our time is up. thank you for coming. >> tonight, remarks from president obama on gulf coast recovery efforts. also, a talk about students conservative values. then, general george casey on the quality of today's soldiers. president obama spoke to the gulf area residents and small business owners about the gulf coast recovery following the oil spill. during his remarks in panama city beach in florida, he described the oil spill as the most "technologically complex

spell in the nation's history." here is the president. good afternoon, everybody. it is a privilege to be here in panama city beach with the men and women of the united states coast guard. i wanted to come here personally and express my gratitude to you for the effort that you've waged in response to the bp oil spill. and i know michelle wanted to do the same, so we're looking forward to having a chance to shake hands with you and thank you personally for this great work that you've been doing day in, day out. michelle, just last month, was down in mississippi, where she met folks from the coast guard about the spill, and she had the chance to christen the new cutter -- the stratton. the coast guard was the first on the scene, immediately launching a search-and-rescue operation for the missing. and you were the first to recognize that we were

potentially looking at a massive spill even before the rig collapsed and the oil began to leak from the seafloor. and a day and a half later, in a meeting with thad allen and others, i instructed the coast guard, the department of homeland security, and other agencies to treat this response as their number-one priority. and that's exactly what all of you have done. under the leadership of admiral allen, the coast guard, along with other federal agencies and state and local governments, has directed the largest response to an environmental disaster in american history. the response has included more than 7,000 vessels, and more than 47,000 people on the ground. and i know that two cutters -- the aspen and the juniper -- are here in port this week, after tours skimming and performing other recovery work. as i said before, many of the

folks here have toiled day and night, spending weeks, even months, away from their families to stop the leak, remove the oil, and protect waters and coastline. so i want to thank all those who continue to participate in this effort. i also want to make mention and thank dr. stephen chu and our team of scientists assembled from across federal agencies, around the country and all over the world, who have been working nonstop to kill the well once and for all. this has not only been the biggest oil spill in our history; it's also been the most technologically complex. it pushed the boundaries of our scientific know-how, as engineers wrestled with a massive and unpredictable leak -- and faced setbacks, faced complications, all in pitch- black waters nearly a mile

beneath the surface of the gulf. well, today the well is capped. oil is no longer flowing into the gulf. it has not been flowing for a month. and i'm here to tell you that our job is not finished and we are not going anywhere until it is. that's the message that i wanted to come here and deliver directly to the people along the gulf coast -- because it's the men and women of this region who have felt the burden of this disaster. they watched with anger and dismay as their livelihoods and their way of life was threatened these past few months. and that's why i made a commitment in my visits here that i was going to stand with you not just until the well was closed, not just until the oil was cleaned up, but until you had fully recovered from the damage that's been done. and that is a commitment that my administration is going to keep.

that's also why my secretary of the navy, ray mabus, is here. a former governor of mississippi, a son of the gulf, he has been traveling all across this region, gathering up information and data to make sure that we are following through on our commitments for rebuilding. and i reiterated this just now when i met with a few small business owners from the panama city area, along with governor charlie crist and not only the mayors of this region, but also some of the business owners who are affected -- folks like captain gary jarvis, a charter boat operator from destin. gary started fishing as a deckhand back in 1978, and he's been captain for the past three decades, making his living on the water.

he's lost fully half of his business because of the spill, though he's been able to use his boat as a vessel of opportunity in the past few months. and he's extraordinarily knowledgeable about these waters, being both a charter fisherman and a commercial fisherman. and he had some terrific suggestions about how, working with scientists from noaa and other federal agencies, we can do even more to make sure that we are monitoring and maintaining and improving the fishing off the coast of florida and across the gulf. i also had a chance to speak to lee ann leonard, general manager of by the sea resorts. she's seen a big decline in tourism. june wasn't too bad, but july was tough. and she's now hoping that august, september and october can help them rebound from what have been significant losses.

i met with carolyn holman, who's got two commercial fishing boats and owns the captain's table fish house in panama city beach with her husband. and i appreciated the chance to sit down with them to hear firsthand what they've been going through and to make clear that we're going to keep standing by them. part of the concern that carolyn expressed was the issue of seafood and our testing and making sure that it's safe. and we are all over that and monitoring that carefully each and every day, hopefully continuing to deliver good news as the days go on. and i mentioned to her that we already had some seafood in the white house. when the new orleans saints came up, we had a couple of po'boys. so right now we're feeling pretty good. i also want to recognize that mayor gayle oberst and mayor scott clemons had some terrific suggestions about how we might

help to diversify the economies down here so that they're in a better position to -- if we ever had a crisis again -- manage it, but more importantly, to provide more jobs and opportunity in this extraordinary and beautiful region. now, i want to go over a couple steps that we are going to be focused on over the next several weeks. first and foremost, we're going to continue to monitor and remove any oil that reaches the surface and clean up any oil that hits the shore. as i mentioned, gary has been offering up his ship as a vessel of opportunity and he confirms what you've been seeing in the news reports, which is there aren't a lot of patches out there that are visible right now. but we've got to constantly anticipate that at any given time you might see a patch of oil that starts coming in, and

we've got to be able to capture that before it hits these beautiful beaches around here. as a result of the massive cleanup operation that's already taken place, a recent report by our top scientists found that the majority of oil has now evaporated or dispersed, or it's been burned, skimmed, or recovered from the wellhead. and the dispersed oil is in the process of degrading. but i will not be satisfied until the environment has been restored, no matter how long it takes. i also want to point out that as a result of the cleanup effort, beaches all along the gulf coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business. that's one of the reasons michelle, sasha, and i are here. the governor and the mayors and others invited us down to enjoy the beach and the water -- to let our fellow americans know that they should come on down here. it is spectacular. not just to support the region; come down here because it's just a beautiful place to visit.

next we're going to continue testing fisheries and we'll be reopening more areas for fishing as tests show that the waters are safe. already, more than 26,000 square miles were reopened at the end of july, and another 5,000 were reopened earlier this week. i know this takes some time, and it's been incredibly hard on the people who earn their living on the water. carolyn's boats, for example, have had to find different areas to fish that are further away and require more fuel, so she's been having to make some decisions, maybe i don't send out my boat this time out. but their livelihoods, not to mention the health of the people across this country, obviously depends on making sure that folks can trust the seafood coming from the gulf, trust that it's safe, as it always has been. and as i told carolyn, we've already been enjoying gulf seafood, but we are going to keep on monitoring this to make sure that everybody's favorite seafood from the gulf and favorite recipes are going to be treated -- are going to be

just fine. the third thing we're focused on is claims. when i came down to the gulf previously, i heard a lot of frustration about the way bp was handling claims. so in june i met with bp's executives, and in that meeting they agreed to put aside $20 billion in a special fund to pay damages. it's being run by an independent overseer so that people can trust that they'll get a fair shake. now we need to make sure claims are processed quickly, because many who have lost their only source of income, they don't have a lot of leeway; they don't have months to wait to be compensated. the folks we just met with -- lee ann, gary, carolyn -- they've all got outstanding claims. so i want to be clear about this. any delay by bp or those managing the new funds are unacceptable. and i will keep pushing to get these claims expedited. finally, i have charged, as i

mentioned earlier, ray mabus to develop a long-term gulf coast restoration plan as soon as possible. that plan needs to come from the people in the gulf, which is why he's been meeting with folks from across the region to develop this plan of action. that's how we can ensure that we do everything in our power to restore the environment and reverse the economic damage caused by the spill. so, with the closure of the well we mark an important milestone. but this is not the end of the journey. and in completing the work ahead i'm reminded of what i heard when i was in louisiana back in june. i spent time with folks on grand isle, meeting with fishermen and small business owners, and the town's mayor, david camardelle. and he told me what his friends and neighbors were going through. he talked about how hard things had been. but he also explained the way

folks rallied to support one another, and said, the people in this community may not have a lot of money, but that didn't matter. "we help each other," he said. "that's what we do." that's what folks do for one another in the gulf. that's what the coast guard has been doing for folks in need. that's what we do as americans. and my job is to make sure that we live up to this responsibility, that we keep up our efforts until the environment is clean, polluters are held accountable, businesses and communities are made whole, and the people of the gulf coast are back on their feet. so to the men and women of the coast guard, thank you again for your extraordinary service. to the people here in the gulf, we are going to be standing by your side. and to americans all across the country, come on down and visit. thank you. [applause]

[no audio]

>> certification, are you -- sir, are you planning to go swimming? >> we are going to go swimming, but we are not going to let the press come, because you will take a picture of me without my shirt on. >> what about the complaints about the lawsuits? >> we are confident we are going to get it done. >> are you going to the water today or tomorrow? >> i think we're going to go tomorrow. [unintelligible]

[unintelligible] >> next, representative cathy mcmorris rodgers talks to a group of republican students about values and american freedoms. then, general george casey on the quality of today's soldiers. we will also hear remarks from a

representative to the u.s. of the kurdish regional government. he talks about the u.s. role in iraq. following that, president obama as remarks on the gulf coast recovery efforts. tomorrow, mark murray of nbc news talks about the upcoming elections and poll numbers. then, the process people go through to become u.s. citizens. after that, a wall street journal writer discusses her newspaper's investigation into how on-line companies use technology for the purpose of learning about a subscribers' interests. plus your e-mails and phone calls. that is live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think it is important that everyone in florida know that i

will be a person who upholds the principles of the people of florida. i am going to fight only for the people of florida. >> it is campaign 2010, and the c-span video library makes it easy to follow the election cycle, the debates, rallies, victories and concession speeches, all free on your computer any time. >> the young america's foundation held its annual conservative student conference. speakers included members of congress, scholars and conservative activists. this portion of the features representative cathy mcmorris rodgers, who talks about conservative and values and american freedoms. >> you guys are a good group. [applause]

i am a program officer here at the american foundation. let me tell you a little bit about the foundation. we are committed to ensuring that young americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and the traditional values. as the principle of reorganization of the conservative movement, we accomplish our mission through conferences, seminars, internships and the national journalism center, and by providing speakers to students across the country. we also work to protect the reagan ranch in california. to learn more, please visit www.yaf.org. this panel is going to talk about the tea party, a big deal. [applause] absolutely. as i said in my introduction,

young america's foundation is the principal outreach organization for years, young conservatives. so, the question that this battle is going to seek to answer is why should young people be concerned about the de party? america's foundation has proudly sponsored many departing gatherings and events, including the immensely successful 9/12 march in washington, d.c. given that we are primarily a student our reorganization, we want to decide that this is something young people should be concerned about. i personally think it is. the panelists will speak about that at length. our first speaker is john o'hara, a vice president of external relations at the illinois policy institute, and the author of a new book that will be for sale after the panel. please join me in welcoming him. [applause]

>> i would like to thank young american foundation for putting this on. the the opposition, as many of you know on campuses, is one of radical liberalism -- in the default position, as many of you know, on campuses, is one of radical liberalism. a few years ago was very happy with the direction america was headed. a popularly elected president planned to transform america's spirit world news papers declared that the free market was dead. this president has been followed with a truly radical agenda. this radical agenda was not advanced without a strong, and in many ways successful,

resistance. on february 19th, a man stood up and declared what is now become the "grand heard round the world -- rant heard round the world." it sparked a civic awakening which is now known as the modernity party movement. people began to organize using social networking tools like facebook and twitter, an old- fashioned tools like website and e-mails. [laughter] from this to the august protest to be enormously successful

9/12 march, more and more americans involved themselves in the political process. they are not only opening their eyes and dating to the streets, they're proudly reaffirming the founding principles of our nation, that you will fight for on campus. today, democrats still have control of congress and the white house. despite the concerns that they're confused, they showed no signs of relenting in delivering their promise of a great new america. i stand here more hopeful today that the state of our nation. tea party ears are doing more than partying. their politicking too, and they are getting results. if this reaffirms what most of us already believe and have witnessed, which is that our country is truly a center-right

nation. people are more often than not in line with our principles. we're seeing incumbents drop out of grace is because they have competition. it just a while ago, our president, so sure he was going to usher in his audacious presidency with ease expressed his preference for a solid one- term presidency over a lackluster ticket term -- to good-term -- 2-term presidency. you forgot the third option, a lackluster one-term presidency. [applause] with his approval numbers dropping by the day, he may just get that. what is the de party exactly? -- the tea party exactly?

