For
Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 12, 2007
Press
Conference by the President click
to tap media
links
James S. Brady Briefing Room
10:31 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Good morning. Thank you. Yesterday, America lost an extraordinary First
Lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She brought grace to the White
House and beauty to our country. On behalf of the American people, Laura
and I send our condolences to her daughters, Linda and Luci, and we
offer our prayers to the Johnson family.
Before I answer
some of your questions, today I'd like to provide the American people
with an update on the situation in Iraq. Since America began military
operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone through four major
phases. The first phase was the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
The second phase was the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and
the holding of free elections. The third phase was the tragic escalation
of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in
Samarra.
We've entered a
fourth phase: deploying reinforcements and launching new operations to
help Iraqis bring security to their people. I'm going to explain why the
success of this new strategy is vital for protecting our people and
bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all Americans. I'll
brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll discuss why a
drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of our operations
would be a disaster.
As President, my
most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my
orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front
lines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as
they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know
they have the unwavering support from the Commander-in-Chief, and they
do. And they need the enemy to know that America is not going to back
down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often
emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our
objectives.
As a result,
sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a disagreement between those
who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those who want to bring our
troops home. And this is not the real debate. I don't know anyone who
doesn't want to see the day when our brave servicemen and women can
start coming home.
In my address to
the nation in January, I put it this way: If we increase our support at
this crucial moment we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost
or not worth the cost, and those that believe the fight can be won and
that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be far
higher.
I believe we can
succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're working to defeat al Qaeda
and other extremists, and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can
protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in the war
against these extremists and radicals. By doing this, we'll create the
conditions that would allow our troops to begin coming home, while
securing our long-term national interest in Iraq and in the region.
When we start
drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military
commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because
pollsters say it will be good politics. The strategy I announced in
January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions.
It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it
can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's
political leaders to advance the difficult process of national
reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It
is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist
networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using
diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's
democratic government.
Doing all these
things is intended to make possible a more limited role in Iraq for the
United States. It's the goal outlined by the bipartisan Iraq Study
Group. It's the goal shared by the Iraqis and our coalition partners. It
is the goal that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus and our troops
are working hard to make a reality.
Our top priority
is to help the Iraqis protect their population. So we have launched an
offensive in and around Baghdad to go after extremists, to buy more time
for Iraqi forces to develop, and to help normal life and civil society
take root in communities and neighborhoods throughout the country. We're
helping enhance the size, capabilities and effectiveness of the Iraqi
security forces so the Iraqis can take over the defense of their own
country. We're helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the
extremists. In Anbar province, Sunni tribes that were once fighting
alongside al Qaeda against our coalition are now fighting alongside our
coalition against al Qaeda. We're working to replicate the success in
Anbar and other parts of the country.
Two months ago, in
the supplemental appropriations bill funding our troops, Congress
established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government.
They required we submit a full report to Congress by September the 15th.
Today my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that
requires us to assess -- and I quote the bill -- "whether
satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is not being
achieved."
Of the 18
benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory
progress is being made in eight areas. For example, Iraqis provided the
three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And
the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds
this year to train, equip and modernize its forces. In eight other
areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example, they have not
done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil
revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too mixed to be
characterized one way or the other.
Those who believe
that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory
performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe
the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance
on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism. Our
strategy is built on a premise that progress on security will pave the
way for political progress. So it's not surprising that political
progress is lagging behind the security gains we are seeing. Economic
development funds are critical to helping Iraq make this political
progress. Today, I'm exercising the waiver authority granted me by
Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.
The bottom line is
that this is a preliminary report and it comes less than a month after
the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This September, as Congress
has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to
Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that time, we
hope to see further improvement in the positive areas, the beginning of
improvement in the negative areas. We'll also have a clearer picture of
how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge
where we need to make any adjustments.
I will rely on
General Petraeus to give me his recommendations for the appropriate
troop levels in Iraq. I will discuss the recommendation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will continue
consultations with members of the United States Congress from both sides
of the aisle, and then I'll make a decision.
I know some in
Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing
before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq,
for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering
the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass
killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to
establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in
Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American
troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that
is even more dangerous.
The fight in Iraq
is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. The
same region in Iran -- the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear
weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing
sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill
American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war
against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do
the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that
provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused
to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All
these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American
withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the
region.
