tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 1, 2012 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
a broken leg, there would not be as much of a problem. host: the va was widely overestimating how quickly they were able to accommodate veterans and see them and treat them. this is the first time there have been calculation errors. all, -- alsoice can up with studies. what is improving? guest: the problem for the va is that it is a moving target. what was adequate in 2007 could be fixed by doing some thing. that is no longer adequate. the demands continued to grow. that is the problem and the challenge. you talk to mental health experts in the military and the va and the civilian world and you ask when this is going to peak? what year is that going to happen and nobody knows?
we have not seen this crest yet. if 10 or 20 years from now, there will be a flood of mental health concerns. there is some believe that is likely to occur. host: mark thompson, thank you for being with us. that's all for "washington journal." we will be back at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow morning. coming up now, we will go to the center for american progress where there is an event called the third way. this will last about one hour and we will hear from the director of the office of national drug control policy. the introduction will be by the president becap. that will get started in a few moments. [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ." this is the center for american progress in washington. the white house drug control policy will outline the obama administration's 2012 national drug control strategy which was released two weeks ago and you will go into further detail. we have a link to that report on our website, c-span.org. you can take a look at it before the event gets under way. it will be a few minutes late
and we will have live when it starts. the white house this morning launched a new effort to minimize differences between u.s. and international regulations, announcing bill issue an executive order calling on a white house committee to work with the private sector to reduce unnecessary red tape causing problems for u.s. companies. we will have this event live once it gets under way and until then, part of this morning's "washington journal."
host: let's go to a houston, texas. caller: thank you for taking my call. it definitely should be raised. $7.25 per hour? to me a favor, make sure you point out the republican callers. i am curious as to how they feel about the minimum wage especially since their leaders are the ones who vote against it. thank you so much for taking my call host: independent line is next from ohio. thank caller: you very much for taking my call. i want to see a living wage like civilized countries like switzerland and the netherlands both have and i wish cspan would to a program on a living wage.
$7.25 per hour is ridiculous. i have been retired for over 20 years but i started working for 25 cents per hour in a bakery and that islam -- and that was the minimum wage in 1938. host: before we let you go, what would be a living wage? caller: i would let the economists figure that out. i really don't know what a living wage would be. that's why i wish cspan would get out from behind that counter, brian lamb, and to pick a program on it living wage. host: republican from alexandria, va., good morning. caller: i think it is a ridiculous question. it is obvious that the minimum wage and should be raised. i think it should be $25 per hour. host: tell us more.
caller: the cost of living is ridiculously expensive to live here. what what they pay minimum wage at least $25 per hour? host: we are looking at statistics from the department of labour showing us some of the minimum wages of states that our callers are calling from. let's hear from nashville, tenn., a democratic caller. caller: it should definitely be raised but what makes me laugh as the people who complained most about people who don't pay taxes because they are too poor to pay taxes or they are living on government assistance because they are paying are the same people say the minimum wage should not be raised. host: what do you make of that? caller: it is ironic. host: let's look at what the states are facing --
independent caller from, atlanta, georgia. what do you think? caller: it is a ridiculous question because the prices are always going up. the people have to buy the goods and services and there are people make the decisions to change -- to raise the wages, they are always challenging way to. wages. they are always getting raises and voting wages being raised for themselves. this is so they can deliver better and cheaper and the people who are actually working, we the people of the united states, we don't get the same benefit.
host: the minimum wage in your state is actually $5.15 per hour which is lower than the federal rate. do you have friends on minimum wage? caller: i am an independent owner. i i small-business my cell. -- i on a small business myself. minimum wage to port. you make enough money to go to work and come back,. -- minimum-wage keeps you pour. $50,000 per year in new york city is not a lot of money. that is a lot of money and other places and people are making $12,000-$20,000 to live in new york city. it is a no-brainer. the cost of levchenko -- the cost of living should before we the people.
>> follow "washington journal" any time on line. we will take you to the center for american progress important they will talk about u.s. drug policy and outlining the administration's's 2012 national drug control strategy. this is just getting under way live on c-span. >> he has transformed the policy of the administration. four years ago, president nixon declared that drug abuse was public enemy number one. that declaration was one of the cost is or is in our nation's history. for decades, the united states treated drug abuse as a moral failure and fought it with incarceration. instead of building treatment centers, we build jails and as a result, the u.s. now has the highest rate of incarceration and the world. it is a dear cost to state and
federal budgets and at a time when budgets are constrained. it is a dear cost to future competitiveness in the american economy. the war on drugs is more tragic to the families and communities whose loved ones have not gotten the support they need. i think it is so important that we have gil kurlikowske who has a long history of law enforcement. the administration recognizes we are powerless against the challenge of substance abuse. millions are in recovery. the administration has laid out a strategy to improve the process which gil is here to discuss. we welcome the changes in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine and shifts in funding which sees more money spent in the last three years on
jug education and treatment than drug law enforcement. that is a critical important issue. progressives have been arguing for a rebalancing and a so- called war on drugs and making it more of a public health issue and they have seen this movement campaigned by gil. it is my honor to introduce ham. he brought 37 years of law enforcement policy with them and most recently served nine years as the chief of police for seattle, washington wary helped reduce crime. he has been a champion of innovative strategies to reduce crime, working within communities, dealing with the leadership at different communities to ensure that police are working in partnership with communities to reduce crime. he was elected twice to be president of the major city chiefs.
we are very excited to have gil here to talk about new strategies to address this important issue. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. nice to see you and nice to be here at the center. let me thank the executive director, neera tanden and her staff for making this happen. it is a good opportunity to talk about the recently released national drug control strategy. let me start by sharing a concern i think many of us in public health and safety whole community share about drug policy. over the past few years, this public debate on drug policy lurches between two extreme views. let me characterize those news
for you. on the one side, we have a very vocal, organized, well funded advocates who insist that drug legalization is a several bullet for addressing our nation's drug problem. the other side is a debate of those who insist that law enforcement only, the war on drugs approached, is the way to create a drug-free society. if only we could spend more money on prisons and enforcement and increased arrests and seizures of drugs, that logic goes, the drug problem will go away. the obama administration strongly believes that neither of these approaches is humane, compassionate, not realistic, probably most importantly, they are not grounded in science. the approaches did not abolish the complexity of our nation's drug problem or reflect what
science has shown us over the past two decades. you can put the answer to a complex problem on a bumper sticker, you probably don't have much of an answer. that is why two weeks ago, we release the national drug control policy and it pursues a third way for our nation to approach drug control. this is the 21st century approach to drug policy. it is progressive and innovative and evidence-based and represents what we believe is the way ahead for drug policy. along these lines, i was very pleased sunday night to see the ""60minutes" peace. it showed the institute's groundbreaking work in the science of addiction. it reflected what we have learned about the disease and it highlighted the future direction of drug policy. the national institute of drug abuse is the source of 85% of
the world's research on drug abuse and we could not be more proud of that. i recommend that all of you take a few minutes to watch that "60 minutes" peace. the link to the video is on our twitter feed. let me state the challenges and why our policies could not come at a more important time. today, more americans are dying from drug-induced death than from any other form of injury death including traffic crashes and gunshot wounds. making matters worse, drug use among young people is increasing while perceptions of harm regarding some drugs are weakening. apart from its impact on the health and safety, our nation's drug problem also continues to place obstacles in the way of our economic prosperity. just last year, the department
justice released at data that the health, work place, and criminal justice costs to american society totaled $193 billion and that is using 2007 data. contributing to the immense cost are the millions of drug offenders who are under the supervision of the criminal- justice system. for states and localities across the system which is where the vast majority of this work gets done, the cost of managing this system have grown significantly. these facts _ the need for a different approach to drug policy. one that treats drug addiction as a disease and promotes a criminal justice system where drug-related crime is addressed in a fair and equitable manner for every american. simply put, myself and many of my colleagues, almost all of my colleagues, say one thing repeatedly -- we cannot arrest our way out of the drug problem. that is why we are taking action
to reform our public health and safety systems a we can learn to recognize the signs of drug addiction and intervene before it becomes a criminal justice issues. before i talk about the approach, let me take a moment to give you some facts about how we have accomplished these changes in reforming the system and trying to restore balance to a drug policy over the last three years. in 2010, president obama signed the fair sentencing act into law which was the first time in four decades that a mandatory minimum drug law has been rolled back. this was an important and long overdue criminal-justice reform. it dramatically reduce the 100-1 disparate between crack cocaine and powder that a disproportionately affected minorities. we have spent more than $31 billion in the last three years to support drug education and
treatment programs more than what we spend on u.s. federal law enforcement. to break the cycle of drug use and crime, we have worked to divert nonviolent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail for drug courts. there are now more than 2600 of these specialized courts across the nation of diverting 120,000 people annually. i had a great opportunity to work for attorney general janet reno and we had won a drug court in miami. and to see the expansion to 2600 is amazing. to see the drug program in seattle, the changes that were made were absolutely partitioned. whenever someone tells me that the government does not listen or the taxpayer dollars are being wasted in this area, i just ask them to go and attend a drug court graduation. if you are not moved in
motivated by the graduation, you have a pretty cold parts. during the past three years, we spent this money to increasing number of programs that support education and treatment and to break the cycle of drug use and crime we have put into place policies and procedures that actually help to intervene early. we provided more than $370 million in funding to a drug- free community programs to more than 700 local coalitions made up of organizers working to prevent drug use among teens. those grassroots efforts are important. they are also backed up with evaluations and research that shows that young people who have been exposed to those programs are more resistant to using drugs than those who have not. recognizing that drug use is a public health issue, the obama administration last year released the first ever national
prevention strategy which calls for eliminating health disparities and increasing education. it is to help with the stigma that is associated with drug addiction and support the millions of americans who are in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. we created the first ever recovered branch here at the white house office of national drug control policy. internationally, we have devoted more than $1.2 billion during the past three years to alternative development programs that provide economic incentives and have increased security to farmers and -- in drug-producing regions of our hemisphere. three years ago, the obama administration became the first in history to lift a longstanding federal ban on needle exchange programs. unfortunately, nick -- congress has reinstated the banter with policy writer on an appropriations bill. the strategy we just released
