[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] COMBATING TERRORISM: AXIS OF EVIL, MULTILATERAL CONTAINMENT OR UNILATERAL CONFRONTATION? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ APRIL 16, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-187 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ 86-195 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ------ ------ (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri DAVE WELDON, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel R. Nicholas Pararino, Senior Policy Advisor Jason Chung, Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on April 16, 2002................................... 1 Statement of: Benjamin, Daniel, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies...................................... 19 Carr, Caleb, military historian/author....................... 41 Kirkpatrick, Ambassador Jeane J., director, foreign and defense policy studies, American Enterprise Institute...... 8 Perle, Richard, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute.................................................. 13 Scowcroft, Lieutenant General Brent, (Ret.), president, the Forum for International Policy............................. 12 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Benjamin, Daniel, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Article dated December 20, 2001.......................... 21 Prepared statement of.................................... 33 Carr, Caleb, military historian/author, prepared statement of 44 Perle, Richard, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute: Debate dated January 21, 1997............................ 88 Prepared statement of.................................... 16 Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3 COMBATING TERRORISM: AXIS OF EVIL, MULTILATERAL CONTAINMENT OR UNILATERAL CONFRONTATION? ---------- TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Shays, Kucinich, Schrock, Gilman and Putnam. Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel; R. Nicholas Pararino, senior policy advisor; Jason Chung, clerk; and David Rapallo, minority counsel. Mr. Shays. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations hearing entitled, ``Combating Terrorism: Axis of Evil, Multilateral Containment or Unilateral Confrontation?'' is called to order. In his State of the Union address, the President said, ``Nations harboring or enabling terrorists constitute an axis of evil arming to the threaten the peace of the world.'' Since then, both allies and antagonists have questioned the accuracy and utility of so sweeping a description of the disparate but growing peril posed by global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. One fact cannot be questioned. The world changed on September 11th; the global axes of political, diplomatic and military affairs shifted along a fault line marked by more than 3,000 graves. The urgency of confronting state sponsors of terrorism and nations developing weapons of mass destruction reoriented the civilized world along moral not geographic lines. This new perspective raises important questions about counter terrorism programs and policies at home and abroad. Should terrorist states be contained or confronted? How can multilateral coalitions be sustained when no definition of terrorism has been agreed upon? What consideration of circumstances justify unilateral action on the part of the United States against terrorism? The most fundamental obligation of government is the protection of its people. Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons constitute grave and imminent threats to lives of millions. Protecting U.S. citizens against these extraordinary dangers requires extraordinary actions. As the President observed, the price of indifference to the menace upon us would be catastrophic. To discuss the effectiveness, scope and implications of U.S. counter terrorism policies in a world realigned by war without boundaries, we are very fortunate to be joined by a most distinguished panel of witnesses. They bring impeccable credentials, impressive experience and a wealth of knowledge to our ongoing oversight of these issues. We are grateful for their time and look forward to their testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.002 Mr. Shays. At this time, I would recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Kucinich. In his most recent State of the Union address, the President singled out North Korea and Iran and Iraq as constituting an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world by ``seeking weapons of mass destruction,'' he told the Nation ``these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.'' There was considerable question whether this characterization is fully accurate. Many intelligence reports belie the President's claim that Iran aggressively pursues nuclear weapons and in recent years, North Korea has grown increasingly willing to cooperate with the world community. Let us leave this debate aside momentarily and assume the President chose to publicly and unilaterally vilify these three countries for one major reason, to put their leaders on notice that the United States will not tolerate any efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. Certainly it is not unreasonable for the President to issue a strong warning to the potentially wayward regimes. The administration failed to anticipate at least two ancillary effects of the President's comments. First, it has derailed efforts to negotiate the termination of North Korea's missile program and second, it has undermined efforts by President Khatami, and other pro-reform Iranians to moderate the policies of Islamic fundamentalists. The speech's effect on relations with North Korea is perhaps most alarming. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, the United States had been on the verge of signing an agreement to normalize relations and to provide substantial aid to North Korea in return for a permanent end to its missile development and proliferation programs. The current administration initially declined to take up these talks but eventually changed course and made tepid overtures toward the Kim Jong Il government. Since the State of the Union Address in January, North Korea has dismissed U.S. requests for broad negotiations. Pyongyang has even threatened to abandon a longstanding agreement with the United States under which it is receiving assistance to construct light water nuclear reactors in exchange for attending its nuclear program. Similarly, the President's comments have made it difficult for President Khatami and other Iranian moderates to publicly push for the Ayatollah to temper his virulently anti-western stance. The State of the Union Address began a wave of anti- American protests in Iran in which both moderates and fundamentalists participated. No one doubts this administration sincerely wants to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction and enhance national security but to date, the President's axis of evil speech seemed to have the opposite effect. CIA officials long ago coined a term for this phenomenon, ``blow back.'' International affairs expert, Chalmers Johnson explores this idea in his book, ``Blow Back, the Cost and Consequences of American Empire.'' The term ``blow back,'' he writes ``refers to the unintended consequences of policies. In a sense, ``block back'' is simply another way of saying what a nation reaps, it sows. Whether it is the U.S.-led embargo of Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands Iraqi citizens and solidified Saddam Hussein's hold on power or the CIA sponsorship of anti-Soviet fundamentalists in Afghanistan that led to the rise of the Taliban, or the U.S. backing of right wing military insurgencies in Latin America that led to civil war and the killing of civilians, history is replete with instances where American policy has had disastrous consequences for both Americans and others, according to Johnson. This I believe is the most insidious consequence of American unilateralism and adventurism. It has unintended consequences that undermine the very policy goals we seek to promote in the first place and thus makes the world and America less stable, less secure, less peaceful. The President's axis of evil comments have already had significant impact and only time will reveal their full implication but these are mere words. The world's geopolitical trash bin is littered with treaties and agreements unilaterally discarded by the United States under this administration and certainly the implications of these actions will be far more extensive than a provocative State of the Union address. What will be the consequences of the United States' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Might China augment its nuclear capabilities forcing India and Pakistan to follow suit in a South Asian arms race? Might the rush to develop anti-ballistic missile technologies leave Americans vulnerable to attack via a suitcase bomb or other crude alternatives? What will be the consequences of the administration's plan to cast aside its responsibilities under the comprehensive test ban treaty and develop bunker busters? Without these treaty restraints, might other nuclear nations and potential nuclear nations be emboldened to resume or begin testing? If the United States demonstrates its willingness to use nuclear weapons, will other nations assume the same posture? What about the administration's refusal to negotiate in good faith toward an enforcement mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention? The proprietary interest of American pharmaceuticals may be safe but will Americans be safe if other countries are able to develop bioweapons programs without fear of discovery or will the burgeoning small arms trade the administration has refused to help control continue to play a part in the death civilians and Americans at the hands of terrorists? Will land mines which the United States has refused to renounce, 1 day maim American servicemen? Will the American POW 1 day be mistreated because our government has refused to fully grant the Guantanamo Bay prisoners their Geneva Convention rights? Chalmers Johnson writes, ``Even an empire cannot control the long term effects of its policies. That is the essence of blow back.'' Today, the United States stands unmatched as a global military and economic super power. This brings both opportunity and peril. American policies and actions can have disastrous results for millions of people or it can uplift them. For America's impact to be a positive one, this administration and future administrations must be more than simply instruments of U.S. corporations. The United States must have in mind the interests of the American people and billions of other ordinary people who inhabit our world. Similarly, we must seek consultation from the world community in developing American policy and involve the world community in its implementation. Crafting policy based on our own narrowly focused, short term interests invariably yields a world less stable and less secure. That is the sort of world that breeds terrorism. I hope we can explore some of these themes in our discussion today. I thank the Chair. Mr. Shays. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Gilman. Thank you for conducting this timely hearing on a matter crucial to our national security. Our Nation's prosecution of our war on terrorism has achieved wide success to date, both at home and on the battlefields abroad. From thwarting untold additional terrorist attacks on our own soil, to disrupting and destroying terrorist infrastructures around the world. Indeed the experience of recent history has taught us the front line of the war on terrorism is not just here but everywhere. Accordingly, the gratitude of our Nation goes out to our police, our firefighters, emergency responders and all of our military personnel for putting their lives in danger in the name of patriotic public service on a daily basis. Their steadfast commitment to our national security is the greatest deterrent against those who would do us harm. The war on terrorism is one segment of a larger war that our Nation is conducting against a number of often interlocking, transnational security threats. In Latin America, in Asia and at home we are engaged in an ongoing war, a war on drugs which threatens our democratic neighbors and undermines social stability here and abroad. Moreover, in various regions around the world, we are working with our allies to stamp out the insidious trade in human trafficking, sexual slavery, forced child labor, and other illegal enterprises undertaken by international criminal organizations. Now our Nation is compelled to address the prospect of a broader proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue nations, including Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. As President Bush noted during his State of the Union Address in January, ``These nations constitute an axis of evil, representing a direct threat to the security of our Nation and to our allies around the world.'' Accordingly, it is critical that our Nation counter the clear and present danger these terrorist sponsoring nations pose lest we become vulnerable to their threats and demands as our global campaign against terrorism moves forward. To address the threat these states pose to our Nation, we must maintain flexibility in our options, whether they be military, diplomatic or economic. A comprehensive approach which does not rule out any course of action will maximize our effectiveness against the aforementioned states which seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, while the support of our allies around the world is always welcomed, we must be willing to act alone in the interest of our Nation when compelled to do so. Our national security and the continued viability of our way of life should be viewed as a precondition to all other considerations. In short, these are the complex issues which require sophisticated approaches. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I join in welcoming the opportunity to hear the views from our distinguished panel before our committee today, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, General Scowcroft, Fellow Richard Perle, Fellow Dan Benjamin, and author, Caleb Carr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Schrock. I am delighted you are here as well and I can certainly align myself with what Mr. Gilman said. I don't think there is a topic on Americans' minds more than terrorism today. To have you all here to talk to us is a real honor. Thank you for taking the time to be with us and I look forward to hearing your testimony. Mr. Shays. Let me do some housekeeping. I ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in the record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection, so ordered. I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted to include their written statements in the record and without objection, so ordered. Recognizing our witnesses, we have a wonderful panel: Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, director, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute; General Brent Scowcroft (ret.), president, the Forum for International Policy; the Honorable Richard Perle, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Daniel Benjamin, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Mr. Caleb Carr, military historian and author. If you would stand, we swear our panels and we will go from there. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Shays. I would note for the record that all our witnesses responded in the affirmative. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, I understand you are teaching a class, so what time do you need to leave here? Ambassador Kirkpatrick. By 2:30 p.m. Mr. Shays. Then I had better have you go first. STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK, DIRECTOR, FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Ambassador Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Chairman Shays. I regret I have a class to teach at Georgetown which makes it important that I go first. Mr. Shays. You can think of us as a class. Ambassador Kirkpatrick. Thank you. My students need me more, I think. I am happy to be here today and testify. I believe your subject is, as we all know, of the greatest importance, urgent importance. The President has recognized that importance in a series of powerful and persuasive speeches, I think. We have all recognized its importance from simply being alive on September 11th and being forced to think about those events, but most of us on this panel were aware of the importance of federalism well before September 11th because positions which we have held have made us sensitive to terrorism. I was asked, as I understood it, to take particular account of the experience of the Reagan administration as I know about it with terrorism and our efforts to respond to it. I think it is important to state in the beginning that what defines a terrorist I think is he is a person who declares total war on the society which he attacks. He literally does. It is hard to believe and it is hard to think about some person declaring total war on us as individuals or on our society. I think it is important to remember that terrorism began a period of very rapid growth in the 1960's. As a matter of fact, the President was inaugurated at the time that the American Embassy had been seized in Tehran by those who were followers of the Ayatollah Khomeni and our embassy personnel had been seized and held prisoners after being humiliated, starved and mistreated generally in Tehran. This, by the way, was a very special horror to President Ronald Reagan. He always said after that he could almost not imagine anything worse for a President to have to face than to have a group of Americans, public servants, seized, held and mistreated in the way our employees were. He felt that President Carter had been very, very unfortunate in having this happen on his watch and President Reagan was very concerned that it not happen on his watch. The fact is terrorism was already spreading when Ronald Reagan became the President. The rise of fanatical Islamism had begun. The Reagan administration, including the President himself, had quite a lot of contact with terrorism and was forced to confront it. It depends a little on how you define terrorism, whether you want to count the effort to assassinate Ronald Reagan himself an act of terrorism. I believe that it was an act of terrorism myself but it was not a terrorist group who attacked him, it was a terrorist individual. It was not done with so much a specific political goal apart from his murder, just that, but it was a dramatic introduction to the presence of violence in our society aimed at our government. The next contact of the Reagan administration with terrorism came with the hijacking of the Achille Lauro which I am sure everyone remembers which was the height of a pleasure ship, a cruise ship that was hijacked off the coast of Egypt on its way to Israel. It was transporting Americans, just Americans. It was hijacked and the Americans on board were treated in a very brutal fashion, and one of them was murdered. That was Leon Klinghofer, a man whose name I think most of us remember, I remember anyway, who was not only a man confined to a wheelchair on a vacation cruise, but his wheelchair and he were pushed overboard and he drowned. He was killed actually before he was pushed overboard off the coast of Egypt. That act of terrorism was carried out by a PLO group, by the way, headed by one Abou Abass, who was a member of the PLO Executive Committee and a close aide to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. They had smuggled some quite heavy weapons on board the Achille Lauro at the same time they boarded the group who carried out these murders. Not long after that, there were questions about whether the hijackers would be turned over to the United States or whether Egypt would try them, which Egypt chose to do. President Reagan was quite unhappy about the way that developed and the fact they were not extradited to the United States since the attack had bene on Americans. The next encounter I believe was when Libya bombed the U.S. forces in the Gulf of Sidra and U.S. planes and the consequence of that. Libya also bombed U.S. properties elsewhere. The consequence of that was that President Reagan decided to bomb Libya and he did. He bombed the living quarters where Muammar Qaddafi and a number of his close associates and relatives lived. It was said at the time, I don't know whether this was true or not, but it was said at the time lived. You may recall that this was a traumatic experience for Qaddafi and he was transformed from a person who spoke all the time with threats and promises of the damage he intended to reek on the world to a person who was really quite quiet. He remains rather quiet until today though I understand he is once again active in the terrorist world. The first responses, experiences the Achille Lauro and the Libyan bombings of American property and Americans made clear that President Reagan intended not to accept the attacks on Americans passively and when Americans were attacked by violent terrorists seeking them harm, damage and death, he would do his best as the U.S. President to retaliate. He continued this policy through his period as president. Muammar Qaddafi continued also his efforts to cause various kinds of damage and anxiety to Americans. I might mention a personal experience which wasn't just personal to me, it was personal to a number of members of the Reagan administration. The period before the United States actually bombed Libya, some events had occurred which were not public and therefore were not fully appreciated as part of what President Reagan was responding to when he bombed Qaddafi. It involved the dispatching of some Libyan death squads. It was asserted at the time--you may recall or you may not recall--that there were two death squads, one dispatched to the United States by way of Canada and one by way of Mexico, that their intention was to wipe out Ronald Reagan and several members of his Cabinet. They named the several members of the Cabinet and included Ed Meese, Cap Weinberger and me, as a matter of fact. They were called special friends of the President which became an uncomfortable designation. One consequence of this was, being designated a special target, the security was greatly enhanced in our lives and one lost of movement and the security that goes with a personal sense of safety. It meant that whenever any of us were going to travel abroad, we had to notify the government we were going to visit in some depth and that government assigned security to us for the period we were visiting and we really had to adapt our lives to this proposition that we were in some danger. From time to time, there were sitings of these people because there were pictures and drawings of them. They could take pictures of them when they thought they cited them and it added a special spice, you might say, to life, to become a target of these people. It wasn't a great hardship but on the other hand, it wasn't comfortable. The effort to make members of the Reagan administration, several of them, uncomfortable personally, was an attribute of the terrorist offensive against us. There were other, much more serious attributes of terrorist attack, one being the attack on American forces in Lebanon and the occasion when there were 240 Marines killed while they slept in their barracks in Lebanon when they were there as part of an international peacekeeping force. They were killed in the Bekaa Valley a favorite place for terrorists. These were Iranians quite clearly. They were doing no one any harm, they were not making war on anyone, they were peacekeepers in a peacekeeping force with the British, the French and the Israelis. Mr. Shays. Because you are going to leave in 5 minutes, I want you to address this issue and then we will go right to Mr. Scowcroft. I am taking the liberty of asking a question here, but I would like you to address the issue of axis of evil. I would like you to respond as to whether it is helpful or harmful, what its consequences are by describing three countries as an axis of evil. You basically have two descriptions here and I know my colleague made a long statement that expressed his concern about it, my ranking member. Could you kind of address that before you leave? Ambassador Kirkpatrick. I think the axis of evil is a useful concept actually because I think it links the reality of threats by governments against individuals and against groups and against governments. It links those threats and attacks, making clear there are diverse means by which they would be attacked. I think individuals and governments, heavy weapons and medium heavy weapons are all capable of causing great harm and destroying the pleasure and lives of individuals, but also of destroying whole societies in their war against societies. I think it was an appropriate concept for the President and I was glad he used it. Mr. Shays. I am going to let Mr. Kucinich ask a question and then we will deal with the panel of four and not be able to ask you some questions. Let me ask you, why three, why not four? Do you get off and on this axis of evil or do you stay on it, once on you are always on? Once you are on this axis of evil, one of the three, are you always on it? Do you have the ability to get off it? I am trying to understand ultimately the consequences. Does it encourage others not to become part of the axis of evil? What will it lead to is what I am interested in knowing? Ambassador Kirkpatrick. I don't believe anyone or any person or an country controls their relationship to an axis of evil. The axis of evil consists of governments which are headed by dangerous, violent and expansionist persons who seek to do harm in the world and who have targets. If you are targeted, you can try to be safe but you can't eliminate the threat. Mr. Shays. Let me let Mr. Kucinich ask a question if he likes and then we will go to our panel of four. Mr. Kucinich. I already made my statement, so I will pass. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much for coming, I appreciate it. Ambassador Kirkpatrick. Thank you. Mr. Shays. General Scowcroft. STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL BRENT SCOWCROFT (RET.), PRESIDENT, THE FORUM FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY General Scowcroft. I am privileged to appear before you to discuss such an important subject. You asked me to comment especially on U.S. terrorism policy under the first Bush administration. Let me say at the outset that it is somewhat difficult to compare the policies of the Bush 41 administration with respect to terrorism and states seeking weapons of mass destruction with those of the present situation because circumstances were significantly different. Acts of terrorism involving the United States such as the Pan Am 103 explosion were generally clearly state sponsored. A global terrorist organization such as Al-Qaeda did not, so far as we know, exist at that time, so there are some differences. The general operational policy of the Bush administration was to show a preference for multilateral response to acts of terrorism. There were multilateral sanctions, for example, imposed on Libya for the Pan Am 103 bombing, but Europe rejected the inclusion of oil exports in those sanctions probably the most effective sanctions against Libya, which is always one of the problems with multilateral sanctions. Were the Pan Am 103 sanctions a success? Opinions vary widely. There was a trial, one of the perpetrators was found guilty but in addition to that, for whatever reason, Qadaffi's participation in terrorism seems to have declined dramatically since that time. Regarding potential weapons of mass destruction states, at that time, Iraq and North Korea predominantly, the action was likewise multilateral. With respect to Iraq, the Gulf War was multilateral. The military coalition of some 31 states were involved as were U.N. sanctions imposed in the aftermath of that war. Those sanctions have at least delayed the acquisition by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction but that chapter has yet to be completed. With respect to North Korea, we also moved in a multilateral framework to encourage, indeed to succeed in getting North Korea to accede to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency but before those inspections were to take place, North Korea backed out of them. So those efforts were clearly a failure and they led to a downturn in relations with increasing pressure by the United States to the crisis of 1994 and the present tenuous situation with regard to North Korea. The present situation regarding terrorism has quite different characteristics. The struggle is against global terrorism and states which harbor global terrorists. The most military part of this campaign may already be over. It is my sense that not many states are likely to volunteer to be the next Taliban. So our efforts are likely to be focused on global terrorist networks themselves rather than on states which harbor them. That