us. >> the current defense authorization bill contains a provision requiring public disclosure of names, and of students and instructors within winsac as well as the countries of origin. in your opinion what effect will this provision have on foreign countries' willingness to extend students as well as instructors, and what effect would it have on their ability to help south com carry out its mission. >> i'm concerned that it will have a negative impact on it, that we have gone out and -- and at least looked and discussed with some of our partners, there, they would be concerned if names were released, i'm concerned, even for the u.s. military personnel and their families, who support winsec with the release of that and i personally do not support the release of the names. >> thank you, general renuart. as you concluded your third year

as commander, as we look forward, what are the biggest challenges out there for these respective commands. >> senator, as we see recapitalization of our infrastructure is important to us, the age of our air sovereignty fire fighter force, obviously, is growing and we want to continue to monitor closely the development and fielding of new systems to allow to us maintain the air sovereignty of our two nations and radar sites are aging and we have initiatives in place and so, continuing to support the modernization of those i think are very important for the norad role. for northcom, i think, continue to work closely with our border security partners, our interagency partners, continue to work closely with mexico, especially in the counter illicit trade and traffic and i think the future challenges, making sure the national consequence management force is

well organized, training, equipped and executable for the nation, because we don't know when one of those events will occur and we have to be ready at any moment. >> as you know, in november of 2007, over 450 f-15s were grounded due to structural concerns and a number under your command, and as a result of that, and -- north com, we had to call on the canadians who flew cf-18s to fill in for f-15s for a period of three weeks. as our f-15 platforms continue to age, and they are part of the aging fleet you alluded to and make their way towards retirement are you concerned about available assets and level of acceptable risk and the conduct of your air sovereignty mission. >> i'm concerned we maintain the force level to keep the mission intact. as you know, the air force is conducting if you will a fighter force, review, that will target

not only the assignment of the aircraft in places but where we invest money from the air force's perspective in maintaining the fighter force as new systems come aboard, and i think you will have a hearing about one of those, in a few minutes. i do monitor that, very carefully, i have said, often, publicly, on the record, that the baseline force that we have has to be maintained, and, i'm comfortable, so far, that the department, and certainly the department of the air force are committed to maintaining that, but is something we monitor as you see adjustments in delivery rates, or in aging rates, with each of our systems. >> you are right. we'll be talking about the f- 35 here later on this morning, and, you and i have had an opportunity to visit relative to the performance of the f-22 and i'd like you to comments on how you have seen it first hand and secondly, what impact will a slippage on the ioc on the f-35

have on northcome? -- north come. >> the f-22 has proven itself to be an excellent weapon system and we have used it in our air defense missions in alaska. and have found it to be a very capable system and i think the department is committed to continue its spiral development into the modern versions of the plane that were planned. so i'm very comfortable that it gives us the capability that is much needed, in our air force. with respect to the f-35, timing, again, if we see that program delay, then it is of -- will be of interest to me to ensure we maintain the quality and capability of our f-15 fleet to maintain the air defense, for, now, i'm not -- i don't feel there is an unacceptable level of risk because i think the two match pretty well but, obviously if something changes

we'll have to monitor that very carefully. >> thank you, thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator chamblis. we are ready to proceed. i believe now to our second hearing. senator collins, you don't have and requesting additional question. thank you both, we are again, very appreciative of the service that you have always provided this nation, your families, great support and we thank them for that and general renuart, all the best to you on your upcoming retirement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're going to take a three-minute recess. three minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> obama and his socialistic ideas of, you know, the government running the car companies and banks and deciding salaries, this is a life lesson in progress, right now, for conservatives. >> announcer: sunday, michelle easton of the clare boothe luce policy institute. sunday night, on c-span's q&a. >> up next on c-span2, former iraq ambassador paul bremer on combatingy islamic extremism and margaret hoover, on the future of conservatism, it lasts about an hour. [applause]. >> thank you very much. congressman schaeffer for that kind introduction. i was reminded when sherry made

the point about "newsweek"'s comment, we were all socialists i wanted to ask all the socialists to leave now, please. [laughter]. >> that is clear. i want to pay respects to the program which is dedicated to recruiting and training future leaders in colorado, i think it is a wonderful program. you mentioned the problem with the snow in washington and you may all -- probably all did read about the snow we had backs there, i live in washington and the fact that because we had so much snow the government was closed down for a number of days, which was probably -- [applause]. >>... one of the congressmen i know has a sign behind his desk that says the republic is never safer than when congress is adjourned but the schools were closed and there was a story there, that the mother went in to her son and said, the schools are reopened now, you have to get up and get out of bed and go to school and he said i don't want to go to school today and she said you have to. >> and she said i don't want, to

