about ways in which we could try to ease the concerns of the constitutional system that will not remain in place? secondly, on the administration's strong position, which restated today that all of the church will by
the end of 2011 -- all of the troops will be out by the end of 2011. yet you talk about defense cooperation. we all know [inaudible] can you square that circle of that? there are a substantial number people at the end of 2011. >> good questions. i think there are a few things that we have pointed out that are having that effect. first of all, as they worked
together and right now when we are seeing is a process of the leading coalition's working closely together and try to negotiate a power-sharing deal, we are seeing on daily dissipation between all these groups. the point out to them two things. first, if they do, with a power- sharing arrangement and concrete ideas for doing that, those ideas can legislated. second, in a coalition government the very weakness of the coalition government is its strength. any one partner can be a leading government and collapsing.
that gives a tremendous amount of power and the the it's a tremendous amount of concern for any one who chooses to participate in the government. if one party or another is not making good on whenever commitments they have made, the other party or parties can walk. we certainly suggested to them that if they do agree on forming a government and if there are commitments that are made by each of the coalition's to that end, we will expect the iraqis to make good on their commitment. i think all of that has at least, for now, gone some distance toward alleviating concerns that the iraqis have. we have still not seen the government. that is exactly the hurdle they will have to jump to get there, to have enough trust in each other to feel that they can
secure the interest of those they represent in a coalition government. in terms of the corporation, this is something we have in embassies around the world with countries with whom we have a security relationship. our expectation is that the office in iraq, once they stood up under our authority of the ambassador will have dozens of experts, some from the pentagon and others civilians, who will be helping the iraqis with a couple of things. that will be the connective tissue on the security side going forward. we are still some time away from
the end of 2011. we will be using that time with the ongoing significant military presence for have to continue to hope the iraqis build their capacity said that by the end of 2011 there are in a place where they're confident they can really assume responsibility for those missions. i think the time we have and the office of security operations will help answer those questions. >> i promised him he could walk out of here at 3:15 p.m. i will keep that promise. we will answer any further questions. >> hello. i am with foreign aid for education. my concern is the issue of the
coalition government and the importance of it as you pointed out on only just to iraq but the region. right now, it is a very fragile coalition. can you address further the importance, particularly for the kurdish, in the coalition? i am just observing and i deal with other areas of the world usually, like pakistan. i have been observing what is going on with the kurds. on 16th street, they have their own sort of that many embassy. what i call it that? i do not know. with that in mind, the region, the need, and everything, can both of these take a little
further to the kurdish issue? >> thank you. one of the things that we said to all of our people is that the united states is deeply committed to helping the kurds sustain the significant gains that have made in iraq in terms of being fully and meaningfully integrated into the life and their ship of the nation but also retaining the day in and day out control of their daily lives. this is something we could strongly about. what is very interesting is that in the context of the discussions going back and forth there is an understanding by other leading coalitions in iraq that to both get a
government and then to have a government that functions, you have to address the outstanding concerns of the kurdish region. they are in a good position to make sure that their interests are taken into account and the issues they put on the table are dealt with in a forthright and fair manner. certainly we have seen a lot of this by various other coalitions looking to form a government. again, any member of the coalition government despite their complexities have the ability of the day decisive block of seats, as the kurds must certainly welcome to walk
away from the government and let it collapse. that is important. we will work for some of those outstanding issues. the united nations has a central role to play. the united nations has been during a terrific job in doing just that. the leadership of the men in iraq with a number of very important people has really helped bring iraqis together to help talk about and work for the outstanding issues. we continue to play that role going forward. >> tony, how can have a stable
iraq when you do not have a national army or national police? you do not have a national army or police. certain individuals or certain foreign countries, i think it is a major challenge to creating stability. i have one other question. on sanctions, iraq is the biggest market for i ran -- iran. selling electricity to iraq. theyseen numbers that say turn from iraq. what are we doing to stop the flow of trade of money from iraq
to rerun -- to iran? >> i would submit there is a national army and they are developing capacity and a sense of nationalism every single day. it continues to be a work in progress, but what we have seen again is that the army has remained loyal to the government of iraq and not to individuals or coalitions. the have taken on various interests and strives emanating from various communities. they're not going after just one group or another. critically, moving forward your are right that until there is real integration and full integration of the sons of iraq that we will let have a fully nationalized army. the process is ongoing.
i have been encouraged by the performance of the army of only in dealing with extremist groups but in the way they have done that. we have not seen nationalization or them doing the bidding of one collation, one individual, or an outside country. i'd knowledge things can always change. thus far, we have seen an emergence of nationalism in iraq that includes the army. if that continues, that will be a good thing. and the terms of trade and commercial relationships with iraq, something striking has happened over the last year. trade with iran has been stagnant. trade with europeans as well as us have been going up. we are seeing them continue to diversify their commercial relationships.
again, there are a neighbor by geography, history, and other affinities. they will have a relationship. everything we have seen including trade numbers would signify they are diversifying beyond iran with europe. >> i am going to have to call this initial session to a close. i agree that this could not have been a better parent. please join me in thanking our two analysts. [applause]
>> book the continues in prime- time a former teacher and editorial writer on the textbook industry and writing her own including her 10-volume "the history of us." that is in prime time tonight on c-span2. follow the people and events that make history on line on the c-span video library. the transfer of the canal, the beach and of a president, the events of 9/11. watch what happens as it happens free anytime. it is washington your way. >> the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books and american history. available to you on television, radio, on line, and on social
media networking sites. finder content and what -- any time for our c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our mobile content video, bringing in resources to your community. washington your way, the c-span network now available in the more than 100 million homes. crated by cable, provided as a public service. starting in 15 minutes here on c-span, the brookings institution will examine the military modernization of india. a representative from the carnegie delegation for international peace will join the discussion. that is starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." ok at some of the headlines outside of washington. "the l.a. times" has obama's plans for big tax breaks for businesses. details coming tomorrow. in essence and the president outlining investment by businesses this year and next year, 100% of those capital
investments could be written off under his proposal. and this from "the miami herald" the $50 billion jobs adult could face a tough road. the front page of "usa today," focused on jobs. the motion will be the key. she says the unemployment rate in wisconsin is nearly two percentage points below the nation's average and where the president won by 14 percentage point. this year's state democrats are struggling to hang on to the governors see -- seat. and the congressional seat. perhaps the most telling perhaps the most telling barometer of the changing political climate, senator russ feingold, a three-term democrat incumbent is facing what many is a the most typical campaign since he first won his seat back in 1992. he was not in attendance with the president's remarks at the wisconsin labor fest. politico has a piece by richard,
when looking ahead at the midterm elections with this conclusion. whether november 2 as a good night for republicans, great or even distort will determine how close they get to winning control of the house and how deeply the republican party can cut into distinct classes of democratic-held seats. that from politico.com. here's more from the president yesterday in milwaukee. >> when a leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what republicans would do if they take over congress, you know what he said? he said we would do exactly the same thing we did the last time. that is what he said. that is on tape. [laughter] so, basically here is what this election comes down to. betting between now and november you will come down with amnesia.
