[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 26 (Monday, July 2, 2007)]
[Pages 872-883]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the Naval War College and a Question-and-Answer Session in 
Newport, Rhode Island

June 28, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm 
welcome. Thanks, Governor; appreciate you--go find a nice seat. 
[Laughter] I am really pleased to be among the best and brightest of the 
United States military. I am pleased to be with many here who represent 
nations from around the world. Thanks for coming by. [Laughter] Those 
who go to school here are at a great place. We actually have some things 
in common. We went to school in New England. [Laughter] We pursued 
advanced degrees. And we compiled outstanding academic records--
[laughter]--well, two out of three. [Laughter]
    The Naval War College is where the United States military does some 
of its finest thinking. You help the Navy define its mission. You 
support its combat readiness. You strengthen our maritime security 
cooperation with other countries. You train our officers to think 
strategically. And that's important. The United States Navy is one of 
the most professional and advanced navies in--the world has ever seen, 
and the men and women of the Naval War College are working to keep it 
that way, and I appreciate your work.
    More than a century ago, the president of this college wrote a book 
called ``The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.'' The book was read by 
Theodore Roosevelt. It affected American strategic thinking for decades 
to come. Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against violent 
Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against 
murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people 
that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. 
The stakes are high, and once again, we have to change our strategic 
thinking.
    The major battleground in this war is Iraq. And this morning I'm 
going to give you an update on the strategy we're pursuing in Iraq. I'll 
outline some of the indicators that will tell us if we're succeeding. 
And I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and visit with you.
    I appreciate the Governor of this great State and his wife, Sue. I'm 
proud to call you friend, and thank you very much for your 
thoughtfulness today. The Governor gave me a helicopter tour of this 
beautiful part of the world. The tall ships were magnificent.
    Rear Admiral Shuford and his wife, Cathy, thanks, as well, for being 
in the military; thanks for leading; and thanks for inviting me here. I 
appreciate Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, commander, Naval Undersea Warfare 
Center. I thank my friends, Governors who have joined us: Governor Jodi 
Rell, Governor Mark Sanford, Governor Matt Blunt. One day we'll all be 
members of the ex-Governors club. [Laughter] Later, rather than sooner, 
in your case. [Laughter] I appreciate all the other State and local 
officials, the students here, the faculty here, and the alumni here. 
Thanks for coming.
    Earlier this year, I laid out a new strategy for Iraq. I wasn't 
pleased with what was taking place on the ground. I didn't approve of 
what I was seeing. And so I called together our military and said, can 
we design a different strategy to succeed? And I accepted their 
recommendations. And this new strategy is different from the one we were 
pursuing before. It is being led by a new commander, General David 
Petraeus, and a new ambassador, Ryan Crocker. It recognizes that our top 
priority must be to help the Iraqi Government and its security forces 
protect their population from attack, especially in Baghdad, the 
capital. It's a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it 
out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation, 
to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds 
the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.
    And it's in our interests, it's in our national interests to help 
them succeed. America has sent reinforcements to help the Iraqis secure 
their population. In other words, one of the decisions I had to make 
was, what should our troop levels be? I asked the military what they 
thought the troop levels ought to be.

[[Page 873]]

That's what you expect from your Commander in Chief, to consult closely 
with the United States military in times of war. They made 
recommendations, and I sent the reinforcements in to help the Iraqis 
secure their population, to go after terrorists, insurgents, and 
militias that incite sectarian violence, and to help get this capital of 
Iraq under control.
    The last of the reinforcements arrived in Iraq earlier this month, 
and the full surge has begun. One of our top commanders, Ray Odierno, 
puts it this way: ``We are beyond a surge of forces, and we're now into 
a surge of operations.'' Today I am going to give you an update on how 
these operations are proceeding. I'll talk about the progress and 
challenges regarding reconciliation at both the national and local 
levels. And I'm going to outline some of the criterion we will be using 
to tell us if we are succeeding.
    Let me begin with Anbar Province. You can see here on the map, Anbar 
is a largely Sunni Province that accounts for nearly a third of Iraqi 
territory. It's a big place. Anbar stretches from the outskirts of 
Baghdad to Iraq's borders with Jordan and Syria. It was Al Qaida's chief 
base of operations in Iraq. Remember, when I mention Al Qaida, they're 
the ones who attacked the United States of America and killed nearly 
3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. They're part of the enemy. 
They're extremists and radicals who try to impose their view on the 
world.
    According to a captured document--in other words, according to 
something that we captured from Al Qaida--they had hoped to set up its--
a government in Anbar. And that would have brought them closer to their 
stated objective of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical 
Islamic empire, and having a safe haven from which to launch attacks on 
Americans at home and abroad. This is what the enemy said. And I think 
it is vital that the United States of America listen closely to what the 
enemy says.
    Last September, Anbar was all over the news. It was held up as an 
example of America's failure in Iraq. The papers cited a leaked 
intelligence report that was pessimistic about our prospects there. One 
columnist summed it up this way: ``The war is over in Anbar Province, 
and the United States lost.''
    About the same time some folks were writing off Anbar, our troops 
were methodically clearing Anbar's capital city of Ramadi of terrorists 
and winning the trust of the local population. In parallel with these 
efforts, a group of tribal sheiks launched a movement called ``The 
Awakening'' and began cooperating with American and Iraqi forces. These 
sheiks, these leaders were tired of murder and tired of mayhem that Al 
Qaida had brought to their towns and communities. They knew exactly who 
these folks were.
    To capitalize on the opportunity, I sent more marines into Anbar. 
And gradually, they have been helping the locals take back their 
Province from Al Qaida.
    These operations are showing good results. Our forces are going into 
parts of Anbar where they couldn't operate before. With the help of 
Iraqi and coalition forces, local Sunni tribes have driven Al Qaida from 
most of Ramadi. Attacks there are now down to a 2-year low. Recruiting 
of Iraqi police forces now draws thousands of candidates, compared to a 
few hundred just a few months ago. This month, Anbar opened its first 
police academy. And as the slide shows, overall attacks in Anbar are 
sharply down from this time last year.
    Despite successes, Anbar Province remains a dangerous place. Why? 
Because Al Qaida wants their base of operations back; it's working to 
assassinate sheiks and intimidate the local population. We've got to 
prepare ourselves for more violence and more setbacks. But a Province 
that had been written off as hopeless now enjoys a level of peace and 
stability that was unimaginable only a few months ago.
    We are hoping to replicate the success we have had in Anbar in other 
parts of Iraq, especially in areas in and around Baghdad. In the months 
since I announced our new strategy, we have had--we've been moving 
reinforcements into key Baghdad neighborhoods and the areas around the 
capital to help secure the population. I told you what the mission was, 
and that's what we're doing. Now we have launched a wider offensive 
called Operation Phantom Thunder, which is taking the fight to the enemy 
in the capital as well as its surrounding regions. This operation 
focuses on defeating Al Qaida terrorists, the