i really -- and she said, give me two good reasons why you shouldn't go to school today and he said, the first case, the students hate me. and, secondly, the teachers hate me. and she said, look, that is -- come on schools are open and those are not good reasons, get up and go to school! and, the son said to the mother, give me two good reasons why i should go to school and she said, well, the first place you are 51 years old... and secondly you are the principal. okay, so the schools are reopened, in washington. we face today three main foreign policy challenges. i'm going to deal with the first two briefly and focus on the third the first is china. which is in the process of merging as a great power. certainly has acquired enormous strength over the last few years and indeed in many respects is now the world's second power. chinese people have benefitted greatly from economic growth, over the last 20 years, but, it

is true that the economic growth means that china has a hunger for natural resources, and, indeed, gradually is becoming less dependent on the american markets. which will reduce our leverage in beijing. secondly, of course, the chinese administration is still a totalitarian administration, so, we will continue to have political frictions with china. and, finally, chinese foreign policy is becoming increasingly more assertive. not the least in the search for natural resources. which suggests that we will continue to have tensions between us and the chinese and indeed, rising tensions in the pacific region. history, i hardly need to remind you is full of examples of the problems of dealing with an emerging new power and the second power i will not deal with in great leaeat length now russia which presents a rather bizarre combination of a reaservings of imperial designs combined -- assertion of

imperial designs combined with the country's social and demographic weakness. people don't realize how isolated russia really is not if her former colonies want to be colonies again and russia is facing a demographic collapse, and some estimates are the overall population of russia will fall from 140 million to less than 100 million, by the middle of the century. and, there is, therefore, a real contrast in russia, between the stated aim of the russian government, to reestablish a russian sphere of influence, if you will, in the region, combined with this weakness. we have seen russian defense spending quadruple in the last six years and seen the russians intimidate neighbors like georgia and there will be a problem, russia presents a rather bizarre combination of early 19th century czarist russian nationalism combined with the kinds of weakness and resentments that characterized

post world war i germany, and you may hear more tonight from my good friend, tonight, john bolton, but these problems can be dealt with by tough minded american diplomacy and the bad news wise are not likely to find support among our traditional european allies on either of these issues. let me turn to the third in the my view, major threat to american security, which is, islamic extremism and getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction. i want to leave you with three thoughts about this problem today. first, that this is a global threat, not just against america but against the west, and, secondly, that the threat has an important nation state dimension, namely, iran, and, thirdly, that the u.s. needs a

comprehensive strategy to deal with the threat. i'm not sure as i will talk about later, that we have that strategy, yet. what is the threats of terrorism? most of us think of 9/11 when we think of the new face of terrorism and that is right. and i have to say that the national commission on terrorism, which the congressman mentioned which i chaired, reported to you, the american people, to congress and to president clinton, 15 months before 9/11, that we face a new threat from islamic extremism and that these extremists would conduct mass casualty attacks on the hoped on a pearl harbor scale. we said that in june of 2000. why did we say that? because we looked at the evidence. and the evidence suggested a real change in the face of terrorism had taken place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. i was involved as congressman schaeffer pointed out in the war

on terrorism in the '70s and '80s and the terrorists then were different from the ones we face today, they used terrorism as a tactic to get attention to their cause. they would kill enough people to get the press there but not so many that the public would be turned off of their cause and they wanted to draw attention to their cause, whether getting american bases out of germany, or, wanting america and france out of nato and so forth. in a word, those terrorists practiced self-restraint. they didn't want to kill so many people they would turn off the public. they didn't want to go to jail. they didn't want to die. suicide attacks were almost unknown, in the '70s and '80s, and, so the old strategy that we put together, in the '70s and '80s with our allies in europe on which america took the lead are treating terrorists as criminals, made sense. it no longer makes sense with these new people.

because, the national commission on terrorism said there are three new trends that took place, in the 1990s, first of all, terrorism was becoming more deadly. the number of terrorist incidents was declining in the '90s but the number of casualties was going up, secondly, suicide attacks were becoming an increasing number and percentage of international terrorist attacks, in the world. and, thirdly, the bipartisan national commission pointed to this fact: all of the known terrorist supporting states were conducting programs to acquire or had acquired weapons of mass destruction. in the case of iraq, it not only acquired weapons of mass destruction, it had used them in the iran-iraq war and against its own people and the syrian program continued until just recently when the israelis bombed the nuclear plant in syria. and, of course the iranian

program, continues today, and i'll have a lot more to say about iran in a minute. so, we said in the national commission, we face something new here. these new terrorists must have a different motive from the old terrorists, because, they are completely different. what do we know about the motives? actually, we know a lot, because the terrorists have talked a lot about their motives and they started talking about it, as the commission pointed out in the late '80s, these islamic extremists profess an extreme version of islam which they define as being necessarily at war with the west. and for two decades, in their interviews, in their fat was, in the statements they've issued, they have been very clear. they basically have a goal which is the conversion, by force, if necessary, of the entire world, to their warmed version of islam.