they figured you will forget what they did to the country. they think you would just believe that they changed. host: a response from congressman john boehner posted on the website going back with the president first proposed in its office in january of 2009. 18 months ago the administration promised that if we pass their trillion dollars stimulus it would create jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8%. instead, millions of americans have lost their jobs over the last 18 months, says congressman john boehner. the unemployment rate is approaching 10%. if we've learned anything from the past 18 months is that we can't spend our way to prosperity. who is it -- democrats, republicans? jeff is joining us saying the democrats from parkersburg, west virginia. caller: good morning. i was inspired by president
obama's speech yesterday. we were certainly on a downward spiral and after he took over we continued downward. now i think things are showing in little but a promise. we are on the way back up. on that recovery, is it going to be a recovery for the american people or will it be a recovery for the corporations that do business both domestically and internationally? it has got to be for the people to rebuild the middle class. that is where the tax base comes from. host: the president talked about the middle-class system. his speech is available on our website, c-span.org. a derrick from washington, d.c., you say either the third party or you don't know. caller: it is a third party. i am 47 years old and from my lifetime i was a democrat, i was a republican, i will cover --
brought me to my senses. in that neither party. america is in a unique paradigm. right now all of the stimulus packages that are being proposed -- the federal government is broke. this money is being printed. it is not real. and it is going to further deteriorated this nation. the only beneficiaries of the main -- of this is the corporations, and we have already seen that. host: thank you for the call. the front page of "the washington post," two headlines. next to that is an expensive piece -- republicans heading to the final weeks of the mitterrand campaign the political climate highly in their favor, that according to a new poll.
for the first time in more than four years, republicans ran about even with democrats on the basic question on which party they can trust to end of the nation's biggest problems. joe is one of our regular viewers and tweeters. he says -- charlie is joining us from new york. good morning, on line for republicans. caller: the republicans are going to fix the economy. liberals cannot understand how unpopular barack obama is. may i make a comment on the hit piece you did on sarah palin the other morning? host: which it peace?
-- hit piece, vanity fair? caller: the reason why 90% of your viewers are hate filled liberals. what you do on this program is you slam the innocent people, and you allow decent hard- working americans to be called tea baggers which is a vile and offensive name and it is you, sir, spreading hate. host: i cannot let that go -- but i will give you the last word. we never used that word. our viewers may be time to time. "vanity fair" is one of a number of leading publications we use just like "the wall street journal" and "time" magazine. it is a reflection of what people are talking about. "vanity fair" is one of the pieces. caller: would you give me the last word? well, as soon as a person calls
anyone a tea bagger, you cut them off. "vanity fair? nobody reads that anymore. you are a biased, liberal hater. host: we will go to jeff joining us next on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: i guess i am a biased liberal haiti. i never knew that. but -- like host: i think he was referring to me, but that is ok. i have been called worse. [laughter] caller: i guess all i have to say is that the people who are denigrating president obama are the people who made me wade through eight years of his predecessor. his predecessor is what brought us all the problems that we have. if you feel that you want to vote for a republican this time
around, there is nothing that can be said to you. the fellow who just called who insist that people cannot call people what they are -- i call them tea baggers because i don't want to call them brownshirts but if you want to hear the truth, it is brown shirts. the people calling other people nazis of the typical 30 -- german 1930's or 1940's people. host: that is going a little too far, too? caller: when i hear people go as far as they have gone predecessor -- criticizing president obama i do want to react and use words as strong as they do. host: why don't you let other cable programs use those words and we will deal on a higher plane on c-span? caller: other programs can but fox has been this incredible disinformation tools so all i have is me and that is all i can
do is say what is inside me. if people don't like it, they don't like it but it has been hurtful to me so i am not just going to sit back and say you can say all of this stuff about communist and socialist about the present. the present. i am going to have to come back and say things that will shine a little truth on things even if it hurts. host: ok, fair enough. peter orr said this morning who up until last month was the omb director -- one nation, two deficits. deficits. it conclusions. extend the bush tax cuts until 2013 and then get rid of them altogether. they were first implemented back in 2001. one of the key issues congress will be dealing with when the house and senate lawmakers get back next week. he also looks at the deficit. let's look of the facts. projected deficit for 2015 is 4% to 5% of gdp depending on who's assumption you use. s sustainable level is more
likely 3% or lower. so we need deficit reduction of 1% to 2% of gdp or about $200 billion. he goes on to read about medicare, medicaid, and social security saying these programs will account for more than half of spending in 2015. even if you reform social security, which we should. any plausible plan would phase and benefit changes to avoid harming current beneficiaries and would generate little savings over the next five years. of the health reform act included substantial savings in medicare and medicaid. more extensive comments this morning from peter orzag from the op-ed page of "the new york times." democrats line from florida. good morning. andrew, turn the volume down and please go ahead, please. caller: i believe the democrats does better in the economy.
simply because republicans believe you can borrow your way out of these troubles and not pay back and that is what got us into the deficit in the first place. the democrats at least are trying to pay for what they are doing. the second thing. i heard somebody talking about ms. palin. any person who says the n-word ok to use it not a person you can trust. host: we will go on the republican line from houston, texas. e.j. is joining us. good morning. caller: i would like to >> we will now go live to the brookings institute. it is on the military modernization of ndf. -- of india. this is live coverage just getting under way.