[[Page 874]]

insurgents, and militias, denying the extremists safe havens, and 
breaking up their logistics, supply, and communications.
    This map shows Baghdad and its surrounding areas. In January, I 
explained that 80 percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 
miles of the capital. Although some of the violence that plagues Baghdad 
is homegrown, a good part of it originates from terrorists operating in 
the surrounding areas. If we can clear these strongholds of Al Qaida and 
death squads, we can improve life for the citizens of the areas and 
inhibit the enemy's ability to strike within the capital. And this is 
what Phantom Thunder is designed to do.
    I am going to describe some of the operations that are unfolding in 
different areas around the capital.
    To the north of Baghdad, our forces have surged into Diyala 
Province. The primary focus is the Provincial capital of Baqubah, which 
is just an hour's car ride from Baghdad. There, masked gunmen enforce 
their brutal rule with prisons and torture chambers and punish crimes 
like smoking.
    In one building, our forces discovered a medical facility for the 
terrorists that tells us the enemy was preparing itself for a sustained 
and deadly fight. They had burrowed in. There was no resistance. They 
were trying to export their violence to the capital. Iraqi and American 
troops are now fighting block by block. The colonel leading the assault 
says, ``We have denied Al Qaida a major bastion.'' The city is cleared. 
The challenge, of course, is going to be for coalition and Iraqi forces 
to keep it that way. But we're making progress in Operation Phantom 
Thunder.
    To the southeast of Baghdad, we are going after Al Qaida in safe 
havens they established along the Tigris River. These safe havens 
include areas like Salman Pak and Arab Jabour--areas well known for 
sending car bombs and truck bombs into Baghdad. Extremists in many of 
these areas are being confronted by U.S. and Iraqi forces for the first 
time in 3 years. We can expect determined resistance. They don't like to 
be confronted. But General Petraeus says, ``In order to accomplish the 
mission, we're going to confront them with the finest military ever 
assembled on the face of the Earth.'' That's the U.S. military. Our 
forces are determined, and we're going to take those safe havens away 
from Al Qaida and the extremists.
    To the west and northwest of Baghdad, Operation Phantom Thunder is 
going after Al Qaida's remaining outposts in Anbar. We're taking the 
fight to areas around Karmah; it's a known transit point for Al Qaida 
fighters. One example of what we are now seeing--U.S. and Iraqi forces 
in Fallujah seized 25,000 gallons of nitric acid, a critical ingredient 
for car bombs and truck bombs. The deputy commander of U.S. forces west 
of Baghdad says, ``We have largely succeeded in driving the terrorists 
out of Anbar's population centers.'' He says, ``The surge has given us 
the troops we needed to really clear up those areas, so we cleared them, 
and we stayed.''
    Within Baghdad itself, the surge of forces has allowed us to 
establish a presence in areas where the terrorists and insurgents had 
embedded themselves among the people. In the past 2 weeks alone, our 
troops in Baghdad have captured five militia cells. Some of the names 
you will be hearing in the next few months will include places like 
Adamiyah, Rashid, and Mansour. These areas are important because they 
represent so-called sectarian faultlines--locations where Shi'a 
extremists and Al Qaida terrorists are attempting to reignite sectarian 
violence through murder and kidnapings and other violent activities. 
Until these areas and others like them are secured, the people of 
Baghdad can't be protected; they can't go about their lives.
    Right now, we're at the beginning stage of the offensive. We finally 
got the troops there. Americans have got to understand, it takes awhile 
to mobilize additional troops and move them from the United States to 
Iraq. And we got them there. And now we're beginning to move. And there 
are hopeful signs. Last week, our commanders reported the killing of two 
senior Al Qaida leaders north of Baghdad--one who operated a cell that 
helped move foreign fighters into Iraq and another who served as a 
courier for the same cell.
    Within Baghdad, our military reports that despite an upward trend in 
May, sectarian