one writer refers to a counterrevolution to the policies and tactics that we are seeing adopted day in and day out in the halls of washington and in state capitals across the country. i think that to party movement is that counter revolution. it is a distinctive backlash to a government that has grossly overstepped its bounds, as exemplified by the bailout and handouts, and the persistence in expanding the size and scope of the government. the tea party movement serves as an indication that the country is a center-right. people are realizing -- are rejecting the hope of big government as sole provider and protector. they're recognizing that obama is bringing us down a dangerous path. they realize the summit is going to have to pay for these

bailouts and this -- that someone is going to have to pay for these bailouts and this reckless spending. it is you and me. not only that, we're realizing the small government is a practical and principled approach for all americans. this is not a group that can be won over by politicians. is not a club with a litmus test. is the core of what we are all fighting for, it is about limited government, free markets, and individual liberties. many people ask if they're libertarian conservatives. this is an uprising of people, more and more people, coming into the fold to work on what many of you have been working on on campus, but many of us here have been working on for years. polling indicates that the tea party is mainstream. broadly represent the country as a whole.

more and more americans identify with the tea party movement. more and more americans think the tea party is on track compared to barack obama, compared to this congress. the tea party is really the very definition of mainstream. i think it presents a unique opportunity, particularly for young people, as a gateway into the conservative movement. i think you should look at it as an opportunity and we should all look at it as an opportunity. are you out there with them marching? who here is in the tea party? wonderful. who has organized a key party? fantastic. what can you do to harness the power of this movement? this is a popular way of grass- roots uprising. what are you going to do to ride a the way in your town, on your campus, to maximize the impact of this counterrevolution. while the tea party does tend to skew toward an older generation,

the issues that indeed the party is focused on, and the most important issues that we are facing today as a nation, are very much about the future of our country. we are drowning in debt, roughly half a million in debt per taxpayer. do you have that in your bank account? are you going to be able to pay that when you graduate, or when increases in 5-10 years? ask your friends. maybe they will not see eye to eye with you. where do they expect that money to come from? unfunded liabilities like social security's, bailouts, hand out and spending are bankrupting our country, and our generation, your generation, is going to have to pick up the tab. these are not separate issues, but they are serious issues. i always added frustrating when people would tell me that i am passionate about what i believe in but i would not convince anybody. i would not change anybody's

mind. people are the way they are. i reject that premise and i hope you do it too. otherwise, what is the point of being here? in this country, there is a press wadable metal that decides most elections. -- a persuadeable middle that decides most elections. the new lots of tax policy or the philosophical opposition to bailout without any supporting evidence is a boring. this is a high-stakes game, the high stakes that our country is facing. the game politicians are playing is with your future. if you know someone is graduating, explain to them have big government policies of of this and the last administration are suppressing job creation and thus employment opportunities for them. make the case to them of a white the tea party movement, the broad center-right movement

public -- a quiet the tea party movement, the broad -- of why the department, the broad center-right movement, the conservative movement is right for them. this is not just for older people and politicians. what did the party is working for is very much your future, as much your future as it is for the year ended now. get out there, get busy, and do not lead a good counterrevolution go to waste. [applause] >> next we will hear from the president and ceo of a freedom works. his new book, but he party manifesto, will be released

soon. -- a tea party manifest, will be released soon. you can pre order on amazon now. quotingt to start been buy bob dylan. does anyone here torture themselves by reading a "rolling stone magazine?" i slogged through. i found this quote. the world owes us and not a single thing. we have to take a hold of our own problems. the editor was incredulous.

he said, who is going to solve our problems? that is what is going on in america today. there is a de-centralization of power and knowledge in politics and public policy that is unlike anything any of us have ever seen before. it suggests that this is not your typical political uprising where we all sort of notice after the fact how badly the politicians have screwed up our economy, both republicans and democrats, and we rise up, and it is too late to fix anything. we throw the bums out, and elect a new set of bums, and then we go along. what bob dylan is saying, as a public joyce scholar, is that politics is too important to leave to politicians. if you do that, you'll get burned every time.

there are certain reasons what politicians disappoint us. they're responding to the people who show up. this is it the power of the tea party. every time you go to a political speech, what do you hear? it does not matter if it is a 20 year incumbent. they say they will go to washington and change in the washington culture. then they come back from a really screwed up washington and say it again. george bush promised to do it. barack obama promised to do it. nancy pelosi promised to drain the swamp and beat a fiscal conservative. they all say it, they all do it. what you need to understand is that we do not need to change the culture in washington. we need to change the culture into,. tacoma. people need to understand what the founders taught us when they

said that you need to be eternally vigilant. if you are not, you will lose this country. they said it before the ink was dry on the constitution. somewhere along the way, we lost this tradition. somewhere along the way, we decided that publishing and 40 page white pages about social security was going to be compelling to politicians to respond to incentives and not ideas. it was about strategy. by 1998, i was serving a lot of leftist literature. i found a radical leftist group that helped start of the riots in a seattle during the wto meeting. they are the guys that teach young people how to blow up things. bad guys. when you went to their website, as far back as 1998, and they

had a training manual, what did they pointed their recruits to? they said, look at the boston tea party. i saw that and thought, when did we give our tradition to the bad guys? should we not take that back? for a lot of reasons and that john and discussed, when rick said, let's have multi-party -- a tea party, he was really suggesting that we get back to our original traditions. there is a lot of talk about the worries that the tea party is falling apart. that there is bickering and squabbling. people are down because obama passed his horrible health care bill and his financial regulation bill. i would argue that the opposite is going on. we have gotten further as a

community in changing the dynamics of politics here in washington, public opinion, and our political prospects in the fall than any of us had a right to think of a year ago. if you had been here in washington year-and-a-half ago when everyone had said, this is the end of the world, we are done. what are real doing here? that is when the people took over. there is a decentralization that has been enabled by the internet allows people to go right around the republican party, right around the democrat party. you do not have to listen to three networks anymore to get your information. they go get it for themselves. if you look to blog and all of these competitive sources of information, it very much reflects what used to be called "the spontaneous order." the market process by which all

the bits of knowledge in society came together through cooperation and produced market prices, produced acknowledges that allowed people to effectively organize their lives, to better their communities, and to create products that people wanted. that is what is going on in that he party movement. -- the tea party movement. did anybody here march on a 9/12? a couple of you did. we were probably thinking we would get 100,000 people. it was almost an arrogant thing, because we have never organized 100,000 people in washington before we had to expand our microphone system. we had to expand and the number of toilets. we had to expand the security and permits. we got 10 times that many people. we got 1 million people.

it's cut down the share the -- it shut down at the city. it shut down the mattress system. yet, there was not a single arrest, -- it shut down the transportation system. yet, there was not a single arrest, not a single fight. people were self-organizing and self-policing. that is because they believe in these values we're talking about. they believe in individual freedom and responsibility. it is very different from what you see on the press. none of the organizations here to organize 1 million people to come to the mall that day. is because there are tens of calls and the leaders across the country, each of them -- tens of thousands of leaders across the country, each of them organized people, through internet, through website, through ways to allow them for the first time in

their lives to find people in the community agreed with them and wanted to do something. in the old days, the older days being 12 months ago, you used to have to -- part of my job as a freedom march her was introducing people in the same community to each other. we do not have to do that anymore. we can let them find each other. they organize themselves. they can go online and get that information. they can find one of us or thousands of groups like ours to tell them how it is they can do what they are trying to do. that is the incredible power we have. i could count 7000 buses that came in at that had organized through our site, but that was one of 100 communities, most of whom i did not know, which is why we did not know how many people were coming. i think we had 70,000 people signed up, and we got a million people.

the opportunity for us today is a threefold. first, we have to be to the republicans before we can beat the democrats. whether that is taking out bennett in utah or charlie crist in florida, the republican establishment is really angry at us right now. that suggests that maybe we are getting something done. they do not want to talk to is in charge -- they do not want to -- they did not know what to do. they want to talk to you is in charge and make a deal, but no one is in charge. no one can promise them what they will get from an earmarked for a bill. they do not care about any of that stuff.

they care about basic things like that the government should not spend money it does not have dared the government cannot run a car company. the government should not take over my health care because they do not know how to do it. it is not in our constitution. it is not appropriate. this used to be -- i always thought this was a silent minority of people that held these values. as we discovered it through this movement and public opinion polls, the broad spread sympathy, this is a majority of americans to believe these basic values, but they did not know how to fight for them. they looked in both parties and said, i do not have a home in politics so i will opt out. palila my television and -- i will yell at my television and

stand in the background as everything falls apart. but now, people feel they can do this. they are not alone. there are a lot of people all over the country just like me. we are moving into this, as eric erickson would like to say -- at some point we have to put down our sign and start showing results. what you're seeing is candidates and people who have embraced these values are taking out sitting republicans all across the country. it is happening everywhere. a black tea party candidate beat strom thurmond's son in south carolina. somebody should send the naacp a memo and let them know what is really going on.

then we have to beat the democrats. they have jammed stimulus down our throats. they have jammed health care down our throats. november 2nd needs to be a referendum on obama-care. i am optimistic, even though i believe that republicans will screw it up, i believe there will be a sea change in the elections. i will leave you with this. the most important thing we can all do, if you want to be a part of this community, if you want to be a leader in your community, the most important thing we must understand is that november 3rd is more important than in november 2nd. it's great to throw the bums out, but if you that a new generation of guys -- even people you believe are there to do the right thing, if you leave them alone, the incentives in this town are all wrong. they're either going to become isolated and ineffective, or they will become part of the problem if you leave them on

their on. you have to stay engaged. and this community has to stay committed not just to the values i am talking about, but to the idea that you are always there. you are always holding these guys accountable. it is a lifetime commitment. we cannot fix washington and go home appeared to me, what is interesting about tea party today, is that i think this is a sustainable. i think it gives a home to the majority of people that share these values, but never had a home in the political structure. that is where the power is, and i am looking forward to getting there. thank you. [applause] >> last is the political

director at the american conservative union. this is something that our foundation has been proudly sponsoring for a long time. without further ado, here is lisa. [applause] >> how many people have been to cpac or are planning to go? dead. good. what many people do not know is party wasirst haltea held in 2009. it happened organically because people knew that a bunch of

conservatives were going to be in town. i reference that because it shows how a conference can help to facilitate the movement. also, what you can do on your campus. i am going to tell the tale of two conferences. one of them is the "take back america" conference. these conferences say that they are the lefty version of cpac, but they're really not comparable. they have debates on whether the american health care system should be like cuba or whether it should be like canada. they do talk to us some things. are " theheir panels au pa

economy,omg." down,them while they're how to handle the right." in the exhibit hall, most of them are unions. among the attendees, most of the young people are wearing coats and ties and sitting behind the tables. that means they're not they're on their own accord, they're being paid to be there. it is their job. is the least organic conference you have ever seen. a frequent theme at these conferences are the narrative. they adore using the word narrative. it is not about ideas, it is what you can say to people in order to get them to vote for you. what is great is that we actually have a great narrative,

and that is the tea party. this is coming from the people, and the narrative is that it is the people who want to make a difference and make a difference in d.c. they want to get people out and but called on the obama agenda. one of the speakers at the conference said, "conservatism is a movement about nothing, and i do not think it can succeed. i implore the american people to turn their back on it." why all this imploring? they are in at the white house, the senate, the house. they're the ones in power. one thing you can point to is what each movements future looks like. at cpac 2010, more than half of the attendees were college students. if you compare that to america's future now, they had 3000 attendees.

they didn't release an estimate on the number of students who attended, but they did have a straw poll, and of the 727 respondents, only 24% said they were between 18-24. by contrast, in the cpac straw poll, 56% of the respondents were under 25. i think you can look to that data to see where this movement is going. another thing i can talk about is that in the exhibit hall, we have a rich and organizations dedicated to reaching out to students, mentoring students. at take back america, they had 20 organizations in the exhibit hall, and over seven of them are unions.

we fought for imports speech rights on campus -- for speech rights on campus. liberals honored a union boss, an acorn leader, and the chairman of an insurance company. the organizer of take back america said, we witnessed the gathering of a movement that has come into the sense of its own power. progressives feel confident that the american people are moving way.r whour this is no longer a protest movement. that is right. they no longer have anything to protest. the radicals from the streets are now running the government. we need to make sure that we are not going to let them be comfortable with that. a majority of those to go to

your conservative campus lectures, the -- conservative opinion pieces in the school paper, will not become college republicans. they will not become activists or attend a tea party, but they ought to vote in november. that needs to be our ultimate goal, conservative victories in november. do not be afraid to engage people at a level that is going to get them interested. write a newspaper article, " snookie was right." "orange is the new black." believe me, more people saw watcheds grant then keith aldermen all week.