they want to establish as some of them say, a universal caliphate. there is an egyptian, who is very important in this named said khatoub, the founder of the muslim brotherhood and wrote decades ago, almost 80 years ago, a muslim has no nationality but his belief, no nationality but his belief. and, the strategic plan published by the muslim brotherhood in 1991 said they called for a grand jihad to, quote, eliminate and destroy western civilization from within so that it is eliminated, and allah's religion is made victorvicto victorious over all other religions and a pakistani cleric said, the goal of islam is to rule the entire world and submit all mankind to the faith of islam. now, these islamic extremists are motivated by a burning

hatred of everything that is western, a burning hatred and it's not -- we're not talking about our magazines and our films and western culture. they hate those, too. but, they basically hate the very foundations of western civilization, the kinds of things that the congressman talked about, this nation was founded on. separation of church and state. universal suffrage. women's education. trade unions. a free press, these things they hate and more. the thing they hate the most is democracy. bin laden calls democracy a satanic project, why? because it puts man and not god in charge of how society is run and his deputy, zawahiri, denounced the election and he said, democracy is a new religion that must be destroyed

by war. think about that. democracy is a new religion that must be destroyed by war. now, this sunni extremism i'm describing is only half the problem, because there is also a shia dimension and the shia dimension is in particular, is particularly dangerous because of the sponsorship of the shia terrorism. by a state which is iran. for 30 years, under six successive american presidents of both parties, in concluding this administration -- including this administration iran has been identified as the major state sponsor of terrorism in the world. it was iran that created the hezbollah, which is the shia terrorist group most active in lebanon and, by the way, until 9/11, hezbollah had killed more americans than all the other terrorist groups in the world,

combined. iran today sponsors shia extremists, as far away as the yemen. but, iranian support for terrorism is ecumenical because iran is also today the major supporter of the sunni terrorist group, hamas, and, iran is in effect at war with america, because they are killing our soldiers in iraq, and afghanistan. these are the facts. now, like sunni extremism, this iran-shia extremism is anti-democratic and anti-western and indeed the basic premise of the mullahs who rule in tehran is that the supreme leader rules by divine right. a senior iranian cleric, one of president mahmoud ahmadinejad's clerical mentors, has said, quote, accepting islam is not compatible with democracy. and, after the june elections,

we saw how the iranian leadership felt nothing but contempt for the idea of a free election in their country. now, in sum, radical extremism, whether sunni or shia variety resembles in many ways the 20th century totalitarian creeds like naziism and communism and denies the legitimacy of western secondization, the democratic order and the foundations of the country we all are privileged to live in. the revolutionary motives of these extremists have consequences for our security. because, unlike the old tearists who practice for strength and new terrorists want to kill us by the thousands or hundreds of thousands, some of you will remember, there was a first world trade center attack.

which took place in february, of 1993. remember, they drove a truck into the basement and blew up a bomb? through good work by tfbi we we able to capture these six terrorists who then told us that their objective had been to kill 250,000 americans, that day. that was their objective. now the new dimension, therefore, which makes these terrorists, extremists so terrifying, is the possibility that by getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they could in fact have the capability of killing us as they say they want to, by the hundreds of thousands. this is the crucial nexus, the nexus between terrorists supporting states, weapons of mass destruction, and islamic extremism, which is the major threat to american national security in the early 21st

century. the clock is ticking. another bipartisan commission chaired by senator bob graham of -- used to be in florida, reported in december that extremists will use weapons of mass destruction in and attacks in the next four years. now, people once you get this into your mind, people often say, what, what is the root cause of all of the hatred, why can't we deal with the root cause and why can't we all just get along? i tell you one thing, the root cause is not poverty. usama bin laden is a millionaire and could buy and sell all of us in this room and, zawahiri is a well educated upper glassest class egyptian medical doctor and the guys who did the attacks on the world trade center were all well educated from upper class families, mostly from saudi arabia. and umar farouk abdulmutallab, the christmas bomber, was a