[[Page 875]]

murders in the capital are now down substantially from what they were in 
January. We are finding arms caches at more than three times the rate a 
year ago. Although the enemy continues to carry out sensational attacks, 
the number of car bombings and suicide attacks has been down in May and 
June. And because U.S. and Iraqi forces are living among the people they 
secure, many Iraqis are now coming forward with information on where the 
terrorists are hiding.
    On the ground, our forces can see the difference the surge is 
making. General Petraeus recently described what he called ``astonishing 
signs of normalcy.'' He said that about Baghdad. He talks about 
professional soccer leagues and amusement parks and vibrant markets. In 
the mixed Shi'a-Sunni neighborhood of Rashid, our foot patrols 
discovered a wall with two Arabic sentences spray-painted on them. It's 
just a small example. It certainly didn't get any news, but it says, 
``Yes, yes to the new security plan. No difference between Shi'a and 
Sunni.''
    The fight's been tough. It's a tough fight, and it is going to 
remain difficult. We've lost some good men and women. And even as our 
troops are showing some success in cornering and trapping Al Qaida, they 
face a lot of challenges. After all, the people of Iraq lived for 
decades under the brutal dictatorship that bred distrust. And so there's 
still sectarian tensions. The feelings are being exploited, and they're 
being manipulated by outsiders. Iran, for example, continues to supply 
deadly IED explosives that are being used against American forces. It is 
also providing training in Iran as well as funding and weapons for Iraqi 
militias. Meanwhile, Syria continues to be a transit station for Al 
Qaida and other foreign fighters on their way to Iraq.
    Influx of foreign fighters and foreign support makes this job a lot 
tougher--tougher on the Iraqis, tougher on our troops. We can expect 
more casualties as our forces enter enemy strongholds and push back 
against foreign interference. But General Petraeus and our commanders in 
Iraq have carefully laid out a plan that our forces are executing on the 
ground. It's a well-conceived plan by smart military people, and we owe 
them the time and we owe them the support they need to succeed.
    I fully agree with the military that says this is more than a 
military operation. Have to be making tough decisions--the Iraqis have 
got to be making tough decisions towards reconciliation. And that's why 
I will keep the pressure on Iraqi leaders to meet political benchmarks 
they laid out for themselves. Now, at home, most of the attention has 
focused on important pieces of legislation that the Iraqi Parliament 
must pass to foster political reconciliation, including laws to share 
oil revenues, hold Provincial elections, and bring more people into the 
political process. I speak to the Prime Minister and I speak to the 
Presidency Council quite often, and I remind them we expect the 
Government to function and to pass law.
    Many Americans have been frustrated by the slow pace of legislation, 
as have I. However, I think we ought to put the challenge into 
perspective. In a democracy, the head of government just can't decree 
the outcome. [Laughter] I'm not saying that's what I'd like to do. 
[Laughter] Some in Washington are suggesting that's what I'd like to do. 
The Iraqi Parliament is composed of members representing many different 
religions and ethnicities: Sunnis, Shi'a, Turkoman, Kurds, and others.
    Even in a long-established democracy, it's not easy to pass 
important pieces of legislation in a short period of time. We're asking 
the Iraqis to accomplish all these things at a time when their country 
is being attacked. I make no excuses; we will continue to keep the 
pressure up. We expect there to be reconciliation. We expect them to 
pass law.
    On the benchmarks not related to legislation, they're doing better. 
Prime Minister Maliki promised to provide three brigades to support the 
operations in Baghdad, and he did. Iraqi leaders promised to give 
military commanders the authority they need to carry out our plans, and 
for the most part, they have. In addition, Iraqis have helped reduce 
sectarian violence and established joint security stations. The Iraqi 
Ministry of Defense is working hard to improve its logistical 
capabilities. It's going to spend nearly $2 billion

[[Page 876]]