-- rant than watched keith olberman all week. we forget that people who are considered the old guard now were our age when they campaigned for goldwater, campaigned for reagan. they did it all without twister, facebook or the internet. the stakes are high. the american people are on our side and they are willing to fight. do not forget that the conservative movement in 2010 started with the tea party. we need your help in gauging people on your campus to ensure that we have victories in november. thank you. [applause] >> and this is a wild guess, but that might be the only panel we have that discusses jersey shore.

anyway, we are going to go ahead and take questions. we have to microphones up here. i'm sure you guys have a lot of questions. >> my question is about the new tea party caucus in congress. how does that hinder or help what is supposed to be a grass- roots movement? i guess the question is for anybody. >> it was michele bachmann denounced the tea party caucus -- announced the tea party caucus. i think it is a sign of success. i do not know if the caucus becomes important or not. we will wait to see what happens. but what you see is that you have candidates from both

political parties, and even funnies. everybody is trying to pretend a day are a tea party guy now. we are like the cool kids, and everybody wants to get up on our stage. i do we have to continue to police our community so that we do not get phonies, we get people committed to those ideas. these are politicians, all due respect to them. >> what is interesting is that none of the republican leadership signed on. neither the wit nor the minority leader signed on. does that speak to anything about the republican party? >> dick armey was one of the engineers of the republican revolution in 1994. i worked on the capital in 1993 and watched this from the back benches. you always have to bring the

republican caucus kicking and screaming on to good policy ground. i do not know exactly why that is, but just except that. this sort of like gravity, that is how they are. i think privately accused the republican leaders on the hill, they are more nervous about us than they are supportive. i think they agree with a lot of the things we are talking about, but they do not like the fact that they're not in charge. they're afraid we're going to push them to stand on the to do pure policy grounds -- on 2 pure policy grounds. someone came up with a "contract from america." a lot of challengers are signing that document. the republican establishment is telling their guys not to. we have to get them to come our way. >> a thank you. >> my question is format.

matt. he mentioned that we should take control ourselves and not let the government take control. but there are certain situations, such as the oil spill, where almost immediately the obama administration stepped in to take control. should that not be in the hands of those with the education and those that made a mistake? >> i have a friend to do is an economist at george mason who had an interesting insight on that. argued that obama, given how he approaches everything, he approaches everything from the top down, i am in control kind of way, and they kept everyone else out of that process, including keeping materials and ships from other countries from coming over and helping because he supported the jones act and the union guys that liked that. given that that it was a unique

problem that apparently no one was really prepared for, it would have been a better idea to have an open-ended discovery process where some innovative ideas might have come from some private sector company looking to, frankly, make a lot of money solving the problem. he did not do that, and i think a lot of ways he let the thing go on a lot longer than he should have. >> thank you. >> are these on? >> i am from georgia tech, in atlanta, and my question has to do with the impact that the tea party can have an overall. i know they will play a huge role in the november elections, but you also played a role in the primary elections. for every success we have seen in utah and florida, for example, in my home state of georgia, there have been failures of tea party candidates

to win in a primary. do you think that the tea party can be most affected working within the republican party apparatus, or is it best as an outside move meant to put more pressure on both parties in an outside kind of way? is it an inside track or an outside track that will have the most success? >> i will feel this one. i do not think they are mutually exclusive. i think depending on where you are in the country, the republican party could be more in line with the tea party views. your question is very important. we must apply pressure to both parties. that talked about the day after the election being the day to remember. the reason we got into the mess we are in now is that people in

this room, many of you, how many of you can of soda? almost everybody, right? -- vote?any of you can devot almost everybody, right? what reason -- you cannot trust the republican label. it is a sturdy vehicle. you need to keep them in check. you need to look not just at labels and personalities, but the substance of what they are doing. the short answer is a little bit of both. once people are in office, that is very important. >> a couple of additional thoughts, i do not think that third parties when -- i like to

say that our job is to take over the party, not join it. [applause] the other thing that you need to appreciate is how the republican caucus will function in the house and senate and is always driven by the people that i call the legislative or to open doors. it does not need to be a majority of the caucus -- legislative entrepreneurs. it does not need to be a majority of the caucus. but in this new senate, i like to believe that you are going to have rand paul, marco rubio, mike lee, sharon and cool, you are one to have all of these guys -- going to have all of these guys. that is home to be the center of gravity in the senate. you are not going to win every seat, but you can fundamentally shift what issues you are talking about.

when scott brown is on the senate floor and he is forced to vote whether or not to help the unemployed instead of extending benefits, which is a dead end solution, he can actually vote on the proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax to promote new jobs through the that is the dynamic we are shooting for. we should not let the perfect the enemy of the good, but we can shift the center of gravity. >> this question is pretty much aimed at you. a lot of people in the tea party, when it got started, felt like it was a populist movement and some people think that others are micromanaging the movement. it is turning some people off. as a former insider, dick armey is a former insider, he has tried to become head of the two

party organization. the freedom has especially been targeted. >> >> you guys should be conscious of that and make sure that nobody takes over the two party. -- the mythology is that he wants to be in charge of this. this is a movement of the people there there are thousands if not tens of thousands of liters. i think -- all leaders -- of leaders. but the left wants to identify a leader so that they can destroy that leader and that is driving them nuts. they want to say that sarah palin is the leader of the tea party and then they go after sarah. you have to protect this egos in

the movement. i think that our job is to be of service to leaders that want to do something. dick armey was majority leader and he brings some knowledge about how legislators act in congress and what went wrong last time. i used to work for the republican national committee. i consider myself a tea partyer, , but my job is to bring some of the things that i know -- not to tell people what to do, but to try to help them and grow this community. >> here is the difference between freedomworks and c-pac. c-pac and other groups are facilitators of activism. that sort of claim is the narrative that the media has put out there.

you might have seen the piece in the "wall street journal" where unions were protesting nonunion shops for hiring non-union labor. it is very much a grassroots thing and groups bring some expertise to the table. i think i can say that was some credibility. that is my 2 cents. >> whoever wants to field this question, go ahead. i am from georgia. in georgia, there are a lot of participants in the two-party that are conservative leaning. the people that get appointed to leadership call the tea party to endorse candidates.

should they let people decide on their own? >> i do not know if anybody heard who won the straw poll this past year, but i will jump on this question. things that endorse candidates, when it comes from a leader, it is just once ability to organize a small group of people can't organize and get a big results. as far as endorsing candidates, because there are so many tea party groups, you have to leave it up to what you want their goal to be. if there are people that identify themselves as a member of the key party, they are not politically minded and so it would help for them to know who is the conservative canada. there are others who are more motivated towards policy and

action and ideas. you have to let those groups be who they want to be. it probably depends on the community and the individual leaders, as far as whether they endorse the libertarian treated as long as they endorse somebody who is libertarian minded, it will be the republican. >> [inaudible] walked is the take-home message -- what is the take-home message?

>> i got to debate the head of the naacp the day after it came out because he actually called out army by name. -- dick armey by name. let's be clear. this is a political tactic that the left is using to change the conversation away from the issues that we were talking about earlier. the economy, the size of government, the proper role of government and whether or not this economic bill was a good idea. they do not want to talk about that because the american people are agreeing with us. it is a nasty business. the play the race card. that is because they do not have any other cards left in their deck. with that said, you have to be very aggressive about policing your local communities. this is a color blind movement. if you have every walked through a t party crowd -- a tea party

crowd, some of our best rock star t party speakers across the country are not old white guys. this is what this is of the naacp so much. -- this is what pisses is the naacp so much. as a community, as decentralized as we work, we picked them out and we have to do that. there are leftist groups that will come to your of dense with racist signs and you have to ask them to leave politely. take their picture and posted on line and let them explain to their mothers why they are being such jackasses.

[laughter] [applause] >> i sat down because i was -- that was almost entirely my question to it i was going to talk to you, john. he wore a contributor. -- you are a contributor. we got raked over the coals slightly -- lately. so, i want to ask your perspective on all of these different things. >> on the mainstream media raking us over the coals? basically, it is an explicit tactic.

this was something called journalists. it was a left wing secretive e- mail exchange between journalists. so, one of the things that was leaked was an explicit tactic about how to divert attention away from jeremiah right during the election. they called him a racist. it is outrageous. there is no other card left in their deck and the american people do not believe in these ideas and so their results to tactics like that. -- a day resort to tax is like that. -- they resort to tax a boxed tactics like that. -- they resort to tactics like

that. the bottom line was that it showed a hypocrisy and the people in the crowd were nodding their heads, agreeing with what she said. i do not think there is too much to it. the naacp cannot police their own ranks. and does that answer your question? >> other candidates were

unsuccessful. with that said, [inaudible] >> i think that the tea party is for to have a huge impact. again, the right tactics for the tea party are those that the activists are comfortable doing. some of them want to give political and want to endorse candidates and others do not want any part of that. i think that is fine. that said, i think that those of do want to be active should use the 50 state strategy. we have an organized community

in every battleground state that matters on november 2. there is a lot of work being done by a lot of groups trying to figure out how to get out the vote. my group is offering some technology that helps them go to the right households and to maximize that effort. these are all new guys. they have never done this before. this is not the old republican 72 our program. i think -- 72 hour program. i think this will allow not just guys like rand paul to win, but you will see a way that is much bigger than 1994, which will elect a bunch of other republicans. some of them probably will not be worthy of that. you have to take them all and then try to discipline them once

they get elected. >> [inaudible] >> i thanked the internet in these communities on facebook and the relationships that are built, the protests have a purpose. people begin to know each other and they become family. that makes this thing more sustainable. if this were the work -- if this were the republican national committee, you would work people to death and it would collapse on their conscience the next day and they would destroy the lists and the community would evaporate overnight. this community, because it is independent of that and is based on values and relationships, it has to be sustained past that and that is more important than the election. >> i encrusting campbell and i attend the university of alabama. i have the honor of speaking at a tea party rally, and i talked

about this with my peers and explained to them what i was speaking and what it was important to me. it is not that they are not informed, is that they do not care. they do not have a desire to turn on the tv and watch in the news channel. i know that we can bring speakers to our campus, but how do we make them care? how we make them excited about it? how can we make them want to go and want to hear? >> i will take that one. i think you have to make it a must attend the event. when there are speakers to bring something could happen and you could be a part of it. even if it is just conversation, you and everyone in this room are able to get your circle of friends to vote more so than any speaker that will be here this week or anyone that you would see on tv.

the personal relationship is what will get people involved. get them to events and then go out for a drink afterwards and talk about it. it does not hurt to bring the social aspect to it and let them start to be involved in that and tell them how it will affect them. what it means as far as taxes and were you are going to live and if you will be able to live in the city that you want to live or if you have to move back home. there are certain key -- there are certainly ways to approach political issues and you will always have more of an impact on them than leaders. >> the key. -- tan ki. -- thank you.