Nations throughout
the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To protect our interests
and to show our commitment to our friends in the region, we are
enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral security ties,
and supporting those fighting the extremists across the Middle East.
We're also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and
international support for Iraq's democratic government.
So I'm sending
Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to the region in early August. They
will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment to the
International Compact of Sharm el Sheikh, reassure our friends that the
Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United States.
There is a
conversion of visions between what Iraqi leaders want, what our partners
want and what our friends in the region want, and the vision articulated
by my administration, the Iraq Study Group and others here at home. The
Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their cities forever, any more
than the American people do. But we need to ensure that when U.S. forces
do pull back that terrorists and extremists cannot take control.
The strategy that
General Petraeus and the troops he commands are now carrying out is the
best opportunity to bring us to this point. So I ask Congress to provide
them with the time and resources they need. The men and women of the
United States military have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. They have
achieved great things, and the best way to begin bringing them home is
to make sure our new strategy succeeds.
And now I'll be
glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms. Thomas.
Q Mr. President,
you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone,
today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two
million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are
displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you
brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT:
Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's
why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations
Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said
disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the
clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.
Q Didn't we go
into Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: It
was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me
to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into
Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in
power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with
this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help
them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is
not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian
Territories and Afghanistan.
We're at the
beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn
for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal,
decent society, and radicals and extremists who want to impose their
dark vision on people throughout the world. Iraq is obviously -- Helen,
it's got the attention of the American people, as it should; this is a
difficult war and it's a tough war. But as I have consistently stated
throughout this presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.
I find it
interesting that as this young democracy has taken hold, radicals and
extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And that ought to
be a clear signal to the American people that these are dangerous people
and their ambition is not just contained to Iraq. Their ambition is to
continue to hurt the American people. My attitude is we ought to defeat
them there so we don't have to face them here, and that we ought to
defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of government.
Terry.
Q Mr. President,
you're facing a rebellion from Republican -- key Republican senators who
want you to change course and begin reducing the U.S. combat role. Given
the mixed report that you present today, how do you persuade Republicans
to stick with you as they look ahead to the next elections?
THE PRESIDENT: A
couple of things. First of all, I respect those Republicans that you're
referring to. I presume you're referring to friends of mine, like Lugar
-- Senator Lugar, Domenici, yes. These are good, honorable people. I've
spoken to them and I listen very carefully to what they have to say.
First of all, they
share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda.
And they also understand that we can't let al Qaeda gain safe haven
inside of Iraq. I appreciate their calls and I appreciate their desire
to work with the White House to be in a position where we can sustain a
presence in Iraq.
What I tell them
is this, just what I've told you, is that as the Commander-in-Chief of
the greatest military ever, I have an obligation, a sincere and serious
obligation, to hear out my commander on the ground. And I will take his
recommendation. And as I mentioned, to talk to Bob Gates about it, as
well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as consult with members of
the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, as I make a decision about
the way forward in Iraq.
And so I -- you
know, I value the advice of those senators. I appreciate their concerns
about the situation in Iraq, and I am going to continue listening to
them.
Toby.
Q Mr. President,
in addition to members of your own party, the American public is
clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you so resistant to
that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give the surge to work
before considering a change in this policy?
THE PRESIDENT:
First, I understand why the American people are -- you know, they're
tired of the war. There is -- people are -- there is a war fatigue in
America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this before. I
understand that this is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will
kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political
objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our
people.
Part of that
concern is whether or not we can win; whether or not the objective is
achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way if that which we
are trying to achieve can't be accomplished. I feel the same way. I
cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and say, I'm
sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can achieve the
objective. I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or wife of a
soldier.
I believe we can
succeed and I believe we are making security progress that will enable
the political tract to succeed, as well. And the report, by the way,
which is, as accurately noted, is being submitted today, is written a
little less than a month after the full complement of troops arrived.
I went to the
country in January and said I have made this decision. I said what was
happening on the ground was unsatisfactory in Iraq. In consultation with
a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that we needed to send more
troops into Iraq, not less, in order to provide stability, in order to
be able to enhance the security of the people there. And David asked for
a certain number of troops -- David Petraeus asked for a certain number
-- General Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops, and he just
got them a couple of weeks ago.
Military -- it
takes a while to move our troops, as the experts know. You just can't
load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get them into theater.