>> the topic is peace, not just in south asia, but in asia as a whole. also it is important because of the extraordinary experience and expertise of the two authors. the two panelists are cruise on south asia. the brookings institution's -- the two panelists are experts on south asia. it is officially been published by the brookings institution press this week. there will be a paperback edition published by anglin in november. this book is come in some ways, a follow to steve's earlier book, "india the emerging power" which is published in 2001.
in the intervening nine years, india, of course, has grown in prosperity, grown in the economic and, i would say, it deal-political clout. -- geopolitical clout. during that same time, since 2001, the neighborhood in which india plays such an informal rule, the neighborhood that is home to more than one-third of humanity, has gotten in some ways even more complicated. that is in no small measure as a result of the 2008 mumbai massacre and the ensuing tensions between india and pakistan. we have also had during this time rising concerns about the long-term stability of pakistan
given the encroachments of the taliban. to complicate the matter further, there is a ongoing uncertainty about the future dynamics of indochinese relations. speaking for myself and not necessarily for the authors who will come in a moment, speak for themselves, i would put the overall context as follows -- one of the more interesting in this sense of the old chinese curse, relationships in the world is a triangular relationship among china, india, and pakistan. one leg of the triangle, the relationship between pakistan and china, is both historically and high the cooperative. two legs of the triangle, the
one between india and pakistan and the one between india and china are fraught with some danger. there is and i get out there that i suspect will come up in conversation and i know comes up in the book. that danger can be managed in a way that somehow replicates the way how the united states and the soviet union were able to keep the cold war cold, that is to make sure it does that go hot in a thermonuclear war. i remember hearing this idea myself back in the late 1990's and in 2000 when i was working in the state department. --ere were suggestions ion
echoed inahat were beijing. the rating manage their rivalry during the cold war through, among other things, relying on mutual destruction may be a model for the future. a number of my colleagues in the u.s. government, with some support, from strategists particularly outside of government cast some doubt on whether that was in fact a good model and particularly whether you could apply the principle of mutual destruction when the
three countries in question have contiguous borders and they are in the dispute and have been in the past. far better would be of 43 nations to develop and explain their deterrent strategies without identifying targets the modernization program has evolved in such a way that to avoid getting says a specific, hence the title of the book, farming without aiming which strikes the authors as a good slow go before moving forward.
as they note, there has been an emergence in india of think tanks not all like those that populate a massachusetts avenue hand -- here in washington d.c.. producebeginning to policy prescription that is more sophisticated and forward- looking particularly with a view on how to stabilize a strategic balance in the region. we at brookings, and particularly steve, have been working with several of the think tanks on this and other issues. i will not turn the proceedings over to steve who will say that more about the panelists and how we will proceed over the next hour or so. thank you.
>> thank you, strobe. let me thank you and brookings for being extraordinarily patient in the production of this book. it took much longer than we thought it would give her the because we were to be learning about the subject. the modernization process has been undergoing changes. we can at least four major studies that have been finished why we were writing the book. we owe a debt of gratitude brookings for their patience. it began a much bigger, bigger buck. let me introduce the panelists and then say a bit about the book. he was called to milwaukee by his boss of "the financial time." i guess it primary point was -- a primary race was more
important than this. if you're watching, we do miss you. i was able to get a substitute for ed. mike is a senior fellow at brookings the specializes in u.s. defense strategy, homeland security, and foreign policy. he came to breaking from the congressional budget office and is the author of literally hundreds of op-ed pieces on security policy. his the founder of the indices on pakistan and afghanistan. book is only one in the long chain of books he has written. he served in the peace corps in africa.
he came to the united states from india and migrated. i think had a little bit to do. he is the -- he had a longer trip to make it here. he specializes in security policy defense. he was intimately involved with the deer sheeting and nuclear agreement with india. use them on the national security council staff as special assistant to the president and senior director for strategic planning and southwest asia.
ashley is the author of several books. the work with the indian express as a defense correspondent. i can to know how many came to the united states. he then stayed on to teach at the university of illinois. he joined me at brookings as a colleague and went on to teach at george washington university. he's now on the faculty of the university of maryland. he had the political science program at the university of shady grove. since we have began, there have been many changes in procurement policy but nothing significant has changed. the book tries not to be too technical about this for about
the rearmament policy. i will not try to describe the book, but we have but three new discoveries. this has intensified the significance. india has, for the first time, the money to build and buy. will it? i think it is a central question of our book. we're skeptical because of two reasons. his rise has been welcomed in asia by everyone except pakistan. also, the defense acquisition process in india is amazing the convoluted. i think that is the proper word.
this has problems but it is a preference ingrained in the indian national the identity. thirdly, india find it difficult to engage in structural and organizational reforms. it is easier to add it expand and reform what is obsolete or counterproductive. the second major point is that defense modernization will not transform the strategic environment. that features two major military powers, one rising, china, and one in deep disarray, pakistan. their present quite different problems and challenges to the indian strategic community. further, all three countries, india and the particular, has severe domestic problems. we have a full chapter on the internal security problems in india. i think we identified this before became popular talk about this. the can and said their major
strategic problem with the domestic insurgencies. we have a full chapter of this. we have a full chapter and defense modernization. we also have a chapter on the one weapon, the nuclear bomb, that india has built without outside support and how this will shape relations. this is a test of how the have affected relations. the region will be stable and peaceful. if you have doubts about deterrence, there are questions ahead. treated thinking is more important although we would not underestimate the symbolic and practical importance of having modern forces. our third major conclusion would be that looking at military
cooperation with india, we see the most fruitful arena to believe [inaudible] was lookingc and i for reasons why we would conclude that. all the evidence points to it. the indian navy knows what it wants to do. it can perform many important tasks at sea. it was more relevant than the american naval terrorists. ever be disastrous if india squanders their money on the white elephant of a weapons system which is a seagoing nuclear-powered nuclear delivery vessel. we are really quite skeptical about the weapon. finally, we believe there is an opportunity to use arms sales as an inducement to move india toward a strategic agreement. we will talk further about this. we see this as the most fruitful
strategic area of cooperation between the countries. we think that is the way it should go. both have a strong interest, as does the united states in a neutral or non-reliant afghanistan. it may require changes in the way of this approach is india and pakistan. i would start by getting rid of half pack -- af-pac. thank you. >> thank you, steve. it is an honor to be a part of this launch. there are a number of you who know this region better than i. let me say a few of my generalizations.