>> thank you, panelists. that was great. i think that we know more about the two-party. if you want to bring speakers to talk about the tea party or other conservative movements, do so. we are going to take a short break. john o'hara's book will be available outside. otherwise, we will resume shortly. we will see you in a little bit.

>> coming up, general george casey, the army's chief of staff on the quality of today's soldiers. we'll also hear remarks from qubad talabani, who talks about the u.s. role in the stability in iraq. following that, president obama's remarks on the gulf coast recovery efforts to rid -- efforts. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, mark murray talks about the upcoming midterm elections. then, sonal verma on the process people go through to become u.s. citizens. after that, wall street journal writer julia angwin on her investigation into how they use

technology to determine a subscriber's interest for the that is live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 >> i think that it is important that every 40 and know that i will be the person that stood up for the principles of the people of florida. >> i will fight for the people of florida. >> it is campaign 2010 and the c-span video library makes it easy to follow the debate, rallies, victory and concession speeches all, free on your computer. >> general george casey, the army's chief of staff talks about the quality of today's soldiers, as well as how the army can conduct two wars concurrently. this is hosted by the aspen institute. it is about an hour. >>

>> good afternoon, my name is meryl chertoff -- [laughter] >> -- and i'm a fan of walter isaacson's too. i'm the director of the justice and society program at the aspen institute. the justice and society program is the oldest of the seminar and policy programs in the institute. we conduct a seminar every summer here in aspen. we also do public programming. upcoming on september 22nd, for those of you who are washington- oriented, will be something on the over-lawyering of america. the seminar, the justice and society seminar for this summer is full, but for any of you who are interested in 2011/ we have already started to assemble people who will be attending, so we hope to welcome some of you next year to the justice and society seminar. it's my very distinct privilege today to welcome to the aspen ideas festival, general george

casey, who is the chief of staff of the u.s. army. general casey will be today will be interviewed by david sanger, the chief washington correspondent for the "new york times" and a senior writer for the "new york times." david has reported from around the world. he covered the 5-year "arc" of the bush presidency and now covers the obama administration. he is the author of there recently published "new york times" bestseller, "the inheritance," on national security challenges facing the obama administration. in recognizing general casey, i also want to recognize that he's brought with him today his secret weapon and that is his wife sheila casey. as we know, military spouses also serve and sheila has her own very distinguished career in washington as well, so sheila we want to welcome you as well. [applause] >> thank you very much, meryl.

thank you, general casey, for joining us today. general casey's already been introduced, but just to give you his last two posts. one, he was in iraq for 32 months during what i think everyone would agree was pretty much the roughest years of the war, including that awful year of 2006. for the past three years and change he's been chief of staff of the army and of course the joint chiefs are responsible for thinking forward about the future of the forces as well as making sure that they are supplied with all that they need, both in goods and strategy. and so in the next hour, we hope to cover the range of issues that general casey can discuss in that regard and it's a great time to get him because nine months from now his term is up and he's off to the next stage of his life. general casey, let me start

with probably the most general and broadest question. we have seen probably the biggest changes in u.s. army in the ten years since 9/11 than at almost at any point in history since the end of world war ii. and so i'd like to ask you first to give us your sense of how the army's doing, how it's changed and when you're done with that, i'm going to ask you about sort of the next ten years ahead. >> okay, great. well, first of all it's wonderful to be out here with you. walter thanks for inviting me. yeah, i'll just talk for a second about the army. it may not seem like it to you, but in two months we will have been at war for nine years. and the result of that is that

the -- today's united states army is a hugely professional combat season four, it's really the best in the world at what it does. but it is also stretched and stressed by the demands of the last nine years. when you think about it we've been deploying at one year-out one year-back for almost five years. and if you'd asked me five years ago if we could have sustained that, i would have said, now, you're crazy. and so the force that we have is usually resilient and usually committed. but i wrestle with this season four's stretched-and-stressed force. and so when i came in, sheila and i traveled around the army and we talked to soldiers and families trying to get a sense of where we were. and i came up with the term

that the army was "out of balance," that we were so weighed down by current demands that we couldn't do the things that we knew we needed to do to sustain the volunteer force for the long haul and to prepare to do other things. and i said that because i was hearing at the time, the army was broken, the army was hollow, the army wasn't ready, and that's just not true. and so we put ourselves on a program, back in 2007, to get ourselves back in balance by the end of next year. and we have been moving forward on those -- on four imperatives. we had to sustain or soldiers and families. we had to continue to prepare soldiers for success in the current conflict. we had to reset them effectively when they returned, and then we had to continue to transform for an uncertain future.

and i'll just say a few words about all those. "sustain" is probably the most important. now, this is a volunteer force. and when i first came in i called my predecessor, shy meyer. and shy meyer was the chief of staff in 1980 who went to congress after vietnam and said the army's hollow. that was seven years after the last combat battalion left vietnam, the army's hollow. fortunately, he had the foresight to tell the president that the day before. [laughter] >> so i -- >> always a good strategic move. >> right. so i said, shy what happened. how did the army get hollow? and he said, george it's all about the people. and he said there's a thin red line out there, that try as you might, you'll stumble across it. and the mid-level officers and noncommissioned officers, the ones that take you a decade or so to grow, they'll leave. and that's what happened. i lived through that in the '70s. it took us a decade to rebuild our noncommissioned officer corps and our officer corps, after vietnam. and so we focused on preserving our -- those mid-level officers and noncommissioned officers and doing things to retain them and we've had good success. one of the things that we did though was to focus on families. and i'm an army brat. i've been a member of an army family for over 60 years. i won't go into how much over.

[laughter] >> but when i was traveling around the country with my mom and dad, the message to us in the backseat was make the best of it. well, we're asking our - so much of our soldiers and families, asking them to continue to make the best of it doesn't work. and so we really have ratcheted up what we're doing for families, and i think to good effect. so sustaining soldiers and families is the core of what we need to do. the second element is to continue to prepare soldiers for success in what they're doing today, and we've made great strides in this. i ask the soldiers, every time i travel around, what do you need, what's not working, and i generally get pretty positive responses. occasionally, i run into a soldier who wants another gun or something, but by-and-large they're pretty happy with what they have. to give you an example of how we've improved in meeting the needs more rapidly, it took about three years while i was in iraq to get a full complement of up-armored humvees to the theater.

when we made the decision to go to better armored wheeled vehicles, it took 18 months to get the full complement in the field. and just recently, we've got a smaller version of those to put in afghanistan and that took nine months. and so we are getting better at that and the soldiers have the tools they need to do what they need to do. the third element is to reset them. reset the soldiers and the equipment when they come back, because they're turning around in a year or so and headed right back. so the equipment has got to come through an industrial process, get fixed, given back to them and moved out, and it's -- that's gone very well. the other thing though is resetting the people. and we've recently completed a

study that told us what we intuitively knew, that it takes two to three years to recover from a one-year combat deployment. it just does. the human mind and body weren't made to deal with the stresses of combat repeatedly. and so one of our goals was to keep soldiers home for at least two years, and with, even with the plus-up in afghanistan and with the drawdown in iraq, we actually get to the point by the end of next year where we'll start having soldiers home for two years, and that's hugely important to the long-term health of the force. and the last thing i'll talk about is the transformation. and you mentioned this, david, but we have undergone, since september 11th, the largest organizational change of the army since world war ii. and we've done this while we've been sending 150,000 soldiers over and back to iraq and afghanistan every year. for example, we were in 2001, good army. but it was an army designed largely to fight tank battles on the plains of europe or in the deserts of the middle east. and when the -- september 11th happened, the first reaction was what's normal in large institutions, you take what you have and you try to adapt it to

use it for something completely new. and so we tried that. and it really wasn't until 2004 when we said to ourselves, you know, these tanks really ain't working in baghdad. and so we started really in earnest in 2004. and since then, we have converted all 300-plus brigades in the army to modular organizations, designs that can be organized rapidly to meet the situation that presents itself. we have rebalanced ourselves where we've taken about 160,000 soldiers away from skills that were very necessary in the cold war, and converted them to skills more necessary today. for example, we've stood down about 200 tank companies, artillery batteries and air defense batteries, and we've stood up a corresponding numbers of special forces, civil affairs, psychological operations. all that has been going on here. we also increased the size of the army by about 75,000. president bush put that on the table in 2007, and we've completed that growth already.

that's a big help for us. if that wasn't enough, because of the base realignment and closure act and the growth of the army and bringing some soldiers back from korea, we are also restationing the whole army. and between now and the end of next year, we will resettle about 380,000 soldiers, civilians, and family members as a result of this rebasing. and right now we have everybody on cell phones, and we'll publish the wiring diagram at the end when we get everybody settled at the end of next year. and then lastly, the thing that is probably causing us the most internal change is we're putting the whole army on a rotational model much like the navy and the marine corps have been on for years. and we have to do that, because it's the only way we can meet these continued commitments at a tempo that's predictable and sustainable for the all- volunteer force. so that might be -- have been

more than you bargained for, david, but that's just an update on where we are. >> a great start. so let's begin to add on the layers of complication. in the midst of all of this, the military's overall budget has doubled in the ten years nine years since 9/11. defense secretary gates made the point the other day that the u.s. military budget is now bigger than the military budgets of all the countries in the rest of the world combined. you made the point that the army budget is bigger than -- >> russia and china defense budgets combined. >> and so in this atmosphere it's clear that's unsustainable for all the other reasons that are going on with the budget. and secretary gates has tried sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, to kill off some fairly large weapon systems to enable you to have some room for growth in

the personnel. he's run into extraordinary blockades in congress. he said recently, only in the parallel universe that is washington, d.c., would cutting back a little bit from a doubling of the defense budget be considered gutting defense. [laughter] >> these are true words. tell us first what you think you're going to need for the kind of growth that's going to be needed for the force in the next years that you've described. and secondly, how you do that in this constrained budget environment. >> okay. first of all, i think secretary gates is exactly on the right track with this. we recognized this about two years ago. and for us in the army, we don't have large ships or airplanes or satellite contracts that we can cut. our money is in people. and so it becomes a question for

us then, of what's the size of the army. and as you all know, people cost everywhere are increasing. and so the more people we have, the less that we can afford to spend on other things. so two years ago we started focusing on how we were organized to do our business. and it was very, very enlightening. the department of the army is a pretty good size -- i'll say - not-for-profit organization. [laughter] >> and in those not-for-profit organizations, you do not have the market incentive that causes you to be more efficient with your money. the other thing -- and this isn't necessarily confined to not- for-profits -- but we are organized, and the way we're organized, we've created a lot of silos. and every organization has silos, but it seems like our silos have walls that are three feet thick and things only go up and they never go sideways.

and so what that creates is a lot of redundancy. and especially in a time of war when you're moving as fast as you can to get things to the troops. and when that happens, you -- there's a lot of inefficiency. we're getting stuff -- anything you do fast is not as efficient as something done in a structured way. so we have been working at this. the other thing about the silos is we have a process where the requirements come up from below. so someone says i need this. but the person who is developing the requirement is not -- doesn't have any relation to the person who has to provide the money for the requirement. so it's open-ended. and so when they come up in these silos, it only -- they only go up. and so the budget can only go up unless you do something to get at the requirements process and eliminate the redundancy.