of its own funds this year to equip and modernize its forces. The Iraqi 
Government appropriated $2 billion so their force can become more 
modern, so their force is more ready to take the fight to the enemy.
    With the help of our troops, the Iraqi security forces are growing 
in number, they are becoming more capable, and coming closer to the day 
when they can assume responsibility for defending their own country. Not 
all this progress is even, and we're going to keep pressing the Iraqis 
to keep their commitments. Yet we must keep in mind that these 
benchmarks are aimed at improving life for the Iraqi people, and that is 
the standard by which they should be judged.
    To evaluate how life is improving for the Iraqis, we cannot look at 
the country only from the top down. We need to go beyond the Green Zone 
and look at Iraq from bottom up. This is where political reconciliation 
matters the most because it is where ordinary Iraqis are deciding 
whether to support new Iraq or to sit on the fence, uncertain about the 
country's future. I'm encouraged and, more importantly, the people in 
Baghdad are encouraged by what we're seeing. Citizens are forming 
neighborhood watch groups. Young Sunnis are signing up for the army and 
police. Tribal sheiks are joining the fight against Al Qaida. Many Shi'a 
are rejecting the militias.
    Much progress we are seeing is the result of the work of our 
Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and 
civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, 
strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. 
PRTs in Anbar are working with Iraqi judges to restore the rule of law 
with new trials for terrorist detainees. The PRT in Ramadi helped the 
Provincial council pass a budget that appropriates more than $100 
million for capital expenditures so people can begin rebuilding their 
Province and people can find work. PRT in Kirkuk is extending microloans 
to finance reconstruction and help stimulate job creation. The PRT in 
Ninewah has created more than 1,000 jobs through infrastructure projects 
that range from renovating a hospital to paving roads to building a new 
soccer field.
    This bottom-up approach to reconciliation and reconstruction is not 
headline-grabbing. You don't read a lot about it, but it is making a 
difference in the lives of Iraqi citizens. It's ongoing, and we need to 
make sure it continues.
    We are also encouraged by the way Iraqis are responding to 
atrocities intended to inflame passions and provoke reprisals. In early 
2006--things were going fine in 2005. You might remember, at the end, we 
had an election where 12 million people showed up, an astonishing moment 
for the Middle East. And I, frankly, wasn't surprised because I believe 
in the universality of freedom. I believe everybody wants to be free. 
That's what I believe.
    I wasn't surprised, but I was pleased. I was pleased to hear the 
stories of Iraqis who got to vote and their joy in voting. Al Qaida 
wasn't pleased. As a matter of fact, they were frightened by the advance 
of democracy. You see, democracy is the opposite of their ideology. 
These folks believe something; it's just the opposite of what we 
believe. I remind people, one of the great, precious gifts of America is 
the right for people to worship or not worship and be equally American; 
that we're all Americans--that we're all Americans together, whether 
you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or don't believe. It's the opposite of 
what Al Qaida believes. They believe if you don't worship the way they 
tell you to, they're likely going to kill you.
    And so they didn't like the advance of democracy in 2005. And so in 
early 2006, they blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra. It's one of Shi'a 
Islam's holiest sites. It set off a spiral of sectarian killing. Earlier 
this month, in an attack that had all the hallmarks of Al Qaida, the 
terrorists went back to their old playbook and blew up the minarets on 
the same mosque.
    This time, Iraqi leaders united immediately in rejecting the attack. 
They took swift and aggressive actions to prevent a rerun of last year's 
violence. Prime Minister Maliki imposed a curfew, ordered additional 
security for holy places, and convened a meeting of Sunni, Shi'a, and 
Kurdish leadership. He traveled to Samarra with his Defense and Interior 
Ministers to demonstrate their commitment to peace and reconciliation. 
Now,

[[Page 877]]

look, there are still some reprisals that have occurred, and it's too 
early to judge whether the Government's efforts will be enough to 
prevent a spiral of violence that we saw after last year's attacks. But 
it is not too early to say that the response by the Iraqi leadership has 
been impressive and very different from what it was the last time 
around.
    One reason it is different is that the Iraqis are beginning to 
understand that Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds 
alike. Al Qaida is responsible for the most sensational killings in 
Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killing on U.S. soil, and 
they're responsible for the sensational killings in Iraq. Here at home, 
we see the bloody aftermath of a suicide bombing in an Iraqi market, and 
we wonder what kind of people would do that. That's what we wonder. 
We're good-hearted people. Our commanders tell me that 80 to 90 percent 
of these suicide bombings are the work of foreign fighters, people who 
don't like the advance of an alternative to their ideology, and they 
come in and murder the innocent to achieve their objective.
    And that's their strategy. Al Qaida's strategy is to use human 
beings as bombs to create grisly images for the world to see. They 
understand that sensational images are the best way to overwhelm the 
quiet progress on the ground. They aim to cultivate a sense of despair 
about the future of a free Iraq. They hope to gain by the television 
screen what they cannot gain on the battlefield against U.S. and Iraqi 
forces.
    Our success in Iraq must not be measured by the enemy's ability to 
get a car bombing into the evening news. No matter how good the 
security, terrorists will always be able to explode a bomb on a crowded 
street. In places like Israel, terrorists have taken innocent human life 
for years in similar attacks. The difference is that Israel is a 
functioning democracy that is not prevented from carrying out its 
responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're 
looking for in Iraq: the rise of a government that can protect its 
people, deliver basic services for all its citizens, and function as a 
democracy even amid violence.
    We're involved in a broader war against these ideological killers. 
Iraq is just a theater in this war. The extremists understand this, that 
if the Middle East knows--if the Middle East know that if the Iraqis 
succeed, it's going to be a terrible blow to their ambitions. That's 
what they see. But they also feel the same way about Afghanistan, where 
the Taliban, one-time allies of Al Qaida, is trying to murder its way 
back into power; or in Lebanon, where extremists are trying to bring 
down that nation's democratic Government; or in the Palestinian 
Territories, where terrorists have set off a suicidal war; or in Iran, 
where the Government pursues nuclear weapons while its President 
declares that Israel must be wiped off the map.
    The stakes are high in the beginning stages of this global war 
against ideologues that stand for the exact opposite of what America 
stands for. And what makes the war even more significant is that what 
happens overseas matters to the security in the United States of 
America, as we learned on September the 11th, when killers were able to 
use a failed state to plot the deadly attack. And so if we withdraw 
before the Iraqi Government can defend itself, we would yield the future 
of Iraq to terrorists like Al Qaida, and we would give a green light to 
extremists all throughout a troubled region.
    The consequences for America and the Middle East would be 
disastrous. In Iraq, sectarian violence would multiply on a horrific 
scale. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos. We would soon 
face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue 
nuclear weapons, who would use their control of oil for economic 
blackmail, and who would be in a position to launch new attacks on the 
United States of America. September the 11th, we saw how a failed state, 
like I'd just told you, can affect the security at home. And so for the 
sake of our own security, for the sake of the security of the United 
States of America, the United States must stand with millions of moms 
and dads throughout the Middle East who want a future of dignity and 
peace, and we must help them defeat a common enemy.
    No one understands that better than the men and women in uniform. It 
is a huge honor to be the Commander in Chief of such a noble group of 
men and women. Our military is not only great; it's good. Good-hearted