the best management job i know is the brookings because you get to think through ideas with your colleagues in real time as they go. it was fascinating to watch them develop the argument behind this book which is summarized extremely well. it is my the best titles and not in a modern public policy publishing. congratulations to them who came up with the cover. it is a very elegant and highly readable book. the idea is that india has, on the one hand, had to do too many things in its defense policy, insurgencies, rivalries, and neighbors that were of concern. they could therefore make do without a strong central
organizing principle, think -- fame, or purpose. i think in some ways it is fair to say, and they can comment, but they came to the conclusion reluctantly. they did the individual research on individual aspects of policy. it is only putting the ideas together with the fundamental thesis emerged. it is doing the research and letting the conclusion develop itself for a lot of hard work and a lot of hard deliberation and debate. nonetheless, it came out of the individual elements of the research. i greatly enjoyed that. i want to commend them for the positive side of this title or theme. it does not sound like a compliment. of the and the day, i am not sure it is.
there is a basic concept behind defense operations which is that india has not had the burning desire to dominate regionally or globally. maybe it has not had the means are either. it is to the credit that even though they have had a lot of ambition and some of them in the military, like a nuclear weapons capability, the always exercise a certain version of restraint. i think that is something the great powers do not do frequently, automatically, or reflexively. farming without aiming can really be a good thing at the
end of the day. as a public policy practitioner you cannot be too thrilled. there is no real principle guiding your choices. it is a challenge to the indian defense establishment to do better even though there is a reassurance that historically and even today india has not had that burning desire to dominate or otherwise move forward in an assertive way for policy. that are -- those are the main point to highlight in talking about the genesis of the book and the genesis of the argument within the book which i had the privilege of watching unfold. one last specific point which is on the aged -- issue of a cold start.
this is a relatively new idea. it is the notion that in addition have the ability to respond to another mumbai-like terror stryker something like that with a limited and fairly near term, fairly rapid kind of conventional military response largely as a deterrent to any state, specifically pakistan tolerating or in any way aiding and abetting in attack. i'm not trying to get into the issue and others made on whether pakistan deserves criticism as a state for mumbai. i think they could have done more, but i will not get into detail. i is retired pakistan m intelligence operatives. we have to be able to have a way to say we need to respond short
of an all-out war. it is not a plo -- it does that have an appeal. they have come up with the option of a cold start. it is understandable at one level. it is dangerous at another level. i hope we have a discussion on that. i will make two points and be done. i commend india for the restraint they showed after mumbai in 2008. most great powers board not have had that type of restraint. -- would not have had that type of restraint. after such a heinous act of murder against so many of 1's on citizens in a major city was a tragic and difficult thing for india to wrestle with. it has a pushed back but they have refrained from any type of military response. that is to its credit. changing philosophy, and going
with cold start, they run the risk of reacting too soon for reacting the wrong way. hypothetically with pakistan is really doing more. but despite their best efforts something happens and cold start leads to a too rapid conflict not to mention that their counterinsurgency operations in the northwest firms -- that spring from the northwest to the east. that is something they have to wrestle with. it is a balancing act to have a deterrent against another mumbai. to avoid the potential for in a skillet or response.
you can read about that in this book and it is one of the most fascinating and important issues we have to think about in security policy with south asia. with that i turn things over. >> thank you, steve. let me start by thanking steep for inviting me here this afternoon to stay a few words about the book and take the opportunity to think steve for the mentor that he has been to me over the years. i went to graduate school and actually got into the trade which is owed in large part to steve's influence. bemis a few words of the book itself -- let me say a few words about the book itself. this is a great book and it comes at a great time. i think it is fair to say that
at the moment, in your defense policy coming it is in crisis. it is in crisis for in these two reasons. one, the external environment that india has a planned its india forces since its independence has changed before the eyes of policy makers. the kind of threat india will face from pakistan are not the kind of threats that the indian military is the best instrument to cope with. the kinds of capabilities that india will face on the chinese front which traditionally were promised on persistent chinese weakness are actually being transformed as we speak in due -- into fundamental emerging
chinese stress. it is not clear at this point whether the military capacity of india will enable them to hold their own vis-à-vis and modern chinese military. there are clearly changes in the external environment taking place as we speak and if for no other reason ought to confront indian policymakers. the premises on which the military modernization has been undertaken over the last two decades is a second dimension of change. it is becoming quite clear that there is significant internal sclerosis in their defense decision making in the right --
in a wide range of areas. this has the consequence of preventing india from being able to utilize the capabilities that they actually have into political outcomes that they would seek to berkshire. this goes fundamentally to issues of state capacity which will talk about in a few minutes. when one looks at the nature of the beast, the only continuity of that i see still persisting in the policy is the point that michael made with great emphasis. that is that the strong cultural impulses of india toward restraint still remain, more or less, intact. these cultural impulses and the ability for restraint will survive them.
the fact that india chose not to respond to the tragedy of bombay, through the use of force. it comes to broad cultural propensities about the use of force. change in this area will be slow. in the other two areas, changes in the environment and changes in terms of their own internal capacities to look at these civil threats, i think the story is more pessimistic. this book comes at a time when the indian state is grappling with how best to deal with these challenges. i must say it comes from a great deal of the indian writing in the last five years particularly starting cents after the [inaudible] but increasing in the last five years it to where they now have
the resources to go out and buy the toys their military may want to buy. this has led to a great deal of international format with different constituencies so they can ask whether the toys they want to buy our the right and appropriate toys for the task. the task before me this afternoon is to share with you some reflections about how in the scheme of things how to assess their capacity given that they are slowly rising as an emerging power. i would argue there are two ways to do it. essentially, convey to my prejudices. the other is to find a form of questions that i think anyone needs to ask. the book does the sec and so i want to walking through the questions that i think are important. there are four tests that i
think indian defense policy needs to meet if it is to be judged as appropriate to there's strategic demand. the first is that india has an appropriate land strategy for dealing with the world. does have the capacity to develop this strategy? that would be question no. one. question no. two would be, does the indian state have the capacity to mobilize the resources required to procure the range of military instruments necessary to achieve their political ends? . .