>> general, every silo is in a congressional district. >> that's true. >> and that makes a difference. >> that's true. >> are we at a point right now where the congress is fundamentally incapable of being able to restrain the size of the defense budget or help reorient it, simply because every weapon system, every silo has got its own constituency? how do we get out of the cycle that we're in? >> yeah, i understand what you're saying. i don't think we're lost. and i think we have to continue to work at this and demonstrate -- i mean congress, better than anyone, knows that we have to decrease the size of government spending. and so we're just going to have to continue to work this. and i know secretary gates -- >> they agree with it in

general. it's just every time the secretary comes up with a -- >> it's all local, sure. >> -- weapon system, it's all local. >> yeah. >> let's turn to -- >> but anyway, to answer your first -- >> sure. >> -- the first part of your first question there was we believe that we can get at the

$2 billion to $3 billion a year that we need to not have to cut our force structure through these efficiencies that we've been working on for the last couple years. and we've had good success on eliminating some redundancies. and we are going to meet secretary gates' targets that he's already given us for the program here -- knock on wood -- so far without having to reduce force structure, which is an important thing. because for me to go out now and say we're going to cut the force when we haven't even got them two years at home, i think that would have a really negative effect on the troops. >> the qdr that came out a few months ago, the quadrennial defense review, was the first to sort of step away from the old concept that the united states need to be able to fight a war in one place, do a holding action someplace -- it was always the symbol, or that was always the korean peninsula -- elsewhere, and moved instead to the concept of a much more flexible military, especially the army, that could do counterinsurgencies in different places around the world and still have the capability around to fight a major war if one needed to do it. based on all that you have seen both in your experience in iraq and since you've been back at the joint chiefs, is that a realistic way to structure the u.s. military? can we do that many different things at one time and be

prepared for that many contingencies at one time? >> yeah. i think we have to. and i think it was a very good and reasonable first step. but as i've looked at this now over time, from my perspective, the central organizing principle of the department of defense for the last six years has been conventional war, has been the ability to do these two major regional contingencies. that isn't what we're doing today. and -- but yet the whole department of defense is lined up to produce the outputs for conventional war. and i have come to think, after we've looked at the environment -- and i'll say a few words about that in a second -- is that versatility, the need to be able to do a variety of different things has got to become the central organizing principle of the department. and that's the way we're going with the army. but as we look at the future, you know, we start from the point that we're at war, we're at war with a global extremist network that attacked us on our soil and has tried twice since christmas to do it again. these guys aren't going to quit. they're not going to give up, and they're not going to go away easily. so we believe that this is a long-term ideological struggle. and then if we look at the trends in the global environment and that trends seem more likely to exacerbate that situation rather than ameliorate it. and that leads us to think that we're in for a decade or so of what i call persistent conflict -- protracted confrontation among states, non-states, and individual actors who are increasingly willing to use violence to accomplish their political and ideological objectives.

i think that's what we are looking at as a country. and i think that's troubling. and it's -- we -- the two things as we look at that environment that come out, it's going to be more complex and it's going to be more uncertain. and so you have to have yourself organized to deal with a range of contingencies. and then you have to be agile enough to change directions, because you're never going to get exactly what you want. in fact, what does yogi berra say? "predictions are hard, especially when you're talking about the future." [laughter] >> and then i say what i said with great humility, knowing that the best we can hope to do is get it about right. >> you mentioned this 10-years of persistent conflict. when president bush was running for president the first time in 2000, he talked about how we could not allow the united states military to become a nation-building force. it was not the role of the

military to go do that. he then took a trip to kosovo, saw that the only working institutions there were in fact the u.s. military -- this was prior to 9/11. post-9/11, gave a fairly lengthy speech at virginia military institute where general marshall had been trained, about the need for a marshall plan in afghanistan. and you have spent the past nine years trying to figure out whether he was right the first time in the campaign, or right the second time after he was elected about whether the military was set up to go do this. are we -- >> i think he was right. [laughter] >> are we in a persistent ten- year effort to have the u.s. army at the centre of nation- building as well? >> you know, when we were talking about nation-building, we were talking about a military that was designed to do conventional war. that's what we were set up to do. and as i said before, we were like that for 60 years. but the types of conflict that we're fighting in iraq and afghanistan, and i think are likely to be fighting here for a decade or so, are focused on the people. and you've heard -- i'm sure you've heard this said a thousand times -- we're not going to succeed in either place by military means alone.

you're only going to succeed when the people perceive that there is a government that is representative of their interest, when there is an economy that can give them a job to support their families, where there are educational systems that they can educate their children. all those things are essential to the long-term success of the military operation. and so i think as a military we got past that a while ago. in fact, in february 2008, we published the first change to our formal war-fighting doctrine since september 11. and we said army forces will simultaneously employ offense, defense, and stability operations to seize and retain the initiative and achieve decisive results. we raised stability operations which is -- could be your nation-building -- to the level of offence and defense. because in the types of operations we're going to be conducting in the 21st century, we think that's an essential element of our ability to accomplish our national objectives, not just our military objectives. >> when you were in iraq, you were there, as i said at the introduction, in some of the darkest days of the war.

you were also there when the awakening happened, and when you were able to encourage that awakening, which as we look back over the course of the conflict, was a very decisive turning point. we've all been waiting for the equivalent of the awakening in afghanistan, a very different society. while there have been some individual signs in some small places, you've not seen it on the scale that you saw it in iraq. why not? and does it have any prospect of occurring? >> every successful counterinsurgency has had a reconciliation process that -- as part of the solution. and so both in iraq and afghanistan, if they are to

succeed, will have this reconciliation process. the process that we started in iraq began right after the elections in january 2005. it -- and it took that long of constant effort of standing up an organization to figure out who the right people were to talk to, to bring then in, to figure out what incentives they needed, to get the iraqi government involved in a reconciliation process, because it ultimately will devolve to them. we can't reconcile with, you know, with the afghans, they have to do that themselves. i think one of the things that we learned from all that process is timing. and timing is everything in reconciliation. and successful reconciliations have come from a position of

strength. and i think we -- go ahead. >> admiral mullen was sitting on this stage a week ago at the aspen security summit talking about the same subject. and we asked him whether that meant that ultimately you couldn't have complete reconciliation unless you had mullah omar and many of the others -- afghan taliban, the pakistani taliban, all as part of this process, something the u.s. government has been cautious about. do we take your statement to believe to include some of the hardest line american enemies who would have to be part of the solution? >> that's something that -- there's always a matter of debate in this. but all of these -- and when you say -- it has to begin from a position of strength. the first thing that has to happen for a reconciliation to be successful is the insurgents need to have them recognize that they have no military options. and i don't think we're quite there yet in -- especially in afghanistan. but that has to happen. and what i'm suggesting to you

is that you don't have to wait for that to happen to start setting the conditions for the reconciliation. >> right. >> and what happened was we started in 2005 to build the reconciliation that ultimately became the awakening. and it really wasn't until 2006 when we got some forces in there and thumped them in anbar province and they -- that's when they recognized that they needed to side with us and then the government. >> but your point here is they have to be convinced they're going to lose. in afghanistan, i think we're all in agreement that the insurgents are not yet persuaded of that. and in fact, some of them have said, just to listen to their own propaganda, that since the american surge peaks in the summer of 2011 and the president has said that at that point they will begin a withdrawal at some pace -- pace is unclear -- that there is some incentive for the insurgents to hold out for another year, and

hope that starting in 2011 that they could come back even if they are thumped over the next 12 months. how do you get around that psychologically? >> well, i mean it's hard. first of all, don't believe everything the enemy says. i mean they clearly are out to make themselves look stronger than they really are. >> sure. >> and that's something i've learned very painfully here over the last several years. but you know, this timeline is a double-edged sword and there's not -- there's no right or wrong edge to it. it's really a question of balance. and people -- different people will perceive timelines or timetables differently. and i think the -- it doesn't surprise me that the taliban are saying okay, we're just going to wait them out. well, they're going to be doing

a lot of fighting while they're waiting us out. then i think admiral mullen was probably pretty clear with you the other day that there is a timetable -- a date in july of 2011 to begin bringing out some of the surge forces, but the number and -- you know, is condition-based. so we'll continue to work that. >> but when you say it's a double-edged sword, what you mean is on the one hand it creates an incentive for the afghan government to step up by that time, on the other hand, it creates an incentive for the taliban to hold on. and it's sort of a race for who can perform better between now and 2011. >> right. and -- but the other thing that it also does is it demonstrates to the afghan people that we're not occupiers, we're not going to stay there for the long haul.

we're there to help them get back on their feet and then we're moving on. so -- but again, it's balance. >> now in iraq, you are going to be down 50,000 troops you believe by the end of august, just months from now. those people who advocated the surge would say that had it not been for the surge, we never would have gotten down to that 50,000. when you think back to the smaller size surge that was already under way when you were in the last months of your command in iraq, could that also have accomplished what we're doing today? could we have gotten down to these numbers even earlier, do you believe? or do you believe that in the end the surge in iraq really was decisive? >> i don't know if we could have got down any earlier. it's hard to say. but i think the surge was as important as a statement of the commitment of u.s. interest and resolve as it was the additional troops. i mean they certainly helped. but it was the statement of united states' commitment that further spurred the awakening. and then when the sons of iraq were brought into the fold, that started at eliminating some of the insurgency and we -- and they could get on with the political process. so i think the surge was a decisive application of combat force at a critical time in a mission. and i think in the end it has -- it's ultimately been successful. >> before we open this up to

questions, i just want to flip you around to the other side of the world for a moment. you mentioned in your opening that you had moved a lot of troops out of korea in part to help feed these two wars, iraq and afghanistan. we had just in the past few months seen a north korean ship -- a north korean submarine sink a south korean ship killing 46 aboard. there are some signs of new instability in north korea, just given the succession crisis that is underway there, or succession politics. could we come to regret the day that in our focus on the middle east that we have actually pulled down by almost half the number of troops we based in -- on the korean peninsula? >> i don't necessarily think so, because what's happened during that period is a huge increase in the capability of the south korean security forces. i mean -- >> but not such a huge increase that they were willing to go through with the command -- >> -- transfer? >> -- operational command

transfer in 2012 that was just delayed till 2015. >> right. and -- but i think -- but i mean to your question, there has been a significant increase in the capability of those forces there. and so that -- our withdrawal of some of our forces has been mitigated by that improvement. and then as you just mentioned, the -- we just agreed to president lee's request to delay this transfer of operational control. right now, the commander in korea, as the combined forces command korea is an american. and he basically commands and controls korean forces in the event of an emergency. there had been a plan in place for that control to pass back to the koreans, i think by april of 2012 -- it's 2012, but i'm not sure of the month. at the request of president lee

of korea, president obama just agreed to move that to 2015. and i think that's indication of the strength of the relationship and of our commitment to korea. >> and so what does the united states need to do, in partnership with the south koreans, to demonstrate to the north now, politically, that the kind of behavior you've seen over the past year or two is something that the u.s. is prepared to respond to? you've seen, since president obama was inaugurated, a missile test, a nuclear test, and the sinking of a -- of the south korean ship. >> yeah, but -- i mean that's another very, very difficult policy issue. right now, there's things being worked in the united nations. i think that it's important for that process to continue. but i think we have to be very careful, we the united states, with our south korean allies, in doing something that may be misinterpreted and become inherently -- increase the instability rather than decrease it right now.

we just have to be very careful of that. >> and along those same lines, i would be remiss if i didn't ask you about iran. obviously, we've got a bigger military presence -- >> thought we were going to get by that. >> oh boy. [laughter] >> nice try. we've increased the american military presence to a small degree in the gulf. we've been -- the united states has been providing standard missiles and other -- any missile equipment to a number of the gulf neighbors. and yet there is this continuing debate played out here just a few days ago with the statements of the ambassador from the united arab emirates about whether or not an attack on the iranian facilities, nuclear facilities, would be more destabilizing than an iran that gets a nuclear weapons capability. as you debate this out among the chiefs, how do you weigh those two options?

