Text 4406, 838 rader
Skriven 2007-04-20 23:31:04 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704206) for Fri, 2007 Apr 20
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Visits East Grand Rapids, Discusses Global War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 20, 2007

President Bush Visits East Grand Rapids, Discusses Global War on Terror
East Grand Rapids High School East Grand Rapids, Michigan

˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio


1:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. I'm glad to be back in Grand
Rapids. I appreciate the opportunity to address the World Affairs Council
of Western Michigan. I was leaving the White House today, Laura said, where
are you headed? I said, to the West Coast. (Laughter.) She said, make sure
you take your suntan lotion. (Laughter.) I said, the West Coast of Michigan
-- (laughter) -- and I'm glad to be with you.

You can't help but think about Gerald Ford when you come to Grand Rapids,
Michigan. You know, our country was blessed to have such a decent,
honorable, kind, courageous leader in Gerald R. Ford, and we miss him a
lot. (Applause.)

I appreciate Dixie Anderson, who is the Executive Director of the World
Affairs Council of Western Michigan. I thank Barbara Propes who is the
President of the World Affairs Council of America. I want to thank Ping
Liang, President, Board of Directors of the World Affairs Council of
Western Michigan, and a fellow Yale Bulldog.

I appreciate my friend, Ambassador Pete Secchia for joining us today. He
was the Ambassador to Italy under 41. I appreciate Sara Shubel, who is the
Superintendent of the East Grand Rapids Public Schools. Thank you very much
for allowing me to come to this beautiful auditorium here in East Grand
Rapids High School. I appreciate Jenny Fee, the Associate Principal, as
well as Larry Fisher. My purpose of coming is to instruct, is to talk about
the issues that our world is facing, particularly the issue of Iraq. And I
appreciate the chance to come to this high school to do so.

I thank Congressman Vern Ehlers, congressman from this district. I
appreciate you being here, Vern, and thank you for joining me and
Congressman Pete Hoekstra on Air Force One. It's probably quite convenient
for you to fly from Washington on Air Force One. (Laughter.) Glad to
provide the transportation. (Laughter.) Both these men are really honorable
folks who serve Western Michigan well in Congress, and I want to thank you
for your service. (Applause.)

I thank the Michigan Attorney General, Michael Cox, for joining us. Mike,
thanks for coming today. Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land. She
heard this was a foreign policy speech. (Laughter.) I appreciate Cindy
Bartman, City of East Grand Rapids; Mayor George Heartwell, City of Grand
Rapids. Thank you all for serving. I appreciate your willingness to become
public servants. One of the messages I hope that I can convey to the high
school students who are here, no matter what your political beliefs may be,
that it's important to serve. It's important to serve the community in
which you live. And you can do so all kinds of ways. You can run for mayor
at some point in time, or you can feed the hungry. But service is noble,
and service is necessary. I see we've got some who wear the uniform of the
United States military. In this day and age, that's the ultimate service,
as far as I'm concerned, and I appreciate you volunteering. (Applause.)

For more than a half century, the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan
has been a forum for lively and important debate. I understand this council
was set up in 1949. It's been an important forum for people to talk about
the big questions facing our country. There is no bigger question than what
course our nation should pursue in Iraq, and that's what I'm here to talk
about.

Three months ago, my administration completed an extensive review of that
very question. I ordered major changes to our strategy in Iraq. And to lead
this new strategy, I named General David Petraeus, an expert who wrote the
Army's new manual on counterinsurgency warfare.

This new strategy is fundamentally different from the previous strategy. It
recognizes that our top priority must be to help Iraq's elected leaders
secure their population, especially in Baghdad -- because Iraqis will not
be able to make the political and economic progress they need until they
have a basic measure of security. Iraq's leaders are committed to providing
that security -- but at this point, they cannot do it on their own.

And so I ordered American reinforcements to help Iraqis secure their
population, to go after the terrorists and insurgents that are inciting
sectarian violence, and to get their capital under control. As our troops
take on this mission, they will continue to train and mentor the Iraqi
security forces for the day they can take full responsibility for the
security of their own country.