We had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after they arrived in
Iraq, it took a while to get them into their missions. Since the
reinforcements arrived, things have changed.
For example, I
would remind you that Anbar province was considered lost. Maybe some of
you reported that last fall. And yet, today, because of what we call
bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar province has changed dramatically. The
same thing is now beginning to happen in Diyala province. There are
neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is down. There are still car
bombs, most of which have the al Qaeda signature on them, but they're
declining. In other words, so there's some measurable progress.
And you asked, how
long does one wait? I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great
military who has supported this military and will continue to support
this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources
to them, but with -- by respecting the command structure, I'm going to
wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us
the report on what he sees. And then we'll use that data, that -- his
report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and
members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.
Yes, Martha.
Q You talk about
all the troops now being in place, and only in place the last three
weeks or a month. Yet three-quarters of the troops for the surge were in
place during the period when this July interim report was written. Are
you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what General Petraeus
says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political progress by September?
THE PRESIDENT:
Thank you. You're asking me to speculate on what my frame of mind will
be in September, and I would just ask that you give -- General Petraeus
to come back and brief me. And then, of course, I'll be glad to answer
your questions along that line.
Q But there has
been no substantial political progress, even with three-quarters of the
troops in there.
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, as I mentioned --
Q Will you keep
that going through September, even if there isn't?
THE PRESIDENT:
Martha, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have felt all along
that the security situation needed to change in order for there to be
political progress. It's very hard for a young democracy to function
with the violence that was raging. Secondly, there's a lot of -- a lot
of the past that needs to be worked through the system. I mean, living
under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety and a
lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry, and it's going to take a while to
work it through. But they couldn't work through those tensions and
rivalries in the midst of serious violence.
And so the
strategy was, move in more troops to cause the violence to abate. And
that's what David Petraeus will be reporting on.
Yes, Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. A question for you about the process you're describing of
your decision-making as Commander-in-Chief. Have you entertained the
idea that at some point Congress may take some of that sole
decision-making power away, through legislation? And can you tell us,
are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?
THE PRESIDENT: You
mean in this interim period? Yes. I don't think Congress ought to be
running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm
certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through
resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and
we can't afford to fail.
I'll work with
Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got all the right to
appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military how to conduct
operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't
think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think
it's a good precedent for the future. And so the role of the
Commander-in-Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.
Q So if Reed-Levin
or anything like it were to pass and set a --
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I --
Q But what if
they've got --
THE PRESIDENT: Let
me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Congress has all the right
in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which
is to provide funds for our troops. What you're asking is whether or not
Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned, or
troop strength. And I don't think that would be good for the country.
David.
Q Mr. President,
you've said many times this war at this stage is about the Iraqi
government creating a self-sustaining, stable government. Last November,
your own CIA Director, according to The Washington Post, told you about
that government: "The inability of the government to govern seems
irreversible. He could not point to any milestone or checkpoint where we
can turn this thing around." And he said, in talking about the
government, that it's balanced, but it cannot function.
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes.
Q When you heard
that, since that point, you think of how many hundreds of soldiers have
been killed, how much money has been spent. Why shouldn't people
conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, but certainly not
realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since then?
THE PRESIDENT: You
know, it's interesting, it turns out Mike Hayden -- I think you're
quoting Mike Hayden there -- was in this morning to give me his weekly
briefing, and I asked him about that newspaper article from which you
quote. His answer was -- his comments to the Iraq Study Group were a
little more nuanced than the quotation you read.
He said that he
made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't working -- this is his
recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study Group. He briefed them to
the fact it wasn't working and that we needed a change of direction. He
also said that those who suggest that we back away and let the Iraqi
government do -- this is in November 2006 -- let the Iraqis handle it,
don't understand the inability of the Iraq government at that time to
take on that responsibility.
He then went on to
say -- this is what he -- his recollection of his conversation -- was
that our strategy needed to help get the violence down so that there
could be political reconciliation from the top down, as well as the
bottom up.
There has been
political reconciliation, Martha, from the bottom up. Anbar province is
a place where the experts had -- an expert had said that it was
impossible for us to achieve our objective. This was the part of the
country of Iraq where al Qaeda had made it clear that they would like to
establish a safe haven from which to plan, plot further attacks, to
spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. Since then, since this
November 2006 report, and since that statement to the Iraq Study Group,
things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar province.