builds on this record of drug policy reform and it outlines more than 100 specific actions that will realign the way we do with our nation's drug problem. i encourage you to take a look at that document and take a look at the action items which spread across all the continuum of drug policy and the complexities and dealing with it. our policies include support for programs like training, intervention, and treatment which works to medicalize our approach. this helps health institutions recognize the signs and symptoms of drug addiction early. i would not be a good federal employee if i could not make an acronym out of that. if you think about it, most people in this country actually get to see a health-care professional about once a year. in that confidential setting, hopefully, that health care professional through the programs will have the tools and
information they need to make an accurate assessment regardless of why that person is visiting that health care professional, to make accurate assessment of whether there is a substance- abuse problem. we know they asked the right questions and we know people trust their health care professionals that perhaps an intervention can be started early and we know that early interventions can work better and another early interventions are more cost-effective. these are important issues around the health-care area. the strategy we just release builds on the record of drug policy reform and outlines a number of these important actions. it is really important that all of us recognize, when i went through this list, how it helps us to frame and understand the complexity of the drug problem. here is another excellent
example and that is the affordable care act. it is revolutionary because for the first time, it makes drug treatment required benefit for all americans who suffer from substance abuse disorder. it is important for another reason because it helps to put drug policy initiatives that are in the health-care system not in a specialty or in exile but in the primary care area. -- or in a silo but in the primary care area. it is an innovative idea, "prevention, because it is difficult to get funding for prevention that's why we're working so hard to help people understand why it makes some sense. we support the national youth anti-drug media campaign and the drug free community support program. these programs help insure every new generation of young people have the opportunity to reach
their full potential free from drugs. i have a great opportunity to travel around the country and listen to high school students and listen to parents. it drives that point, every week to me as i get an airplane and meet with people about how important it is for this future generation. recognizing that smart and innovative law enforcement efforts to remain a vital part of our drug policy, the strategy also supports programs that target violent transnational criminal organizations. they break down silos among federal, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies and you have to continue to reform the criminal justice system through the innovative programs such as reentry programs, characterized by the second chance act. it also continues to support the administration's unprecedented efforts to secure the southwest border by providing support to historical levels of personnel,
technology, infrastructure that have been deployed and are strengthening and we are also strengthening the international relationships. the strategy looks ahead to the future of drug control reform. these are important and innovative programs that are taking hold in local communities across america. the local community is where i spent by far the vast majority of my career. "a wall street journal"a broad attention to these programs. this piece argued there is no quick fix to the complex issue of drug abuse and prevention and we agree. these experts pointed to the success of programs such as the drug market interventions which closed down open-air drug markets for community-based strategies and they offer drug offenders a second chance and they offer drug offenders a second chance before they are
ever arrested and before they get that record against them. there is a hawaii project hope which reduces probation violation through swift predictable and immediate sanctions. these programs have demonstrated records of success, only in dissipating criminal activity but also, and probably most important, building community. let me close by saying there is real reason to be optimistic in -- that this reform will reduce drug use and its consequences on society. as a longtime police official, my profession is not noted for a lot of optimism. in fact, i would tell you that cynicism often comes with it. during these three years that i have looked at the changes across this country in the way we think about and address and deal with our nation's drug
problems, i am optimistic. the recent data also supports that optimism. meth and cocaine use in america are down dramatically. i don't think you heard that. meth and cocaine use in america are down dramatically. since today is in six, cocaine use has declined by 40% meth use is down by half. surveys show that despite recent increases in the use of some drugs, fewer young people are abusing prescription drugs. about 120,000 people each year are referred to treatment instead of jail for drug courts and we know from the most recent evaluation done by the urban institute that the drug courts not only save money but they are also effected. last year for the first time in four decades, the state prison population declined. i believe we on on the right track to reduce the
consequences of drug use and drug trafficking. with that, i think that have prepared well for questions. i went out and had a root canal a couple of weeks ago so i want to be well-prepared, thank you. thank you, all. [applause] >> we will -- i will ask some questions and we will be taking questions from the audience so if you can write out your audience and write them as legibly as possible and identify yourself, that would be helpful. thank you. thank you so much for your remarks and i will start off with a few questions. you said the war on drugs does not address the complexity of the drug problem. why do you say that? >> the war on drugs is sold to the american people that we will actually win this. our goals which are very well sit in the president's strategy
are very clear about reducing drug use and the importance of reducing drug use on all levels whether it is with youth or our horrible prescription drug problem or reducing drug driving which is another issue out there. most recently, we are dealing with our synthetic drug problem. these are all important and when we call it a war on drugs, we don't give it the emphasis and focus and frankly the resources that are needed to deal with what really is a very complex public health and education and criminal justice problem. we would really like ban that phrase as much as possible. >> when you talk about this as a public health issue and moving it from a war metaphor towards a public health issue, that means moving it more towards treatment than incarceration.
what are the other steps you are taking from your vantage point to really tease that idea out? >> one of the three signature initiatives to put in place was to deal with prevention. prevention does not get the level of support and understanding. my experience as police chief would tell you that no one ever came up to me and patted me on the back and said you guys are doing a great job preventing crime. it was always about how fast you reacted and if you arrested the perpetrator and did you get somebody's property back. prevention is the key and we know that prevention can work. what we have failed to recognize is that the research and information around prevention has increased demonstrably over the last couple of decades. prevention programs can be very
cost-effective. people often don't think their kids listen to their parents. in fact, the research tells you that kids to listen to their parents. they also listen to trust the messengers, coaches, teachers, law enforcement officials, and others. if the message being given to the young person is not one about a scare tactic and it is more about information to help you make good decisions to be in control, i think that is absolutely critical. we just failed to give the attention to prevention that we could but fortunately this new national prevention strategy chaired by the surgeon general talks about how improvements in health can be gained. the drug addiction is an area that is in need of our prevention dollars being threatened at the state level? >> i do, on the one hand, i have not met with a governor or
state legislator in this last three years that has not looked at trying to reduce costs particularly in the criminal justice area. one of the concerns i have is that as they reduced costs, they need to be cognizant of the fact that those cost savings need to be put into the after care. they need to be put back into treatment behind the walls for those people who have been incarcerated. people need to get back into housing and that is what i was so impressed with secretary sean donovan and his letter to every public housing authority administrator in the country saying m articleyths about when i -- saying that there are myths about when people can get back into public housing. these are important issues. >> one argument that i think
resonates more now than it has in the past is arguing that prevention and treatment can be more cost-effective than incarceration. are you seeing some governors who may not have been receptive to this argument being more open now? do you think the conversation has shifted in the states? >> i think the communities have always been understanding that. when you look at people who are released from custody, they turned back to their same neighborhood. people understood it and sometimes people leave and the elected officials will follow along sometimes. i have never been more hopeful and talking to governors regardless of whether they had ad or r after their name. governor deal is a pretty conservative governor in georgia. he carved out $50 million out of his very tough state budget to
increase treatment programs. i think he understands from his background. his son is a drug court judge. >> how interesting. i will have one or two more questions and then we will take questions from the audience. one question is on the issue of marijuana. the president made a distinction between lars dispensaries and marijuana use and "rolling stone." do you have any comments on that distinction? and where we are with marijuana? >> on the medical marijuana issue, the president made it
very clear that the department of justice's role in enforcing federal law and the understanding that limited federal enforcement resources would not be used against people who have been prescribed marijuana. as he said, he never did card launc- - carte blanche to grow operations and perhaps early on people thought that things would be a bit different. in fact, federal law is what federal law is. >> this is from the criminal justice policy foundation. i strongly support federal funding in the needle exchange program. how can i demands that states provide funding? >> the understanding on needle exchange programs would be helpful. this goes back to that debate i
tried to characterize almost exactly in the beginning. people say there's a needle exchange program, that means more people will be inclined to use or continue to use. i have spent a lot of time in this business and i've never met someone who is addictive drugs who said because there is a needle exchange program, i am more inclined to continue. not at all on the other hand, neil exchange programs can help reduce the issues around infectious disease. when those programs are in operation, they provide information about treatment programs. perhaps on that person is there, it may be the right time in their lives that they are getting the information about a treatment program. i think that is what we would like to see. >> in light of the summit of the americas, what is your opinion of the discussion in south
america d ofe-criminalization? >> i think we have seen a couple of things as a result of the discussion before and during the summit of the americas paraps. i think president san tests in columbia san --tos in colombia understands this issue very well. looking at these policies and i believe the president and vice president both have advocated for a stronger view of the policies but let's look at this success in columbia. i don't know anyone that does not get colombian high marks for the reduction in violence and
improvements in their economy and security and a reduction in planting. when i visited a group of people who were both farming fish and growing sugar cane the macarena area of colombia, they said they might have had more money in my pocket but i was always afraid of criminals coming in and taking my crops and terrorizing my family. he said to have this steady income as a result of programs that are strongly supporsupportd and he said it is better for his family and better for the safety and security of his village. those are good changes. >> this is from the marijuana policy project -- as you must know, both marijuana and alcohol
are widely used by adults and the united states. given that alcohol causes far more deaths, disease, can you explain why these policies prevent adults from using marijuana instead of alcohol? >> the issue always gets around whether alcohol is more dangerous or alcohol causes more deaths. nobody is going to roll the clock back and feel we need to institute prohibition on alcohol. there are no good reasons to legalize marijuana. i often hear about tax regulations and control as an answer. then i look a prescription drugs which take over 15,000 lives per year, let alone the number of people who come in the to emergency departments and the number of people that are treated and prescription drugs are already taxed, already regulated, already controlled.