these ad complex questions, but critical. the fourth question is can the indian state maintained armed forces that are capable of deploying the right kind of military capabilities of and get the bill wilcapable of and lamee right strategies? if one is to do an assessment of whether military modernization is appropriate to the objectives that the nation seeks to achieve on the international
stage, i sang, want systematically has to go through -- think one has to systematically go through the hard work and train the questions i will not go through those here, because i will keep you much longer than what you signed up for. i do want to give you my summary conclusions appear yen on the first question of whether india has the capacity to develop a korean strategy and whether it has done so, and isn't it correct answer is that india has done well on this question. it does not have deeply articulated a grand strategy, but it has principles that guide its foreign policy and objectives. the entire indian establishment shares the objectives that india
seeks to achieve. on the second question of does the indian state have the capacity to mobilize resources to achieve a military aims it seeks? the indian state has done reasonably well. particularly, relative to its peers. if you look at both pakistan and china, as just being too examples, you find by some simple metrics lead in the s ratios of tax to g.d.p., india does better than both china and pakistan. and that is demonstrated by the fact of the armed forces have resources but they often find themselves unable to spend. in a way that is quite radically different from the 70's, the indian state today has money. whether it has the capacity to spend it officially is the question i will answer dextnext.
the third question deals with the issues of state capacity, about whether institutional capacity exists to do each of the things i have lied. doesn't have the capacity to efficiently allocate resources? my view is they do quite poorly armed this. -- my view is they do quite poorly on this. on the third issue, of whether the indian state has the capacity to direct military instruments appropriately in war and peace, i think the indian state does tolerably, but not particularly well. i would have to take a lot of time to amplified these
conclusions, but that there is a symbol -- singles scene that comes through in the book that explains why india's performance in these areas has been less than optimal, i think one can flag the issue of civil militarization. steve's book does a remarkable job of showing how the indian state and it specular pattern of civil military relations has prevented the state from achieving the kind of strategic output this that should by nature in joint because of their resources it brings into play. there is an important timeaster about this. it is this, it is not that the indian state is unaware of the constraints imposed by its
peculiar pattern of civil military relations, in fact, the indian state it is very well aware of the constraints, but it is a deliberate choice on the part of state managers to accept some degree of liability when it comes to military aspect of ms. in order to preserve the environment -- military effectiveness in order to preserve the environment. the point to keep in mind is this is not entirely accidental. it is deliberate. this raises a question, which is what ever these choices at the time of india's founding, are these still in place that justified a continuation of these patterns of a civil military relations? in my mind, this is where the future at india's external
environment will play out. to the degree that india feels pressed because its external environment turns out to be far more hostile than it was in the founding years of the country's era. one would hope that the current military relations with change. witness the a few words about the last area, which is the state capable of maintaining armed forces with their corporate military capabilities and capable of an dementing effective military strategies? my judgment here is that the engine military actually does very well, and actually quite better than many of its peers. the book spans quite a bit of time focusing on this dimension of indian military is that the mess.
my own view is that the indian military, divorced a grand strategy, the force the issues of political control, when address and assessed purely as a war-fighting machine is actually far more effective than people give them credit for. one of the things that we have learned in the united states in the last eight years, because of our increase interaction with the indian military, is although india and is a third world states by all the nominal indicators, all armed courses are not your genetic run-of-the- mill third-world armed forces. there are far more sophisticated than that they're certainly not at the level of where the armed forces of the great powers are,
but they're not exactly at the bottom. where does this leave us? believes meet personally with a certain sense of qualified optimism. the reason for that is first the book does india and students a service because it has passed sometimes are harsh spotlight on things that need to be fixed, india is being leaders and i am sure they will look at this book closely and will come more and more elements of the mix of the debate. second, i think we have to be careful about being too harsh because india is just taking baby steps on the road to a great power status. india's rising material capabilities is honestly speaking barely a decade old.
it will take some time before the institutional capacity is keep pace with this material transformation. the material transformations will come first. if the environment plays the role i expect it will, it will be a total transformation in n capabilities. if they fail to get their act together, it will be confronted by prices. it will be confronted by geopolitical failure. ironically in the context of indian history, crises have had catalyzing of beck's. that is they have been far more effective harbingers of change then normalcy. and so a little crisis along the way may not be an altogether bad thing. thank you. and michael walter will cone
these presentations and we will go to your questions. -- a co-sponsor will conclude these presentations and will go to your questions. i do tickling for adequate cover. he worked at the title. >> i think brookings -- i thank brookings and patients for years as a teacher. mike and ashlee, you do not know how much you helped us fix the book. they helped us turn the book about everything into a book about something. thank you both. we do appreciate that health, and without you, we cannot be here today. i want to do two things.
i want to talk a little bit about ashleys. as to change in the structure of india civil military relations, and talk more about the implications for u.s. policy right now, and especially with the presidential visit coming of. we hear a lot of talk about military trade with india and so i want to address that issue a little bit. and the first and is what are the expectations rigid one of the expectations is that as the affluence gross -- when of the expectations is that as the affluent grows, they will alter defense policies to the allocation of resources.
the thing we do notice, however, is we have found a reason to think it will be more [inaudible] . there are definite advantages for india to arm without aiming. it is the accommodation of that own rise in the neighborhood, and even globally has something to do with this deep held restraint in its strategic posture, and that india rearming itself does not make people as uncomfortable as tur and china rearming itself. they are rearming themselves up quite right next beat.