General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy for just over two
months. He reports that it will be later this year before we can judge the
potential of success. Yet the first indicators are beginning to emerge --
and they show that so far, the operation is meeting expectations. There are
still horrific attacks in Iraq, such as the bombings in Baghdad on
Wednesday -- but the direction of the fight is beginning to shift.

In the coming months, I'll deliver regular updates on our operations.
Today, I want to share some details about how this effort is unfolding in
three areas: Baghdad, Anbar province, and the outskirts of Baghdad where
terrorists and extremists are making a stand.

The most significant element of our new strategy is being carried out in
Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of most of the sectarian violence; it is
the destination for most of our reinforcements. So far, three additional
American brigades totaling about 12,000 troops have reached the Baghdad
area; another brigade is in Kuwait preparing to deploy; and one more will
arrive in Kuwait next month. The Iraqi government is also meeting its
pledge to boost its force levels in the city. For every American combat
soldier deployed to Baghdad, there are now about three Iraqi security
forces -- giving us a combined total of nearly 80,000 combat forces in the
Baghdad area.

My point is, is that the American combat forces are not alone in the effort
to secure the nation's capital. And just as important as the growing number
of troops is their changing position in the city. I direct your attention
to a map showing our troop presence around Baghdad late last year. This is
how we were positioned. Most troops were at bases on the outskirts of the
city. They would move into Baghdad to clear out neighborhoods during the
day, and then they would return to their bases at night. The problem was
that when our troops moved back to the bases, the extremists, the radicals,
the killers moved back to the neighborhoods.

And we're changing. Part of our strategy change, part of the new mission in
Baghdad is for American troops to live and work side by side with Iraqi
forces at small neighborhood posts called joint security stations. You can
see from this map, there are now more than two dozen joint security
stations located throughout Baghdad; more are planned. From these stations,
Iraqi and American forces work together to clear out and then secure
neighborhoods -- all aimed at providing security for the people of Baghdad.
If a heavy fight breaks out, our forces will step in, and Iraqi forces
learn valuable skills from American troops; they'll fight shoulder to
shoulder with the finest military every assembled.

By living in Baghdad neighborhoods, American forces get to know the culture
and concerns of local residents. Equally important, the local residents get
to know them. When Iraqi civilians see a large presence of professional
soldiers and police patrolling their streets, they grow in confidence and
trust. They become less likely to turn to militias for protection. People
want security in their lives, and they tend to turn to the most apparently
effective security force. And as people gain confidence in the ability of
the Iraqi troops, along with the United States to provide security, they
begin to cooperate. In fact, Iraqi and American forces have received more
tips in the past three months than during any three-month period on record.
These are tips provided by local citizens about where to find terrorists
and insurgents.

Most people -- the vast majority of people want to live in peace. Iraqi
mothers want their children to grow up in peace. And if given the
opportunity and given the confidence, civilians turn in the terrorists and
extremists and murderers to help achieve that peace.

This new approach to securing Baghdad brings risks. When I announced the
new operation, I cautioned that more troops conducting more operations in
more neighborhoods would likely to bring more casualties. Since the
security operation began, we have seen some of the highest casualty levels
of the war. And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows and operations
move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can expect the pattern to
continue.

We must also expect the terrorists and insurgents to continue mounting
terrible attacks. Here is a photo of the destruction caused by a car bomb
at a bus stop in Baghdad on Wednesday. The victims of this attack were
innocent men and women, who were simply coming home from work. Yet this was
hardly a random act of murder. It has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda
attack. The terrorists bombed the buses at rush hour, with the specific
intent to kill as many people as possible. This has been long a pattern of
al Qaeda in Iraq; this is what they do. They carried out the spectacular
attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. They bombed the
Jordanian embassy in Iraq. They claimed credit for the bombing of the
Golden Mosque of Samarra. Just last week, they sent a suicide bomber to
attack the Iraqi parliament building.