we do a very poor job of keeping them out of that hands of the users, ms. users, and young people. i don't see that we would do a very good job with a substance the taxn easily bevade scheme. it does not take rocket science to grow marijuana and i would become concerned when it is sold. i look back at california and it was sold as it will fix your economy, it will reduce or eliminate vast amounts of criminal justice costs. i looked at that and said i am glad the voters of california recognize that perhaps there is not as much truth in all of those claims for legalizing marijuana as that had been put out and press releases. >> addiction is a disease for
years. why has it taken so long for the federal government technologists to cement that theory? >> we don't speak to the right audience. if you are a federal health researcher or a researcher in academia, use the two other academics, you speak to other medical groups, and you don't speak to the american public. if you would have asked me not that many years before getting this job about the disease of addiction, i would have said this is a moral failure. people need to find god and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. it took a lot of reading and understanding to realize that this is a chronic, diagnosable
but surely treatable disease that we should be looking at and handling from make much greater health perspective. i am the unexpected messenger. i am a police chief who does not talk that much about arresting and incarceration but i may police chief who talks about education and public health. >> this follows on that a little bit -- as a 33-year law enforcement veteran who has arrested many people for non-violent crimes, i am pleased by your point of view. what is your new annual arrest targets? >> people don't understand that the vast majority of this work is done at the state and local level, not by the federal level. that is why the drug enforcement administration, the changes i
am saying across the country and reductions for incarceration for low-level drug offenses is important. one of the other things that is helpful is that as a police chief for those who would have talked about this a few years ago, you would have been characterized as eager soft on drugs are soft on crime. it is hard to characterize somebody with 37 years. as being soft on either of those things. a policy that begins to say there are other alternatives to incarceration and there are ways to reduce some of this problem i think are particularly helpful and important. i think the national drug control strategy directs and demands out of federal agencies operate. it does not do that for the state and yet, strategy that is science based and well constructed can be a wonderful template for a state governor or
state legislature to say we could look at this step from the from that level. >> we have time for two or three more questions. does the shift toward prescription drug enforcement signal greater control ad onerol and add drugs? >> i am familiar with aderol issue but when i talk about prescription drugs, i talk about the opiate pain killers and the vast increase in prescriptions. , the lack of information and education that is provided to doctors about pain management and addiction and tolerance. i think those important parts of looking at what is taking most american lives, what is sending the most people to rehab are around those drugs bursas
aderol. >> this is from cedcca. >> multi-sector community-based drug prevention -- the vast majority of the work that gets done in this country, it is clearly a group of people that i have had this gift for three years to go around the country and meet and listen to them. their voices are part of this national drug control strategy. they are the ones meeting with youth and trying to raise money and holding bake sales and mentoring kids and the ones volunteering at schools and we have this wonderful opportunity
to give them evidence and science-based tools and information about what will help keep our next generation healthy. as i approach retirement age, i want them to be paying social security taxes and be doing a great job. >> i appreciate your increase and emphasis on treatment. do you plan -- recommends casual treatment for casual users? >> that has been strange that if someone is arrested for a small amount of marijuana and they say we have made a determination that you have to go into treatment -- treatment spaces a barrick -- valuable commodity and when you have experts, professionals in the treatment field in the diagnosis field, i
think they can pretty clearly assess whether somebody is in fact in need of treatment. compulsory treatment i'm not sure is an issue that i am as familiar with in detail at that level. we did a press conference not that long ago with a wonderful woman who attributed her change from drug use to one of recovery to one act of speaking out against this issue because she spent 30 days in the broward county jail where a very foreside the sheriff said i don't care how long they have to be in custody, i will provide them as much information about drug treatment and programs as possible. we did the same thing when it looked of the methamphetamine problem. we talked to a young man and he said pettitte treatment because
i was on my way to visit my mother was dying per kantor. the officer stopped me, arrested me for meth amphetamine and the way he treated me help me on my path to treatment and a path to recovery. i could fight literally hundreds of stores across the country in which i don't want to see law enforcement characterized as anti prevention and anti treatment. people in treatment professionals should look at them as a valuable ally. if i regret anything, in my law enforcement career, it was not just recognizing an understanding the disease of addiction. i hope to change that. >> this is the last question -- what are you doing to drug use is being prevented before it
starts? >> wiest bridgette wiefling on the drug support community organization. -- we support the drugs support community organization. there are small grass-roots coalitions that make a huge difference in bringing together the school system, faith-based leaders, law enforcement, and others to help provide a program that for an incredibly low cost gives young people the kind of tools and information they need to be much more aware of the drug problem. and hopefully prevent desperate i could not be more proud where the real work is calling. >> thank you for coming and thank you for visiting with us. [applause] >> your responses ignore the issue.
administration's 2012 drug control strategy. we posted it on line at her c- span.org website. we want to tell you about more live events coming today. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey will be speaking at the carnegie endowment for international peace and that will be live at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. later, a discussion on u.s. courts and constitutional democracy at 5:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span and honest tonight for more american history tv programming and the focus this evening will be the fight against slavery. they will discuss the movement that took place in the u.s. in the 1800's at 8:00 eastern, american history tv, on c-span 3. >> four years ago i was a washington outsider. four years later, i am at this dinner. [applause] four years ago i looked like s [laughter]
today i look like this [laughter] and four years from now, i will look like this. [laughter] [applause] that's not the. and funny -- that's not even funny. [laughter] >> mr. president, you remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? that was hilarious. [laughter] [no audio] [applause] that was your best one yet. honestly, is a thrill for me to be here with the president, a man who i think has done his best to guided tours and difficult times and paid a heavy price for it. there is a term for guys like president obama, probably not two terms but -- [laughter] >> if you missed the white house correspondents' dinner,
you can watch any time on line at the cspan video library behind the scenes, the red carpet, and the entertainment and c-span.org/video library. >> later this month, leaders from around the world will gather in chicago at the nato summit, the first meeting of alliance leaders since november, 2010 when they met in lisbon, portugal. a special assistant to president obama and senior director for european affairs at the national security council monday spoke about issues impacting the future of nato including its future commitment in afghanistan. from the center for strategic and international suspect -- studies this is about what our -- the center for strategic and international studies. >> good afternoon. it is really a pleasure to welcome our audience,
particularly many members of the diplomatic corps and the media here in washington as well as our peers on c-span and over the world wide web. we are really treated that dr. elizabeth sure what randall has agreed to join us here to discuss the obama administration's goal for the nato summit in chicago, now just three weeks away and plans for sustained a transatlantic relationship over the longer- term. this very large turnout that we see in this room here and many more watching on electronic media is a testament to our speaker but more importantly, it is a strong counterpoint to those who suggest that no one is in washington is all that interested in nato anymore. thank you for that q -- i would remind you of the ground rules -- please turn off all electronic devices because we are reporting this for posterity for further dissemination. we have just one hour so i will
give a brief introduction of our speaker. you have a more complete bio in your program. this is being recorded so it is on the record. following dr. randall's remarks, i will offer some questions and then open the floor for discussion from the audience. we will adjourn promptly at 3:00 because the summit is only three weeks away, not to mention everything else going on in this area of responsibility. cimbri highlights of her career -- she is the special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for international affairs. prior to her service in the white house, she was the senior scholar affiliated with the council on foreign relations and stanford center for international security and cooperation. she previously served in government as deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia,
ukraine, and eurasia in the first clinton administration and a senior adviser to senator joseph biden during his service in the senate. she earned her bachelor's degree from harvard college and international relations from oxford where she was a rhodes scholar. the floor is yours. welcome csis. [applause] >> thank you. it is a privilege to be here. i want to change you and your teams for the work that you do here. i also want to thank the work that you did for nato strategic
allies. i am also happy to see some many friends here today, colleagues, members of the diplomatic community. thank you for taking the time to join us. i have devoted much of my career to working on strengthening our alliances with your to make sure that it is capable of meeting the steps that we face the threats that we face and adapting to a rapidly changing environment. -- to make sure that it is capable of facinmeeting the thrs that we face. this is the largest international event that will be hosted this year with more than 60 delegations participating.
because the program is entitled "from lisbon to chicago," i would like to provide some context. a little bit more than two months after the president took office, he traveled to attend the 60th anniversary summit of nato. on that first major overseas trip, he attended a g-20 meeting in london. he met with the eu leaders and delivered a speech on nuclear arms control and non- proliferation. this trip was designed to signal both the breadth and depth of the relationship that he intended to have with europe. i want to start with that point because it is important to understand how the president of view it nato -- viewed nato.
in the early days of the administration, those of you who served in government know, you have the opportunity to set the trajectory for what will follow. the president was very delivered what he said, we cannot be content to merely celebrate the achievements of the 20 century or enjoy the comforts of the 21st century. we must learn from the past and build on its success. we must renew our institutions, our alliances. we must seek solutions to the challenges of this young century. from the start of the administration, revitalizing our alliances has been a foundational element of our work. this includes ties with asia. the best example we can point to is our work with nato. as the president has said, nato is the most successful alliance in human history, and together we have faced challenges that
none should face alone. it is also true that nato has requires stewardship and it is at his best when it is based on mutual respect and a guided by respected american leadership's. president obama has provided that leadership that nato needed to reweave the fabric of the alliance. today, the alliance is doing more than ever to advance security within europe. the president views nato as a unique american asset. no commitment is more solemn than the collective defense agreement that we share with our allies. the duty that we have to each other to uphold article 5 of the washington treaty which stipulates that an attack on one is an attack on all, serves as
an unbreakable bond for the trans-atlantic community. perhaps the value of this commitment is not as a deterrent to some as it used to be, so that we no longer looked across the hills of this. the truth is that we have to depend on each other now more than ever in practical terms. because we live in a very dynamic world and kill the reliability of an alliance is more important than ever. afghanistan and other nations are prime examples. -- because we live in a very dynamic world and the reliability of an alliance is more important than ever. troops from all 28 members serve with troops from 22 nonmembers, partner countries who have joined in the mission. only nato has the integrated command and control structure that could manage such a complex undertaking.