college educated man from a upper class, highly respected nigerian family. it is not poverty. the root cause of terrorism i believe is nothing less than the existence and i would argue, success of western civilization. they hate us for what we are, there is no compromise to be made with them about who we are. we are who we are and we stand, america stands, behind 230 years of independence, but, before that, another 700 years or so, of western thought. was prime minister blair said, when he was still en offiin off this is not a clash of civilizations, this is a clash about civilization. bernard lewis, who is a professor at princeton, and one of the country's best observers of the middle east, believes that this hatred comes from a

deep sense of failure on the part of islamic societies to reconcile their vision of islam with the modern world. i think, he's onto something here. and, that this ajals has very important implications for our strategy, which i'll come to later, and, in particular, for the role of promoting representative government to drain out this hatred. now, let me finish this brief part by making clear two important things. the vast majority of muslims are not terrorists. but the vast majority of terrorists are muslims and, secondly, there is in effect a civil war going on inside of islam now, to define appropriately what is islam's role in the modern world and we have a very big stake in the moderate muslims winning that civil war. now, let me turn to iran,

because, that really is in many ways, where my concerns are the greatest. the iranian government for years has lied to the united nations, the international atomic energy commission, the international community about its program to get nuclear weapons. today, there simply can be no doubt that the program, despite repeated iranian denials, is directed at acquiring nuclear weapons and i'll just quote two top american serving officials to this effect. in early february, the director of national intelligence, admiral blair, told congress on the record the following: iran has the scientific, technical, industrial capability to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon. and i was at a public meeting with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, in january, where he said, and i

quote, iran has the strategic intent to have nuclear weapons. iran to date has paid no price for lying about its nuclear program, for disregarding u.n. success you have u.n. security council resolution and mocking the express concerns of the international communities. for almost 20 years the europeans have pursued what they call a constructive dialogue with the iranians on the subject. it has been neither constructive nor a dialogue. all negotiations have been fruitless as was the case in north korea. in the past year, president obama has given iran several deadlines by which time they should comply with their u.n. security council and iaea demands only to move the line in the sand he has drawn successfulively as iranians have

not met those deadlines, indeed after iran recently and brazenly announced, two weeks ago, that it had enriched uranium to 20% which is a very significant step towards getting weapons-grade uranium, even after that announcement, the american policy seems to be based on the hope one might say, even the wish, that iran would somehow see the light, and cease its violations and its nuclear program. ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult, i would say almost impossible, to exaggerate the consequences of a nuclear iran. let me just name six that come to mind, offhand. first of all, a nuclear iran would represent a major shift in the geopolitical balance in the world's most unstable region. secondly, as a consequence, we would see more nuclear proliferation, as iran's historic nonpersian neighbors

would seek to redress that balance, by acquiring nuclear weapons, themselves. thirdly, it would promote proliferation in other parts of the world. countries like north korea, and even japan, are watching closely, what happens in iran. fourth, it would lead to bolder iranian interference in the neighboring countries of iraq and afghanistan, threatening american interests, in both of those countries. 5th, peace between israel and the arabs would be less likely, sixth and most importantly, it would increase, i think, in a measurable way the possibility of nuclear proliferation, to -- towards super terrorism, that is to say, the possibility that nuclear weapons or materiel would be given to for find their way into the hands of extremists. let's face it.

diplomacy is failing. no package of sanctions on iran, even the robust package that the administration talks about, even if you could get that robust package of sanctions through the security council which i doubt, even that kind of a regime is unlikely to dissuade the iranians from continuing their nuclear program. president mahmoud ahmadinejad is on the record as saying iran's nuclear program is a train without brakes. and as you know he has an apocalyptic view of the end of the world and iran's role in it calling repeatedly for this destruction of israel and often welcoming the idea of a world without america. our options at dealing with iran are rapidly disappearing. the only peaceful means left to us now, assuming sanctions don't work, the only peaceful way to stop the nuclear program, is

regime change. and, failing that, the only option left, to stopping the program, will be military action. and despite the obvious down sides of that option, it must remain on the table, and, more importantly, it must be seen to remain on the table. explicitly remain on the table. when he was a senator, senator obama said it was unacceptable, for iran to have nuclear weapons. as did senator clinton, and indeed that was the position of the bush administration. well, if it is unacceptable we have to be prepared to do something about it. to defend against this islamic -- general islamic threat we need, america needs, a grand strategy and that grand strategy has three components. one, conceptual clarity about the threat, two, good intelligence to deal with the threat, and, three, the mobilization of the entire -- country's entire scope, panoply,