>> well -- i mean, you have put your finger on what is a hugely difficult policy issue for the country right now. and those types of discussions that you're talking about right now are going on within the government and i wouldn't want to prejudge them, the outcome of those discussions. but -- i mean, that's the kind of challenges that you get in these days. there is no good solutions, and the solution may be worse than the cure. and so that's something that the administration is wrestling with. and i think you're going to see that play out over the next 12 to 24 months. but that's -- i think that's an indication of the types of challenges that are going to be facing us here over the next decade or so. >> and within the army are there preparations underway for what the reaction could be if -- >> not within the army. >> not within the army, but more broadly, within the

military. >> we have contingency plans, we do, we have contingency plans for everything, but we don't talk about specific plans. >> well, let me open this up to all of you. there are people who will be walking around with microphones, if you'd raise your hand, tell us who you are and actually ask a question in the spirit of aspen. we'll start with the gentleman right here in the black hat. >> thanks, general. i'm jason from chicago, thanks for coming. i want to ask the question and i need to set it up just a little bit, but i won't take long. both afghanistan and iraq are very resource rich and an integral part of the reconciliation process is business stability. we know that chinese corporations and russian corporations are going into these areas and trying to capitalize on the stability, limited stability that's been

created so far. my question to you is, do you think that congressional policy towards u.s. corporate culture essentially handcuffs american ability, american business ability to participate in the reconciliation because we're not allowed to play on local terms? >> i'm not aware of specific congressional policies that limit u.s. business involvement. >> hart-scott-rodino and sarbanes-oxley, things that don't allow us to, you know, to be blunt, bribery, for example, which is part -- which is the chinese are willing to, you know -- [laughter] >> -- corporate guests, things of that nature that we can't -- which is standard over there, did you not encounter them at all in iraq? i mean, the -- >> i have footlockers and footlockers of junk that i've exchanged and gifts and things that i've exchanged. i'm not stepping up for bribery at all -- >> right. and i wouldn't ask you to. >> what i saw in iraq was opportunities for u.s.

businesses to come in and get engaged, and there was a great effort by a guy named paul brinkley who went out and brought in business leaders from around the country and they met with iraqi businessmen and they basically said, if you build x of these, i'll buy them from you. and so they were actually causing the businesses to get setup and get organized. i think that - stuff like that is usually productive and the other thing i'd say is, i know the folks who are trying to make inroads into the iraqi oil community, and i would think that the u.s. companies would have as much access to them as anyone else. >> flip side of that, are we securing parts of afghanistan for the chinese who are not on the ground helping secure the place to go into those sources? >> yeah, i don't know. yeah, i understand it. i don't know. >> sir.

>> john debs, palo alto. first, thank you for your service and for all the people that are serving. [applause] >> thank you. >> my question is, 1% or 2% of the country is involved in afghanistan and iraq and the rest of us are told to party and have fun and go out and spend or whatever, you know what they say. and, to me, this is morally wrong. and so my question to you is how can we, the other 98%, whoever we are, help you more in what you have to? >> well, thank you for that. first of all, you are all already helping. and i can tell you one of the things that has allowed this force to hang together over the last nine years has been the outspoken support of the american people for our

soldiers and their families. don't underestimate the impact of talking to a soldier in the airport. i mean, i was sitting in an airport coming from leave when i was in iraq and these two young soldiers come up in their uniforms, and they are -- they were clearly basic trainees, they were going back after christmas break. and they sat down next to me, and i watched them, we chatted them up a little bit and they went to pay their check and they said it's taken care of. as an aside, i got up and introduced -- and went over and said hello to them. and one of the guys looks at me and says, "hey, are you general casey?" and i said, "well, yes, i am." he said, "i thought you were taller." [laughter] >> but anyway that -- don't underestimate the impact of that on the soldiers and their families. the other thing i'd tell you is, the support that employers give to guardsmen and reservists is absolutely essential. we have 70,000 to 80,000 guardsmen and reservists mobilized over the course of a year on a given day, that's a lot. but we wouldn't have been able to do what we've done without them.

and it's -- employers are carrying a heavy burden. my son is a reservist, he's mobilized, he is back on leave from afghanistan. his company is paying the difference between his army salary and what he was making when he left the company. i mean, there is a lot of companies out there that are doing that. that makes a huge difference. and then the third thing i'd say to you -- i'd say two more things, and the third thing would be, continuing with business, hire these young men and women that are getting out of the army. and there may be some concern out there that everybody who goes to combat gets posttraumatic stress. and that's absolutely untrue. and we have surveys and that's absolutely untrue. and we have surveys that document. the -- everybody that goes to combat gets stressed, believe me. but what our studies show is

that the vast majority of people who go to combat have a growth experience and they come out stronger, and that's what you see. and then the last thing i'd ask you is, there are lot of private organizations out there that are raising money to support wounded soldiers, to support their families and to support the families of the fallen, and to the extent that you can support those groups, that would be a very positive thing. but don't underestimate what -- the impact the support of the american people has had on our ability to hold this force together. >> gentleman right back there. >> stewart brand, global business network. general casey, thank you for what you're doing and from the sound of how you're doing it. i've got a question of a paradox that seems to have survived from vietnam. in vietnam we had vietnamese troops on our side and vietnamese troops, north vietcong that we were fighting, and during the course of that war, vietnamese troops on our side became kind of dependant and not very motivated. and all that time the vietcong was becoming more and more skilful as they were fighting a

more and more skilful us and their motivation stayed strong. how is what we're doing with the taliban going to be different from that, because it seems like we're facing a similar situation where the afghan troops that we're train up, they're coming up in somewhat of a dependant mode with us, but the taliban troops we're fighting are getting more and more skilful fighting us. how do we fix that? >> yeah. i mean, that is a central challenge when you're working with indigenous forces. but you will only succeed when those indigenous forces can maintain domestic order and deny their countries safe havens for terrorists. and so it's a question of balance, it's not one or the other.

and -- i mean, we wrestle with this in iraq all the time. you know, we build these units, then we take them on operations and then you try to get them to do something but they wouldn't do it unless you were standing there with them. and it to the better part of three years to work them through that till they finally got the confidence that they could do it on their own. and the other thing i saw even at the highest levels of -- the higher levels. you know, people won't necessarily take risk, and iraqi leaders weren't necessarily ready to take a lot of risk. and they came by, honestly, they came from a culture under saddam hussein for 35 years that if you made a mistake, the consequences were often worse than you could stand. and so, anyway, it's a matter of training our soldiers to find the right balance between spoon feeding them and putting them on their way. but it just takes time to go through that process and we have to do it. >> all right here. just wait a moment for the microphone. it's just coming down to you. >> thank you. thank you, general casey for your recognition of the need

for recovery by returning veterans. i'm gail sheehy. in last fall i was following a revolutionary program that you introduced or resiliency training to train soldiers in emotional resiliency on the -- based on the principles of positive psychology. and through drill instructors, not the softies we would think would be training people in emotional resilience, but they really like the program. so i wonder if you could tell us how it's working. >> the program that gail was describing is called comprehensive soldier fitness and it was one of the things that we realized that we had to give our soldiers and family members the skills on the front end so they wouldn't get the problem to begin with. now about two years ago we looked at all the programs that we were doing to help soldiers deal with the cumulative effects of then seven years at war. and we realized that all our programs were after the fact. we had good treatment programs

but they were all after the fact. and so we went after this and spent, you know, the better part of 18 months with some of the best minds in the country, trying to figure out what we could do to build a program to give the soldiers skills to be more resilient. the program revolves around an assessment tool and we started that in october. and to date, over 750,000 soldiers and family members have taken this tool. it takes you about 20 minutes and it gives us assessment of your strengths in the five key areas of fitness, physical, emotional, social, spiritual and family. and you just get a bar graph and the soldier can look at it and say, well, i got a long bar here and a long bar here, okay. i got a short bar here. it then allows them to connect to self-help modules online in the privacy of their own home and get some tips on how they can improve their strengths. the third point, and this is the drill sergeant's comment that was made here.

we are training master resilience trainers, sergeants, and these sergeants are going to university of pennsylvania for 10-days and are getting trained by the professors there on how to use these skills. we've trained about 1,300 of them already and they are out in the force. our goal is to get one of those for each battalion in the army by the end of this year. so this is a program that has a lot of promise. right now we're kind of in a period where we're bridging from people that have taken the test but there is not enough resilience trainers in the field to get the program actively going. but i suspect by the end of this year it will be something that will be engrained in the army culture. >> successful as the resilience in training has been, you're dealing with unusually high number of suicides these days, how come? >> well, it's a combination of things. i mean, there is no one answer. in fact, we have -- we commissioned about a year and a half ago now a study with the

national institute of mental health, it's a 5-year study to help us look at the whole problem of suicide. i -- suicide, as we look at this, the leading causes that we see are relationships, relationship problems, financial problems and then there is usually drug and alcohol mixed in with those other problems. and then the fourth element is that there just seems to be a lack of resilience and a lack of those kinds of skills in the population that's coming into the army. we have been working this very hard. we have a very active suicide prevention program. we've got the comprehensive soldier fitness program going. but, as you suggest, since 2004, the number of suicides over the course of the year has increased by about 20 a year. now, knock on wood, so far this year we are at the same number

as we were last year. and if that continues, i'm hopeful that we're doing some things that can stem the tide. it's not all about deployments. and when we look at the data, it's kind of interesting because a third of the soldiers who commit suicide have never deployed, and a third commit suicide while deployed and then another third have deployed but it happens after they're back. so i believe it's a contributing factor but it not the overriding factor. >> there was a hand back here for -- >> todd martin, dallas, in aspen. our share of global defense since world war ii has well exceeded our share of gdp. have you thought about how long it would take and how we would get to sharing the defense responsibility for, let's call

it, non-troubled regions of the world with the people that are there so that our share of global defense approaches our share of gdp? >> i think that's the exact approach that the president spelled out in the national security strategy that we have to go after more collective security and help others do more for security around the world. now, that said, if you look at what's happening in europe, it's going in the other direction, that the money that some of these countries are willing to put toward defense is going down and going down fairly sharply, so that's the tension that we have here. >> back here. >> i'm lauren cobb from boulder, and in there interest of full disclosure, i am a military subcontractor for u.s. southern command. part of the -- >> how did you get up here? >> part of the operations that

our military does are not war fighting, they are things like peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, disaster relief operations, peacekeeping for the un, peace enforcement under chapter seven of the united nations charter, there is nation-building, a large group of things which are not classical war fighting. as we move further into the 21st century, how do you see that developing, is it going to get more or would we deemphasize it? what's your vision? >> well, the doctrine that i described, that we put out in february of 2008 looks at our -- at having the ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict, from peacekeeping to conventional war. and so the versatile forces that we're building have to be able to plug in at any place on that spectrum and be successful. now, that's a tall order.