7000 more soldiers are maintaining security in the balkans where case for continues to play a crucial role, including providing the assurance of a safe and secure environment during the serbian presidential elections that will take place this coming sunday. nato is conducting maritime operations under a maritime flag. -- conclude is a concluded a critical mission in libya which saved lives. counter-terrorism, dylan with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles -- dealing with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, enhancing energy security. when we act with our allies and countries that share our values and that we can rely on, whether it in afghanistan or the fight over libya or combating piracy,
it not only increases national legitimacy, but it strengthens the u.s. we are stronger when we stand together with allies and partners and this has brought us to the place that we find ourselves with today with a reenergize to nato. at the lisbon summit, the president asked us to recapture the potential and focus on the future. france rejoined the nato military structured. the allies agreed on a clear process for transition in afghanistan and a critical defense ability that nato requires. perhaps most importantly, a lights presented its current strategic concept which is the road map for the future of
essential of the updated mission statement parent of this document set a solid course for future transformation. i can tell you that it has not always been easy and those who know nato understand that its transformation is perpetual. we have made tremendous progress since the last summit in implementing the goals that was set for ourselves. i want to provide you with some specific examples and explained how women tend to carry it forward in a few weeks' time in chicago. we have three main substantive dimensions of our summit which involves a first the military mission in afghanistan, the development of defense capabilities for the future, and efforts to increase and incentivize the contribution of the nato's partners. first, on afghanistan. operationally, and nato has maintained the highest output
that the alliance has ever experienced. in afghanistan, while continuing to help the afghans maintain a secure environment, we begin to implement the framework in july, 2011, with the start transition. from that point until today, we have handed over security responsibility to the afghan forces in areas that comprise more than half of the population of the country. we have continued to train the afghan army and police and we have witnessed growth in their size and ability as we have worked with the afghan government to build capacity for the development of these institutions as well. in line with what the president said in his speech in afghanistan, we will shape the next phase of transition. this is not a departure from the fremont and the course that was agreed by allies, partners, and
the government of afghanistan to complete the transition by the end of 2014. said a fourth the next phase is an important step that will ensure that we will complete our work on time. in order to ensure responsible transition of security, we have judged it is necessary to develop milestones along the way and it is our intention to do that in chicago. in support of the transition process, we want the national security forces to be able to maintain security. we have witnessed an improvement in the afghan forces. iny're taking more of a viet areas -- more of a lead in areas where nato partners are with them. these signs need to be reinforced in our judgment by a
tangible commitment for nato allies and partners for the sustainability of the afghan forces. as transition progresses and as we commit the contributions that sustain the nsf, we have to look beyond the transition in 2014. the conclusion recently is a significant step in demonstrating our enduring commitment. several other countries have recently reached similar agreements with the afghans. the collective support for training, advising.
all work is substantial and our continued education. this proves in march of 2011 that the alliance also stands ready for new challenges, even unexpected challenges. then, the president just that nato should play a leading role in fulfilling the u.n. mandate. he knew that only nato has the capacity to provide the command and control necessary to integrate multiple partner air forces in an effective operation. there is this rapid response to conduct the political consultation.
there is no other group of countries on earth that can do what we did so successfully for the libyan people. in just nine days, we went from a u.n. resolution to put an aircraft in the skies over libya. we all know that nato succeeded in protecting civilians. while the military intervention was successful, but we focus on important lessons to be learned from that operation and that helps us on the work already under way. this brings me to the second area of progress and the second priority for the summit, which is on defense capability. the operation highlighted heavy dependence on the u.s. for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. we seized the initiative and
have worked to secure, and funding for an allied intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capability. this program will help nato to acquire a long-range capability that would not be affordable to most allies on an individual basis. this is an example of the burden-sharing or what the secretary general calls smart defense. we support his efforts as a useful means of meeting the goals that nato has set with the development of critical capabilities that it needs. it allows allies to prioritize, to pool resources, and share capabilities, and to specialize where appropriate. nato as a whole benefit and that whole will be stronger than the part. this is not to say that we were not concerned about capabilities, even before the
libya operation. coming into the administration, those of us who work by nato, are keenly aware of a growing gap between american and allied military capabilities. from the start, the president directed us to place a high priority on nato maintaining the capability needed to achieve their objectives. also on developing new capabilities with are required. the president said a number of objectives for the alliance to achieve. work is ongoing in areas such as the protection of the computer network and innovative ways to in afghanistan and elsewhere. perhaps the best example was our work on missile defense. the u.s. is heavily investing in security for the development of the missile defense capability.
our leaders agreed that the alliance would develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attacks. we offered and our allies welcomed the effective approach with realizing the support and objective. the first phase included the deployment of a radar from turkey and a ship in the mets' ray and that can begin to defend european territory and population. since lisbon, this was completed consisted with what the president made to congress at the end of 2011 and now additional work is underway on the next phase. at chicago, it is our intent to declare an interim capability for nato missile defense based on the ability to employ u.s. assets under nato command, should conditions warrant.
we will also conclude that the deterrent and defense posture review that was passed by the nato heads of state and the we expect this to be approved by nato heads of state and government in chicago and it will reaffirm the determination to maintain modern and flexible capabilities. these are the concrete below of rubles -- concrete deliverables that the president will manage. the third area of progress since the summit and the last area of our focus and the chicago summit is on nato partnership.
the strategic concept of 2010 presents a comprehensive view regarding the valley of partners and the desirable and necessary role they play. specifically, it notes that the promotion of the year of at the security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships and countries, organizations around the globe. the partnership will make a concrete and valued contribution to the success of the fundamental task. to put it simply, although nato is regionally based, the threats it faces are global and partners to add real value to alliance security. all and all, more than 6000 troops from partner countries support nato's efforts in afghanistan and in the balkans. in libya, for the first time, arab state partners played a critical role in the strike mission. partners contribute financially to nato's operations and
training for local forces could help them become more self- sufficient and add political support and legitimacy to our efforts. in terms of progress made >> in april of 2011, when the foreign ministers met in berlin, they agreed to a set of reforms called for in the strategic concept. -- in terms of progress made, in april of 2011, when the foreign ministers met in berlin, they agreed to a set of reform. this includes training and support. they instituted a new system of consultation to allow allies to meet with partners in what is called flexible format. that is consultations can happen on specific issues with any configuration of partners who are interested in talking to one another. third, the partnership reform
agreed upon helps to institutionalize early and regular cooperation between the alliance and capable partners in a given operation. through its dynamic partnership, nato has been emerging as the hub of a global security network. we will use the summit to demonstrate the value, added by partners, and to incentivize increased participation and contribution from our global partners. at the summit, allies will meet with partners in several sessions to take stock of the work already under way in ongoing operations and to further enhance our or relationship. russia was mentioned in this context. russia is an important partner for nato and we have worked hard in developing that partnership since the time i served in the clinton administration and in the pentagon. we just marked the 50th
anniversary of nato-russian ties. russia has provided substantial support as a major conduit for supplies and personnel to afghanistan with over 42,000 containers of cargo transit in russia today in support of u.s. troops and our partners. it also conducted important counter narcotics training for afghans. 2000 officers had been trained under the program. for these reasons, we have invited russia to participate in the summit at chicago. unlike at lisbon, there will not be a meeting of the nato-russia council. that decision was made based on the timing of the event. president obama continues to support our work to enhance nato-russian cooperation going forward. he also supports nato having candid conversations on areas of disagreement with russia such as
our view that the door must remain open to new members, nations must be free to choose their own alliances, and that we reject russia's recognition and continued occupation of the separatist region of georgia. we're not interested in outdated summit. we wanted to use this to further depress the operation. we have a lot more to do on that. in conclusion, given the
presence of members of the diplomatic community. i have not been working on it of for that long, but not that long. welcome the counterpart to the third summit on american territory and the first of side of washington in the alliance plus history on may 20th, 21st. thank you for joining me. i look forward to your comments and questions. >> thank you very much.
[applause] >> as i mentioned before, i thought i would pose a few questions to our guest to get things started. you talked about the scope and nature of the commitment and the support to the afghan transition and beyond the 2014 presence. there have been various figures as to what the costs are and the size of the old some of security forces will be as a result. there is also the question of beyond money, what else this group of committed states, included a number of areas which have announced partnerships of various kinds. what other kind of presence and commitment do you envision or do you think the allies are willing to support beyond 2014 in the
area of training and the advancement of the capabilities for the afghan security forces? >> thus far, there has been substantial interest in continuing a mission that trains and advises the afghan forces. allies have invested a great deal of blood and treasure in afghanistan. there is appreciation of the necessity sustained, the gains we have made, and to ensure that afghanistan is not a can become a safe haven for terrorists. so, we heard at the meeting, the jumbo ministerial in brussels a few weeks ago that allies are prepared to do this work together post 2014. there is an additional element which will be addressed in the summer which is the whole project of building and afghanistan that is sustainable economically because of course afghanistan has been supported
by the international community during this time of war. it will have to get on its own feet financially as well. there is a substantial commitment that the international community is looking to generate on the development front. >> on the military capabilities initiative, as you know, this is joining a list of various initiatives. there is a sense certainly among some, allies same given the nature of the financial crisis, given the nature of the sovereign debt crises, we really do have to do things differently. as you look at your consultations, do you see something fundamentally different here that will make
smart defense? this is just another gimmick, another way to camouflage the fact that europeans are not enough on defense? how will this become a way of doing business within the alliance, or how do you think it can become a way that will really make a difference and end up with nato spending more wisely, the resources that many european governments to vote to defense. >> that is a silver lining in the topic. we look to see how the currencies are spent to make sure there is value added by the expenditure of each country. we do have countries that have not sufficiently disciplined their spending to focus on what is most important. countries are increasingly looking at ways to cooperate among themselves, especially
regionally, so that they can purchase assets together that may be useful, either in smaller groupings or commonly-funded projects like the ground surveillance system. we have a good example that we're working on. baltic air policing. this is an initiative that will insure that the skies of the balkan countries continue to be patrolled with additional support provided by the baltic states themselves. this has been an effort in which we have lined up commitments over a number of years and the baltic has stepped forward to provide their own contributions. we want to make sure that everyone does their fair share. i am actually hopeful that in this time of fiscal constraint that we will generate a the capabilities that are required and achieve the goals that we have set for the alliance in a way that will make it capable of meeting the challenges that we will face. >> on partnerships, you alluded
to the gains that certainly came in our dealings, particularly to countries in the mediterranean region. it proved that nato was not only capable of helping to assist security but also not toxic politically in the arab middle east. what games do expect to see in terms of advancing those partnerships? >> working on various elements of that. some that i cannot describe here because they will be demonstrated at the summit. the participation of a number of partners at the summit events and language included in summit communications which will indicate that this is a very important element of the future. >> thank you.