Al Qaeda believes that its best chance to achieve its objectives -- which
is to drive the United States out of Iraq and prevent the emergence of a
free society in the Middle East, is to defeat the security operation by
conducting spectacular attacks that provoke Iraqis into taking violence
into their own hands -- and lead Americans to conclude that the sectarian
killing will never be contained. This strategy is merciless, but it is not
without logic. It's important for all Iraqis -- Sunnis and Shia alike -- to
understand that al Qaeda is the greatest threat to peace in their country.
And the question is whether we and the Iraqis will give in, and to respond
the way al Qaeda wants. Because of the lessons of September the 11th, the
answer is the United States government will not give in to what al Qaeda
wants -- and the Iraqis must not give in to al Qaeda if they want to have a
peaceful society.

The nature of a strategy aimed at securing the population is that the most
important gains are often the least dramatic. Day by day, block by block,
Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad. Thanks
to more troops on the streets and more cooperation from residents, the
average number of weapons stockpiles seized each week has jumped 50 percent
since the beginning of the new strategy. American and Iraqi forces tracked
down and captured the leaders of a major car bomb ring. We found and
cleared a warehouse where terrorists were storing chemicals to make
weapons. We captured members of a death squad that had terrorized hundreds
of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood. As a result, displaced families are
beginning to return home. And the number of sectarian murders in Baghdad
has dropped by half since the operation began.

The results of the security operation are uneven across the city. In some
areas, there have been sharp declines in sectarian killing -- while in
other areas, the level of violence is still far too high. Yet even in
volatile districts like Sadr City, our new approach is beginning to make a
difference. A report last month in the Grand Rapids Press quoted an Iraqi
resident of Sadr City. Perhaps you read it. If you didn't, here's what it
said: "They thanked us" -- they're talking about our forces and Iraqi
forces -- "They thanked us with respect and a smile." This resident said,
"I'm happy that such a campaign is done in my neighborhood." People want
security and they want to live in peace.

Developments like these are not as spectacular as a terrorist bomb. When a
family decides to stop depending on militias to protect them, or a young
man rejects insurgency and joins the Iraqi army, it doesn't usually make
the evening news. Yet small, individual choices like these are vital to the
success of our campaign. They show that despite all the violence, the vast
majority of Iraqis want security, they want to live in peace. I know I've
said that more than once; it's important for our citizens to understand
that people around the world are anxious for peace, and, yet, there are
extremists and radicals and murderers who will do anything they can to
prevent it from happening.

The Iraqi security forces are growing in maturity and gaining trust, and
that's important. Our men and women in uniform are showing great courage
and skill, and that's important to the Iraqi people, as well.

Another significant element of our new strategy is being carried out in
Anbar province -- a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. For much of the
past four years, Anbar has been a hotbed for insurgents and al Qaeda
terrorists. Remember, al Qaeda is Sunni in nature. According to a captured
al Qaeda document, according to what al Qaeda has made clear, their goal is
to take over the Anbar province and make it their home base for Iraq. That
would bring them closer to their stated objective of taking down Iraq's
democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and having safe haven from
which to launch attacks on the United States citizens here at home or
abroad. That is what al Qaeda has stated; that is their objective. And
Anbar province is where they're trying to achieve their objective. Al Qaeda
has pursued this goal through a ruthless campaign of violence -- and they
grew in power. They were succeeding.

And then something began to change. The people of Anbar began to realize
their life was not the paradise al Qaeda promised -- as a matter of fact,
it was a nightmare. So courageous tribal sheiks launched a movement called
"The Awakening" and began cooperating with American and Iraqi forces. The
sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the terrorists were, and they
began providing highly specific intelligence. To help capitalize on this
opportunity, I sent more troops into Anbar province. Alongside the Iraqi
army and police, U.S. Marines and Special Operations Forces have been
striking terrible blows against al Qaeda.

The maps show the dramatic changes taking place in Ramadi, which happens to
be the capital of Anbar province. The red-shaded areas in the first map
show the concentration of al Qaeda terrorists in the city two months ago.
The second map shows the concentration of the terrorists now. Their
presence has declined substantially. Here is how one reporter described the
changes: "A year ago, Ramadi's police force had virtually been wiped out,
leaving only a couple dozen officers and a lawless city with nowhere to
turn for help. Now, guerrilla fighters have begun to disappear, schools and
shops have reopened, and civilians have begun walking [in] previously
deserted streets."