And they're
beginning to have the same change -- because the people on the ground
there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by people like
al Qaeda, who have no positive vision for the future. And there's been a
significant turn, where now Sunni sheikhs and Sunni citizens are working
with the coalition to bring justice to al Qaeda killers. And that same
approach is being taken in Diyala.
And so there's a
lot of focus, and should be, frankly, on oil laws or elections. But
remember, there's another political reconciliation track taking place,
as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the grassroots level.
Mike Hayden talked about that, as well.
Q But you think
you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well -- thank you for the follow-up -- nothing has changed in the new
room. Anyway -- yes. As I told you last November, right about this time,
I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was
taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the efforts we had taken
to that point in time were about to fail. In other words, sectarian
violence was really raging. And I had a choice to make, and that was to
pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that
might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country, or
send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in
the first place -- and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic
appraisal by me.
What's realistic,
as well, is to understand the consequences of what will happen if we
fail in Iraq. In other words, people aren't just going to be content
with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wants to hurt us here. That's
their objective. That's what they would like to do. They have got an
ideology that they believe that the world ought to live under, and that
one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the American people,
harm American interests. The same folks that are bombing innocent people
in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th,
and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at
home.
So I've been
realistic about the consequences of failure. I have been realistic about
what needs to happen on the ground in order for there to be success. And
it's been hard work, and the American people see this hard work. And one
of the reasons it is hard work is because on our TV screens are these
violent killings, perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the
past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American people, to
understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to the
security of the United States of America.
Yes, ma'am.
Q But, sir, on
that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that
the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in
fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place
in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir,
that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin
Laden, himself?
THE PRESIDENT: Al
Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who
had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the
airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or
in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al
Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to
take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda
anywhere in the world seriously.
Let's see here.
Working my way around here. Sheryl.
Q Mr. President,
in Jordan in November, you stood by Prime Minister Maliki and said he's
the right guy for Iraq. Given this report card today and given the lack
of top-down political reconciliation, can you tell the American people
that you still believe he's the right guy for Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: I
believe that he understands that there needs to be serious
reconciliation, a need to get law passed; firmly believe that. I have
had a series of conference calls with the Prime Minister, as well as the
presidency council. The presidency council, you have the President
Talabani, you have the two Vice Presidents, al-Mahdi and Hashimi as well
as the Prime Minister. And I have urged them to work together to get a
law passed. It's not easy to get law passed through certain
legislatures, like theirs. There's a lot of work that has to be done.
And I will continue to urge, but --
Q Do you have
confidence in them?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
almost through with the first one; I'll come back to the second one.
And so I'll
continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they're capable of passing
legislation. But it's not just us, it's the Iraqi people. And what
really matters is whether or not life is improving for the Iraqi people
on the ground.
And, yes, I've got
confidence in them, but I also understand how difficult it is. I'm not
making excuses, but it is hard. It's hard work for them to get law
passed. And sometimes it's hard work for people to get law passed here.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to work to achieve an
objective, which is a government that is able to provide security for
its people and provide basic services, and, as importantly, serve as an
ally against these extremists and radicals.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President --
THE PRESIDENT: No,
not you. Michael.
Q Oh.
THE PRESIDENT:
Okay, was that harsh?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:
Like the new hall, I should have been more gentle? (Laughter.) Do we
ever use "kinder and gentler"? No.
Go ahead, Michael.
And then you're next.
Q If I could just
switch subjects for a second to another big decision you made recently,
which was in the Scooter Libby case.
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes.
Q You spoke very
soberly and seriously in your statement about how you weighed different
legal questions in coming to your decision on that commutation. But one
issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your
most senior advisors leaking the name of a confidential intelligence
operator. Now that the case is over -- it's not something you've ever
spoken to -- can you say whether you're at all disappointed in the
behavior of those senior advisors? And have you communicated that
disappointment to them in any way?
THE PRESIDENT:
Michael, I -- first of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a
fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time
talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration
were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask
them during the time and I haven't asked them since.
I'm aware of the
fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name
of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened
had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this,
you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent
on this matter? But it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the
White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on.
Wendell.
Q Mr. President,
you have spoken passionately --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh,
I'm sorry.
Q Are you taking
it away from me?