[[Page 878]]

people, all volunteers, who said, ``I want to serve in the face of 
danger.'' It's a remarkable country that can produce such good men and 
women.
    I think of a fellow named Cory Endlich. Cory was an Ohio boy. He 
wanted to join the Army so badly that his dad let him start training his 
senior year of high school. He was deployed to Iraq. It tells you 
something about his character that when his mom asked him if he needed 
anything, he said the only things he asked for--she said the only things 
he asked for were coloring books, crayons, and candy for the Iraqi 
children he had befriended. Earlier this month, he was killed. Here's 
what his dad said: ``He felt the war was justified and wanted to be 
there.'' That's what his dad said. ``I am proud of him and the job he is 
doing.'' And so am I. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you all.
    I know you will join me in asking a loving God to hold the families 
of those who have lost a loved one in His loving hand. We resolve to 
honor their sacrifice by finishing the work they have begun. That's the 
task ahead of us. And when we do, we'll see a true legacy of a man like 
Sergeant Endlich: a dawn of a Middle East where leaders are at peace 
with their own people, where children enjoy the opportunities their 
parents only dreamed of, and where America has new allies in the cause 
of freedom.
    Thanks for letting me come today. God bless your work, and God bless 
our country. [Applause]
    Thank you all. Thank you. Be seated. I've enjoyed my stay so much, I 
thought I might answer some questions--[laughter]--if you've got any, 
particularly from the students who might be curious. Yes, sir. You're 
the guy. Are you the mike-man, or are you the questioner? Well, you're 
the questioner. Mike-man, okay. [Laughter] Yes, sir.

Role of U.S. Navy/War on Terror

    Q. Mr. President, it was my great privilege to be a representative 
of the Royal Navy here at the Naval Command College class of 1994. It's 
a huge privilege, clearly, to be here today as well. We support and 
admire your country's commitment and sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
around the world in the war on terror. But it strikes me that what you 
described today is very much a land-orientated campaign. What, if any, 
impact is that land campaign focus likely to have on your propensity to 
invest in a maritime strategy in the future, please?
    The President. Yes, thanks. Yes. [Laughter] Now, who exactly invited 
you here? No. [Laughter] I think the--thank you, sir. No, never mind; 
just kidding. [Laughter] It is a land-based campaign because that's 
where the enemy is. They hide in caves, and they hide in remote regions, 
and they try to destabilize countries. They try to create chaos. You've 
got to understand, chaos is the friend of these radicals. The more chaos 
there is, the more likely it is they'll be able to find a place to 
roost.
    And I know people--some people in our country just have trouble 
believing that they want to strike us again, but they do. That's what I 
live with every day. That's what Presidents do; they think about the 
threats, and they deal with them. And my attitude has been, let's keep 
the pressure on them. And the Nation is going to have to do that. We're 
going to have to continually press. This means good intelligence, good 
special ops, working with allies like Great Britain, who have been a 
fantastic country to work with, by the way--and just got to pressure 
them. It's hard to plan and plot when you're on the move. And it takes a 
lot of work. It takes a lot of diplomacy; it takes a lot of military 
action; it takes a lot of good intel; and it's going to take a lot of 
determination by the United States.
    In the meantime, we're going through a transformation of our forces. 
And one of the most transformative branches has been the Navy. It's 
amazing how the Navy has been able to accomplish more with less. Perhaps 
that's what you've been able to--that's less manpower, more mission, 
better use of equipment, the capacity to manage manpower better. No 
question, we're increasing our Army and Marines, which some claim is 
part of the Navy--[laughter]--he doesn't claim it, yes. [Laughter] Well, 
we're not going there. [Laughter]
    But our Navy is modern, and we'll keep it that way. And it's--the 
main thing for militaries as we head into the 21st century is, 
constantly adjust to meet threat. And we've