primarily is a war of intelligence. Every time the terrorists move, every time they talk, every time they spend money, every time they get money, they leave traces and indications. It is our task to pick up those traces and to put together a concept of the organization of the terrorists and cleaning them out once we know where they are, is a relatively simple job. In order to do that, we need allies, we need friends. We cannot cut our finances, we cannot do much of this intelligence job without cooperation from our friends. What about the axis of evil? Let me say I am not privy to any special interpretation of the term itself, but those three countries have at least two things in common. They intensely dislike the United States and they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, especially of concern to us, nuclear weapons. Our rationale for those countries seeking to nuclear weapons and a delivery capability to be a threat to the United States is those weapons would mostly likely be used to blackmail the United States against taking actions we might otherwise want to engage in. If that is true, and while it is a hypothesis, it is a plausible thesis, why would those states turn their nuclear weapons over to terrorists, putting them completely out of their hands and control and likely to be employed for very different objectives, gratuitous terror. It seems to me that weapons inadequately secured in Russia are a far more likely source for terrorist organizations than are those of the axis of evil and yet we do not seem eager to increase the size of the non-nuclear program designed to provide security for Russian nuclear weapons and even use the funds for that program as leverage on other issues with the Russians. In conclusion, I would say the countries of the axis of evil are certainly a problem for the United States, perhaps a threat. They do not wish us well but their threats to the United States and its interests do not seem to me to be primarily related to terrorism itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you, General. Mr. Perle. STATEMENT OF RICHARD PERLE, RESIDENT FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Mr. Perle. Thank you for including me in these important deliberations on how the United States can best deal with terrorism. I think that is the ultimate objective, to gain some insight into that difficult question. I will make only three brief points. First, I believe President Bush was not only accurate in his description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an axis of evil, but he was wise to use that memorable phrase in his State of the Union message. I know others disagree. The French Foreign Minister considers the President's points simplistic. Chris Patten at the European Union Commission sitting comfortably in Brussels has warned us against ``taking up absolutist positions and simplistic positions.'' I must say frankly that when I came here, I was focused on European disapproval of the President's remarks. I had no idea that Mr. Kucinich is even more vigorous in his opposition to what the President had to say. Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Chairman, is the witness here to characterize what Members of Congress say? Mr. Shays. Yes--be loose. You have been too up tight. He can say whatever he wants and then you can question him and say whatever you want. Mr. Kucinich. I just wondered how this committee proceeds. Thank you. Mr. Shays. We proceed with grace and honesty. We are going to have an honest dialog with each other. Mr. Perle. I now understand the opposition is not confined to those abroad who do not face the terrorist problem that we face. All of this reminds me of the reaction to President Reagan's use of the phrase ``empire of evil'' as a description of the Soviet Union. There was handwringing all around when he said that, much of it in the same allied capitals from which we now hear criticism of President Bush's candid, straightforward characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Soviet Union was indeed an empire and it was certainly evil and Ronald Reagan's willingness to say it straight out contributed mightily to the political assault that ultimately brought it down. The critics didn't realize it at the time, and some may not accept it even now, but Ronald Reagan's much derided words had historic political consequences that I believe he anticipated when his critics did not. The axis of evil may well prove to be of similar importance, albeit on a lesser scale. Recognizing the lines of cooperation that now exist among these three regimes, focusing attention on their collaboration which is not free of differences to be sure, is necessary if we are to come to terms with the threat posed by those regimes supporting terrorism which also possess or are working to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Second, I believe President Bush's response to September 11th which has been to go after regimes supporting terrorism is exactly right and long overdue. It represents a fundamental and brave shift in policy. It is this essential new approach that accounts for much of the misgiving about American policy among our feint-hearted allies. Unless we take the war on terror to the terrorists and to the states that offer them sanctuary and all manner of assistance, we will lose this war. I very much hope that General Scowcroft is right, that others who now offer sanctuary to terrorists will cease doing so and it is certainly true that until now, it has been cost free to offer hospitality to terrorists and the example of the Taliban may well produce the result General Scowcroft anticipates but it may not. We are an open society and if we wish to remain one, as we surely do, we must deny terrorist the freedom to scheme and organize against us by making sure they are on the run. Terrorists who must sleep in a different place each night out of fear they will be apprehended by the authorities will be far less able to carry out acts of terror than they are now, comfortable in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere and they are comfortable despite Khotemi's feeble government in Iran and they are comfortable under Saddam's tutelage in Baghdad and they are comfortable under Ashir Basad in Damascus and they are certainly, if they wish to go there, as comfortable as you can be in Kim Jong Il's North Korea. That is why it was essential to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and it is why we must support a regime change in Iraq. While we will always prefer to operate in close collaboration with our friends and allies, our interests are not identical to theirs. It is understandable that governments in Paris, Berlin, Brussels and The Hague do not feel the same sense of danger that September 11th elicited among Americans. They are not reading daily intelligence about threats to their citizens as are we. They were not the victims on September 11th, we were. The rhetorical cliche that September 11th was an attack on civilization may be true in a sense, but those who died were here on our soil. We must be careful about the weight we attach to our own lofty words. Most of our closest allies are not threatened as we are and it is natural that they will not happily accept the risks that we must accept to cope with that threat. There may be times when we have to be prepared to act alone for no government can base its most fundamental self defense on a show of even friendly hands. That, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is the essential point about the tension between acting unilaterally and acting multilaterally. It would be fine if our friends, by voting with us, could somehow magically secure our territory but they cannot and because they cannot, the job will fall ultimately to us and possibly to us alone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Perle follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.005 Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Benjamin. STATEMENT OF DANIEL BENJAMIN, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Mr. Benjamin. Thank you very much for the invitation. I am honored to be on such a distinguished panel, and particularly honored and delighted to appear before your subcommittee since you were for many years my representative and continue to be that of my family. It is also good to see Representative Gilman again who we had the opportunity to spend several days together discussing terrorism. He and his gracious wife took exceptionally good care of my 6 month old son, and I want to thank him for that. I served on the National Security Council's staff during the Clinton administration as Director for Transnational Threats and most of my responsibilities were focused on international terrorism. I think it is safe to say that during President Clinton's time in office concern about terrorism in general and terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction rose rapidly and became one of the foremost areas of activity and innovation. I would agree with the judgment of the Washington Post which Barton Gellman wrote on December 20, ``By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him. His government doubled counterterrorist spending across 40 departments and agencies. The FBI and CIA allocated still larger increases in their budgets and personnel assignments.'' I would add those increases took effect against a backdrop of flatline budgets at a time when we were working to balance the Federal budget and I don't think there is any other area in Federal spending of comparable size in which such a trend was visible. Nothing concerned the Clinton administration more than the dangers of WMD proliferation and the possibility of the terrible weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists. We could talk about all the various measures that were taken regarding Iraq, Iran and North Korea, some have already been mentioned. I would like to skip to the question of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. This was something it was believed was not likely to happen precisely for the reasons that General Scowcroft outlined and I believe the general understanding he outlined was correct and continues to be basically correct for major states. However, things changed in the mid-1990's, first with the Aum Shinrikyo attack in Tokyo and with the rise of al-Qaeda. As you all recall, on August 20, 1998, the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in response to the Embassy bombings and also the al-Shifa plant in Khartoum. I believe that sent as clear a signal that has ever been sent by the United States that this country would not tolerate WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. I think it is safe to say that in the aftermath of that, the administration took what might charitably be called a shellacking for its efforts. It was widely alleged that there were other motivations at work in the decision to attack Khartoum. What has not been widely discussed is the vindication of that strike that appeared during the embassy bombing trial last year in New York when an al-Qaeda defector noted repeatedly on the stand that in fact Osama bin Laden's organization was working to produce chemical weapons in Khartoum. This testimony was completely overlooked by the press and most experts. I have entered into the record an article I wrote about this in the New York Review of Books which appeared last fall. I think it is not going to far to say that if the al-Shifa attack had been taken more seriously, the public would have had a better notion of what al-Qaeda is about well before September 11th. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.016 Mr. Benjamin. I want to echo much of what General Scowcroft said about the multilateral approach to terrorism. I think it has enormous value much of the time and I think General Scowcroft in the first Bush administration showed great wisdom in following the course they did involving Pan Am 103. The determination of responsibility for that bombing came months after the act itself and after several rounds of tit for tat retaliations that were going no where with a country we had no intention going to war with by choosing a multilateral approach based on law enforcement and U.N. sanctions, the Bush administration laid the groundwork and the Clinton administration followed through in getting Libya out of the business of terrorism, however unsatisfactory some of its other behavior remains. I share the General's concerns about the need to keep allies in the game, that is to say, keep them working with us to cut our terrorist finances, to dry up safe havens and to provide the kind of intelligence cooperation is absolutely essential to make further operations impossible. About the evil axis, I have to say I am uncomfortable with the phrase. An axis, according to the dictionary, means an alliance or partnership. I don't think there is any evidence of a serious alliance or partnership between these countries. They all have, as Mr. Perle said, a great dislike for the United States and a desire to develop weapons of mass destruction. For that reason alone, they deserve the greatest vigilance and very proactive policy to deter them, change their behavior and in some cases, change the regime. However, I don't think they all deserve a cookie cutter approach. Iran and Iraq are very different and in fact, the conflict between them probably cost as many lives as any other in the last quarter century. The last point I would like to make is that there is a significant difference between terrorism in the shape of al- Qaeda and terrorism of the state sponsored sort that we were familiar with and continue to be. There was a predominant paradigm in terrorism certainly up to the embassy bombings in 1998. As General Scowcroft said, most states sponsors are not willing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists because of good prudential reasons. The terrorists we confront now are ones who have the wherewithal to find those weapons themselves and unlike the state sponsors, the rogue states, the members of the axis of evil, however you want to call them, these new terrorists are prepared to use these weapons. They do not want them for blackmail, they want to use them against us. They are not deterrable. The countries in the axis of evil may very well be deterrable and require a different policy but we should not make the mistake of thinking these terrorists, al-Qaeda in particular, exist because of the sufferance of these state sponsors. They do not. The evidence is very, very slim of connections between them. It is enough to be worrisome, it is enough to be