Text 4917, 847 rader
Skriven 2007-06-28 23:31:02 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070628e) for Thu, 2007 Jun 28
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Visits Naval War College, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 28, 2007

President Bush Visits Naval War College, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror
Spruance Auditorium Newport, Rhode Island

˙ /news/releases/2007/06/20070628-14.wm.v.html ˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio

˙˙˙˙˙ Accompanying Iraq Maps ˙˙˙˙˙ Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq:
An Update ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Renewal in Iraq

11:22 A.M. EDT

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. (Applause.) And I am pleased to see the 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 and applause.)

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 officers to think strategically. And that's
important. The United States Navy is the most professional and advanced
navy the world has ever seen -- and the men and women of the Naval War
College are determined 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 had 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 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 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. 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. I'm going to outline
some of the criteria 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 Qaeda's chief base of operations
in Iraq. Remember, when I mention al Qaeda, 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 Qaeda -- 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 Qaeda had brought
to their towns and communities. They knew exactly who these folks were.

To capitalize on this opportunity, I sent more Marines into Anbar. And
gradually they have been helping the locals take back their province from
al Qaeda.

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 Qaeda from most of
Ramadi -- and attacks there are now down to a two-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 Qaeda wants their base of operations back, and it is 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 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 Qaeda
terrorists, the 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 home-grown,
a good part of it originates from terrorists operating in the surrounding
areas. If we can clear these strongholds of al Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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 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 three 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 Qaeda and the extremists.

To the west and northwest of Baghdad, Operation Phantom Thunder is going
after al Qaeda's remaining outposts in Anbar. We're taking the fight to
areas around Karmah -- it's a known transit point for al Qaeda 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 in forces has allowed us to establish a
presence in areas where the terrorists and insurgents had embedded
themselves among the people. In the past two weeks alone, our troops in
Baghdad have captured five militia cells. And 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 fault lines -- locations where Shia extremists and al Qaeda
terrorists are attempting to reignite sectarian violence through murder,
and kidnappings, 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 a while 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 Qaeda 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 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 Shia-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 Shia and Sunni."

The fight has been tough. It's a tough fight, and it is going to remain
difficult. We have lost some good men and women. And even as our troops are
showing some success in cornering and trapping al Qaeda, 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 Qaeda and other foreign
fighters on their way to Iraq.

The 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. (Applause.)

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 reconciliations. And that's why I will keep
the pressure on Iraqi leaders to meet political benchmarks they laid out
for themselves. 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, Shia, 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 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 Qaeda. Many Shia are rejecting the
militias.

Much of the 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
begin work. PRT in Kirkuk is extending micro-loans to finance
reconstruction and help stimulate job creation.

And 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 is 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.
(Applause.)

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 Qaeda 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 --
(applause) -- that we're all Americans together, whether you're a
Christian, Jew, Muslim or don't believe. It's the opposite of what al Qaeda
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 Shia 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 Qaeda, 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 re-run of last year's
violence. Prime Minister Maliki imposed a curfew, ordered additional
security for holy places, and convened a meeting of Sunni, Shia, and
Kurdish leadership. He traveled to Samarra with his Defense and Interior
Ministers to demonstrate their commitment to peace and reconciliation. Now,
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 Qaeda is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni, and Kurds alike. Al Qaeda
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 could 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 objectives.

And that's their strategy. Al Qaeda'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 under this, that if the Middle
East knows -- if the Middle East know that 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 Qaeda, 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
Qaeda -- 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. (Applause.) Our military is not only great, it's good, good-hearted
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 who 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 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 new 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. 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
mic man, or are you the questioner? Well, you're the questioner. Mic man,
okay. Yes, sir.

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? (Laughter.) Thank you, sir. 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.

I know 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, j ust 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.

But our Navy is modern, and we'll keep it that way. The main thing for
militaries, as we head into the 21st century, is constantly adjust to meet
threat. And we've 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 '50s, '60s and '70s. 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. (Applause.) 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.

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 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.

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 --

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 hot spots, of course, would be the Far East. 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.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. 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. 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. 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 a while -- 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
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, 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 idealist 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. (Applause.)

That's not a seersucker suit, is it? (Laughter.) It's coming back, yes.
They're coming back.

Q -- from Colombia.

THE PRESIDENT: From?

Q Colombia, class of 1979.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, sir.

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: SĄ, thank you. First, I am a big admirer of mi amigo,
Presidente Uribe. He's strong -- that's the President of Colombia.
(Laughter and applause.) He's strong, he's courageous, and he believes in
democracy. And he was -- he started off in a really very tough problem, and
that is dealing with a very rich group of people who are violent, but
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 interests
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 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 free-trader.

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 free trade vote has 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.

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 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 --
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 (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 would just simply reinforce the followers
of the current regime. I think we ought to be pressing hard for democracy.

I went overseas 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 --
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 -- 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 rhetoric is geared toward the Middle East
and Africa and that people in the neighborhood say, well, the 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 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 -- Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. 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. (Applause.)

END 12