of powers, political, economic, military, covert action, to deal with the threat. how are we doing? in each case, i think there are reasons to be concerned about the administration's approach. first, lack of clarity. about the threat. now, let me start by saying that to his credit, after he took office, president obama continued a number of the essential elements of the new fight, that his predecessor had put in place. continued most aspects of the patriot act. wiretaps and e-mail intercepts. the indefinite detention of extremist killers, any -- and continued president clinton's policy, not president bush's, president clinton's policy of rendition, rendering terrorist extremists to third countries, those things he has done. but, the president admitted in his state of the union address, last month, that, quote, we are at war. the problem is, that the policies don't seem to follow

logically from the statement that we're at war, indeed, they suggest that mean in his administration believe that this is less of a war, than a law enforcement problem. and let me give you the examples, they have been in the press and you know them, but to put it in context, look at fort hood and the christmas bomber. in the case of fort hood, two high officials in their immediate reactions sort of showed the problem. the case in fort hood was pretty clear. major hasan was a self-proclaimed islamic extremist and made no effort to hide that. secretary of homeland security, after hasan was taken into custody, that day, went on television and said, quote, the most important thing now, is to see that justice is done. what? isn't the most important thing now to find out how it happened, and stop it from happening again? if you are the secretary of homeland security? it's not see that justice is done. that will happen. that is not the most important

thing. the secretary of the army in his first two or three reactions to the same attack, expressed his concern on the impact this would have, quote, on the diversity of our service. how about on the safety of our servicemen and women? isn't that really what that should be the concern of the secretary of the army? now, the after-action report, dod released last week, 86 pages long looking into fort hood talked and talked and talked and in 86 pages never mentioned the word islam. how could you do a serious examination of the fort hood thing, without examining what happened? how could you do that? words have meaning. they reflect ideas. ideas have meaning, and they reveal a concept chul framework and the conceptual framework of this administration i believe is not yet clear on the threat and

then there was the handling of the christmas bomber, umar farouk abdulmutallab, we know the story. he was questioned for 50 minutes, mirandized and shut up. and we are left with the spectacle of the president's counter terrorist advisor, senior counter terrorist advisor, lauding the fact that we are now in a plea bargain with a man who tried to kill 300 americans. then we have the attorney general, announcing we'll try khalid sheikh mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind in the a federal civilian court, a decision which was trumpeted as a, quote, important victory for the rule of law. but, khalid sheikh mohammed, like umar farouk abdulmutallab, is an enemy combatant, not just a criminal, he's an enemy combatant. and, this will be the first time in history, that an enemy combatant captured abroad would be tried in a federal court. moreover the rule of law operates in the military commissions, established by

congress, by law, signed into 2006. and, finally, there is no reason why the terrorist could not be taken into custody by the military interrogated appropriately for a long time, and then eventually turned over to civilian trials. we -- it leaves us with some questions, for example, if we were lucky enough to capture usama bin laden, would he be mirandized? it is a serious question. it may sound funny but it is a serious question, would he be mirandized? would he be tried in a u.s. court? would we, the american people, be subjected to the spectacle of plea bargaining with a man who led to the death of 3,000 people on our shores? those are the logical consequences of the administration's approach and lack of conceptual clarity. they are still thinking that this is a problem of law

enforcement. now, so it appears that there is a real problem with conceptual approach. secondly, let me turn to the second problem, which is good intelligence. there is no area in the world where intelligence is more difficult to get and more important to get, than in counterterrorism. the terrorists work in structures, very difficult to penetrate, and it takes very high risk-taking intelligence service to get into these cells, and find out what they are doing, and the objective of terrorist intelligence is to find out what they are doing before they do it. and stop it. which is quite different than saying, your job is to capture the guy after he's done it and prosecute him. there is a big difference and that is where the problem was with umar farouk abdulmutallab. in risk-taking intelligence service requires two things, it requires political leaders who understand that risks will be

taken so mistakes will be made, that's the nature of risk, and, secondly, a group of intelligence-gathererers, who understand that when the mistakes are made the political leaders will back them up, not just throw them overboard. [applause]. >> it is also the case that because of the high stakes involved in fighting islamic extremism, a president may very well have to decide and should decide to preempt attacks before they happen. the idea is not to let the attack happen. again, it is a very different approach if you are in law enforcement, in law enforcement you wait for the crime to be committed, move in, and prosecute. you cannot do that in terrorism because they might have in mind to kill a couple of hundred thousand people and you have to be prepared to preempt and in many cases the president will have to make the decision on the basis of incompleted and