let's go to the floor. please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. whenever you are ready. >> as you know, next sunday there is an election in france, and the polls seem to suggest hollande will become the next president. that means he will be coming to the summit three days after being inaugurated and put together his cabinet. it seems to me it is likely under those circumstances he is not going to be in a good position to make commitments on a number of things, particularly missile defense. i was wondering what impact do you think this whole hand and how you plan to handle. >> most of our governments have permanent bureaucracies that do the work every day to keep
commitments and advanced toward the goals we were called in the nato context. it is our expectation if there is a change in french government, france's reintegration will be sustained and france will be an important contributor to nato operations and that the new government will appreciate the value we are providing to the alliance with the missile defense architecture we have offered it. i am fairly confident that we will have a successful summit whoever represents the government of france in chicago. >> a couple of questions in the middle. the settlement in the second row. >> thank you very much. i want to ask about syria. as you know, turkey is considering whether to formally invoked article four.
u.s. government is to preparations for various contingents these, and i am wondering if nato is doing so should turkey invoke article 4, and you expect this to be in discussions in chicago, and what would be the united states's position on nato involvement? >> allies consult on issues anytime. the turkish foreign minister briefed his counterpart at the nato foreign ministerial took place in brussels on syria. there are ongoing discussions about it. the allied commander can do a certain amount of planning. there has been no formal tasking and there has been no formal request by the turks for consultations in that article 4 or 5 scenario.
we will continue our work together. we have had extension talks with the turks as well. we continue to stay close touch with them in our core mission of responses. -- in our coordination of responses. >> i am from voice of america afghanistan service. in your remarks you referred to afghanistan's future engagement with nato that will be discussed in chicago. what would be the u.s.'s position in terms of its engagement, especially military engagement and presence, beyond 2014 when it comes to deterrence, combat forces? >> that is something we are
working on now with allies and partners and is something will -- that will be discussed after the summit. i will encourage you to watch and hear what the leaders have agreed on that subject. >> a question here of the four and. -- end. >> i recently retired from the senate armed service committee. we had this discussion on the subject came up there was a perception that may be raised in chicago by our allies. we point out we want the europeans to do more and we have been working with them on various taliban projects over the last number of years, one of which they seem to be antagonistic toward the fact that the field we have pulled the rug out from under them.
i was surprised how strongly opinions were forced on this, opinions to the effect it will be discussion in the chicago. i do not know much about it, as you did come out of would like your opinion on where that would go. >> this is an issue about which there are strong views in congress, and that will not be a topic in chicago. it is a topic for bilateral institutions -- discussions with the german and italian colleagues. i do not anticipate it being on the agenda in chicago. >> there was a question in the second row. >> i'm a correspondent. my question is on serbia, serbia is not a member of nato. do you think it would be better if it enters the cut in the
future, and would it be possible in light of the war in serbia in 1999? >> the door to nagel should be open to all countries in europe capable of achieving standards that nato has set for membership and are capable of contributing to operations. if serbia continues on its current path and it wants to pursue membership in atlantic institutions, then the door will be open. we have had discussions about cooperation with nato, and there is interest among a number of allies in enhancing that cooperation. assuming your elections take place any new government comes into power, if it chooses to invest in ties with nato, that opportunity will be presented. if the serbian people -- the
serbian people can then expand its cooperation with nato. >> on both sides of that aisle. >> thank you. a quick question about the missile defense system. right now [unintelligible] it is not under the command of nato. what kind of decision will you make in chicago regarding this -- and also if you clarify what kind of facilities we need from turkey in terms of this radar and the phase one missile defense in the near future? how many facilities will be in turkey w? >> one of the goals would be to transfer command and control to nato, and that would include
radar in turkey. there is lots of work under way to get to that point. it requires the involvement of many military planners in many countries. we are hopeful we will achieve that goal. >> i am from lockheed martin. this administration has done a remarkable job in moving the missile defense issue for about both the need of a statement on territorial defense, a very brave decision that turkey took, spain, poland, romania, a lot of accomplishments. are you concerned as you move toward chicago that some in congress, including the house armed services committee, harker assessing nato, the missile defense architecture, and are advocating for a third site in the united states, and does the administration have plans to step up its campaign in congress
in support of the phased effective approach? >> we are fully committed to that approach because we believe that it is the best approach to defeating the emerging threat. this architecture, which we developed when we came into office, which was a change from the program of record, as you know, was developed because of two factors. one, that the threat assessment that we received suggested a more imminent threat in europe that had previously been judged to indicate. second, heart technology had developed in such a fashion which could field systems more capable of defending europe. taking those together, we decided we would offer this new architecture to europe, which has the benefit of being acceptable as the threat evolves, and conceivably the
threat could be involved in a positive way, the threat to be diminished, but so long we judge there is a serious missile threat to europe, which will proceed forward as we have committed to do, and we have a number of allies who have offered support for that, in terms of a leasing agreements, whothere are other owallies would like to participate. we're committed to fulfilling this offer to nato to field a full system. >> to flesh out the argument, on the hill are saying what does this do for the united states? is this another example of sharing your cost burden in defense? how does this contribute to a broad trans-atlantic security? >> this has the the benefit of defending united states. as we feel the system, and we
see the evolution of the capability of the potential adversaries, we know this would also provide coverage, intercepted the ability, for the united states in the event of an attack on american soil. that has been fundamental since the start for us. there had to be an american national interest in this as well. this is about the defense of european territory and american territory. >> it was a question of we in the back. -- there was a question weight in the back. >> thank you for your remarks today. what did touch on something you said about with regard to serbia, capable of becoming a member of adhering to the criteria of membership and bring up the point of macedonia. with a recent ruling, international law says that
greece's ito of macedonia based on this dispute is illegal. where bbc the future of macedonia? how you see the administration taking on this role, and are they willing to be willing to be an advocate for macedonia? >> we have worked to achieve resolution in the standoff of the macedonian issue. when of the things the president has used about, one of them is the message in the main issue. he himself has been involved in discussions with his counterparts on this issue, and has not been resolved in time of the nato summit. we continue to hope this will be resolved so macedonia can take its place as a nato member. >> thank you.
elizabeth, thank you for an excellent presentation. things that it and then, and they can also be about things that one can try to deep in the future. do you have any plans -- to look at the following -- i have a few ideas. comprehensive approach, question of the european union, and what to do in areas of the middle east, including north africa , whether there are things that nato and be you and the rest of us will have to be there. do you have some ambitious for the future he would like to get on that particular four-looking agenda? >> ambassador hunter is one of the people who taught me what i know about nato. [unintelligible] i did not mention it because it is so much of the stuff of our
everyday business, that is, we are working collaborative lee -- with the eu. we're talking with the you about its long-term role in afghanistan that will complement what nations are doing in afghanistan. that is true with regard to the middle east and north africa, where we have an extensive ongoing dialogue, and which we have tried to divvy up labor, because there is so much to be done, and the eu has taken a lead in kanissha, and we have said that is terrific. we will support that, and we will understand you will be in a leading role. across the board on the arab spring, the eu has been an important partner. there are issues at a level of principles that have not yet
been resolved between nato and the eu. what we're trying to do at a practical level is encourage the growth of cooperation to ensure operational effectiveness in a wide number of areas, and over time, reached agreement on some of those principles that need to be resolved. >> yes, to questions here in the front row. -- two questions. >> good to see you again. i am encouraged by what i am hearing in terms of partnership, that based on rasmussen's comments, that threat and that from outside europe and these are things they do not have to deal with, and this will be addressed in chicago. when they concerned about is what i am hearing from european colleagues, the desire for nato to retrench. afghanistan is too tough.
cyber is too complex. how will the united states combat that view, moving toward a real global partnership? >> thank you, marc. about whether nato should be about territorial defense for an expeditionary alliance. this is an argument that has not been central to our dialogue with our allied colleagues because it has become evident we have to do both. as the president has reassure allies of our commitment to article 5, we have supported baltic air policing, provided the missile defense architecture, there is an understanding their security is not want to be reduced by the commitments we must make beyond europe to ensure security, because that is where the f
threats emanate, by and large. the principal allies have always had interests outside europe where they expect they would receive support of allies to defend interests, this is a dynamic conversation, not one in which allies are seeing black and white, either/or. this alliance has got to do with going forward. >> best week you were in -- last week you were in chicago inspecting the venue. what he you think about that trip? was it the right choice to make the summit in chicago? >> let's waning investor and i and several others, -- the ambassador and i,
and several others, joined us in chicago to speak with a number of the ethnic communities that represent a number of our new allies in the chicago area. it was an extraordinarily powerful experience. our deputy national security adviser and i traveled there together, and the palpable sense of what this administration has done to make new allies feel they are allies, for stock, that there is a a distinction between old and new members, but we are all allies and have made our own pledge to live up to our article 5 commitment was a positive experience. hearing what you and your colleagues had to say about what made it means to your
countries was also a very moving because it helped us to appreciate the value that is being added by this alliance in central and eastern europe. the other element of those conversations, was we talked in several different public fora about their role the central and eastern european allies are playing and the transformations taking place, boosted their east and in the middle east and north africa. there these countries have much more recent experience with transformation in the revolution. they can play a significant leadership role and our keen to do so and we are proud of that role to help more from their own experiences and build the institutions of democratic government going for it. >> -- going forward. >> in the second road there, sorry. >> it is always interesting to
hear talk about burden sharing and all. i'm looking at a briefing from someone at nato about the share of spending from the u. s. in 2001, it was 50%. in 2012, it is now 75%. when are we going to see the shift in european defense spending in nato? i offer that to anyone in the audience who would like to address it, as well. >> i think you can anticipate growth in european defense spending when europe has recovered from the economic crisis and there is a lot of work to be done on that front. we could have a broader conversation on the challenges europe is facing now and the applications for your's future as well as ours, because we are
so injured dependent -- into dependent economically. we have got to find a way to alliance's r high win capability. on a number of initiatives, the president was involved in talking to cover parts, we have secured the funding necessary to buy this capability. in these times that was something his colleagues were willing to step forward into. our judgment is when we are ties and make clear what the benefits will be to allies, allies are willing to take the steps necessary to provide nato with the means to do the job. >> i think that is a good coda for an ending.