but i believe we have to be involved in a range of activities, because involvement in a peacekeeping operation may prevent a larger of broader conflict. and so it's entirely appropriate for us to be involved in those kinds of things. but again, i think we in the military are already moving away from the notion that until -- if we're not fighting the big one, we're not working, and we're well past that. and i believe that is the mindset that we have to have to be successful in 21st century conflicts. >> we are down to just time for two or three more questions if the questions are short and induce short answers. right back here. >> this is a good follow up to the last question, general casey. patricia ellis, women's foreign policy group. the military has taken the lead on nation3 building and i was

wondering if you could talk a little bit about your relations with the civilian side, i.e. state department and aed -- aid and how you see the relationship evolving, are they going to be taking on more of the tasks or how do you see the relationship? thank you. >> and maybe, along the way, while you're doing that, you can explain why it is that this long into the obama administration we still see relatively few, comparatively few state department and aid workers in afghanistan compared to, say, the surge in the military force. >> first my -- john negroponte was around here over the last couple of days, he was the ambassador in iraq when we went in together. within 2 days after i was nominated, we met in my office and we agreed, one team one mission, that the civil- military effort had to go forward as one and we worked

very, very hard to make that happen. i believe that's the only way we're going to be successful. now there is all type of the cultural and sniping that goes back and forth, but if the leaders don't commit to that upfront, then it doesn't happen. and civil-military cooperation is essential for the nation to succeed. and as i mentioned before, there is no military solutions here. the military and the civil side have to complement each other if we're going to be successful. so i worked very hard to build relationships, not only between myself and the ambassador but between my staff and the ambassador. and to john's credit, he accepted 300 guys and gals with guns into his embassy because we felt it was important to have my staff and his staff working together. and so that process, i think, has to continue. i don't think it's a secret that some of the other agencies

of the government have been slower to adapt to the challenges that we're facing in places like iraq and afghanistan. and that -- candidly, that has been a point of friction among some of the soldiers because they're out there working 24/7 and they see someone else that has 60 days of leave a year and they -- you know, they take off. now, that doesn't mean they're not committed because everybody out there is working their tails off. but i think we have to keep pressing the other agencies of the government to get more adaptable and to get more used to operating in the kinds of environments that we're operating in. >> all right, take one more right here. sir. >> thank you very much, you ought to re-up, you know. couple of -- [laughter] >> i went over 40 years service on 6th of june, i think that's plenty. [applause] >> that resilience training

caught my attention because during world war ii outward bound was founded on the same principle, so it seems to work, prepare our soldiers for those tough times. >> we're actually working with outward bound and they are running trips for wounded soldiers for exactly that purpose. >> right. and i'm glad to hear that. another lesson from world war ii ties to the last question on the marshall plan, it was led by the state department and civilians. well, you just answered that question, but i wonder at what point during our longest war ever, nine years, that the mere presence of the military becomes part of the problem, you become the target, you know, if maybe you were in different uniforms or something, i just wonder. >> i went over and spoke to a group of foreign service officers in the state department and they were trying to figure out how to better civil military relation. and i kind of went back and forth between this is what you think of us and this is what we think of you.

but one of the -- we are our own worst enemy, the military is sometimes. i mean, our can-do attitude, we get in there and we just try to do, do, do and everybody else get out of the way, and it is not necessarily the best way all the time. and so that's part of the tension that we have here. and the other thing that just drives the civil side crazy is there is so many of us, you know. i mean, we -- i'd have six colonels standing around a foreign week. this poor guy is going, come on, i'm only one. so there is -- i mean, we have -- and i think we have done a good job of changing and adapting over time. but we have our own culture too and it's not always helpful. >> well, i thank you very much, general casey, for your service, for your comments today. >> thank you, i appreciate it. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tonight, remarks from qubad talabani, represented to the u.s. of the kurdish regional government. he talks about the u.s. role in the stability of iraq. following that, another chance to hear president obama's remarks on gulf coast recovery efforts. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it's all available for you on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with thermal content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks. created by cable, provided as

public service. >> qubad talabani is the representative to the u.s. of the kurdish regional government of iraq. he is the son of the iraqi president. he talked about the historical relationship with the united states and the current u.s. role in iraq. this is about an hour. >> good evening. we will have a little pre- discussion here. i am on the board of iie and heroes this evening. we have c-span with us this evening. they are going to be taking a uninterrupted. during the question and answer period after are speaker, we would ask that you please come

up to the mike to ask your question, but don't touch the mike. mike ande up to use the migh was the people in line, and try to keep it down to four people in line at a time. if there are more than four people, wait, and we will try to get your question as soon as the next person is done. you have evaluation forms on your chairs. we would like to fill these evaluation forms out and would really appreciate it. if you are not a member of iie, take the opportunity to join when you turn your evaluation form in. we would love to have to be able to join us for more of these kinds of events and speakers. with that, i would also ask that you please remember to turn off your cellphone, if you have not done it.

now is a great moment to make sure we do not interrupt. i think with that, i am going to, once again, say good evening, and welcome, on behalf of the institute of international education, to our speaker series this evening. as i said, i am a board member of the institute of international education, and am delighted to be able to welcome to denver qubad talabani, who is represented of the kurdistan regional government to the united states. he works closely with the u.s. government, with media, research groups. we call them think tanks in washington, but he has provided critical analysis and up-to-date information on iraq and

kurdistan and the region, and we are really looking forward to hearing him this evening. mr. talabani is the son of the rocky president, -- the iraqi president, and in his own right has been working on political issues from this political family for many years. after the start of operation iraqi freedom in 2003, he served as senior foreign relations officer for the patriotic union of kurdistan. it is one of the leading kurdish political parties in iraq. he has worked closely with the u.s.-led coalition office of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance and also with -- afterwards when it became the coalition provisional authority in iraq, and was a key negotiator in the drafting of

the transitional administrative law, which was the first post- saddam constitution in iraq. with that, i will take very little of your time and say he has appeared on many different television news shows. he has been a commentator and has provided incredibly up today and informed opinions on what is going on in iraq. we look forward to hearing his insights this evening. thank you again, and we will have a question and answerperiod afterward, and we hope you will stay and ask your questions at that time. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, kim.

nothing makes the speaker more nervous than hearing that the crowd all has evaluation sheets on their chair. [laughter] please, give me good marks. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to start off by thanking the iie for bringing me here and for the world affairs council of denver, for bringing the outer to denver. i had to smile when one of my staff suggested i fly out here a day early to try to acclimate to the high elevation of your mountains. i quickly reminded that person that k areurds. -- we are kurds and we live in a mountainous area. the mountains distinguish us in a way that the people who live in colorado can appreciate. mike todd tonight is who are the

kurds, and why you will like what you hear it -- my talk tonight. we have the mountains and we would appreciate some assistance in building some of the ski resorts that you have here in denver. if you help us with that, i guarantee we will be friends for very long time. for a long time, the kurds used to say we have no friends but the mountains. they but, that is less the case today. our greatest friends have long been here in the united states, but in the past few years we have made good friends in some likely -- unlikely places. they are the product of our emerging democracy, that we owe so much to the united states for their efforts bridget for their efforts in liberating as. who are the kurds, and what will happen next in iraq and kurdistan? i am happy to talk about that today. the answer is that today we are the strongest brand an ally that the united states has in our part of eurasia. the place with the highest

percentage of women in our legislature than most of the nations around the world. the place where not one american more foreigner has been killed in hostile action. the plays were christians and others fleeing religious persecution from elsewhere in iraq have come to find sanctuary and a future. where the place for those seeking to invest from some of our new friends like the koreans to those who were once -- who we once had stressful and tense relationships with like turkey, are finding a school of opportunity. we are not too far away from denver, just a few minutes ago, flight 447 departed in international airport, bound for frankfurt, germany. tomorrow morning when you land in germany, you can have a coffee, a patient, more likely of beer, and you can board a second flight nonstop to the

capital of the kurdistan region. tomorrow night you will be in my homeland, enjoying an delicious y alicia'skabob kabob. in kurdistan, against the backdrop of the snowcapped mountains, a frenetic frontier economy is being driven by the promise of petrodollars from the region's estimated 25 billion barrels of our oil reserves. development is intense. new hotels, shopping malls are springing up to meet the surging population of more than 1 .illion gillo

there is a heady mixture of oilman, contractors, journalists, aid workers and increasingly, tourists. kurdistan seems a world apart from the rest of iraq. situated in the northern part of the country, it has a distinct history and to poverty. we are really neat ethnic group, different from arabs, persians, and turks. about 6 million kurds live in iraq has become our own language, kurdish, which is now one of the two official languages in iraq. parts of kurdistan are lush, but the series of mound's has defined our region and has provided sheltered areas in the days of our persecution and genocide from saddam hussein. it is from our country and said the three wise men set forth to

jerusalem. one of ancient languages of civilization, aramaic, is still spoken and taught in parts of kurdistan. atop a prominent hill lies the citadel, one of the oldest continuously inhabited places on earth. it is in kurdistan where archaeologists found some of the oldest human fossil ever. these bolts or now the centerpiece of an attraction in the smithsonian's national -- natural history museum in washington d.c.. it is for the headwaters of the tigris and euphrates our townare found. the shape of kurdish territory in power had shifted over the century, reaching imperial knights during medieval times, sharing and contesting power in the modern era, and experiencing ization, andrginal as asia

at times come out right genocide. in 1946, kurds in iran, backed by powerful tribes declared a short-lived republic inside iran. in these and other instances, many kurds felt that western powers ultimately sold them out in the name of greater power politics. this sense of betrayal still lingers during the kurdish western relations. that is where came from. now we look to where we are today, and crucially, where we are heading to in the future. thanks to the intervention of the united states and others in the 1991 gulf war and the final liberation in 2003, kurds have a region of iraq that is safe. many of us feel we are living a dream. while not an end up in the

country, where part of a nation that is learning how to be a democracy. where are experiences are helping shape a new iraq. i realize the strong feeling and differences of opinion in the united states regarding the war in iraq. i know what the steep cost has been to america, and your sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. to your national treasure and a sharp politics it has created within this great nation. as occurred, however, i am thankful for what the u.s. did. perhaps one of the lines from steven spielberg's film "saving private ryan" is appropriate. he explains a mission and sacrifices made to save him. he says to the younger ryan, we realize the sacrifice you have made for us. we intend to honor them and to earn them. i think we have already begun, and that is one of the reasons why i was eager to meet with you

all today. the of the as is called"know kurdistan." and no one to learn about us, you will find ways to invest in us, not just economic investments, but moral investment, investing in our democracy and are emerging democracy. a democracy that is fashioned after yours, and we need that investment to help us hammer away the frustrations of our past, to lead to a more benevolent and engaging future. fulfilling our democratic aspirations is the key. i am quite proud of how democracy is funding a welcome home in the kurdistan region of iraq. none of us have experience in building democracies. before the opportunity prevented itself -- presented itself, we

had governance issues. we did not have a way of administering our own affairs. from the moment the political dynamics changed, we have been taking steps to ensure that our opportunity is not wasted. just over a year ago, we held regional elections. this was the son of the maturing of our society. it was the emphasis on the notes and bolts, domestic issues that impact of everyone's daily lives. turnout was more than 80%. on key national issues, there's not much depends between the competing slates. instead, it was perspectives on government's performance, roads, education, concerns on -- delivery of water and electricity that shake the debates and decisions that led up to that vote. it was a clear marker in the ship from where kurdish leaders for once hailed for the

revolutionary skills and now where they are chosen on their visions of government and the ability to make each likes person -- is -- to make each person's life better. that was an important moment in our history, and i believe that if you have an important moment in history, with an election year. good luck on that. we know a thing or two about elections in iraq. we have had several recently. all fleer government will form a little quicker than ours -- hopefully your government will form a little quicker than ours. we must remember that we are still part of iraq. this month will see the largest departure of u.s. forces from iraq since the liberation. how the u.s. leaves and remains in iraq is crucial to the stability of the nation and the region. we hope that as the u.s. leaves militarily, it will increase its diplomatic effort. we are thrilled that the u.s.

plans to open up a diplomatic , following the lead of many other countries that have done the same period increased u.s. diplomatic engagement in the kurdistan region, working alongside your embassy in baghdad, will cement the gains we have all made working together. equally important will be how iraqi leaders deal with their new-found freedom country has had handed to us. it is close to five months since the federal elections in march, and we have yet to form our government. there also remains top domestic issues that we iraqis must worked out -- work out, such as revenue sharing, hydrocarbons law, the future of disputed territories. these issues will not go away by themselves. solving them is a great priority with our friends in the united states. we look to whatever guidance and support the u.s. can give us. solving these issues is a

greater priority to us. while all iraqis from all walks of life have stood up to overcome the greatest of challenges, including terrorism, sectarian violence, political stalemates and regional interference, we remain well aware that in order for the u.s. to leave, to stand down and four iraqis to stand up in a sustainable, federal democracy, continued u.s. engagement and continued u.s. infringement is paramount. a stable, relatively democratic iraq, one that manages her vast natural resources responsibly and utilizes the monumental in come the country will receive from them, one that plays a productive and moderated role in an ever radicalizing region must be in the interest of the united states. ironically, it is weak, the kurds, who for years while fighting to gain our basic human rights were always trying to bring down a government in iraq.