worried and vigilant but the record is fairly clear that al-Qaeda is its own creation. We need to take it on those terms and we need to destroy it. I will stop there. [The prepared statement of Mr. Benjamin follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.024 Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Carr. STATEMENT OF CALEB CARR, MILITARY HISTORIAN/AUTHOR Mr. Carr. Thank you also for your invitation to appear here with a group of people for whom I have the greatest respect. I have been asked here today as a military historian who spent much of the last 20 years studying terrorism to illuminate several principles that I believe can be derived from our past encounters and applied by the Bush administration to our present circumstances. To this end, I will limit my opening remarks to those principles leaving more detailed discussion of their application to specific situations for the discussion to follow. I will note here that all these points underlay our first truly effective antiterrorist action which was the Reagan administration's 1986 raid on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi already mentioned but then went into a period of dormancy so severe that it made a cataclysmic attack on the United States not only possible but likely. That dormancy only came to an end with our recent campaign in Afghanistan. I submit that we cannot afford another such period of inattention to this the most serious threat to the lives of American civilians since that of totalitarianism. The first principle I would recommend may come as something of a surprise to many for it is nothing more or less than that we define the problem in a way that is unarguable and binding. Strange as it may seem, most discussions of terrorism even now are undertaken without the parties agreeing to a clear definition of just what terrorism is. With this in mind, I offer the only definition that is consistent I believe with the full course of military history, that terrorism is the contemporary name given to and the modern permutation of deliberate assaults on civilians undertaken with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable. I am fully aware that there are those who are not comfortable with such a nonideological definition but I maintain that terrorism can be put to the service of any ideology and until we accept that fact, we have no hope of eradicating it. Terrorism is the contemporary name given to and the modern permutation of deliberation assaults on civilians undertaken with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable. This philosophy leads logically to my second point which is that this or any administration must always refuse to answer terror with what amounts to more terror. Our own experience during the 1990's with various antiterrorist actions that were less than discriminate in their blanket targeting of civilian areas in sponsor states, the current Israeli failure to make similar tactics work and the history of warfare over the last 2,000 years generally show that deliberate attacks on civilians are more than just immoral, they are ultimately counterproductive, especially when undertaken in retaliation. Our recent campaign in Afghanistan on the other hand shows what dramatic success can be expected when extraordinary efforts are made to avoid such civilian casualties but that campaign has also echoed our earlier antiterrorist success, the Libya raid in emphasizing a third point which is that we need to maintain constant offensive readiness. One of the clearest lessons of the last 20 years, as well as of September 11th, is that when the United States is perceived as relying on primarily defensive or reactive measures to meet the terrorist threat, the intensity of terrorist attacks only increases. As is now painfully apparent, terrorism is indeed a form of warfare, not crime, though it may be criminal warfare. Such being the case, we will increase our chances for success by giving priority to offensively oriented strategies and tactics as indeed we will if we emphasize our ability to achieve surprise. It is well within the power of the United States to turn the tables on major terrorist organizations and their state sponsors by making them the ones to feel perpetual insecurity. Yet to do so, we must make sure that we base our efforts on progressive military principles rather than legalistic initiatives. By progressive, I mean discriminatory, capable of confining insofar as is humanly possible, the casualties we inflict to actual terrorist operatives. Before Afghanistan, there were many who said this was impossible but our daring special forces operations at the opening of that campaign prove such critics wrong and what gave those units the edge they needed was surprise, the principal tool by which appropriate targets can be designated and caught unawares. My fifth recommendation proceeds directly from this point. It is that we give greater priority to discriminatory tactical operations than to indiscriminate strategic campaigns. So- called strategic bombing does not discriminate among targets on the ground enough to advance the American antiterrorist cause by limiting civilian casualties. In Afghanistan, it has not been our bombers but our special forces units that have done the most critical work. To do that work, the United States will often find itself in situation where it cannot pause for lengthy consultation with allies and so in the interest of consolidating this new style of warfare, it is vital that we be willing to act alone if necessary to achieve our objectives. Along with a host of other American responses to military threats throughout our Nation's history, the 1986 Libya raid would have been impossible had we taken the time to publicly and slowly build a coalition of allied forces. Coalition building is a fine and admirable thing, but it is also a luxury, a luxury that like so many others may be prohibitively expensive in the post-September 11th world. Should we find, however, that we can safely act in concert with other powers and forces, we nonetheless must not employ questionable agents or regimes in our cause simply because they are nominally antiterrorist. From the time of ancient Rome through the muslim and British empires and on into our own global fight against communism, history offers few clearer lessons than the philosophy which states that to fight a dirty enemy, one must become dirty oneself. We need look no further than the example of Osama bin Laden, former in the opinion of some, an Afghanistan freedom fighter, for evidence of this truth. As our antiterrorist umbrella continues to broaden, we must be increasingly circumspect about who we allow to take shelter beneath it. I will conclude with the suggestion that we ought in the current highly fluid state of affairs be prepared to negotiate with former state sponsors of terrorism when events on the battlefield change diplomatic conditions. As a result of our successful efforts in Afghanistan to execute a strategy of eliminating a terrorist regime without causing massive, counterproductive civilian casualties, new diplomatic opportunities have been made available to us in the Middle East vis a vis long time antagonists and is always the case with war, we must recognize when to exploit these opportunities rather than pursue perpetual military action. I realize the subcommittee would also like us to express our views on how the Bush administration should approach what he has dubbed the axis of evil nations. I think that is best left, as I said, for your questions. I will just note as one or two speakers have already said, while it is true that history is unkind to those who ignore it, it is also true that it can be even more unkind to those who draw fallacious historical parallels. Personally, I find the phrase ``axis of evil'' a misleading one. Axis, as just said, calls to mind, as I think it is intended to, the combination of totalitarian powers during the Second World War but no such formalized concert of effort exists among the three countries named by President Bush. North Korea, Iran and Iraq do each present the United States with undeniable problems but they are separate and distinct sorts of problems requiring separate and distinct approaches. We can safely say, however, that all such approaches must reflect our newly, reenergized emphasis on tactics that are both aggressive and progressive, that seek to both protect American civilians and to limit the impact of confrontation on civilians and enemy countries. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.055 Mr. Shays. Thank you to all four of you. We are going to start with Mr. Gilman. I am going to just express an interest that my hope is that we will have some extensive dialog among all of you with regards to when is it appropriate--and you mention it in your presentations--to act unilaterally, when is it appropriate to work on a multilateral basis. I think we could debate this issue of axis and I think the axis part does raise some other interesting questions but if you take axis out, the issue I hope we focus on is identifying a Nation as evil and therefore a target, what does it enable us to do and what does it prohibit us from doing? Ultimately what does is the benefit of identifying these nations? I hope we will have the ability to have some dialog about that. I also want to thank Mr. Putnam for coming. He is the vice- chairman of this committee and quite often has taken over when I haven't been around and unfortunately does a better job, according to everyone who watches him. I limited his time in the chair recently. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Gilman. I want to thank the panelists for their testimony. Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria have been contributing arms and funds to terrorists in the Middle East. How best can we curb that support of terrorism? What is the most effective thing we can be doing? I address that to the whole panel? Mr. Shays. We will have 10 minutes as we gave our speakers 5 minutes. Mr. Perle. Congressman Gilman, I think the best way to discourage them is to increase the price they pay for what they do. Until now, they have paid a very small price, if any. Take Syria for example. Syria has been in one way or another supporting terrorism for a very long time. There are any number of terrorist organizations if you want to meet them, you go to the Bekaa Valley which is under Syrian control or even to Damascus itself. I think it is time, long overdue for us, to say to Mr. Asad that this isn't tolerable because the war against terrorism is a global war. If we start choosing between those terrorists we will oppose and those that we will turn a blind eye to, in the end we will be consumed by terrorists. I think we ought to put it very squarely to Asad. With respect to Iran, I don't think there is any question about Iran's involvement in fueling instability in the Middle East and encouraging attacks on Israel and others. I think when all the evidence is in front of us, we will find Iran, working with terrorist organizations, has directly attacked American interests and killed Americans. The same holds for Saddam Hussein. North Korea bears a relationship to these others as a supplier. I don't know that anyone at this table would disagree that the North Koreans are assisting the Iraqis and assisting the Iranians in development of their weapons. We know some of that--my guess is there is a great deal of assistance of that sort that we have not yet seen. At the end of the day, I think we have to raise the price for this sort of indulging in the support of terrorism and up to now, we haven't done that. Mr. Gilman. What sort of a price are you suggesting? Mr. Perle. We have destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. I hope, as I indicated earlier, that we will go on to make sure that Saddam Hussein's regime is destroyed in Iraq. At that point, the message to Syria ought to be, you are next. That is to say, we will not tolerate regimes that support terrorism and precisely how we go about raising that price is going to vary from one case to another. I don't know anyone who is suggesting a cookie cutter approach. Iran is different from Iraq which is different from North Korea and Syria, to be sure, so in each case, the approach must be a different one. If you look at Syria, its military capabilities are concentrated in a very small number of highly vulnerable installations. I might couple the words, you are next, with some vision of how quickly those military capabilities could be obliterated. Mr. Gilman. Thank you. Any other panelist? General Scowcroft. General Scowcroft. I have a slightly different perspective, Mr. Gilman. All of the regimes we are talking about are problems, there is no question about it but I think we have to set priorities. We cannot do everything at once. We now have troops in Bosnia, we have troops in Kosovo, we have troops in Afghanistan, we have troops in the Philippines, we gave troops in Georgia. We do not have unlimited capability and it seems to me we have to focus on those tasks that need to be done first. My sense is that the four countries you talk about are problems but they are not problems primarily because of terrorism. Syria might be an exception to that but remember, the President, when he declared war on terrorism, he declared war on terrorism with a global reach. If we go after Irish terrorists, Colombian terrorists and all the other terrorists that have limited regional goals at once, we are going to drown. We cannot do it. We have a tremendous job ahead of us to deal with al-Qaeda. It is going to take years, it is going to take hard, patient work to root out that bunch of terrorists. If in the meantime we have a problem with Iraq, with Iran or something, we would have to deal with it but I think we cannot take all of these on simultaneously or we will not do any of them satisfactorily. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, General Scowcroft. Any other panelist? Yes, Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. I wanted to add to echo the sentiment that I think there are specific ways in which each of these policies should differ. We have had more luck in some of these cases with different kinds of policies. With North Korea, we have had more luck with using a carrot and stick approach than we have with using purely the stick. It is a very truculent society and government and they don't tend to respond well to pure threats. The other ruling factor about North Korea is that they are starving. They need things from us besides threats and we can use that against them. In the case of Iran and Iraq, that is not quite the case. In Iran, I do think, as Mr. Perle said, we have to paint a very clear picture for Iran of what exactly militarily could be the consequences of continued behavior. I also think we have to realize that in Iran, we are experiencing something, as we are experiencing around the world, that we are perhaps too little appreciative of, the unofficial cultural penetration that we are achieving in the country which needs to be allowed to continue, especially among younger Iranians. That is a slightly different approach. With Iraq, I am afraid I have unqualified agreement with Mr. Perle, I don't think there is any picture you can paint for Iraq except a forceful response. I think it is one you don't have to paint, you have to carry through. The only qualification would be is it Iraq you are talking about or Saddam Hussein? Again, I think definitions are hugely important. Saddam Hussein is not Iraq, vice versa. We have seen the cost of making the Iraqi people pay for Saddam Hussein's mistakes. We have created a lot of new enemies there over the last 10 years. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Benjamin. Mostly I would like to echo or align myself with what General Scowcroft said. I would like to elaborate by saying it is very important as we go forward that we have our concepts and categories clear in our minds. There are countries that pose long term challenges that are problem countries that we need to deal with and there are problems that are existential that face us here and now. al-Qaeda is an existential problem. Were the United States to experience another terrorist attack along the lines of September 11th, it would have a devastating impact on morale in this country. Were al-Qaeda to pull off the kind of attack they have talked about, multiple attacks in the United States over a short period of time, it would really be incalculable the kind of effect it would have. We have policies for dealing with these three countries of varying suitability. We may want to finetune them, we may want to change some of them. The issue of regime change in Iraq is a very serious one that I believe is being debated in the country right now. Wherever we come out on those individual policies, I think we need to recognize those countries are in a different category from al-Qaeda. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Perle. Mr. Perle. Just to be clear about a point that has emerged, I yield to General Scowcroft's wisdom here. I am not suggesting that we strike out in some way against a long list of countries simultaneously. I think the right approach was to deal with first things first and that was the Taliban which turned Afghanistan into the world's largest facility for the nurturing, support, recruitment, training and dispatch of terrorists. We had to do that. In destroying the Taliban regime, we sent a message of great importance that if you allow your country to be used in this way, your regime is at risk. And I think others are now reconsidering whether it is in their interest to be hospitable to terrorists. Even Yemen is now asking what they can do to demonstrate that they really are not friendly to terrorists. So the direction is correct. I think Saddam will add, the removal of Saddam, and it is Saddam and not Iraq, the removal of Saddam will add significantly to the momentum of the anti- terrorist tide. So I think that's very important. I would finally just say that I agree entirely with Mr. Carr, what is going on in Iran today is very interesting. I am certainly not suggesting we launch military action against Iran. What we should be doing is encouraging the young people of Iran who are fed up with the miserable regime that dominates their lives. There are a variety of ways in which we could support and encourage them. I think there's a reasonable chance we will see a new and much more civilized regime in Iran. But I don't think the way to do it is to pretend that Khatami is going to prevail over the mullahs who are now running Iraq. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. I just wanted to clarify one related point, about the Afghan campaign, which I think this has been under- appreciated in the press and everywhere, I think. The revolutionary nature of what we've done in Afghanistan is to state to these regimes that we can now, we have found a way that we can remove your regime without punishing your population. That is the key to this whole campaign, because that's what brought the Afghan people onto our side, and that's what's made people like Saddam and the leaders of Iran and in Syria worried now. They suddenly realize that we no longer, they've been hiding behind their civilian populations for years, allowing us to punish civilians. They don't care what happens to their civilians. We end up punishing their civilians. We've now told them, we no longer have to punish your civilians. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, panelists, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you. We'll get another round. Mr. Putnam. Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to open with a question beginning with General Scowcroft, but throw it open to the entire panel. We face what I would characterize as the Saudi paradox. We have one of the more advanced economies of the Middle East, a tremendous supplier of the Nation's oil and home base for our troops in the region, versus this hotbed of militant Islam and home of the vast majority of the hijackers involved in the September 11th attacks. How do we deal with the Saudi government? What is the best posture for our future relationship with that nation? General Scowcroft. Thank you, Mr. Putnam. We have among our friends and allies some very complicated regimes. I think we need to look carefully and deal with them each one according to the character of its regime. The whole region of the Middle East is in a state of transition. If one looks at the growth rates of the region, one finds that despite the tremendous oil income, growth rates are very, very poor. The states of the region are having great difficulties grappling with representative democracy. And I think we need to encourage the evolution of these societies, both in terms of genuine market economies and in terms of participative democracies. But with due regard for their own cultural differences and with a pace at which they can sustain these changes. I think one of the fundamental problems that we face, and that encourages terrorism, is the fact of rapid change in the world, of globalization, in fact. In 1945, there were 51 members of the U.N. There are now 190 members of the U.N. Most of them are weak, poor, unable to cope with the forces around them, the forces of information technology and so on are swamping them. We need to figure out better ways to help countries make this adjustment. I don't know what they are. But I think the Saudi regime is one which has in a way made a deal with radical or fundamental Islam, that they can preach whatever they want as long as they don't act inside Saudi territory. That in the long run of course is a destructive bargain. And we ought to encourage the Saudis to look objective at their situation and to draw a conclusion from it. Mr. Perle. I certainly agree with what General Scowcroft has just said. For a number of years now, the Saudis have been funding pretty lavishly a network of institutions, religious, educational, foundations that have been preaching violence and hatred against the West and against the United States. If you do that year after year, and if thousands of people pass through those facilities, you will ultimately create a significant population of potential terrorists. That unfortunately is what has happened. In the Madrases in Pakistan, many of which are financed by the Saudis, these young men, boys, really, 17, 16, 18, enroll and they spend the next 4 to 5 years living on bread and water and getting 18 hours, 24 hours a day of the most violent, anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-non-Muslim indoctrination. They have no contact with women, virtually none with the outside world. By the time they leave those places, these are deformed personalities, capable of violence, indeed, intent on violence. They return to the countries from which they have come, which includes a significant fraction of the 190 members of the United Nations. They are time bombs in every one of their societies, waiting to explode. We had better understand that, and understand it now. And as a minimum, we must appeal to the Saudis and the other sources of funding to recognize that in the end they will be consumed by the flames that they have been feeding. But whether they accept that explanation or not, we should be using every instrument available to us to discourage the perpetuation of this massive training ground for potential terrorists. Mr. Benjamin. I agree with a great deal of what has been said. I think it's important to keep in mind, that the Saudi state has had something of a contradiction at its heart, it is dedicated to two goals. One is the Saudi royal family, or the flourishing and the future of the Saudi royal family, and the promulgation of Wahabbi Islam. Those two were going on, in a sense, in two very different channels. As a result, the authorities were not spending the time necessary, or had developed the regulatory apparatus necessary to monitor what was going on, which was the funneling of large amounts of money through state supported NGO's all over the world. As a result, we have the Al-Qaeda threat and we have radical Muslimism in many different countries. I think that most of the ruling authorities in Saudi Arabia have come to recognize that they have potentially sown the seeds for their own destruction. We need to encourage them to continue improving their oversight of these NGO's and of schools and the like within the kingdom as well. I think that one place where the United States has not done as well as it could have is in talking to the Saudis about what appears in their press and what appears in their textbooks. Both of these are a source of enormous radicalization, if you will. For many years, and quite understandably, we in the United States have made a sort of bargain with what we call the moderate Arab regimes in the region, and that is if they would support the Middle East peace process, we would not make too many noises about democratization and about incitement, the newspapers and what goes on in the schools. I think now we realize that we can no longer afford to shortchange the second set of issues, because what has been fanned is not just anti- Israel sentiment, bad as that might be, but anti-Western sentiment that ultimately poses the long term threat to a peaceful world. Mr. Putnam. Mr. Carr, you in your fourth principle of counterterrorism, emphasizing the ability to achieve surprise, you say that to achieve this goal we would be forced to forego legal niceties in order to effect the kind of surprise that permits greater discrimination in operations. Most of the discussion today has centered on the roots of terrorism, predominantly in the Middle East. But when you have terror cells in the homeland, which legal niceties would you recommend that we forego, and which would you say---- Mr. Carr. I would have to say that when we deal with domestic questions and international questions, we're dealing with two entirely different animals. I think that we saw and experienced this fall with the preliminary, what some people characterized as breach of constitutional rights, but which really was just experimentation with new methods of trying to secure a country in what was understandably an atmosphere of panic, I think we saw very quickly that most of the legal institutions domestically that are in place right now are sufficient to handle the greater part of the problem of terrorists within this country. And indeed, something that I've written quite a bit about is the notion of the fall roundup of anyone even suspected of involvement in terrorist cells undid a great deal of work that was done over the last 20 years by the FBI, a great deal of infiltration work, a great many terrorist cell operatives went to ground, a great many double agents had their cover blown by it. And we to date have exposed exactly zero cells in this country through that method. So I think that domestically, we're talking about a different animal. When I say not observing legal niceties, I'm talking about in the international realm. I think it's very important to make a distinction there. If I may just address your question for 1 second on Saudi Arabia, I think it continues to be one of the most fatuous pieces of diplomatic imagination to keep characterizing Saudi Arabia as a moderate Arab regime. Even a cursory examination of the history of the Islamic empires and kingdoms shows that Islamic fundamentalism has always come out of Saudi Arabia. They have always been engaged, Mr. Benjamin just mentioned the Wahabbi sect, which has existed for hundreds of years. They have always been at the center for this kind of philosophy, and they've always lied very well about it to a succession of antagonists, and most recently us. I think at the same time that there are complaints that the average Saudi, and indeed the average Muslim, has about our presence in Saudi Arabia that are very legitimate and require attention. The presence of U.S. soldiers so close to what is holy ground for all Muslims is a deeply troubling question that doesn't get enough attention, I feel, among American policymakers. Mr. Putnam. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you, gentlemen. I am thrilled you all are here, and I am thrilled that we've having this hearing. Because I've done a lot of thinking about the concepts that you all have done absolutely a tremendous amount of thinking about. I've tried to understand the impact. I basically think we are in a race with terrorists to shut them down before they use weapons of mass destruction. I believe it's not a question of if, it's a question of when, where and of what magnitude. I believe that the administration has to prepare the American people for the potential that weapons of mass destruction will be used in this country, so that if they happen, we can absorb them in a mature way, and also because it helps explain to people why we've made arrests, why we've had wire tapping, why we negated the attorney-client privilege, and why we made tribunals to not disclose sources and methods. But you did kind of jar me, Mr. Carr, because I had been a fan of the arrests, because I know we did it during the Gulf War, I know we did it during the millennium and I know we did it now. I always viewed it as putting the terrorists on defense rather than offense. You arrest someone in the cell, even if you don't know what cell they're a part of, and the rest of the cell has to hide. So don't you think if we hadn't made those arrests that we would be dealing with terrorist attacks today? Mr. Carr. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I find the motivation for the arrests extremely understandable. I have to judge by result. The administration itself is willing to admit, in the pages of Time Magazine, which I found rather extraordinary, that they've been able to crack exactly zero cells in the time that they've been making these arrests. Whereas, the policy before, we had a lot more progress. Mr. Shays. Well, but see you, believe what you read in the press. Mr. Carr. I believe Karen Hughes. Mr. Shays. But you know, I believe that the smartest thing they could say is they've made no progress. But I do think that it has put them on defense. Because the cell can't order them, if their members have been arrested, they go into hiding. That's kind of like a basic tenet. Now, how long we can stretch that out, but it has given us, I thought, a little breathing room. Any of you have a view? Mr. Benjamin, then we'll go to the General. Mr. Benjamin. We're in some ways uncharted territory in terms of dealing with a foreign terrorist in the United States. Because the evidence to date is that the perpetrators of September 11th never connected with the local infrastructure. This is what the FBI is telling us, they've conducted thousands of interviews, in addition to all the people who were detained. This is, to my mind, an enormously worrisome development. Mr. Shays. What is the worrisome development? Mr. Benjamin. That we had the operators, the 19, come into this country, live off the land and carry out their terrorist attacks without the support of an indigenous infrastructure, without there being any cells in place. That's a revolution in trade craft. And to carry out something like that suggests that the terrorists are a couple of steps ahead of our abilities when it comes to intelligence and law enforcement. Mr. Shays. Or it makes an assumption that the terrorists have been at war for 20 to 30 years and we just didn't know it. Has that base been in a university of terrorism, they've been practicing without our paying attention. Mr. Benjamin. This group has been practicing or thinking about these kinds of attacks for a decade. I think we know that from both the intelligence and the law enforcement records. This particular attack was of course something that no one had imagined before, and I don't think anyone really imagined it before the late 1990's. But I think that the critical fact here is that in an era of globalization, of open borders and the movement of people, ideas and capital, if they can come into our country and do that with that kind of ease, without being detected, we have an enormous amount of catching up to do in terms of our law enforcement techniques. Mr. Shays. General. General Scowcroft. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's dangerous to assume that our structures seem to be OK for operating domestically. I think it's instructive that on September 10th, we knew almost nothing about any of the people who were active on September 11th. By September 13th, we knew a great deal about them. The information was there, we didn't have it. And I think that's partly due to our structures. We have a handoff between the CIA and the FBI about when you cross the borders of the United States. Now, the FBI does a wonderful job in crime, in law enforcement. But law enforcement is not an intelligence operation. And these people existed in the United States for several years because they didn't do anything to bring them to the attention of the FBI. They didn't violate any laws, they didn't do anything which would make them a target for the FBI. An intelligence operative, on the other hand, looks for signs, looks for indications around and puts them together into a pattern which helps you anticipate what might happen. Law enforcement starts when something happens and backs up and says, who did it. I think we have a problem here that we have not dealt with adequately yet. Mr. Shays. I do not disagree with that. I think that's true. I believe, though, just based on the hearings we have had that if we had listened to what they said in Arabic, we would have been aware that we were under attack, that there were people designed to target the Twin Towers and so on, I mean, how they did it. I think that as we just simply take what has been on TV and in the Middle East, written documents, we would have known a heck of a lot. General Scowcroft. But that's not the job of the FBI. The job of the FBI is to enforce laws, primarily. Now, they've turned, their national security division is responsible for intelligence like that. But they're trained in law enforcement and they do not have the cast of mind that a CIA analyst, for example, would have. And that is a problem that, we need to fuse our collection domestically in a way that enables us to use the talents of intelligence analysts rather than law enforcement. Mr. Shays. Let me just start with you on the questions that I was going to begin. When Chairman Gilman and I were here during the Gulf War, we watched the President just begin to bring nations together. But my recollection is that in order for the administration to get this group of nations and group of members, Republicans and Democrats, to support the effort, there was basically a pledge that our effort was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, but not to go into Baghdad. And that there was in a sense an agreement that we would not go into Baghdad. Is my recollection correct? General Scowcroft. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. There was no--the mission given to the United States by the United Nations was to free Kuwait. There is no question about that. It did not go beyond that. But it did not certainly prescribe us going on to Baghdad. I think had we done so, there would have been a lot of consequences. Mr. Shays. I know that some members voted on the condition that we would not. In other words, they were going to support the effort of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. And the reason I'm asking the question is that I get a sense that this President is willing to make no agreement that in any way inhibits us from taking unilateral action if we need to. General Scowcroft. Well, let me just say, I don't know what was in the mind or even in some of the debate on the resolutions which passed authorizing all necessary means. But if you remember, I believe it passed the Senate by seven votes, even with the very narrow understanding of had the President said, I'll do what I want and whatever I want. That was one of the hardest struggles that I remember in the administration, was to get the votes in the Senate. Mr. Shays. I gave a very moving speech to me at 3:30 in the morning, to no one else, though. I remember being on the Floor because this was an issue that was deeply troubling for me, having not been in Vietnam and trying to sort this out, and voting with conviction that we needed to do it, by the time I voted, but listening to all the members. It was clearly a sense that we had an objective and we would achieve that objective and then we would get on with it. Mr. Perle, do you have anything to add to this issue? Mr. Perle. I think there clearly was a very substantial intelligence failure prior to September 11th. As General Scowcroft has observed, a great deal of information was available to us, it simply wasn't analyzed effectively, properly and in a timely fashion. And I'm not sure we've fixed that problem. With respect to 1991, my own view is that we should have continued a little longer. I don't think it was necessary to go to Baghdad. I think it was necessary to destroy the Republican Guard as a cohesive military unit. My recollection is we had a significant element of the Republican Guard in such a position that had we chosen to do so, they would have been forced either to abandon their mechanized forces and walk back to Baghdad, or we could have destroyed them, and we chose not to do so. I think one of the reasons is that we wrongly assumed that Saddam Hussein couldn't survive the defeat that had been inflicted on him. Hindsight has some benefits. I don't know how General Scowcroft feels, but I know others who were involved at the time, had they known that Saddam would be here in 2002, might well have been willing at least to exert that additional pressure on the Republican Guard. Mr. Shays. Before I recognize Mr. Gilman, I want you to speak to the concept of multilateral versus unilateral, any of you. I want to know should we always preserve the ability to act unilaterally and do you anticipate that we will have to? General Scowcroft. My general rule would be act multilaterally whenever you can, act unilaterally when you must. That is not a sharp dividing line. Our friends will understand if sometimes we have to do things that they are not in full accord with but we don't want to have to operate in a world which is generally hostile to the United States in anything it does because we act with arrogance and unilateralism and pay no attention to our friends. It was a pain in the neck to have 31 coalition members assembled for the Gulf War that we had to care for, feed, so on and so forth. Was it worth it? I think it was highly worth it because for the time we needed, we had a very effective coalition. Could we have held it together a long time? I don't know but there are benefits to multilateralism that with the exception of a few cases, are worth the restrictions on the freedom of action over the long run. Mr. Shays. Your definition is helpful to me. Mr. Perle. Mr. Perle. I certainly agree that wherever we can act in concert with friends and allies, we should. We must be prepared to act alone or we will never be able to form coalitions for the purposes we intend. Coalitions are a means to an end, they are not an end in themselves. Mr. Shays. Is the implication in your answer that if they know we are going to act unilaterally, we might get multilateral cooperation? Mr. Perle. I think we are more likely to get multilateral cooperation, particularly where others believe if we act unilaterally, that could be worse for them than if they collaborate with us. So in a sense it is a matter of exerting leverage on potential partners. At the end of the day, there are two driving factors you mustn't forget. One is their interests are never going to be identical to ours. They may be similar, they may be very close but they are not identical. The citizens of Rotterdam are not threatened in quite the way the citizens of New York are threatened today. So other governments are going to react differently, particularly in their willingness to accept risks because even if their willingness to take risk is identical to ours, if the threat is less, then their actual behavior is going to be less forward leaning, if I can put it that way. There is a second difference and it is a very troubling one, and it is getting worse. That is as American military capabilities improve, and they are improving dramatically and we have seen only the beginning. Mr. Carr was right to refer to our ability with great precision to target only the things we wish to destroy, something we have never been able to do in the history of warfare, never been able to see the battlefield clearly enough, much less confine lethal effects to very precise targets with a real economy in force. As our ability to do that grows, and it is growing daily, and that of our allies doesn't, our ability to fight alongside one another when it comes to military action, is very limited. Even now we can conduct air operations with minimal risk to our pilots because we have stealthy aircraft. Some of our allies don't. If they fly over the same battlefield, they have a much higher risk of being shot down than we do. So this gap in military capabilities is ultimately a real challenge to our ability to maintain coalitions when it comes to military action. Mr. Shays. I want to get to Mr. Gilman, but I would like both you, Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Carr, to respond. Mr. Benjamin. The points that have been made are very good ones and interoperability, for example, is a growing problem in U.S./Allied military cooperation. We have looked thus far at the question of multilateral strictly or primarily through a military lens. I think one thing we need to keep in mind when we are dealing with terrorism is that military considerations are not the only ones. The coalition that was built to liberate Kuwait was built primarily I believe, and General Scowcroft can correct me if I am wrong, to confer as much possible legitimacy on the operation as possible. That is a very important matter but when we talk about building coalitions for combatting terrorism, we are also talking about the safety of Americans because if the terrorists continue to base themselves with impunity in continental Europe or in London, which is really the capital of Jihad today outside of Afghanistan, then Americans are not going to be safe because they can have access to our country from there. If they can use European banking systems without there being adequate surveillance, Americans are not going to be safe. It is very important that we work on building these coalitions. I think it is also important that America invest the time and effort to make it clear that the citizens of Rotterdam are threatened, if not as immediately as those of New York right now, they will be over the long term because the west is the enemy as far as al-Qaeda is concerned and as America becomes more difficult to attack, Europe will become a riper target. Mr. Shays. Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. I think I can use, as I think I should in my role here, historical examples that we have been discussing, I think with a comparative acting unilaterally with a comparative handful of tactical aircraft, the Reagan administration was able to produce a more profoundly inhibiting effect on Muammar Qaddafi than was produced on Saddam Hussein with an armada and an expeditionary force. I think there is a central flaw in a lot of alliance politics with these kind of military actions in that we refuse, to the public, I don't know what went on behind closed doors, but the public was not made aware during the Gulf War of who exactly the enemy was. We were told we were against the invasion of Kuwait but you can't really go to war with an action, you have to go to war with either a people or a leader. We were told we were not at war with the Iraqi people but we don't go to war with particular leaders. That didn't leave anything except an action. We needed to be told that we were at war with Saddam Hussein. If we had gone on that basis, I believe we could have achieved something closer to what we achieved in Libya in 1986. Mr. Shays. General Scowcroft. General Scowcroft. Just a short comment. What we achieved in 1986 was hardly as wholesale as Mr. Carr suggests. In 1988, Pan Am 103 was perpetrated by Qaddafi. Mr. Carr. It was perpetrated by Libyans and we don't know exactly. General Scowcroft knows far more than I do. Mr. Shays. Are you going to defer to his wisdom like Mr. Perle has? Mr. Carr. It was perpetrated by Libyans, we know. Mr. Shays. I think one of the phrases that will ring in my ear, I am going to teach my daughter, defer Mr. Perle to Mr. Scowcroft's wisdom, so I will teach my daughter to defer to my wisdom. Good luck. Mr. Perle. It doesn't work with offspring. [Laughter.] Mr. Shays. Mr. Gilman, thank you for your patience. Mr. Gilman. One last issue. General Scowcroft pointed out the problems of not having adequate intelligence or quality intelligence. The Afghanistan attack I think focused on the need for better human intelligence. Have we cured that? What more should we be doing to get better quality intelligence? We have so many nations out there harboring terrorists, exporting terrorists, exporting arms and finances to terrorist organizations. What should we be doing to improve our intelligence basis if we are going to contain all of this? General Scowcroft. I think first of all, we need to significantly rebuild our human intelligence capabilities within the CIA. They have been attacked and let erode for a long, long time. Indeed, in many respects, people said that is an activity that has passed. It has not passed, it is extremely important in our ability to get inside these terrorist networks. It won't be done quickly though. It is long and it is hard and we have to have patience and we have to be prepared to do things and work with people that perhaps are less savory than Mr. Carr suggests we always ought to deal with. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Perle, what are your thoughts about what we should be doing with the intelligence? Mr. Perle. I believe that we could have done better with greater focus. Richard Reed managed to do his time in Afghanistan and so did the young American, I have forgotten his name. You could as well have inserted an American who was in fact working for us. I don't want to be cavalier in the criticism but I think it was a lack of focus, frankly. I think it was a failure to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. I am afraid the sad truth is until September 11th, as a Nation, we believed that the investment we were making in combatting terror, the money, the organization, the inconvenience we accepted on our own citizens, was about appropriate to the magnitude of the threat. That is the only way you can interpret a policy which had existed for many years. Now we know that we gravely underestimated how much damage could be done and in retrospect, it looks as though we should have done a great deal more before September 11th but we were content with what we were doing at that time by and large and did not believe it was necessary to take more aggressive, more costly, more intrusive action. I debated this issue and if there is any interest, we can insert it in the record, with Stansfield Turner almost 5 years ago and the topic was, should we do more, should we be more willing to use military force to combat terrorism? He was dead set against it. He thought what we were doing was about right and he had some years of running the CIA. I think that was the prevailing attitude in the intelligence community. The number of people at the CIA who were working on counterterrorism is probably a classified number but you would be shocked at how small it was before September 11th. Mr. Shays. We will insert that for the record. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6195.074 Mr. Gilman. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Benjamin. We undoubtedly need to improve our human intelligence capabilities. I think as we do it, we need to keep a couple of things in mind. One is that although there was one lost American in al-Qaeda in the Taliban, I don't think it would have been that hard to get someone into the Taliban but it certainly is very, very difficult to get someone into al- Qaeda. There is a difference between spying on religiously motivated groups and spying on governments which is what we have very good experience at doing. Governments have buildings, ordinary people who can be bought, who may have ideological sympathies with us, who have any number of reasons for wanting to cooperate with us. People who are motivated by a belief that the United States is waging war against their religion are not likely to be as easily acquired as assets. So this going to be very difficult and in this regard, the Israeli experience is very relevant. Hamas has been there for 15 years and they have had a terrible record of penetration. It is just very difficult to do. It is not going to be easy. That means in addition, we have to compensate by serious investment in upgrading our signals intelligence because the modes of communications are constantly exploding. We now have throwaway cell phones that are very hard to track and that means a lot of money and a lot of innovation is going to have to go into all of this. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. I would say three simple words in addition to improving things, stop rewarding failure. I was very distressed after September 11th at the great deal of talk that there was about throwing a lot more money at places like the Central Intelligence Agency since they had managed to overlook warning signals that were quite plain and easily accessible even to common researchers like myself. We had warnings. Mr. Perle, I think, sells himself a bit short in not recognizing how long ago he was aware of the direct possibility of a threat to the domestic United States, I know Secretary Rumsfeld, who I have had the opportunity to talk to, was aware very early on. Our intelligence agencies seems to have had a concerted determination to give secondary importance to terrorism. So long as we keep throwing money at people who think that way, I think you have to look at who brings in the job. It is like contractors, who brings in the job well done and make them the recipients of funds. The CIA has fallen down. This is the latest in a series of major failures starting with, for me on this level, the Berlin blockade in 1948 that they failed to predict and the invasion of North Korea. I cannot see continually rewarding them for doing badly. Mr. Gilman. I want to thank are panelists again for your astute analysis today. You have given us a lot of food for thought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. I just have a few more questions myself and we will let you get on your way. Is it important that we have a definition of terrorism? Mr. Perle. Could I say I think there is a definition that almost everyone of good will would recognize. It is not as elegant as Mr. Carr's definition but it is roughly terrorism is the killing or the attacking of civilians to achieve a political purpose. I think Mr. Carr said it more elegantly, but everyone understands that is what terrorism is. People who want to debate that really want to protect some terrorist activity because they associate themselves with the political objective. Mr. Shays. Do you all have 15 more minutes? Let me go to Mr. Putnam and then I am going to finish up. Mr. Putnam. I will ask one more question beginning with General Scowcroft. Under the Hart-Rudman Commission, which exhaustively reviewed a number of these threats, they identified the task of managing resentment of being one of the great challenges of this decade that some of the demographic and sociological factors you pointed out in the last round, General, this breeding ground of unrest among the youth, limited economic opportunities, have fostered a hostile attitude toward the United States, some of it perhaps justified and some of it not. How do we wage this two front war both in eradicating terrorism with a global reach and reinforcing to the civilians through our economic and diplomatic policies that we are a benevolent power and that we are not out to create a hegemonic force of American culture? That is kind of like asking you to solve the Middle East crisis in 25 words of less. General Scowcroft. That is a really tough one. To me that is the essence of leadership. That goes to the question of the chairman about unilateralism versus multilateralism. We need to act whenever we can in such a way that people want to emulate us, that they want to associate with us, that they want to support us. That is not always possible but to the extent that we can behave that way, then that truly is the way we try to behave, we don't seek any territory, we don't seek hegemony. Indeed, we would prefer to be left alone but to the extent that we can be an attractive world power, we will have succeeded. Mr. Perle. Mr. Putnam, I am not at all sure that we will ever achieve the goal of persuading everyone that we are a benign force in the world. I don't think there is any question that we are and anyone who looks at us objectively, I think will come to that conclusion. We are not perfect, but we are a benign force in the world. I think it is a mistake to believe that we have to do that in order to cope effectively with terrorism. What seems to be more important is to focus on what sadly is the most intense source of terrorism today and the foreseeable future and that is radical Islam. We are not being attacked by Latin Americans, broadly speaking we are not being attacked by South Asians. We are being attacked by people who hold a view of the world that is by and large indifferent to the facts, indifferent to the reality. Indeed, when they understand us best, they seem to be most motivated. Some of the people involved in September 11th lived in this country. They were under no misapprehension about how we treat our neighbors, about what kind of a society we are but they came to this country intent on doing damage and by the time they arrived, there was no potential to convert them by persuasion. I think we have to turn unfortunately to the poisonous infrastructure that has been developed that creates people who hate our way of life. It has very little to do with our actual behavior. Mr. Benjamin. You have asked the $64,000 question and we could spend months talking about it. We will never convince everyone of our good character and benign intentions. We are condemned to fight this kind of hatred I think for a generation to come. I think one of our chief goals, however, should be to limit the pool of potential recruits to this kind of terrorism. The demographic outlook at that we face is horrifying, the highest population growth rates in the world are in the Arab world and at the same time, the worst economic growth rates, worse than even sub-Saharan Africa, and this is not going to be solved easily. Two things I do think need to be done, one which the administration has begun to step forward on is recognition that our assistance levels need to come back up and we need to invest where we can to show America's desire to be a positive influence in the region. The other is one of the problems in Islam today is that there are very few scholars who are considered to be respected if they are supported by the government. As a result, that has opened up a lot of room for radical clergy to preach this kind of hatred. There are more moderate clergy out there and I think we should speak with our interlocutors in other countries and in this country as well and do what we can to support them so that it does not become the hard and fast doctrine that a suicide bomb is an act that glorifies God. Mr. Perle. I don't think there is any correlation at all between how much we spend on foreign assistance and the pool of potential terrorists in the world. For one thing, we don't spend the aid very well. We have a very difficult time figuring out how to turn aid dollars into real progress for the societies on which we confer it and often it actually sets them back by creating dependency. I hope we don't go down the path of throwing a lot of money at ill-conceived aid programs because we have some idea that is going to help us deal with terrorism. It isn't. Mr. Putnam. Let us get Mr. Carr. Mr. Benjamin. Very quickly. Clearly there are different philosophies at work here. I am not saying that aid is a panacea but it did turn South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and any number of other countries into thriving democracies with a lot of prospects for contributing to a globalized world. We need to reinvent aid and we need to do that sort of thing from time to time with a lot of our programs that deal with the rest of the world. I see indifference as really the enemy here, not just what we have to deal with in looking out at a vast expanse and saying we can't do anything. Mr. Putnam. Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. I guess I would agree with elements of both of the last two remarks. I am not sure the amount of aid is the question. I think it is more the attitude of the aid and picking which country it can be effective in. Your examples of where aid does a good job are well taken but in Somali, we saw exactly what happens to aid that is badly used. Our food aid was used effectively as a weapon for deliberate starvation. So it is really not a question of how much aid, it is how a question of how it is used and that leads to attitude and that gets me back to things like the stationing of troops in sensitive places in the Islamic world. We don't take that seriously enough. Part of the reason al-Qaeda is so attractive throughout the Muslim world is because that is one of their central issues. A lot of muslims take that very serious. Mr. Putnam. Didn't the Saudis have some role in selecting where we built that base? Mr. Carr. That leads back also to my remarks about the Saudi Government. I don't think we should be dealing with them as if they are telling us the truth by any means. One thing I also wanted to say to return to the Afghanistan campaign, we have also seen in this campaign in addition to the military advances, a way to reach the civilian population. When Secretary Rumsfeld and his people deliberately designed a campaign that showed respect for the civilian population of the country in which we were going into action, that had an enormous effect that we are continuing to feel right now in that we are still welcome there and they want us to stay there. That is not something that has happened in a very long time. Military action is not precluded by attitude. Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Mr. Shays. Thank you for your good questions and very interesting answers. When our embassy employees were taken in Iran, we had day one, day two and it was really a country held hostage. In my own simple mind, I thought if Hitler had taken prisoners, we wouldn't consider them hostages, we would consider them prisoners and we wouldn't have allowed Hitler to hold us hostage. When Iran didn't like the coverage of western news people, he kicked them out and the western news stopped reporting day one, two and three or maybe day 300. So the Iranians invited our western news people back in to report and again, we seemed to be held hostage. I like the fact that when President Reagan took office, he basically said in so many words, this is an act of war an we are going to deal with Iran accordingly and we got our people back. What I have been wrestling with is the whole concept of are there good terrorists and bad terrorists? This gets to the issue of Arafat. In my simple mind, my mind is saying to me we know he has funded terrorist activities, we know the PLO was responsible for the 50 tons of material from Iran, we know Iran has funded Hamas, etc. We know what they have been teaching their kids in school, etc. That is a long lead-in to the question of--that is why I was interested in the definition and General Scowcroft shook your head but when I asked was a definition of terrorism helpful or important, Mr. Perle, you gave us Carl light and it was basically not as elegant as you said. You shook your head so for the record, General Scowcroft, you don't believe we need to have a definition? General Scowcroft. No, I agree with Mr. Perle that we have a generally understood definition of terrorism. I think if we get into legalism and say this is and this isn't, we get into a morass we can't get out of. Mr. Shays. I misread you. A definition is not unimportant. General Scowcroft. I wouldn't pursue it now. Mr. Shays. Just as I believe these aren't criminal acts, they are acts of terror, they are acts of war. In other words, we can get into big battles of try someone for acts of terrorism as if they were criminal acts and we will be in the courts for 20 years. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I am getting a little off field here. What I am wanting to do though is say I feel Arafat is in fact a terrorist. I feel what we need to do is say very simply, until the bombing stops, there can be no dialog with you, until you stop teaching your kids to hate Jews and the western world and preach it and until you stop funding these terrorist activities, we can't interact with you. Maybe we can't ever interact if I consider him a terrorist. Help me sort out this one. How do we decide good terrorists and bad terrorists? General Scowcroft. I am not sure I can sort it out but Mr. Carr had a wonderful definition of terrorism and I wrote down the United States is terrorist because of the Dresden bombing in World War II. There isn't any question about it according to his definition. I think we have to be flexible and I don't think we ought to be legalistic. Our goal in terrorism is not whether we try somebody according to criminal law or terrorist law. Trying individuals is not the goal, wiping out terrorism is the goal. I think when we get too legalistic about it, we will trip over our own legalisms. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Perle. Mr. Perle. At the risk of validating the criticism of Chris Patten and Foreign Minister Vetrine being simplistic, I think this is a case where a simple formula consistently applied is the only way we can expect to take and hold an essential moral high ground. Terrorism is the attack on civilians to achieve a political purpose. That is true whether you are sympathetic with the purpose or not. Most of the time I think we tend not to be sympathetic with the purposes of groups who apply violence to civilian populations. In that regard, I agree with you that Yasser Arafat's organization has been behaving as a terrorist organization and I think we ought to be very clear about that. It may be diplomatically inconvenient at one moment or another but when we start making excuses for diplomatic convenience, I think we are on very precarious ground. If I could add one small suggestion to that, Yasser Arafat's organization, the Palestinian Authority has received I think now something on the order of $2-$3 billion in recent years from the anti-simplistic French and other members of the European Union. The European Union has been writing checks for Yasser Arafat and to the best of my knowledge has never made one Euro of that contingent upon an end to suicidal bombing or even the verbal renunciation of suicidal bombing. I think it is a disgrace. I think the Europeans have been aiding and abetting terrorism by continuing to fund the Palestinian Authority without ever demanding their support be tied to a cessation of that sort of terrorism. Mr. Shays. Mr. Benjamin, do you want to jump in? Mr. Benjamin. Just quickly. On definition, there is a perfectly workable definition that is not as elegant as Mr. Carr's in the Federal Code about use of violence to advance political ends. I think it works fine. General Scowcroft is right, if we open the floor for a lengthy debate on what is terrorism and what isn't, we will find ourselves confronted with 180 countries that all have their own carve-out that they want to achieve on some particular grievance for which if someone were to use violence, it would be OK. I think the United States actually has been consistent and really impressively so when the MEK, the group that opposes the Iranian regime, had carried out attacks against Iran, we have condemned them. When there was an attack if you can believe it, several years ago, against Mullah Omar, of unknown authorship, probably Iranian, we condemned it, because we condemn terrorism. So I think that is an important stance to maintain. At the same time, we do need to have flexibility of mind, because at the end of the day, there are terrorists who need to be put out of business, and there are people who they may need to make diplomatic arrangements with once they have given up terror. Mr. Shays. Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr. Well, I'm obviously going to say, because I've written a book on it, copies of which have been supplied to your subcommittee, but I gather haven't arrived in your hands yet, since I've written a whole book on why we absolutely need a definition of terrorism, the one that I gave to you. I think for the last century, exactly what we've had is 180 voices saying that their version wasn't terrorism, and that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that underlines the point that we need an absolutely binding and specific definition of terrorism in the international community. Without it, we have what we've had for the last century, every side can claim that they aren't terrorists and everybody else is. General Scowcroft is right, the strategic bombing of Germany in the Second World War did amount to terrorism. And like all terrorism, it was completely counterproductive. It led to a rise in German industrial production and a rise in the German armed forces. It never should have been undertaken. It made the job of winning the Second World War harder. We need this definition badly. Mr. Shays. President Bush has said, you're either with us or against us. I saw him do it even at a very enjoyable St. Patrick's Day celebration with the prime minister of Ireland. Then there was some reference to the IRA. Obviously the time that some had with Colombia and the narcotics trade and the terrorists in Colombia. I thought it was significant that he was using his time to even tell a great friend, you're either with us or against us. It was said. And I'm going to start with you, Mr. Carr, because we've ended up with you each time. But it strikes me that this is a helpful thing to do. And I'd be curious to know what each of you think. And then I'm just going to close with one last question. Mr. Carr. Speaking of making his point to friends as well as enemies, I think it's vitally important. Your point about Arafat is very well taken. However, we had Arafat a great deal more on the ropes a month ago than we do right now, thanks to the actions of the Israeli defense forces, which also in the last few weeks on many occasions amount to terrorism. We need to make that point very strongly to the Israelis, that actions which are undertaken knowing that they will result in innocent civilian deaths amount to terrorism as well. And we should have been much stronger. And we've hurt our diplomatic position. A lot of the diplomatic advantage we gained as a result of Afghanistan we've lost because we did not stand up to Israel fast enough and what they were doing on the West Bank. Mr. Shays. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Benjamin. I think the phrase are you with us or are you against us is---- Mr. Shays. No, you either are with us or against us. Mr. Benjamin [continuing]. Is a useful phrase and a catchy one. I think that we need to beware of ever harnessing our entire foreign policy to one principle. In the past, that has, I think, led us astray. I think the greatest virtue of a great statesman is his flexibility of mind. And I think that it is useful, but we should never go on auto-pilot. Mr. Shays. No formulas. Mr. Perle. I think if you say you are with us or you are against us, we will find there will be many more people with us than if we don't say it. So I think it's very blunt, it's very direct, it's one of the great virtues of this President that he has abandoned some of the obscurances, conventions of our normal diplomacy. And I think it's going to produce results. Would you forgive me if I just said that I don't want the record to leave uncontested Mr. Carr's assertion of Israeli terrorism. I don't know what he's referring to. To the best of my knowledge, the Israelis have gone to enormous lengths to be as precise as they can in the way they've conducted military operations in the West Bank. They have gone into communities that might more readily have been bombed in order to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. There will certainly be civilian casualties, but I think the numbers are modest, and I think the Israelis deserve enormous credit for the risks they've taken, and even some of the losses they've taken, in order to be as discriminating as possible in going after a terrorist infrastructure that has just become an intolerable threat to everyday life in Israel. I'll end with that. Gen Scowcroft. I don't mind the phrase, I'm not sure what the practical significance is, other than that I think everyone ought to be against terrorism in principle. And I think we focus on that statement of the President more than we focus on his statement that we're going after terrorism with a global reach. It seems to me that is at least as important a statement that the President made, and it focuses our attention where it needs to be focused. Mr. Shays. I'll tell you what it said to me. It said, to a country like Yemen that was on both sides of the equation, they had to make a choice. They couldn't be right down the middle. It said to me that ultimately, Saudi Arabia has to sort out its equivocating back and forth, and that's obviously going to be a bigger decision for Saudi Arabia. But in Yemen, they've decided to be with us. They've invited us in. And it seems to me, the gist of the determination on the part of the President, is that he is going to carry this out and he is going to--I mean, he has given examples where he said, elected government officials would come in, and they've said, we want to help you, and he's brought out some of the intelligence people to show these country leaders what is happening in their own country. And then he's said, you're either with us or against us here, and they've said to him, well, help us clean it up. Yemen in particular, but that's an example. So that's kind of how I'm reacting to your comment. I would end with your comment in which Mr. Perle said, I want to yield to General Scowcroft's wisdom, and that was the issue of not taking on too many enemies. You seem to define terrorism as global and regional. I would agree, I feel foolish saying I would agree as if I'm some expert here. But I will react to it and say to you that an analogy I had was the prosecutor in Connecticut learned that all of New Britain, police and fire, the only way they became officers and moved up the ladder was a pay off, every one of them. But they only went after one or two. He told me, if he turned over every stone, they're already united against him, and his investigation would have stopped and his prosecution would have stopped. So he did one or two or three, and then others knew he was coming. Then they came to him to tell him before he went after them and exposed things to him and so on. So if you are saying in essence that we can't turn over too many stones at once, I feel very comfortable with your comment. If in the end you're saying that there won't be a day of reckoning for even some of the regional terrorism, I wonder if we ultimately are going to succeed. I'd like for you to react to it. General Scowcroft. I think it's principally a matter of priorities. I think we have a start on Al Quaeda. I think if we really are, really succeed on Al Quaeda, and I think if we stick to it, we can, it will have a salutary effect on a lot of regional terrorism. It won't eradicate all of them. But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of regional kinds of terrorism. And if we declare wholesale war and active opposition to all of them at once, we're not going to get rid of any of them. That's what I worry about. Mr. Shays. Fair enough. Do any of you wish we had asked a question that you were prepared to answer that you want to put on the record? Any closing comments that any of you would like to make? This has been a really enjoyable hearing for me. I thank each of you for participating. I know with four people it requires a little more patience on your part. But thank you all very much. You really provided a very interesting and helpful afternoon. Thank you. With this, the hearing is closed. [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]