would you have been very generous with your tie. i think we have heard a whole waterfront. i want to thank you for making this time, coming back from chicago, to give as much of a preview as she could on the summit agenda. we wish you great success next month and the poor were to have you back here going forward in chicago. >> thank you, steven. thank you, all of you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> general martin dempsey will focus on the top of international partnerships today. this is live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. later, from the wilson center, a discussion on u.s. courts and constitutional democracy. that is at 5:00. and join us for book tv prime time. subject this evening, scientific minds. this gets underway tonight at 8:00 p.m. >> nixon recorded nearly 4000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things. i have done this so often. do not give them the big one. >> hear more of the nixon tapes, including discussions with future presidents, key white
house advisers, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend, conversations with gerald ford and george w. bush. >> this week marks the one-year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden in pakistan by u.s. navy seals. for officials recently assessed the state of outcry that and what the death meant to global security. >> ladies and gentlemen, my name is mike swetman, and i would like to welcome you to the potomac institute for policy studies to date.
we have been privileged to be the host for a series of seminars, studies, and publications are a variety of issues surrounding terrorism. the potomac institute is a not- for-profit think tank in washington, d.c., area that the business on issues of science and technology and health science and technology affect our governments and our society, our health, if you will, in the world we live in. we had focused on issues of terrorism in the mid to late 998's because it became apparent this old form of warfare, terrorism, which dates back to sun su, as being reborn in the modern age due to the use of technology. since we began studying terrorism, it became evident that terrorists of the they found novel ways of using technology, 1st airliners, as
weapons against us. now the issues how can we use the technologies, the sciences of the day, to counter this old scourged we are still dealing with, even today, as we celebrate the first anniversary of the death of osama bin laden. the potomac institute, we were very fortunate to attract and keep at the institute professor yonah alexander, who heads the center for international center for terrorism studies. he is affiliated with the yale university center for legal studies. i am very privileged and happy to have a co-sponsor of this event, professor don wallace. professor alexander put together
a book in 2000 that was published, and i believe in january and february of 2001, that profiled al qaeda. this book was published nine months before the events of 9/11, and i am proud to say before 9/11, we sold i think 340 copies. after 9/11, between september and december, we sold 150,000 copies. to date it is available in two dozen languages and around the world as one of the first volumes articulated what this network was and who are in it. when of the things that book featured most was a set of pictures that were obtained publicly on the members of al qaeda at the time, the famous original 53, which became the targets of the last couple of administrations. it has been the policy of the last couple administrations to
target al qaeda as a set of individuals that we need to take out. today, i think many people as you have heard in the last day or so are claiming great success in that mission to target al qaeda. there are very few members of the original organization left. some say one or two. there are some who have joined since 9/11. those who have joined had been driven into al qaeda. the question whether al qaeda has been defeated, there's a question of targeting individuals and succeeding in taking them out is in fact winning the war? frederick kagen wrote an article, writing is a fundamental s -- mistake to see the enemy as a set of targets. the enemy in war is a group of
people. some of them need to be killed, some need to be captured, some driven into hiding. the overwhelming majority will have to be persuaded. i think the question i would throw on the floor is not whether we have successfully targeted and killed those hamas who assisted them with al qaeda over the years, whether we have successfully address encountered the message that caused dustin schwinn the organization in the first place. -- that caused them to join the organization in the first place. i would like to start the discussion with a gift to them of the 10th anniversary book that yonah has produced along with me to articulate all of the activities over the last 10 years against al qaeda. with that, yonah, if you will help me, we can give each of the speakers in copy of the book.
if nothing else, it is a good paper weeks. -- paperweight. and a good symbol of the tremendous work that professor alexander and the center terrorism studies is responsible here for at the institute a in and day out. i would like to personally thank him for his dedication to all issues of studying all issues of terrorism and doing it in the most professional and academic way. is that you will agree professor alexander is absolutely a world treasure when it comes to these types of issues, and we would not be anywhere near as deep in understanding him without it. please join me in welcoming professor yonah >> i got the ha.
>> thank you very much for your generous introduction. i would like to remind the audience, since it has been generous to broadcast this event in the u.s. and abroad, if you could currently turnoff yourself phones if possible. we like music, but not now. we want to thank laura kinney for recording this and making the seminar available almost immediately. i would like to make a few footnotes, like an academic,
because we have the very rich panel and we would like to develop some discussion. mike mentioned some of our work and studies. to provide some context, obviously, nothing is new under the sun as no -- as we know. academically, again, to achieve to ames -- what is to learn the best lessons and to try to anticipate the future. in this same room, we had in the seminar on nigeria. it is interesting that, going back to 1980, we developed a
research project on international violence we worked together -- now we're discussing the fillets of al qaeda. at the same time, we are trying to develop some capability to learn about terrorism. going back to 1998, we've published a study on iran with the congressional research service and the library of congress at the time because of their request, of some members of congress. and we continued over the years. i would like to mention that, most recently, we just published
a report related to north africa, west africa, and central africa, from 9/11. i would like to commend our team, the researchers, who were sitting in the back, the next rest -- the next generation, who contributed to this study. finally, i would like to mention that i will try to cooperate with international organizations, such as the united nations and nato. we have the partnership for peace that is being published.
i recall vividly that james woolsey, after the cold war, he may statement before congress related to the nature of the .ragedy'ies he mentioned that come in the cold war, it was very simple because there was a big dragon. but after the cold war, we have to do with the situation of many snakes in the garden that still have yet to be a identified. this leads to the question of al qaeda and the challenge of al qaeda basically in terms of the
short-term and the long-term aims and goals and what direction al qaeda is taking. i would like to mention now that we do have a very distinguished panel. basically, i will indicate each and everyone specializes in this particular area. because of the time factor and some of the panelists need to leave earlier, but me introduce matthew leavitt's who is the director of international
programs at the washington institute on italy's provinces. -- on middle east provinces. >> thank you for accommodating my teaching schedule. it is a pleasure to be here. thank you very much. if you read the papers this weekend, you might come to the conclusion that we are done. that al qaeda is all but over and we are on the right trajectory. i might agree with the second half. we're on the right trajectory. but we're not yet where we need to be. we will be, i believe, at some
point in the not too distant future, where we will talk about the of qaeda corp. as such. but the global insurgency that osama bin laden created was far more successful than it he imagined. i do not lose a lot of sleep worrying if it is al qaeda, al qaeda-affiliated, al qaeda- want-to-be. the fact of the matter is that it has been a fantastic year for those involved in counterterrorism. we are about to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the takedown of osama bin laden. it cannot be stress enough how important that was. we were mistaken we believe that he stopped being involved in things, the way he apparently
was. mary was one of the few who kept saying he was still involved. i stand corrected. we now know from the treasure trove of intelligence that came out that the man was very involved. not in the day-to-day basis. when you deal with human couriers, that takes some time. but he was reaching out to people in coming up with ideas and giving the ok for ideas. now we also know about plots targeting the president of united states and plots targeting other things. taking him not was important because it is taking him out was important because -- taking him out was important because he was a symbol, an idea.
in his place is not a pleasant individual. he does not have the magnetism that of some of the nation as. hopefully, he will push some people away. he will create some fissures. perhaps the greatest achievement was catching that treasure trove of intelligence. a couple of weeks after the raid, we had the conference with national security visors and it was the first time someone said publicly that the amount of information recovered was the equivalent of a small liberal arts college. going through that, going through again, going through it again -- that is something that people continue to go through
and you're getting more bits and pieces of that coming out. lot and'll be hearing a more of is a lot of politicking. neither party has a monopoly on that. that means we will here from both sides. we will hear how much more there is to do and how far it come and all that can be taken with a grain of salt. i am more interested in with the career people who tend not to speak to the press have to say. beyond the takedown of osama bin laden, the much larger story from this year, from the past two years, is the arabs spring, which some now called the islamist winter. they are cataclysmic. it is a huge shot to al qaeda's ideology. the simple fact that al qaeda
comes after years and years of bloody violence, maintaining that the only way to takedown regimes like the mubarak regime was through violence and that you could only engage in the farjihad of the united states that supports it. that'll turn that to be bogus. in the end, a relatively small group of liberal-minded, moderate-minded for the most part arab and muslim youth, college kids, armed with not weapons but iphones, took down the mubarak regime. this is an alternative. a wish we in the west could do better at promoting that and alternative messages. that is where counter-terrorism will go in the future. i have worked with the fbi in counter-terrorism. i am convinced that we do
tactical counter-terrorism really well. there is no such thing as 100% in counter-terrorism. but we are increasingly good at disruption, at taking on those were tried to carry out the next attack. where i worry is that we're still cynical at strategic counterterrorism, and throwing a wrench into the process by which people become radicalized into thinking that carrying a political violence or terrorism, call it what you may, is the right and only and most effective way to further your political, religious, or whatever other idea words and it it is. we're not where we need to be there yet. that is where i think osama bin laden has been more successful than he could have ever dreamed of being. when i think about terrorism today, i do not only think about the al qaeda core.