ambiguous intelligence and it does no good to point fingers at the intelligence community. that is his job. now, there are signs, i think, that the current administration is repeating some of the mistakes we've made in this area of intelligence in the past. some of you will remember back in the 1970s, the church and pike committees named for the two respective chairmen in the senate and the house, conducted a vigorous witch hunt in the cia which hampered the cia's operations for years. the national commission on terrorism, which i chaired, reported that in 1994, the cia imposed highly restrictive restraints, rules, on agents in the field in terms of how they could basically penetrate terrorist cells. those highly restrictive rules were in effect, still on 9/11. by the way. now, are we seeing a repeat of

the same problem? i'm afraid we may be. this administration, you may recall, about a year ago, released highly classified cia documents against the advice of 7 current and previous cia directors and last summer the attorney general announced that he would reinvest gait cia officials who had already been investigated and cleared by career justice people, he was going to reinvestigate their techniques of interrogation and that has an impact on the morale of our intelligence services and also, raised questions in foreign intelligence services about the benefits of cooperating with the u.s., so there is reason to be concerned about this area, also. so, finally, where is the grand strategy? where is the mobilization of all of the political and economic and military and covert weapons we have?

first of all, we need to kill our capture the hard core extremists, wherever they are and to the president's credit, he has made aggressive, even more aggressive use of predators, in the afghan-pakistan theater than bush did. and, i'm glad that the pakistani government and military services now appear to be more cooperative. but, a grand strategy to deal with islamic extremists also has to deal with their ideas. and, in particular, their idea that islam is not compatible with modernization. now, some people in this administration, argue that to speak of a war of terrorism is wrong, because it means making war on what is after all a tactic. terror is a tactic. that is true as far as it goes, but, terrorism is symptomatic of signify they are thinking about and it is symptomatic of what -- that underlying hatred i talked about. so, a grand strategy has to also deal with that underlying hatred

and at the heart of the grand strategy must be promoting representative government, the objective is to help modern -- moderate muslims win that he civil war i talked about earlier. we should be supporting them wherever possible. enlisting where necessary, and possible the cooperation of local governments, in africa, the middle east and asia. but the promotion of representative government in the muslim world, no longer appears to be a high priority of this administration. budgets have been cut, the discussion of democracy is no longer a standard part of either the private or public discussion that american officials have, yet -- and there is a way to do it. for example, in the case of iran, we should be supporting the green movement, the democratic movement, that was crushed after june 12th. there is a bill in congress, the iran democratic transition act that ought to be supported, not

opposed, as the administration is doing. we need to support the green movement and movements like that everywhere and, in particular in the case of iran, as i found in iraq, support the women in those societies. who are in the case of iran, as was the case in iraq, in many ways, way ahead of that your male counterparts in their desire for freedom and democracy. let me finish with my sort of summary of all of this. we face a serious and broad threat from islamic extremism, whether sunni or shia. iran is a major element of that threat, and the possible accusation of nuclear weapons threatens to destabilize the entire region. thirdly, while the administration has taken some steps to deal with the extremist threat there are, i think, reasons to be concerned about whether it fully understands the

concept and whether it is really working to bring the intelligence agencies to bear on this threat. so, what we need is a broad global strategy to defeat this islamic extremism and, by the way, as was the case with the cold war, it will be a very long struggle. it is a generational struggle and that means, as was the case with the cold war we need try to build bipartisan support. no one of the two parties can carry this on as long as it needs to be carried on. we are going to have to find a way for democrats and republicans to agree that this indeed is a threat. i thought after 9/11 we might have a chance of doing that, and for a brief period in history, we did. i'm optimistic and i'm a historian and i think that if you look back over our 230-odd years, america has never failed to stand up to the challenges we faced, and we'll do it again. but, it will be a tough struggle. thank you very much. [applause].

>> yes, sir? >> at the risk -- could you speak to the risk you see of a sunni nuclear power in pakistan, and the threat to the shia in iran? how important do you think that is, in their striving to achieve nuclear weaponry. >> well, i mean, pakistan is a nuclear power. i don't think there is much likelihood that they'd use their nuclear weapons against iran. iranians objectively are surrounded by nuclear states. russia, somewhat removed now, because they are no longer in central asia. pakistan, on one side, israel on the other. but, it is clear that it is not in america's interest for iran to get nuclear weapons, however