[[Page 879]]

got a lot of money in our budget, and I hope that this new Congress 
keeps it that way for the Navy, as well as the rest of the military. 
It's really important. And it's important we continue to transform and 
become more interoperable. And that's really the challenge I presume 
you're studying this year at the university. Part of the strategic 
thought for our military is interoperability. And we're becoming much 
better at it, at least that's what the commanders tell me. And that's 
important.
    By the way, named a Navy man today, sent his name up to the Senate 
for confirmation as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, 
and Vice Chairman is going to be a marine named Hoss Cartwright. They 
understand the need to continue to wage this war and also to transform 
our military to meet the threats of the 21st century. And we're doing 
it.
    One of the major transformative events we have done is, we have 
begun to reposition our troops in Europe. The cold war is over; it 
ended. And therefore, the troop posture doesn't need to be the way it 
has been throughout the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That's 
transformative. That also frees up money for capital investment as well 
as different places where--let me just say, the capacity to base out of 
home is going to save us a lot of money and save you a lot of wear and 
tear.
    The Volunteer Army only works well if we take care of the wives and 
husbands, the spouses. And one way to do that is to reposition our 
forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. Well, it turns out, in 
many times--it means they have to be based here and be, then, in a 
capacity to move quickly to deal with the threats.
    Anyway, thanks; good question. Great Britain has been a great ally. 
I said goodbye to my friend, Tony Blair, yesterday. I said hello to the 
new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. And there's no doubt in my mind, we'll 
continue to have a good, close working relationship for the sake of 
peace, for doing the hard work necessary to make this world a peaceful 
place.
    Surely there's more questions than that. [Laughter]
    Yes, ma'am.

President's Decisionmaking

    Q. Mr. President, I just returned from a week at the United States 
Army War College in Pennsylvania on national security. I walked away 
with so much more pride in our military. I would follow them anywhere. 
My question is: At the beginning of your speech--that you said that you 
consult with the military. With all due respect, sir, how much do you 
really listen and follow them?
    The President. Yes, a lot. I don't see how you can be the Commander 
in Chief of a well-motivated military without listening carefully to the 
advice of your commanders. I talk to General Petraeus all the time. I 
say, ``all the time''--weekly; that's all the time--[laughter]--on 
secure video from Baghdad. There's a lot of discussions about troop 
positioning, what will our footprint look like.
    My answer is, it depends on what David Petraeus says. David Petraeus 
is the commander on the ground, and he'll have the full support. And 
that's the way I do business. It's the way it's been throughout the--you 
know, I told you that, and rightly so, that--look, I had a decision to 
make: more troops to secure Baghdad and Anbar, or pull back and hope for 
the best? I made a decision to put more troops in. That was in close 
consultation with the Pentagon and, in particular, with the--you know, 
the folks who have been charged with the operations in Baghdad. And 
that's what you expect from the Commander in Chief.
    We do have a chain of command. It goes from me to Gates to Fox 
Fallon to Petraeus. But a lot of times--and we're all on the SVTS 
together--the secure video together to talk about matters and--so that's 
the way we do it, yes. Thanks for the question.
    Yes, sir.

U.S. Military's Ability to Confront Multiple Conflicts

    Q. Thank you very much. Our family was touched by 9/11, and I want 
to thank you very much for the support of the 9/11 families. Peter 
Dutton is my name. I'm from the Naval War College faculty. I wanted to 
ask you about your thoughts concerning strategic culmination. Are we----
    The President. Strategic----

[[Page 880]]

    Q. Strategic culmination. In other words, are we getting to the 
point where we're unable to continue to affect world events in other 
areas other than the Middle East because of our huge commitment there to 
the Middle East?
    The President. No, I appreciate that. Obviously, we're constantly 
balancing--the first mission is, succeed in Iraq; let me just put it to 
you that way. And--yes, I think we are. I think we're capable of dealing 
with more than one event at a time. Witness the fact that we've got a 
lot of troops in Afghanistan. Fortunately, we've got a lot of NATO 
allies with us in Afghanistan. One of the things that I don't think a 
lot of people have really figured out is how successful we've been about 
putting--about our ability to put coalitions together. There are a lot 
of troops in Iraq other than our own, and there's a lot of troops in 
Afghanistan other than our own.
    The other hotspots, of course, would be the Far East. And we've got 
a significant military presence there. We hope and pray that diplomacy 
works--I think it will--in dealing with the North Korean issue. But we 
got--we're amply suited to deal with a lot of different theaters. But 
we're constantly watching. That's the job of the Joint Chiefs. Their job 
is to constantly monitor threats, positioning of troops, capabilities, 
and they bring them to my attention.
    And I think people recognize that obviously--you know, our military 
is undergoing through a lot of hard work and pressure. But according to 
them, they feel pretty good about it. And if they feel good about it, so 
do I.
    Yes, sir.

U.S. Foreign Policy

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. My name is Captain Norcross. I'm a 
family physician here, and I wanted to say, thank you for your support 
for our military. I wanted to ask you your thoughts about our hospital 
ships that we've had. We had good success with the Mercy over in 
Indonesia, and also pretty soon, we're going to be having the Comfort 
now in deployment. I'd like to ask your thoughts about using these 
humanitarian missions as a way to fight the global war on terror.
    The President. Yes, thank you very much. Our foreign policy is much 
more than the use of the military. I know the focus is on the military; 
it's, like, on TV everyday. I understand that. And that's normal during 
a time of combat. But our foreign policy is much broader than the use of 
military. You bring up the Navy ships--Comfort, for example, is just--
saving lives in South America and Central America. I remember going to 
see--Laura and I went to Guatemala. And we went to this remote region 
and ran into some military docs and nurses that were just providing 
essential health care. It's really effective diplomacy to help a mom 
deal with a child's sickness. And we do a lot of it. We get no credit 
for it, but we do a lot of it.
    Our HIV/AIDS initiative on the continent of Africa--first of all, I 
believe to whom much is given, much is required. We've been given a lot 
in the United States. It's in our interests, it's in our moral interests 
to help deal with the pandemic on the continent of Africa and 
elsewhere--some in our neighborhood, like Haiti, for example.
    It's in our strategic interest to do so as well, because one of the 
lessons of this conflict we're in is that how people live matters as to 
whether or not the enemy is able to recruit. If you live in a society 
full of despair and hopelessness, it is more likely that you would 
become a suicide bomber or be swayed by an ideology that is really grim. 
Desperation is what these people prey on.
    And therefore, it's up to the United States, with our allies, by the 
way, to deal with desperate situations. I happen to believe that 
encouraging people and helping people to live in a free society is 
essential to our long-term security. I think that it is imperative that 
we have confidence in the ability of liberty to be a transforming agent 
for peace.
    I worry about isolationism in America. I worry about the struggle--
which is going to take awhile--will cause us to lose our confidence in 
the ability to help others realize the blessings of liberty. I told you 
earlier, I believe in the universality of freedom. It is a principle by 
which I have made decisions. I believe--I personally believe there is an 
Almighty, and I believe a gift of the Almighty to each man, woman, and 
child on the face