we are in need of instant gratification. i have four sons, believe me, they are in need of instant gratification but our adversaries' work with a much longer time frame. this week or next month, it will be potentially something very different point i am tired of those who are interested in only where the al qaeda core is. whether it is other al qaeda affiliates -- my biggest fear is
the homegrown mylan to extremism. that is not limited to islamic extremism. but that is the majority that we face today. the reason that keeps me up at night is because my time in law enforcement says that we're best capable tactically in thwarting the next attack when those plotting the next attack might trip the wires at play. whether it is travel, communication, moving, or receiving many. if we target values people who have no job or are dumped by their girlfriend or are looking for meaning and look at radical extremism by going to some on- line web site -- the have no law enforcement or a ticket to their name, we have nothing to track them by. that keeps me up at night. i will end by saying this. of all the things we are
discussing today, recent events show that we are not only dealing with islamic radicalism. ihadistooking at j extremism from the run, from hezbollah, -- from iran, from hizbollah, and others. it is an honor to serve with such a prestigious panel. i think you all for coming this afternoon. -- i thank you all for coming this afternoon. >> i will stay right here. >> that is ok. >> again, a footnote, you mentioned that we don't have to worry only about al qaeda. in fact, in this month of april, i think it marks the attack on
oklahoma city that we have to keep in mind, as you indicated. also, it is 32 years after the failed american rescue mission in iran. so for the past 30 years, we have had to deal with restoring the american credibility and confidence. this particular event, the mission to kill osama bin laden is certainly a significant development. >> daughters offer the same need for a instant gratification as .ons do appeare where does al qaeda want to go? where can al qaeda go? and where do we want allocated to go?
first, let's address what the death of osama bin laden meant. i am not sure. i am sure that the pressure of the military and economic way pushed al qaeda to morph or to mutate. most view the death of osama bin laden as a good thing. but it makes is still with a new strain of al qaeda and what does it look like? when heavy game plan set and the of the team changes, you need to adjust. war and life is about adaptation. especially in war, he would? quickest will have an advantage. if -- and especially in war, he who adapts quickest will have an advantage. what will allocate a look like, do, become? prediction is hard, especially about the future. and second, where does al qaeda
want to go and where can they go? assuming they have not shifted from their original views and methods, we are dealing with people on the fringe. they believe in miracles -- they believe in their cause and we believe in hours. truth can be relative, almost digressing to myth and it is powerful. degrees of the french vary from country to country. we have some french people in our country -- degrees of fringe vary from country to country. we have some fringe people in our country. is there anyway we can shape the future of al qaeda? unfortunately, the nature of the world right now does not offer many alternatives. with global economic growth back, expanding global growth, poverty that results in
ignorance and war, reliance on more oil, and an emerging culture that you can reason with anyone. in the book of the ruins of the empire that deals with postwar asia, which even offered assurances that the men were ready to cooperate with the americans to fight the japanese. we spent time there with the army and training against the japanese. sunni sheiks and u.s. marines engaged in war. these meetings sought an alternative to al qaeda in iraq.
the marines who made this were civil affairs group marines, reservists, names no one here would ever know. they were exceptionally creative. they believed that people wanted a lifestyle just a bit better for themselves and a better future for their children and fundamentally that poor man want to get rich and richmond want to get richer and what -- and rich men want to get richer and war in their backyard does not help either. this has turned the awakening. but ask yourself who has been awakened? us or them? in closing, let's discuss some fundamentals in dealing with al qaeda appeared be blunt, decisive, of riddle, separating religion from the cause and take advantage of opportunities. in being blunt, leave no doubt what you say and what you will do and then do it.
when you do it, the decisive and bieber told. -- and be brutal. it is the only way. the more cruel it is, the sooner it will be over. general sherman stated this at the end of the civil war in 1865 and it remains true today. when the dogs of war are released, don't be surprised at the results in carnage. in some ways, we're pollyanna and our country. they are bad regardless of their skin color or their religious affiliation. opportunities will exist, but they must be realized and exploited and this is exceptionally difficult. imagine the difference if ho chi minh had been given a different path. i do not want to trivialize the
i feel a little bit like a fish out of water because i have not focused on terrorism as such. i did a lot so in the 1980's. for these folks, professionally and academically, this is their specialty. so i feel a little bit like a fish out of water. i am extremely happy that osama bin laden has been dispatched to some warm place, particularly a hot place. i think that is quite good. technically, we can say that
allocated today, n.j. we can say that al qaeda today -- we can say that allocated today, we could see -- we could see the bluster in everything that was concerned. he was saying that now we have trouble getting money and people have to come and our friends should help us more in pakistan and other places. obviously, this has been a trauma for a reorganization. when you suffer such a blow, it takes a long while to recoup. what i will try to focus on -- actually, what i think he was saying about tactical and
strategic and looking at forces that give us with some of bin laden and in light of the arabs spring, we should talk about context. when one is trying to develop a counterterrorism strategy, what are some of the issues that one has to do? there are things that happen that the united states does not have control over. for example, the united states did not instigate the soviet invasion of afghanistan. but once the soviets invaded afghanistan, we had to go and do our job. but we also have to understand that the soviet-afghan war was the crucible in which this whole
jihadist thing really emerged and blossomed. completelyhad not been operational liized. the word jihad became legitimized. there is a direct link between conflict and the steps of acts of terror. pakistan also underwent a tremendous change. through the actions of some of our allies -- i don't generally mince words. maybe if i had, i would be in better shape. but there was a fundamental change that occurred in the
pakistan islamist culture. the band has always existed in the subcontinent, but they got a new lease on life with the proselytizing that went on and the new addresses that happened. they did not exist in pakistan before. it is almost unrecognizable. this is another thing we have to keep in mind. you seeere else that u the jihadist mindset, it migrated from afghanistan. and it migrated to pakistan. we have to really keep in mind who were the people that helped develop it, whether it was financially, ideologically, with
support and so forth. this is another dilemma we have to come to terms with. if we do not, i do not know how we will debate. where will it go? what is the whole question of terrorism being difficult to resolve? something i see happening and i hope to see it stay that way -- the horrendous killing in toulouse was heart wrenching. he claimed that he had a connection with this new-fangled group who they say is another one of those "franchises."
bid has become the mcdonald's or the kentucky fried chicken of terrorism. there are so many franchisees. this is another thing what if these issues have local routes that, unfortunately, al qaeda is trying to exploit? definitely, until recently, khazikstan did not have it as much as they do right now. but in terms of doing what we have to do, we have two problems. one of it is the ambiguity of the local state of the abuses of the local terrorist youth.
the minute that people have a selective approach to the use of terror, then it becomes difficult. in other words, if there is some group against the country that local powers don't like, then they call them a liberation movement and whatever and i can go on and on. i can name names. of course, the most significant factor here, the idea that some of the layton was rolling around in pakistan and 80 -- that osama bin laden was rolling around in pakistan and the pakistanis did not know that, this is one thing that we have to do. aipac is done cannot protect its
own -- if pakistan cannot protect its own population -- the idea that they do not know that they are slaughtering the [inaudible] these are some of the things that have to keep in mind. it is not just al qaeda. it is how these groups are using regional -- the sectarian focus of al qaeda was very clear.
he very clearly referred to the persians. he said the persians are doing this and they're becoming strong and so forth. of course, now that he is trying to piggyback on what is going on in syria, it is still sectarian directed. in iraq, it was a sectarian element in dealing with rivalries and so on and so forth. what does that mean for located? any time that there is a political process and where people can -- the likelihood that the local group will
disconnect themselves from the headquarters, we have to wait and see. for me, it seems to me that the air of spring is probably the worst thing that could have happened for al qaeda. i agree with you that it shows that, even if you want to get rid of a corrupt government, whether it is syria, iran, or whatever, there are many of them around -- no one has a monopoly on corruption -- then there are local factors for it. it is not america that does this all the time. in other words, if someone wants to be corrupt and america says, why don't you go speak to your people, this is not what is
happening. you can take action within your own country. however, if it does not worked out, then i don't think that al qaeda -- it is a place where everybody can look to for a sort of spiritual headquarters where they can affiliate themselves to them. then this thing again might develop. the other thing is that the targets of terrorism have changed.
it depends on where grievances 10 to exist and where the opportunities exist. i think this is one of -- grievances tend to exist and where the opportunities tend to exist. i think this is one of the problems. the issue has not finished yet, but when the russians said that chechnya had been pacified and they are having more problems elsewhere, as long as those problems are there, they will continue to produce. i think i have spoken more than i should have and i apologize for that. [laughter] thank you. [applause] >> of course, we will have some questions very shortly.
at the johnsr o hopkins university. >> i would like to begin by apologizing for my early departure. i need to teach immediately afterwards. we will be departing together, matt. i also want to apologize because i feel that i will throw some rhetorical bombs here and then run up the door before everybody can get back at me. [laughter] but i am not leaving because i am avoiding the discussion, because i think this is an important discussion. i will have some very strong views and the person to my left will disagree profoundly with me. if i am not able to stay here for the entire discussion, please forgive me. let me begin by saying that i agree that the death of osama bin laden is extremely important. this is the founder, chief,
radicalize our-in-chief, the man who had so much charisma that he was able to convince a whole lot of people to go out and kill themselves for a cause. i don't want to minimize what the death of osama bin laden has meant. as with others, i do not believe that it has killed off al qaeda or that it has lead to the strategic defeat of the group. nor as the arabs praying has developed, has it led to the death of al qaeda. -- the arab spring has not led to the death of al qaeda. i profoundly disagree with an accepted settled in view of what al qaeda is.
in fact, my definition of the group is that i do not think it is a terrorist group at all. it was in the 1990's. i agree that come in the 1990's, that is all it was able to be. it had a few hundred followers. it had these wacky jeandreams ad fantasies about what it would accomplish. it was confined to sudan and then to the wilds of afghanistan where it could do basically nothing, right? in the 1990's, i agree, it was a terrorist group. but it only had aspirations for bigger things. if you look at the captured documents that we have in our hands from our war in afghanistan 2001-2002, they were spending 90% of their money on training mujahideen and on a
regular combat troops and only 10% of the money on what they called special operations. that is the attacks on the united states. even back in the 1990's, they had aspirations, although one fulfilled aspirations, for bigger and better things. they're spending most of their efforts on developing those rather than on attacking the united states. i will also like to say here at the beginning that one of the things that it has profoundly distorted this entire discussion is our views of 9/11 and how we have made this all about us. it is not about us, really. 9/11 made us think that everything that is going on in the world that has been a al qaeda attached to it is about us. but it really wasn't been eight times as many muslims have been killed out in the world since 9/11 versus americans. it should tell us something about where al qaeda is focusing its attention, its main effort.