the numbers being thrown around are $100 billion over the next 10 years. if you look at the data, india is one of the top importers of arms for the last 30 years. the data we can debate, but generally, india has been up there. one of the things we do notice is that this enlarged market has made a lot of foreign companies, people who want to supply to india, line up to be able to sell it. if you have been listening to south is set circles in washington lately, -- south asia circles in washington lately, you will hear a drumroll
of this and that. there are obviously many advantages to doing military trade with india. it is a friendly country who -- term interests are converging with the united states. it is a democracy. it has a long tradition of strategic greasepaint. we in want to emphasize, we think the indian armed forces are very professional and very confident and what they're told to do. the fact is the military relations is a little but shy so we get these other types of results. military sales to india will not need subsidies, and they may even generate some employment in the united states. perhaps the most important outcome we can hope to have from encouraging weapons sales to india is to repair, and i am using that word cautiously, to
repair u.s./india relationship and bring us greater freedom of action with respect to pakistan /afghanistan policy. when i say repairing relations, it means that it needs repair. since the u.s.-indian deal that had so much to do with -- u.s. relations have been on somewhat of the decline, especially since the obama administration's approach that largely excluded india from u.s. policy in the region. that is not entirely true, but in large measure that would be true. the obama administration largely rejected and the exceptional treatment of india that was recorded by the bush administration. in particular, the return of the
agenda made indian officials of little bit wary. of course, in afghanistan india found themselves increasingly left out of the formal process. the point is that india should become more involved in afghanistan, pakistan would become antagonize, and that is not something the u.s. wants to see. from the indian perspective, afghanistan dominated by pakistani proxy's signals a return to the late 1990's of the taliban regime when then indian airline flights was hijacked.
the bush administration, i think was predisposed to building up india, and quickly realized also that india was quick to be a very important player in the war on terror. so the bush administration launched this diplomatic exercise initiative that culminated in the u.s. and india nuclear deal. if you look at this, at the indian pakistan relationship, especially going back to 2005, improves dramatically. the rhetoric about cross border infiltration, a lot of positive things happened until the 2008 mumbai attacks.
we certainly -- it is something that i think has been on the minds of a lot of people thinking about weapons sales. can weapons sales today provide the united states with some latitude when it comes to it u.s. policy toward afghanistan /pakistan? this is particularly important, because the president has laid out a plan of withdrawal in the future. as the united states readies itself to withdrawal, will it encourage pakistan to become more involved in afghanistan, and how does that play into the
relationship? >>to answer the question beforei go any further, we think to do this right will not be easy. to be able to make this connection and make it well, it will be difficult. the indian procurement system -- you should all read my book -- it is pretty shocked. it is very difficult to think about how india can move fast enough to be able to procure the weapons that are being sold. secondly, indians themselves have articulated that the weapons purchases are going to be used as levers for technology transfers, and that raises a whole other host of issues.
if the primary goal of the indian government is to have greater access to technologies, and they're going to have -- it will raise issues with technology control regime so within the united states, and that is where the problem is. if the administration wants to change that or thinks that this is the way to go, and that is where it has to work. it has to work on the technology front. i have heard from government officials, military officers talk about aircraft, rrocket propulsion, things that have attend to 20 year time frame in the development, the joint development of those kinds of things is something that perhaps has the capacity to, and i used the word advisedly to rescue
relations. this is something that is quite important do now, especially given the withdrawal plan. a>> thank you. we can now turn to questions. let me remind you to turn your cell phones on when you leave the building. and [laughter] let's have some questions. please state your name and affiliation if you look like to. -- if you would like to. guest: i am >> i am a retired u. army officer. i wanted to address a couple of things, and that was the procurement system is shot, which i do not know if the system is shot, because i think they have really tried to fix a
system that was broken. now, it can stand a lot of improvement. i think the problem is the bureaucracy is now ready to implement all of the capabilities that are within that part german system. i would be interested to see if there's any commentary on that. the other piece you mentioned was the access to technology, and i wonder how in a research position he found that the indians procurement process is more about getting the technology versus getting a capability that meets a specific purpose, and -- because in my experience there has been a little bit of a disconnect in terms of what they want it and really what they need. i think a lot of that goes back to the desire for technology. any commentary on that as well. thank you. >> it does a lot of things.
mostly what the d.p.p. does is to make it easier for people wanting to sell. it is an instrument external to the government in the way. it says you should do a, b, c, and d in order to be considered. the reforms that are required are within the government. the indian military research agency practically had a right of veto on acquisitions. what they want -- they want for shot at trying to develop things, and have not done a great job as everyone knows of their projects. secondly, if you see the chief is also the scientific adviser to the defense minister, which
is the role of a producer and developer in the role of evaluator all rolled into one, and it is no question about conflict of interest. that is not an issue yet. when that becomes an issue it will be resolved. right now it is hard to see how this resolves itself. by and large, i think the indian focus has been on technology, because when you of a policy of restraint and there is lack the political guidance i think then what you do find is the organizing principle becomes technology. you improve your capacity based on technology that is available. those are my immediate responses. >> i would only add that one of the qualities of the indian
defense acquisition project, the whole indian system, is really the lack of expertise. and when we went around interviewing people, i would say how many indian politicians really understand indian military defense policy, and they take one hand down they would say just one. and maybe another one. they're not sure. it is extraordinary how such a major country with such a large military has so few politicians. and i think they are afraid to make some of these decisions because they lack the expertise. ambassador shaper. -- schaffer. >> a lot of what one reads of the indian leaders comments on the indians strategic
environment of this is in the first instance on the insurgency is inside india. -- insurgencies inside india. i noticed in your table of contents there is a chapter on police modernization, so we will have to read the chapter to find out what you say on that, but i wonder if any would like to comment on how bad influences that external environment that is based more properly by the military and how that affects the usability of india's strictly military capacity? >> feel free to join in. >> there is a connection, but the connection is extended. if the agencies were purely
internal, the problems you slack would not arise. in because india's internal is surging seas have some external connection at least in some cases, you end up making military force relevant anin two ways. they have to be diverted from probable external threats. that is one effect. the second, because these have external links, you'll end up having to stop sinking the military capabilities will be is not merely to defeat the insurgency, but also foreign responses. and both of the elements that become interested in the
process. it varies from service to service. the army faces the biggest issue, because internal insurgency is man-power intensive. they soak up a substantial amount of manpower. it actually prevents the capitalization of the army because they simply cannot trade label oor for machines. the second aspect makes them more capital-intensive courses like the air force, because you have to stop thinking of dealing with the foreign responses or supporters of your insurance and see. most of the contingencies that indians think about today involves the use of military forces that are rapid, flexible, and do not involve unnecessary escalation, which most people believed armed
forces do. the air power a courses become relevant. did you do have a loop that ties these together. >> i think ashlee is absolutely right with respect to the divergence of resources. in the case of the nationalizing army, the army is not deployed. it is primarily a police operation. it is a state government operation, with some chris port project support. --it is a state government operation with some project support. even the manifestation of external threat primarily in internal form, then what you should have is a divergence of resources from your regular armed forces to these other
functions and other agencies that do this, but that shift has not happened. the ministry at home has a larger budget. the home minister wants to do a lot of things, but his hands are tied, too. there is a much bigger battle with police modernization then there is with army modernization. some of that should have been visible to us by now, especially after mumbai, but it is not. that is troubling as well. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, steve. thank you all.