one can address the issue, that is the bottom line. the bottom line is, as the president used to say, it is unacceptable for iran to have nuclear weapons. >> yes, sir, i'm -- >> speak into the mic. >> i'd like to know at what point do you think israel will step in and act to defend itself against iranian nuclear weapons? >> that is a -- first obviously, a question that only an israeli government official could answer, if he would, which he won't. [laughter]. >> but, from an israeli point of view, it is understandable that they would be very concerned about a nuclear iran, particularly, a nuclear iran, where the government is an extremist islamic government. not to say that if iran were democratic and had a nuclear weapon, israel wouldn't be

concerned. and we might be concerned, too. but, obviously, much less concerned. we are not concerned that france has nuclear weapons. for a reason. it's not all equal. it is a different thing, and an extremist government in tehran gets nuclear weapons, and i wouldn't want to predict what israel might or might not do. but, i can certainly see their concerns and i think their concerns will grow. yes, sir. >> this is -- relates a little bit to the answer you just gave, some apologists for iran seem to think the concept of mutual assured destruction which restrained the soviets might restrain iran and i'm skeptical of that and i wanted to get your take, and, secondarily, whether you think that appearing crazy enough to use nuclear weapons is an intentional tactic for the iranians? >> well, i... the psychologist in my family is my daughter. so i'm going to leave off the second one of those, because i

don't know. i think it is a very dangerous form of preemptive capitulation to assume we can deal with iran through what is called extended deterrents. there have been some hints in the administration, particularly a statement by secretary clinton, last april, that this might be the direction in which the administration at that time any way was headed towards saying, well, we have to live with a nuclear iran and i think it is a very dangerous assumption. that a leadership which claims its right to rule through divine right regularly refers to the belief of the return of the 13th oculating imam and talks r regularly about the destruction of israel, it is difficult to assume that a government like that would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons. i think you would have to make

the assumption if you were an israeli and i believe if you are an american, that it is far too dangerous to let it happen. we cannot accept that it happens. >> ambassador thanks for your message today, i'm jon andrews with the centennial institute. you referred to a civil war going on with in islam over the central problem of hate, violence and aspiration to dominance that you identified. i'd like to think it is so but i don't see that much evidence in the muslim world and europe or in this country, that there really is a civil war in terms of a moderate or conciliation-minded side fighting against the violent hateful side. would you elaborate on that? >> well, that is a good point. i mean, i think what -- you know, to put in the old american terms, you've got, i think in the muslim world, from my brief experience, what we used to call a silent majority. and i think that is more or less

right. i think there are governments and i know many islamic leaders i've met who are genuinely -- genuinely hate these extremists and, indeed, if you look at the polling in the countries across the belt from north africa over to pakistan, there has been, by the pew institute, there has been a rather dramatic drop in express support for islamic extremism. for al qaeda. among the public. are they willing to stand up and say it publicly? many of them, no, because they are afraid. and one of the things they are afraid of is they will not get support from us and will be left out there. and, so, one of the things that must -- part of the strategy must be to encourage those people to be brave and go out and say, no, you extremists are the apostates here, you are the people who are not carrying out the true meaning of islam. and i agree, it would be helpful

if more muslims, particularly muslims in the west, would stand up and make this pointed, that we have seen so far. but i believe, as i said earlier the vast majority of muslims are not terrorists. yes, sir? >> how did iran come into contact with the nuclear -- the means to create nuclear weapons and how does a.q. khan play into the mix since he seems to be the one who did all the proliferation to begin with in the middle east? the lineage of the iranin program actually goes back to the days of the shah when the u.s. and france were involved in what was at that time a peaceful nuclear power program. in iran. and i think we still don't know about a.q. khan and his role in a lot of places. iran, maybe syria, certainly,

there is the north korean connection that comes up from time-to-time. the central point is not to do the bureaucratic archaeology. the central point is to stop it. >> thanks for your service, mr. ambassador, about comment on pakistan and its ability to deal with its internal security problem and whether it can be a help or a hindrance in this effort? >> well, that is a very important question. i am not an expert on pakistan, though, i have been there often and i lived for two years in afghanistan. i think the pakistan government in the last year has begun to show movement in the right direction. particularly, their operation in waziristan, their recent in the last two weeks, these rather important captures of intelligence operatives from pakistan and afghan taliban show that the intelligence service

and the military is beginning to move. they have a problem, which is, the indians still have about a half a million people in kashmir, on their border, they have fought a number of wars against india, and it would certainly be helpful if the indians would work to reduce that tension, which would allow the pakistan military to focus more in the west, and some of that is happening, and i think as long as the pakistani government, military and intelligence services are confident that the united states is there to stay and to win, i think we'll continue to see improvement. the concern, of course, many of these, is that while the president agreed on the surge in afghanistan, he unfortunately connected it immediately with the withdrawal. and, in that part of the world, power relationships are very finely measured by people and they watch to see who is going to be up and who is going to be done and mostly who is going to be there.