THE PRESIDENT: I
am --
Q After doing the
"fair and balanced," you're going to take it away --
(laughter.)
Q Ohhh.
(Laughter.)
Q You're going to
come back to me, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: You
got the mic -- a possession deal, you know what I'm saying? (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, sir.
You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq.
Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start,
failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the
collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq's
government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the
sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So
why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in
Iraq, sir?
THE PRESIDENT:
Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure historians will
analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in
the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General
Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was
obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the
decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council
resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what
it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you
succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.
Now, history is
going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a
different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you,
Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper
decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the
Joint Chiefs, who said, we've reviewed the plan. I remember -- and
seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the
Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to
commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects
of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you
have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer
was, yes.
We have worked
hard to help this country reconcile. After all, they do have a modern
constitution, which is kind of a framework for reconciliation. And after
all, there was a significant series of votes where the people were given
a chance to express their desire to live in a free society. As a matter
of fact, 12 million Iraqis went to the polls.
What happened
then, of course, is that the enemy, al Qaeda, attacks the Samarra
Mosque, which, of course, created anxiety and anger amongst the Shia.
And then all of a sudden the sectarian violence began to spiral.
Reconciliation hadn't taken hold deep enough in society to prevent this
violence from taking hold. And so I have a -- you know, I've got to
decide whether or not it's okay for that violence to continue, or
whether or not it makes sense for us to try to send more troops in to
quell the violence, to give the reconciliation process further time to
advance.
My concern is, is
that as a result of violence and killing, there would be chaos. Now
that's a state of affairs that thugs, like al Qaeda, need to survive.
They like chaos. As a matter of fact, they like to create chaos in order
to create conditions of fear and anxiety and doubt. Out of that chaos
would come -- could come a further escalation of violence in the Middle
East. And this is what's important for the American people to
understand: That violence and that chaos would embolden extremist
groups, whether they be Shia or Sunni, and they would then be into
competition with each other.
Such chaos and
violence would send a mixed signal to the Iranians, who have stated that
they believe Israel ought to be wiped off the map. People would begin to
wonder about America's resolve. Al Qaeda would certainly be in a better
position to raise money and recruit. And what makes all this scenario
doubly dangerous is that they have proven themselves able to attack us
and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And they would like to do it
again.
And, therefore,
the strategy has got to be to help this government become an ally
against these people. What happens in Iraq -- and I understand how
difficult it's been. It's been hard. I have received a lot of
inspiration, however, from meeting with our troops, who understand the
stakes of this fight, and meeting with their families. And we owe it to
our troops to support our commanders -- smart, capable people who are
devising a strategy that will enable us to succeed and prevent the
conditions I just talked about from happening.
Ed -- no, John.
Just kidding.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. Your administration has cited al Qaeda leaders such as
Zawahiri as saying that if we leave prematurely, it would be a glorious
victory for al Qaeda. But the reason that we can't leave or haven't been
able to leave is not because we're getting defeated in any way
militarily, it's because the Iraqis can't get it together so far. So why
can't we counter those messages, and obviously not withdraw
precipitously, but begin some sort of gradual withdrawal that prevents
ethnic cleansing, but also allows our military to get out?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, there's a lot of discussion about a scenario in which our troop
posture would be to guard the territorial integrity of the country of
Iraq, to embed and train, to help the Iraqi security forces deal with
violent elements in their society, as well as keep enough Special Forces
there to chase down al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, that is something
that I've spoken in public about, said that's a position I'd like to see
us in.
However, I felt
like we needed to send more troops to be able to get the situation to
quiet down enough to be able to end in that position.
And in terms of my
own decision making, as I mentioned earlier, I definitely need to be in
consultation, and will be, with General David Petraeus, who asked for
the additional troops in the first place -- troops which have been in
place, fully in place for about three weeks.
And so I would ask
members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to
give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not. And it's
at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and
make a decision about the way forward -- all aiming to succeed in making
sure that al Qaeda and other extremists do not benefit from a decision I
might have to make.
Mark.
Q Yes, sir, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes, sir. Mark. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you. Thank
you, sir. How comfortable are you -- sir, how comfortable are you with
your Homeland Security Secretary saying, in the face of no credible
intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States, that he
has a gut feeling that one is coming this summer? And, sir, what does
your gut tell you?