[[Page 881]]

of the Earth is freedom. That's what I believe.
    And I have read a lot of history, as have you. I share the story 
about my friend Prime Minister Koizumi, the former Prime Minister of 
Japan. I marvel at the fact--or I used to marvel at the fact that my dad 
fought the Japanese as a United States Navy fighter pilot, and his son 
sits down at the table to work to keep the peace. It's an amazing--to me 
it's an amazing irony--I guess is the best way to describe that--that a 
fellow's father fought him, and I'm working to keep peace. We had no 
stronger ally--and we still have a strong ally in Prime Minister Abe, by 
the way, from Japan--but no stronger ally in recognizing that democracy 
is the long-term solution to defeating this ideological enemy. And 
Japan, our former enemy, was making sacrifices in Iraq and helping in 
Afghanistan.
    We've got no stronger ally in working to peacefully solve the North 
Korean nuclear issue than Japan. And it is--something happened between 
when H.W. Bush was flying torpedo bombers and W. was in the White House. 
And what happened was, Japan changed its form of government. Liberty has 
got the capacity to change enemies to allies. And the fundamental 
question facing this country was, will we recognize that as we head into 
the 21st century? Do we care what life is like around the world, or are 
we going to hope for the best?
    I care about what life is like around the world, and so should 
America. And therefore, we ought to worry when people live under the 
thumb of a tyrant. Our foreign policy for years in the Middle East was 
stability. What mattered most was stability; it was, are things stable? 
That, however, created conditions that enabled a group of killers to 
recruit people to come and kill us. And therefore, I changed our foreign 
policy in the Middle East to promote liberty as the great alternative to 
tyranny and a dark vision.
    Now, we're going to be kinetic if we need to be to protect 
ourselves. I've told you, we're going to stay on the offense and keep 
the pressure on them. But the long-term solution as to whether or not 
your grandkids can live in a peaceful world is whether or not we 
encourage liberty to take root around the Middle East, in particular. 
And people say, well, they can't possibly--you know, that's not going to 
work.
    Well, I suspect if you look back at history, they might have been 
somewhat suspect if someone would have predicted an American President 
would be sitting down keeping the peace with the Japanese Prime Minister 
at some point--particularly after World War II.
    I think it's going to be very important for our country to have 
faith in the capacity of liberty to be transformative. Some say that's--
you know, he's a hopeless idealistic guy. Well, I think it's realistic 
to understand that this is a long-term struggle and alternative 
ideologies need to be promoted, one particularly based upon hope; that's 
worked every time when given a chance to take root.
    That's not a seersucker suit, is it? [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. It's coming back, yes. They're coming back.
    Q. I'm--[inaudible]--Campos from Colombia.
    The President. From?
    Q. Colombia, class of 1979.
    The President. Okay. Si. Thank you, sir.

Free Trade/Spread of Democracy

    Q. First of all, I want to thank you for the support you are giving 
our country. And you have--we know that your main goal is to win the 
situation in Iraq. I want to ask you, which is your assessment for the 
situation in South America?
    The President. Si, thank you. First, I am a big admirer of mi amigo 
Presidente Uribe. He's strong--that's the President of Colombia. 
[Laughter] He's strong; he's courageous; and he believes in democracy. 
And he was--he started off in a--with a really very tough problem, and 
that is dealing with a very rich group of people who are violent, who 
didn't necessarily agree with democracy. And I admire the way he has led 
his nation.
    A key moment in our relations with Colombia will be coming up pretty 
soon. And that is, we negotiated a free trade agreement with your 
country. Why? Well, one, we did it because it's in our economic 
interests to open up markets for U.S. goods and services, just like it's 
in Colombia's economic interests