and, so, one of the challenges for the administration here over the next 18 months, on the political side, as we move forward on the military side, in afghanistan, is to persuade the people that we really mean it. we are really there to see this through to a success. >> your comments seem to be supportive of the patriot act and there are a number of people in this country that are concerned about the threat to our own civil liberties from that act. and i was wondering if you could provide a defense and justification for the patriot act and its continuation in its fight against terrorism. >> you know, it is always a hard trade off. i take back seat to nobody in my respect for our liberties and our rights. but this is -- there is a trade off. we cannot be 100% free in our civil rights, and also be 100%

safe. there is always going to be a trade off and i wouldn't get into commenting on particular aspects of the patriot act other than to say on the whole i think it a good act and is commendable for the most part the administration has continued to carry it out. >> i'm jerry olaff from erie, colorado and appreciate your message here, ambassador bremer. my question is, how do we persuade china which has a lot of oil interest and energy interest in iran, and russia, which has this beltline, southern beltline, can be pretty rattled by islamic interests, how do we go about persuading these two countries to be able to side with us? >> well, you see, i think it would be an ideal outcome if we could get them to, as you say, side with us because it would make more likely the possibility of a robust regime of sanctions

getting through the security council, at least some kind of sanctions. but i think it is a mistake to make that the first step. and i know you will hear from my friend, john bolton, tonight, i'm sure, and if you don't, ask him the question, he had to put up with the union for all of those years and dean rusk the first secretary of state a served under said he always admired what went on in the united nations, it reminded him of under water ballet. all of those intricate maneuvers with no air. [laughter]. >>' russians i think are probably more easily persuaded to understand the islamic threat, because, they have been dealing with the problems of islam for 250 or 300 years. and, as you point out, they have -- their former colleagues in central asia are almost all islamic. the chinese is a more difficult problem and indeed getting

leverage on the chinese on any subject as i sort of implied in my first comments is going to be increasingly difficult for us. because, our economic leverage, i think, is declining. but, the main point is, we should not let the russians or the chinese hold hostage something that is central to american national security. we can get them to go along, that is great and if they don't want to do it through the security council but quietly and covertly, that is fine, but we have a problem, with the iranian program of nuclear weapons, it is getting worse every day, every minute we sit here, those centrifuges are spinning and more of them are spinning. and, time is running out. >> ambassador bremer, my concern is stealth jihad, is radical islam that is already within our borders, and putting down sharia roots. why isn't the congress and the justice department investigating

organizations that are fronts for the muslim brotherhood or... it seems to me that right here within our border, there are things that could be done that are not being done by our representatives. >> yes, well, i think it is an appropriate concern about what goes on within our borders, particularly, what kind of recruiting is going on in our preference. of which -- prisons, of which there are a number of examples. again, it is -- there is a balance to be drawn here between our freedoms that we all hold very dear, and security. and one of our tenets is freedom of religion and so there is no reason to punish someone because he or she is muslim. so you have to find someone predicate, criminal activity, or indication of criminal activity and that can be difficult. i think it is -- i think we are making progress. we have had a number of

important arrests in -- and most recently the con conviction of zazi which i think started in denver with his terrorist plan. and i think it is not fair to say that nothing is being done, it is probably fair to say not enough is being done. but, finding that balance, particularly when it concerns activity within the united states, is a lot more difficult than finding that balance outside of the u.s. a good point. i think this will be the last one. >> thank you, it has been said that insanity is doing the same thing time after time, expecting different results. how much longer are we going to wait with united nations and the sanctions we continue to put on iran, similar countries, with absolutely no results? >> well, you should ask john. i think his answer would probably be, we've already done it too long. look, the u.n. is not a world

government. it has its uses. and, as long as whoever is in power in washington understands the limits of those uses, and they are quite limited, it can be a useful diplomatic tool. but, if you think the u.n. is going to solve our problems, particularly, our problems like the tough ones, like iran, you have not studied much history. you can go back to the league of nation for the most immediate ant seed dented but the -- anti-seed dent but the u.n. has not been a great success in a lot of really crucial areas and in the end and here, i think is where philosophically this administration differs from the previous administration, in the end, it will be american leadership that will protect the american people. and american leadership, sure you can use diplomacy and you should, political influence, military, whatever else there is. but, to really do that