[inaudible] where they have shown strategic restraint is against bigger powers, and that is the fear of escalation, modern restraint and reactive mode rather than policy. therefore, i am not so sure whether it will work. thank you. >> first of all, he has been a great supporter of the years. thank you for reading and rereading in critiquing all of our work. in the book we did mention this. we talk about india acting in a
strategically assert of matter in a number of cases. the solar-policy against china in 1959 would be one of them. india did act strategically it is a bigger power as well. and the deployment in sri lanka was another one. most of the strategic positions have not turned out very well. the indian politicians have taken that to heart. they have learned from it. in fact, it has strengthened restraint, and by the way i do think restraint is not accidental. it is very deliberate. it is cut -- well thought out. >> the one country that does not take the indian second straighty is pakistan.
i do not think indians want to see it destroyed, because they realize the negative consequences of a failed pakistan, but pakistan is do not believe that appeared bent >>t. >> rodney jones. kuddos to the authors for getting this book done. congratulations. i have a couple of questions that have to do with now givthat you have done the book and have to do with india's long-term strategic outlook on things that may happen that we're all aware of, and i also want to say as preface to that that i think
india's lack of a monolithic or well-defined grand strategy is actually productive in an opportunistic way. it leaves it adapted to changing circumstances, and it is about changing circumstances that i would like to ask a couple of questions. the question is how did the indian strategic planners and whoever they have to interact with on the political level think about the outcome of iran going nuclear on one side, and on the other, let's say to put it crudely what might be regarded as the u.s. coalition failure in afghanistan and the consequences for pakistan. how did these bear on india and planning in the future? >> mike?
to go i problem cannot answer your question very well directly, because you're asking me to put myself in the mind-set of an indian planner who has assumptions about what happenemt happen. to me the clear point is that it's i think the united states is much more committed than people realize. i think president obama is much more committed than he has been involved to communicate so far. i think his policy is more committed than his policy. -- i think his policy is more committed than his rhetoric. his difficulty in finding the right words to send a mixed message that he is committed,
but people better not take us for granted. he is having trouble with that message. his actions speak louder than his words, or at least people should just the meaning of his actions as much. i do not think the united states is likely to leave afghanistan and southeast asia militarily anytime soon, unless things really go disastrously, much worse than they're going now. right now they're not going well, but there are glimmers of hope. my prediction is that it will take substantially more negative trends for him to sort of pull the plug on this operation or fall back on a minimalist plan b, but i do not think that is where he is headed. i think you will see this through. more planning in the region should be based on that likely that, rather than assuming we're somehow added for the exit, which i do not think is true. >> if i may speak for the indian thinkers, i think that's exactly
what they're hoping for. they are hoping for the fact that president obama will see this through, and that the united states will not leave afghanistan and a hurry and create a power vacuum that is taken over by pakistani proxies'. >> [inaudible] i have a third view, and i think the indians want to fight the taliban to the last u.s. marine. i do not think that is a sustainable policy from an american point of view. i think we should be talking and working towards a larger regional framework. it would be the hardest thing in the world to do, but easier to get them to cooperate on a neutral afghanistan. the folks would have that in
their interests. instead, i am not sure what we're up to. it would also require extended united states and iran to cooperate. i think they hold the key to a successful outcome in afghanistan. and i am not an expert. over here. great. >> complement's to authors and other panelists. can i get the panel to extend on where you think that direction of the arsenal might be headed? today we have heard a couple of different things. one there has been a heavy emphasis on the dreatheme of restraint. the other theme is there is
potential disconnects between basic strategic principles and the sort of decisions or non- decisions that occur in individual development programs. and as new technological opportunities arise in this particular field whether it is missile defense, cruise missiles, some of these may have stabilizing or destabilizing effects on the call of deterrence. -- on the goal of deterrence. >> i will say a word on this. the indians have created a major nuclear weapons programs. there will have to do more testing. laboratory work only get to so far. if they do more testing, then i think the recalls and in terms of the relationship in the united states and other countries.
the danger is that the pakistan iis are racing them. china is also. i the testing is a big barrier. >> i would just say that this is a very picture of their race in south asia. the evidence shows the indians are not raising, which can mean a one of two things. either they are racing and no one knows about it, because they're doing it so efficiently in terms of their ability to do denial and reception, or they actually believe and animal deterrent, even if others to not believe it. if you look at some of the indicators, like for example the
ballistic missile production, it is by as heavily towards the low end of the spectrum. there does not seem to be any to genocide -- any discernible side that they wanted more but can't get away with less. how do you explain this? one is they are truly strategically messed up. that is they do not understand the relationship between the requirements and what they actually have to do. and the other is a bureaucratic explanation that the drivers of the program are essentially part of the civilian nuclear establishments who considered nuclear rapine this to be second-rate things considered to other applications of nuclear energy. when faced with a trade-off,
they will continue to put most of their resources into civilian applications rather than go out and make better bombs. there are more details to the story, but that is the second hypothesis. indian civilian leadership believes that nuclear weapons are such powerful deterrents that you really do not need too many of them as long as you are convinced that your adversaries do not know what you have and where you have them. the assumption being that these devices are such nasty things that evening having a handful of them by as you all the deterrance you need in most of the conceivable scenario is that policy thinkers think is relevant. whether it's this changes will
be interesting to watch, but today what i found most surprising is that indian reluctance to race, even though there is enough evidence in the west that the chinese and pakistan is are moving at a fairly rapid level. >> [inaudible] i must say that' what is surprising is the title of the book. that is very intriguing i must say. i wonder why he thinks that indians are so dumb they are building military but do not know what they would do with the military?