THE PRESIDENT: My
gut tells me that -- which my head tells me, as well -- is that when we
find a credible threat, I'll share it with people, to make sure that we
protect the homeland. My head also tells me that al Qaeda is a serious
threat to our homeland, and we've got to continue making sure we've got
good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place, that we've got to
make sure we don't embolden them with -- by failing in certain theaters
of war where they're confronting us, that we ought to continue to keep
the pressure on them. We need to chase them down and bring them to
justice before they come home to hurt us again.
And so it's a --
this is a serious issue that is going to outlast my presidency. As I
say, this is the beginning stages of what I believe is a ideological
conflict that -- where you've got competing visions about what the world
ought to be like. What makes this more difficult than previous conflicts
is that there's the asymmetrical use of power -- in other words, IEDs
and suicide bombers are the main tactical device used by these thugs to
try to achieve strategic objectives.
Their objective is
to impose their vision on the world. Their objective is to drive the
United States out of parts of the world. They want safe haven. They love
a society where women have no rights, just like the society that they
worked to impose with the Taliban on the women of Afghanistan. That's
their vision. And it's in our interest to defend ourselves by staying on
the offense against them. And it's in our interest to spread an
alternative ideology.
We have done this
before in our nation's history. We have helped people realize the
blessings of liberty, even though they may have been our enemy. And
freedom has an amazing way of helping lay the foundation for peace. And
it's really important, as we head into this ideological struggle in the
21st century, that we not forget that liberty can transform societies.
Now, the
interesting debate is whether or not a nation like Iraq can self-govern;
whether or not these people even care about liberty. As you've heard me
say before, I believe -- strongly believe -- that freedom is a universal
value; that freedom isn't just for Americans, or Methodists, that
freedom is universal in its application. And so when they voted in '05,
I wasn't surprised -- I was pleased that the numbers were as big as they
were, to defy that many threats and car bombers, but I wasn't surprised.
And this is the
real challenge we face. And Iraq is just a part of a broader war against
these jihadists and extremists, Mark. It is a -- we will be dealing with
this issue for a while, just like we dealt with other ideologies for a
while. It takes time for ideologies to take root.
I firmly believe
that you'll see the democracy movement continue to advance throughout
the Middle East if the United States doesn't become isolationist. That's
why I've told you that I'm making sure that we continue to stay
diplomatically involved in the region. Condi Rice and Bob Gates will be
traveling there in early August, to continue to remind our friends and
allies that we're -- one, we view them as strategic partners; and,
secondly, that we want them to work toward freer societies, and to help
this Iraqi government survive. It's in their interests that Iraq become
a stable partner.
And I believe we
can achieve that objective. And not only do I believe we can achieve, I
know we've got to achieve the objective, so we will have done our duty.
This is hard work. And one of the things I talked about in the opening
comments was, do we do it now, or basically pull back, let the Gallup
poll or whatever poll there are decide the fate of the country? And my
view is, is that if that were to happen, we would then have to go back
in with greater force in order to protect ourselves, because one of the
facts of the 21st century is that what happens overseas matters to the
security of our country.
Ed.
Q Good morning,
Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in Iraq and the politics
here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq reached the ceiling,
or can you allow any further military escalation?
THE PRESIDENT:
You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried to get me to do,
and that was to --
Q Can I have a
follow-up?
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not going to answer
your question -- (laughter) -- except to say this: There's going to be
great temptation to -- not "temptation," you won't be tempted,
you will actually ask me to speculate about what David Petraeus will
talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the American people
to understand that the Commander-in-Chief must rely upon the wisdom and
judgment of the military thinkers and planners. It's very important that
there be that solid connection of trust between me and those who are in
the field taking incredible risk.
And so, Ed, I'm
going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not going to prejudge
what he may say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment. He's an honest
man. Those of you who have interviewed him know that he's a straight
shooter, he's an innovative thinker. I was briefed by members of the
CODEL that came back, that said that it appeared to them that our troops
have high respect for our commanders in Baghdad, as do I.
Now, do you have a
follow-up, perhaps another subject, another area, another --
Q Same subject.
THE PRESIDENT:
Same question?
Q Different
approach.
THE PRESIDENT:
It's a different approach; yes, good. (Laughter.)
Q How hard is it
for you to conduct the war without popular support? Do you, personally
-- do you ever have trouble balancing between doing what you think is
the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public,
which is really the essence of democracy?