[[Page 882]]

to open up our markets for goods and services.
    I believe in trade. I believe trade is in the interests of our 
workers. I think more markets--listen, we're 5 percent of the people. 
That means 95 percent of the market should be available to our goods and 
services. When you're good at something, you ought to make it easier to 
sell it. We're good farmers; we ought to be selling our crops overseas 
to the extent they're not needed here at home. We're good manufacturers 
of a lot of products; we ought to be selling them.
    I also believe that trade is the best way to lift people out of 
poverty. When there's commerce, when there's activity, when there's 
enterprise, a society has a better chance of enabling its people to 
realize dreams. So I'm a big trader, a freetrader.
    And that's why we worked with the agreement with Colombia. Now the 
Congress is going to have an opportunity to determine whether or not 
they're going to be protectionist in nature and whether or not they'll 
turn--this country will turn its back on our friend or not.
    The freetrader vote has got a lot of strategic implications because 
in the neighborhood, there is a person who is undermining a democracy, 
and therefore, we need to be concerned about the loss of democracies in 
our neighborhood. Democracies yield peace. They don't war against each 
other. And when we see a democracy being undermined--and I think it's 
going to be in the interests for the United States to work with friends 
in the neighborhood to promote the institutions necessary to prevent 
individuals from undermining a free society. What does that mean--free 
media, the right to dissent, the capacity to have open elections.
    And so I've got good relations with a lot of the leaders in the 
neighborhood. And we're working very closely with Brazil, for example, 
on a lot of initiatives, starting with the biodiesel initiative. It's an 
interesting initiative, by the way. That has got--that initiative is all 
done because of national security interests and economic security 
interests as well as environmental concerns. And Brazil makes a lot of 
ethanol, and we're beginning to make a lot of ethanol. It's in our 
interests to share technologies, to promote others so we become less 
dependent on oil--I'm skipping around here.
    My only point to you is that good relations with Brazil are 
necessary to work--to make sure our neighborhood remains a peaceful 
place based upon the form of government. There's only one non-democracy 
in our neighborhood; that's Cuba. And I strongly believe the people of 
Cuba ought to live in a free society. It's in our interests that Cuba 
become free, and it's in the interests of the Cuban people that they 
don't have to live under an antiquated form of government that has just 
been repressive.
    So we'll continue to press for freedom on the island of Cuba. One 
day, the good Lord will take Fidel Castro away and then the question--
[laughter]--no, no, no--then the question is, what will be the approach 
of the U.S. Government? My attitude is, is that we need to use the 
opportunity to call the world together to promote democracy as the 
alternative to the form of government they have been living with.
    You'll see an interesting debate. Some will say, all that matters is 
stability, which, in my judgment, will just simply reinforce the 
followers of the current regime. I think we ought to be pressing hard 
for democracy.
    I went overseas recently to the Czech Republic and gave a speech on 
democracy. I saw Vaclav Havel. You might remember him; he was the leader 
of the Velvet Revolution that helped lead Eastern Europe to a new form 
of government and--new forms of government. And he's very much 
interested in the United States' attitude toward Cuba because he 
believes we need to be promoting freedom before stability.
    It's going to be an interesting challenge for our country. We're 
working, by the way--back to your question, can we do more than one 
thing at one time--we're working very closely with the Navy and Coast 
Guard to make sure that there is not any issues when it comes between 
the United States and Cuba, should there be a--or when there is a 
transition.
    Anyway, thanks for the question. I think I am somewhat concerned by 
the fact that--you know, a lot of our rhetoric is geared toward the 
Middle East and Africa and that people in the neighborhood say, ``Well, 
the

[[Page 883]]

United States is not paying attention, nor do they care about us.'' 
That's just simply not the case. In my recent trip down there, I did go 
to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, and Central America and emphasized our 
humanitarian programs, the health programs, the education programs. I 
wanted to make it clear to the people of South and Central America that 
the United States cares deeply about the human condition and that we 
believe that on the one hand, our Government aid ought to make sure that 
we battle corruption--we just don't give money to corrupt societies, 
that we ought to say that in return for our aid, change your habits if 
you're corrupt, otherwise you're not going to get additional money.
    And at the same time, we believe we ought to foster programs aimed 
at the individual. And it's--and we are. We're spending a lot of money 
in South America. Now, we're not doing a very good job with the 
propaganda battle around the world. We created it, and we're losing. And 
that's one thing we've got to spend a lot of time on, is to make sure 
that the image of the United States corresponds to the realities on the 
ground.
    Yesterday I went to a mosque--or Islamic Center in Washington, DC. 
It's the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center. It was a place where 
Dwight Eisenhower went to dedicate, and I went to rededicate it. And my 
message was, one, freedom is a beautiful thing, and that we expect 
societies to work toward freedom, and we want to do that. And at the 
same time, we honor all religion. That's what we do in America. And it 
is really meant to counter this notion that somehow America is in war 
against Islam. We're not. We're at war against killers who subvert a 
great religion in order to achieve their political objectives. And we'll 
keep working as hard as we can.
    Anyway, great question. Look, I've got to go. I thank you all for 
coming by. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 11:22 a.m. at Connelly Hall. In his 
remarks, he referred to Gov. Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island; Rear 
Adm. Jacob L. Shuford, president, Naval War College; Gov. M. Jodi Rell 
of Connecticut; Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina; Gov. Matt Blunt of 
Missouri; Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, USA, commander, Multi-National 
Corps--Iraq; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Minister of Defense Abd al-
Qadir al-Mufriji, and Minister of the Interior Jawad al-Bulani of Iraq; 
President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; Secretary of Defense Robert M. 
Gates; Adm. William J. Fallon, USN, commander, U.S. Central Command; 
President Fidel Castro Ruz of Cuba; and former President Vaclav Havel of 
the Czech Republic.