the other thing is that might have mentioned that indian domestic intelligence as the biggest threat. [inaudible] you do not need nuclear submarines to fight insurgency. if something happens again, india might choose to go on a different route. i am surprised -- isn't that simple if pakistan wants india to have another war, they will just have to have another attack? the other thing is that in india we should understand that india, pakistan, at the integrity is interdependent. if any one of them starts breaking, it will have a domino effect.
for that matter we should be lookeing to recourse those things. i am getting close to my question. the population of below party level, i think someone come up with the exact figure, and all of the resources of the state, which are being utilized to build elements of human destruction, white cannot be used to improve the quality of life, living conditions, and infrastructure and giving a future to the people of india? my question is if it then known champion of peace was alive today, what kind of advice to you think you will get to beggio indian leadership? >> we will take that as a
involved. why is this border so solid? secondly, on pakistan, you had the enormous strategy. what opportunities pudo you see? >> let me comment on not the last part, because i think we're still discovering what is happening in pakistan is still bad. let me comment on the implications of the first part of your question. it is my next book. hopefully three years from now we will be sitting here and i will tell you all about the second hundred years for. -- war. this is one of the a tractable complex of the world.
and has been a clear rise. -- it has been nuclearized. i want to look at it and think about deeply as i can. whether there is some way of getting out of this. but meet defers the answer to your question for another three years or so. -- let me defers answer to your question for another three years or so. [laughter] >> for the last couple of years we have read about indian and chinese infrastructure and modernizations around the border and the like. india has been modernizing its military and strategic culture is changing to an extent. well in the arm and aim towards china? to g-- will india aim and arm
towards china? >> the thesis of the book is the indian government does not have an interest right now, and obviously as you go into the future things get it is here, but there does not seem like the indian government wants a direct confrontation with the chinese government. i think it is partly because india is way behind china in military and economic terms, but also because we do see that kind of arms race and as counterproductive to the nation building at home. so what you do see in fact in the last 10 or 12 years it started with cargill that india and china have actually tried to develop something of a of a
cooperative relationship, though clearly there is this infrastructure development that is going on. largely during the cargo war china did distance themselves a little bit from pakistan, and that was -- that stabilize the situation a little bit. indian leaders have gone out of their way repeatedly to save that the relationship with the united states, for instance, is not aimed against china, which is the primary concern in china with respect to india. >> right there. >> thank you. congratulations. both of you have been membernto
in different ways. question on this issue of a disconnect between what india requires and where it is looking for technology acquisition. i am thinking specifically of things at the high end of the technological spectrum. india may be inquiring postings for technological reasons. i remember being on the panel where we had this discussion, but what does it do to strategic stability in the region? a country like pakistan is going to respond with its own measures as india makes these accusations, whether or not they are targeted at pakistan at all. it says that pakistan cannot be sure because india is not sure where the aim is. and if we take this forward, and
i correct in saying that pakistan will become more and more paranoid about acquisitions? and whether the rivalry goes to madrid years and becomes more dangerous with nuclear weapons or there is a very urgent need for countries like the u.s. and pakistan and india to find a public diplomacy channel to find ways to actually bring their complex to a resolution before we get to that stage? >> do want to talk about this? >> the simple answer is welcome to the security question. i think it is inevitable that you will have acquisitions on either side, which are born to be seen as threatening by the other -- which are going to be seen as threatening that the other. they will run all the risks that
come from a competitive response by the other. there are very few instances where states have actually been able to manage their competition. the u.s. and the soviet union provide two counter examples. remember, both of those and dynamics , came into play on both sides. getting rid of capabilities actually had some benefits. i do not see this conflict as being in that position today. each side believes that certain marginal additions have > proportion benefits. so they will go out and acquire
those capabilities, and then you will have a process that requires counter response. i just did not see this disappearing. -- do not see this disappearing. >> i think india and pakistan will have to sort this out over time there yen keep in mind as well that in terms of nuclear weapons, and in terms of building of the nuclear arsenal, india has not wanted to race. if there are a lot of reports out now saying that the pakistani missile program, the pakistani material production having increase much faster than the indians of fixed fact, once, but it still has not moved the indians to get into a race. and given that constrainet at te
highest technological level, the weapons that are paying lots may or may not have a muted effect. i do not think -- is there going to have to play of the security again over some amount of time. >> i am slightly more optimistic that they can both acquire the weapons for symbolic purposes like you have airlines, but maybe they can agree that some of them can be bought only in token numbers. we have time for one more question. this gentleman over here. >> steve mentioned the need for the indians to convince the pakistani as other real intentions. also considering the serious
military risks inherent in this situation and taking into account the relatively open policies we have in pakistan and brought level of intellectual depth available in both societies, is this situation right for the use of the track toward its diplomacy that perhaps might be able to give serious discussions going that might not be capable at the official government level? >> i gave up on track two a long time ago. 15 years ago i started working with younger indians and pakistan is in chinese. i thought it was far more useful. fortunately it is not as on the mall refundable -- nt anot as
fundable. there is a new book out by charles kupchun, "how enimies become friends." there has to be a strategic decision by senior policymakers to normalize that all of the good moments follow after that. i tend to be skeptical about track two. i think you need to work at the top to explain to policy makers that they're driving their country over the cliff. i think in this apiece, but by itself it will not get far. let me think michael panelists. an-- thank my co-panelists.