i think 9/11 distorted the discussion quite a bit. that is because, i think, also, we have misunderstood what al qaeda's objectives are. we believe that their main objective is to attack the united states. in fact, that is the means toward an end. we have confused means with objectives. strategic planning is, that is one of the basic mistakes you can make an there's all sorts of confusion with what has to be done and what kinds of policies need to be adopted to defeat this group. the means were attacked united states coming get the u.s. out of muslim countries. osama bin laden have this complete fantasy that was disputed by a lot of the members of al qaeda back in the 1990's that the u.s. was this cowardly country that could simply carry out a few attacks and the u.s. would run for it. but what was he planning for
afterwards? that was the real objective, which was four-fold. they have expressed multiple times, not just in open statements and articles written by al qaeda analysts and things like that, but also in the few captured documents that we have from iraq that are published. these things are expressed multiple times. here is the objective as expressed in these writing statements. basically, if you read every single statement made by al qaeda leaders for the past 10 years, these are repeated ad nauseam. first and foremost, to overthrow all the rulers of muslim majority countries. secondly, to impose their version of sharia on all moslems in those places and around the world as they are able to do it. thirdly, to great what they call everett, which is basically states but they have various sorts of characteristics. and eventually to set up
something they call a palisadca. and fifth, which i do not really count because it fits in the fantasy world which is world domination. making got the highest means world conquest. -- making god the highest means world conquest. those were the objectives of al qaeda right from the start, things that they spoke about repeatedly those things have nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the united states. repeatedly, when they talk about their objectives, they don't say, oh, and by the way, one of our main objectives is to attack the united states. attacking the united states before 9/11 was osama bin laden's fantasy of what this would do and then afterwards it was about recruiting, showing people that the worst irrelevant -- that they were still relevant.
that is why i call al qaeda not a terrorist group -- because a terrorist group is a small secretive group with a few hundred people who do not have either the capabilities or the desire to expand further, unable to recruit people into their organization and are unable to hold territory and government. when you look at the al qaeda core, that is certainly what is going on. but as you pointed out, the term al qaeda means headquarters. in fact, their first term for themselves was the high command, something that is repeated also in the captured documents and elsewhere. it was something they hoped would be bigger. since 2005-2006, they have begun to live up to these aspirations of the 1990's. they set out to create what you call franchises, but they call them branches, of their organization.
they believe that they are an integral part of their organization that are carrying out their orders. they were out there doing all kinds of things that they shouldn't do. at least that is what they thought. suddenly, they could not count on these guys to agree with them ideologically and about the strategy is to go about achieving these. this is what happens when you do not have tighter command and control. before 2005-2007, they were slowly creating something and then, when you see what happens when you allow some need to completely destroy your name, since then, they have kept a much tighter sort of command and control. i do not think that it is the same coincidence that osama bin laden move into that house in
islamabad. the way we knew about communications before last year suggested that they used couriers only in order to carry their orders around and that turned out to not be very helpful at all. in 2005, they moved into this house in islamabad and the early news reports from what was found in the house said, in fact, that there were fiber-optic connections in the house. to me, that entered a huge question that had been raised about my assertions that were backed up by very little evidence about command and control. i could see people doing what they ordered. i could see them putting out orders of people actually fulfilling them. but how can you do this on a global scale without some sort of tighter command-and-control?
i could not understand how they were doing it. although i should point out that command and control in an irregular war is far different from one in a regular work. it is much looser and splintered with people disobey orders and a general strategic guidance from the high command rather than specific daily updates required and things like that. even before i heard about it, there was recognition at least by me that we were not talking about the kinds of command-and- control, for instance, that the pentagon exercises with command around the world. in 2009-2010, i had some rough conversations with people where they attacked this notion of command and control at all and it began to change my mind. the one thing i could not answer was how would he do this from a cave up in northern waziristan? i could not imagine you could do
this. as soon as i heard he was in ibadibad and there were fiber- optic connections, that answer that. you did not have to depend entirely on a courier system. there might be other methods that could be used. i would like to finish by saying that i and a stand that making this assertion, that this is not -- i understand that making this assertion, that this is not a terrorist group, that it is something that is becoming a global insurgency, has a lot of policy implications, some of which are tremendously and palatable. but i do not believe that you should ignore what reality is telling you because, one, you can afford it or, to, you do not like what reality is telling you. the fact that we cannot afford
to have a global insurgency elected in anbar province, that should not keep this from dealing with the problems that we're dealing with. i and a stand that there is tremendous policy implications from everything -- i understand that there is tremendous policy implications from everything that i am say. attrition would encourage radicalization and recruit meant -- and recruitment. and battling these guys are probably hoping the problem rather than helping to solve it. there is one thing that we can be doing. we don't have partners could we do not have capabilities ourselves. we believe that that is it. maybe that is true. maybe that is not. but to engage in a practice that is in fact worsening the problem for us on a daily basis is not the way to go if, in fact, you're not dealing with a terrorist problem but within an insurgency problem.
i would just like to stop there. please forgive me and for leaving early after offering these sort of rhetorical twist. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, mary. there will be a few minutes before we come back to your taking back and we will ask our final speaker, the distinguished research fellow at the institute for national strategic studies. and he is retired from the military after 26 years or so.
>> thank you. i will offer these opening comments. the comments made there represent the position of my host institution or the department of defense. the product of my own research and individual conclusions. delighted to be here again today. as we near the one-year anniversary of the operation that eliminated bin laden, i am here to contend about diverging with her position but rather than overestimating the death of bin laden, we underestimated and under appreciate the degree to which his death has
clarified and made more understanding -- understandable what is not a global insurgency but it is a radical ideology that has prospered under the leadership of a core and unique organization which tried to bring life to five separate dimensions of that divorce ideology. to try to channel it in a direction that aims -- bin laden is a personality. no less relevant than lenin was, to bring together and fuse that. if we -- much like lenin, there was no other organizer that brought together the fund- raising ability and as we know, i was convinced that he was a strategically irrelevant communicator with various and disparate outfits and i have to confess i had insider knowledge, i worked in afghanistan. i worked on the problem of iraq and we nail bin laden personally -- and we knew bin laden personally was involved in communications to corral and bring under control is our here
-- zawahiri. he was involved and he was there during that period as a consequence and no surprise when you're talking about a global ideology bin laden was relevant. consequently, his death changes or evolves or more to al qaeda in what is. it also leaves extent what i've think mary has referred to and matthew has referred to which is this high desert -- wider issue ideology. which i will contend remains accent and is the issue but like a boulder being rubbled into smaller pebbles, -- when you take away bin laden, you are left with a different managerial problem and one that needs an altered vocabulary to understand. not that it is any less relevant. rather being -- then being pursued and taken on in the language of a global conflagration or request against the movement, you focus more on bringing down your
overseas footprint so you are not metastasizing elements in different places where you do not have to be. you focus more on special forces, in direct operations and working with partner nations, some of whom may not share your proclivities' about democracy but in the long term wants to see banish the same metastasized threat. and that you spend more time on your police cooperation. the elements are less of a threat to do with what mary has referred to correctly as the outside in the approach that they brought to al qaeda which is this notion we're feeling in trying to overthrow corrupt governments in the 1990's, algeria, and other places. we have come together to throughout this buttressing influence of western nations. this was the spark al qaeda -- of al qaeda that was significant from -- in altering the movement that metastasized
in the 1990's. our interest right now is in recognizing this change. backing of the rhetoric of trying to take on every one of these affiliate groups as though they are some kind of inherent threat to put on the mantle of what bin laden or zawahiri represented. or that he has a steering wheel disembodied from this bus ideology. it is the voices of the islamic world. i have had the privilege of living in saudi arabia and kotter -- qatar. they will find a path for that moves in a more modern without the resort to violence as the only way toward political change which is the underpinning of june autism and which al qaeda moved and bonded together.
therefore a very dangerous set of activities that did galvanize our intention -- attention on 9/11. what is it about al qaeda eisa has changed and i have written -- what is it about al qaeda i say has changed and i have written on this and argued that his death is the 80% solution to the unique and acute problem that al qaeda tried to craft itself on top of this movement brought to the fore. the five elements of al qaeda which, by the way as mary notes, has been oriented to co- op and bring together these elements that are revolutionary in our and surgeon base inside the muslim world.
first, aspired to be a core organization dedicated to planning, recruiting command training -- recruiting, and training. as mary has said and matthew alluded to as well, for the purpose of getting us out of muslim lands of the can have free rein to topple les corrupt -- toppled the corrupt and autocratic regimes. second, to serve as a vanguard for organizing and coordinating existent and regionally focused groups. their presence was believed to defile islam and bring it to a level that was unacceptable. third, this is important. an inspiration to the disaffected and lone wolf muslims to act out on their frustrations through violence against symbols of perceived oppression against islam. fourth and very important, to serve as a brand name representing the kind of highest level of this ideology in bringing successful violence against the so-called crusader government and officials in which most senior lead --
leaders remained free from serious punishment, penalty, or harm. there was this mystical notion of al qaeda prior to the raid against bin laden, this notion of impunity. that they were immune. they could go and find succor and hide out and the long arm of westernism could not get to them. fifth, al qaeda would serve as a base certain for the conquest of us can stand -- of afghanistan and pakistan. this is important because the mists -- because of the mystical origins of where al qaeda came from and where it built up at the end of the soviet jihad period and where it turned toward these local jihadi activities and the galvanized the framing and bringing together of al-zawahiri with al qaeda and focused on the far end of may 1 to defeat the near and -- the far enemy first
and the near enemy second. three of these five elements have been castigated. this notion of a brand name that was free from retribution or had impunity against being captured or attacked, that was brought to its knees. most of us who followed j. hadi website saw that clearly over two or three months. this notion of how could this have happened, followed by this claim and his desire to revenge and rage. al-zawahiri and others of the core group alamance still feel the wrath of that. there are no longer seen as -- they are no longer seen as immune. any [unintelligible] any [unintelligible]