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are
tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win it? And of
course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people are in
this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about the
consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say to
themselves, maybe we ought to win this, maybe we ought to have a stable
Iraq.
Their question, it
seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's a very important,
legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many people understand
we must succeed, and I think a lot of people understand we've got to
wait for the generals to make these military decisions. I suspect -- I
know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I was taking a poll to
decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the
mission. In other words, if our troops said, well, here we are in
combat, and we've got a Commander-in-Chief who is running a focus group
-- in other words, politics is more important to him than our safety
and/or our strategy -- that would dispirit our troops.
And there's a lot
of constituencies in this fight -- clearly the American people, who are
paying for this, is the major constituency. And I repeat to you, Ed, I
understand that there -- this violence has affected them. And a lot of
people don't think we can win. There's a lot of people in Congress who
don't think we can win, as well, and therefore their attitude is, get
out.
My concern with
that strategy, something that Mike Hayden also discussed, is that just
getting out may sound simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have
long-term, serious security consequences for the United States. And so,
Ed, sometimes you just have to make the decisions based upon what you
think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country,
and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that
job. And that's what I firmly believe.
A second
constituency is the military. And I repeat to you, I'm pretty confident
our military do not want their Commander-in-Chief making political
decisions about their future.
A third
constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. These are
good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they support their loved
ones. And I don't think they want their Commander-in-Chief making
decisions based upon popularity.
Another
constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis.
Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect
there to be reconciliation top down; that we want to see laws passed. I
think they've got that message. They know full well that the American
government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of
working together; that's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.
But they also need
to know that I am making decisions based upon our security interests, of
course, but also helping them succeed, and that a poll is not going to
determine the course of action by the United States. What will determine
the course of actions is, will the decisions that we have made help
secure our country for the long run?
And, finally,
another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not
America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them.
And so that's what I think about, Ed.
You know, I guess
I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved, just
sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you
to be loved. And so when it's all said and done, Ed, if you ever come
down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able
to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle,
not based upon politics. And that's important to me.
Thank you all for
your time. I loved being here at this new building. Thank you.
Q Can we just ask
you about the al Qaeda intelligence report, please?
THE PRESIDENT:
What was that? This is amazing.
Q I know, I know.
THE PRESIDENT: The
new me.
The al Qaeda
intelligence report.
Q The intelligence
analysts are saying al Qaeda has reconstituted in areas of Pakistan,
saying the threat to the West is greater than ever now, as great as
2001. What's --
THE PRESIDENT:
Okay --
Q Okay, you tell
us what --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
glad you asked, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that opportunity to
--
Q Thank you for
coming back, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, this is just an
aberration. In other words --
Q It's over next
time.
THE PRESIDENT: --
I'm not going to leave and then come back because somebody yells
something at me.
Q Like China.
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes, exactly. (Laughter.) Thank you, David. I appreciate that. Exactly.
There is a
perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they
were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not the case. I
think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to September the 11th,
2001.
Secondly, that
because of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they
would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And
that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and
anywhere else we find them. That's our strategy, is to stay on the
offense against al Qaeda.
Elaine asked the
question, is it al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes, it is al Qaeda, just like it's al
Qaeda in parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to
be able to -- he doesn't want them in his country; he doesn't want
foreign fighters in outposts of his country. And so we're working to
make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda.
But no question al
Qaeda is dangerous for the American people, and that's why -- as well as
other people that love freedom -- and that's why we're working hard with
allies and friends to enhance our intelligence. That's why we need
terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's important for us to
keep -- you know, would hope Congress would modernize that bill. And
that's why we're keeping on the offense.
Ultimately, the
way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to offer alternative ways
of life so that they're unable to recruit; that they can use -- they
like to use frustration and hopelessness. The societies that don't
provide hope will become the societies where al Qaeda has got the
capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself up. What we need to
do is help governments provide brighter futures for their people so they
won't sign up.
And the
fundamental question facing the world on this issue is whether or not it
makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology. I happen to think
it does. They say, he's idealistic. Yes, I'm idealistic, but I'm also
realistic in understanding if there is not an alternative ideology
presented, these thugs will be able to continue the recruit. They'll use
hopelessness to be able to recruit. And so it's -- thank you for asking
that question.
Thank you all.
END 11:30 A.M. EST
Return to this
article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712-5.html