today we are playing a leading role in building a new government. we are trying to build a new rack based on the principles. kurds have been oppressed for most of the last century. we are to wary of power centralized in the hands of a federal government. we see the iraqi constitution, which mandates federalism, and the devolution of power to the regions and to local government. as the best way to ensure that all iraqis feel safe as well as feel empowered. importantly, the constitution is a lot of the land. we will follow it, but we expect others to do so as well. kurdish political demands are limited but are fair, deserts, and reasonable. regional and western policymakers need to appreciate the role of the kurds in iraq, our sacrifices and our contributions. kurdistan does the commitment to being part of iraq is unshakable. all we ask for is to be treated fairly and be treated as equal

citizens, and to be able to work collectively. here is how we are at the regional government burning your sacrifices. we know that corruption and its allies are dangers in greek -- enemies of democracy. that makes the public cautious about believing in democracy. corruption and its allies can be an asset, and we -- we have made good governance and issue at top priority. we have teamed up with world- renowned consultants price waterhouse coopers to review current conditions, to weigh how government works and all government related issues. to address the crucial issues of good government, antique corruption and transparency. good government is a major pillar for securing our hope of democracy. we are confident the strategy outlined our government will

help us tackle this issue. we have made our region safe and secure an have overcome many internal conflicts. we have established a system to provide improved services and are moving to guarantee that all this progress is maintained and build upon. the benefits of the strategy are clear and vital for our future. it will help us ensure that public funds are used properly. it will help us make our government more efficient and effective. it will improve the delivery of services of the people of the kurdistan region and help improve international and domestic confidence and increased investment and job development, while helping to raise the standard of life for our citizens. we understand that democracy is an evolutionary process, but in iraq and elsewhere. it is more than just a philosophy. a key to securing our people's trust will be how we deliver the services. for example, large-scale power generation cannot just be bought

off the shelf. we have been working for several years to implement effective power and water distribution projects. in 2008, our region was dealing with to failing hydroelectric dams. the result was the government generated electricity for only three hours a day. we found that unacceptable. today our projects are nearing completion and we will have close to 20 hours of major power in major cities in our region. that is more than the rest of the country. we know there are 24 hours a day and we are working towards that. what we have now is much better than what we had three years ago. it is a journey. likewise, the recent completion of large-scale water projects in our two largest cities will combine with existing systems to provide clean water to much of our region. these are significant accomplishments that have been achieved by our governments and the region's developing private sector. they are final, critical issues

that need to be addressed to the people living in our region so they can have hope and freedom from want. providing such central services is only part of good governance. all that is going on, we have also taken determine steps to strengthen the judiciary and the rule all. in 2008, the judiciary was separated from the rest of the government to create an independent judiciary. the judiciary is now learning how to stand on its own feet, be objective, and uphold the rule of law. we did this on our own. we knew it was the right thing to do. we took these initiatives because this is what being a democracy is all about. i am the first to admit that we have a ways to go. that is what we need to continue u.s. engagement. we are not a perfect democracy, but we are democratizing. we have a vibrant, civil society. we have a free press, an emerging market oriented private

sector. i must say clearly and bluntly that i am not making excuses about the challenges that we face in the kurdistan region. i am not justifying are rationalizing a less than perfect system. i am not pretending that problems do not exist. i know we have stumbled, made mistakes, and misread circumstances, but democracy is hard work. but the destination is working. -- the destination is worth it. we are still moving forward. this is not a sprint, and it should not be. this is the foundation of our future, for children, grandchildren, for the kurdistan region, and for iraq. we would like the u.s. to stand with us and iraq as we continue on this journey. thank you very much for having me here. i look forward to answering your questions. [applause]

>> good evening. i am david french, and i wanted to tell you what serendipity tonight that through iie and our state department, we have an exchange department with six beautiful high school student from iraq. they are in the back, and with their host families and all are iraq students, please stand and wait. -- please dan andwave. [applause] one of the things we know is that young people will change the world. we have asked one of our bright young iraqis from kurdistan to come up here to the mike just for a moment and share what they have learned in the last two weeks. becomes. -- here she comes. [applause]

i am from baghdad, and i am from the exchange program between iraqi students and american students. in the program we learn about each culture, from america and from iraq also. it is a great program. we have learned so many things about leadership, and of course we had a nice experiment in the usa. there is a group of my friends in here, americans and iraqis. we have been in the u.s. for one week in vermont, and in denver also for one week, and will stay for another week. we will also go to washington d.c. for a week. it is an amazing program. i think it is i think everyone who works in this program and

all the staff. it is a very lovely program, the americans -- all they see on media and tv is war and horrible things, so i am glad to be part of this program. [applause] >> i am a part-time teacher at metro state college. i am wondering what the possibilities are for immigration between kurds and turkey. >> we have seen a lot of movement of populations as the kurdistan region is stabilizing and has progressed. the standard of living has improved and made it far more

attractive to many kurds in syria and iran and even in parts of turkey. we have a pretty open door policy, as long as people abide by the law, they are welcome there. immigration is a federal issue, and the federal government has jurisdiction. hopefully kurds in syria, iran, and turkey are proud of what they see, the freedoms there, a government that is functioning there. the flag is flying alongside the iraqi black, and it is something that a lot of people are looking at. -- alongside the iraqi flag. >> and amazon.com cochran. i am a member of -- my name is don cochrane. i am a member of iie. i am curious as to whether a

member of the kurdistan region is in any danger whatsoever of suffering an onslaught, for example, from al qaeda or something in that order. >> we live in a freaky neighborhood, to say the least. that in and of itself presents a danger to our existence. the fact that we are open about our pro-american attitude, that we've bankamerica publicly and not privately, also does not make us properly -- that we thank america publicly and not privately, also does not make as popular in that part of the world. it obviously raises extreme groups in the region that target us. if you recall in 2002 or 2001

before operation in iraq and freedom, the crew -- one group formed on the border of the kurdistan region with iran. with the help of your special forces from colorado springs, we were able to eradicate this group from our region and we have not let the men since. we have a very tolerant society of people who tolerate differing views and different opinions, but they do draw the line when those differing views turn into acts of terrorism. we are constantly on alert and constantly vigilant. we are proud that no foreigner has been killed in hostile action in that region. we want to keep it that way, and our security services are doing a good job of keeping it that way. [applause]

>> of maritime article in yesterday's "washington post" which i bet you have read before i did. it had very positive things to say about the kurdish government and the progress that has been made. it said the kurds have also worked out a peaceful mode as vivenda with their iranian neighbors and could be of help if president obama is pursuit of dialogue if it gets on track. can you comment, please? >> living where we live, we have to have good relations with all our neighbors. we are flanked by iran on one side and turkey on the other, syria having to the domestic

angle to deal with. iran is a powerful neighbor, and it has a very long border with us. it is a neighbor that has played but a constructive and a negative role " in iraq and also in the kurdistan region. we have to deal with the reality and the fact that neither of us are going anywhere anytime soon. we have to find ways of working together and living together. we are watching closely the tensions brewing between the united states and iran, and between other players in the region. we are concerned because we do live there, and obviously anything that happens, any increase in tensions will likely have an effect on the confidence and the situation in our region. we have also been a very moderating factor in iraq, and we believe we can play a moderating factor beyond our

borders. we do have a sizeable kurdish communities in turkey, syria, and iran as well that can play a positive role, should that be necessary. but we welcome dialogue and increased efforts to try to diminish the tension, because at the end of the day, we have all had to much tension and conflict over two long period of time, and it is time to get on with dark like and build a better life for our citizens and the region. >> my name is dave butler. i am a retired lawyer here in denver. one of the areas where some conflict or disagreement has arisen related to kirkuk, and

who should control it and who should get the money for the fields and so forth. i am just curious, how do you think that is going to work itself out? >> i am glad you asked that question, because it is really critical to how iraq develops harmony between the different communities. kirkuk is a city that is oil- rich, multi-ethnic, that has had a very miserable history. a city that was once predominantly kurdish has been ethnically cleansed by successive iraqi governments, not just the saddam government, but prior to that. a city that has had almost half a million people displaced from it, several hundred thousand kurds killed from it, surely because of their kurdish identity, purely because of the fact that they would not subscribe to the former government's believes and ways of governing. the reality is, it is a multi-

ethnic city and a multi sectarian city. it is considered disputed territory. the iraqi constitution has a swath of territory that is being administered by the kurdistan regional government, despite -- defined as disputed territory. it is one of the most complicated issues plaguing iraq today. meet its plan is an abundance of oil and natural gas -- beneath its land. if thrown into the mix extremist elements, remnants of al qaeda as network, and you have a very volatile mix. the constitution of iraq outlines a road map on how to resolve the issue of disputed territory, how to make sure that the people that were forcibly evicted from their homes have a legal way to return back to their homes. more to the point, the

constitution outlines a process where a census be held, nationally, to determine the national population, but specifically for the disputed territories. what these -- once the steps are outlined and have been accomplished, the constitution states that a referendum be held in the province of kirkuk to determine who administers this area. it is the federal government role, or will there be other alternatives presented for the people who live in these disputed territories? up until now, post-saddam governments have not made good on their promises to implement those articles of the constitution. the issue has been left festering for too long. the longer the issue remains, the more frustrated the people of kirkuk will remain frustrated

and will lose out. ultimately, in my opinion, the situation in iraq will never be completely stable, politically or security was, unless we address the issue of disputed territories and bring to close the issue of kirkuk. there is a political road map that outlines what needs to happen. we are just asking our partners and colleagues in the country to fulfill the obligations of that constitution, and lament the articles, give it to the people. that the people of kirkuk make that determination. that is the democratic process, and that is all we are supporting. the issue of oil frequently comes up when we talk ki kirkuk and disputed territories.

it is not because of the oil that the kurds of wantkirkuk to come back to the kurdistan region. we have discovered oil all over the kurdistan region. if we resolve the national oil policy, if we come up and define a national oil policy, figure out a way to manage the vast resources that iraq has, boost national production, not just in the north but elsewhere, start to develop the many untapped and undeveloped fields that iraq has, and more importantly, execute the initiatives proposed by the kurdistan government to share the revenue from the sale of oil, regardless of where the oil comes from, but the revenue toward the national treasury and then distribute it out to the region and the provinces, then it does not matter if kirkuk has

oil or not. we have been pushing for this and will continue pushing for this. we are confident that if we have a government -- if we get a government in baghdad that we can make this one of the first major agenda items and address this issue, start to genuinely build trust between communities and rectify the genocide and injustice that befell my people for many many decades of until the liberation of iraq. >> to follow-up on some of the other questions, kurds are not just in iraq but in syria, iran, and turkey, and what is your view on a greater kurdistan proposed by these other kurds?

>> there are kurds in those countries. we are the largest community of people in the world that do not have their own country. some estimates say we are close to 40 million people now. it does not matter where you are from, whether from iraqi, syrian, kurdistan, or a turkey. -- or turkey. it becomes tough sometimes, but political reality has a way of putting us in check, making us realize what is attainable and what is not, what is in the best interest of our people and what is not. i can say that each kurdish community and each country has its own issues, has its own set of problems, its own set of things going for it and against it. there are very few calls right now to combine greater

kurdistan. turkey is aspiring to become a european country. kurds in turkey where to get their full rights, other democratic, cultural, political, educational, cultural rights, then maybe the lure of the greater kurdistan may diminish. the same with syria. kurds in syria get their rights, are treated as citizens and given citizenship, because many are not even given syrian citizenship. if they get treated as equal citizens, you will find the unrest diminishes. this is what happened in iraqi kurdistan. we did not fight for the sake of fighting. we fought for our basic rights. we ultimately secure our goal with a little bit of help from our friends in the united states through political and diplomatic means. means.