Anbar province is still not safe. Al Qaeda has responded to these changes
with sickening brutality. They have bombed fellow Sunnis in prayer at a
mosque, they send death squads into neighborhoods, they have recruited
children as young as 12 years old to help carry out suicide attacks. But
this time, local Sunnis are refusing to be intimidated. With the
encouragement of their tribal leaders, they're stepping forward to protect
their families and drive out the terrorists. They're stepping forward to
prevent al Qaeda, the people who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,
from establishing safe haven in Anbar province. And I believe strongly it's
in the interest of the United States of America to help them.

General Petraeus said earlier this month: "In the latest recruiting effort,
which used to draw minimal numbers of Iraqis willing to serve in the Iraqi
army or the Iraqi police in Anbar province, there were over 2,000
volunteers for the latest training." General Petraeus went on, "Frankly,
it's a stunning development and reflects the frustration the Sunni Arab
tribes have with what al Qaeda has done to them. It has really had a
devastating effect." If given a chance, most people will reject extremists
and radicals and murderers.

The United States will help Sunni sheiks and will help their people. We
will stay on the offense in Anbar province. We and the Iraqi government are
carrying out our new strategy in Baghdad and Anbar, as well as the "Baghdad
belts" -- these are areas on the outskirts of the capital that have been
staging grounds for deadly attacks. I have discussed the capital city with
you, I discussed a western province with you, and I'm now going to talk
about the belts around the capital city of Iraq.

We have moved an additional Stryker battalion to Diyala province, which is
northeast of Baghdad, where our soldiers and Iraqi forces are conducting
raids against al Qaeda and insurgents. We have sent reinforcements to
Diwaniyah province -- Diwaniyah, a city of Diwaniyah, which is 80 miles
south of Baghdad, where we're working with Iraqi forces to route out
militia and Shia extremists.

In these and other parts of the Baghdad belts, Iraqi and American forces
are fighting to clear and hold territory that the enemies of a free society
considered their own. They're fighting back. As a result, violence is
increasing. And as our forces move deeper into the territory, the violence
could increase even more. Yet these operations are having an important
impact on this young democracy. They're keeping the pressure on the
terrorists and insurgents who have fled Anbar and Baghdad. They're helping
cut off the supply of weapons and fighters to violent groups inside the
capital. They're showing Iraqi citizens across the country there will be no
sanctuary for killers anywhere in a free Iraq.

All of these military operations are designed to improve security for
everyday folks. They're designed to reduce sectarian violence. And they're
designed to open up breathing space for political progress by Iraq's
government.

It may seem like decades ago, but it wasn't all that long ago that 12
million Iraqi citizens voted for a free and democratic future for their
country. And the government they elected is in place -- it hasn't been in
place a year yet -- and they're working hard to make progress on some key
benchmarks; progress to help this country reconcile and unite after years
of tyrannical and brutal rule.

The Iraqi legislature passed a budget that commits $10 billion of their
money for reconstruction projects -- and now the government must spend that
money to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. The Council of Ministers
recently approved legislation that would provide a framework for an
equitable sharing of oil resources -- and now that legislation needs to go
before their parliament for approval. The government has formed a committee
to organize provincial elections -- and the next step is to set a date for
those elections to be held.

Iraqi leaders are taking steps toward agreement on a de-Baathification law
that will allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life -- and
they need to agree on that measure and send it to parliament. Prime
Minister Maliki is working to build greater support from Iraq's neighbors
and the international community. I just talked to him the other day on
secure video -- I was in the White House and he was in Baghdad -- and we
talked about this neighborhood conference, an opportunity to rally the
international community to help support this young democracy's efforts to
thrive and prosper. And at the conference in Egypt next month, he, along
with Secretary Rice and other concerned leaders, will seek increased
diplomatic and financial commitments for this country.

Iraq's leaders have begun meeting their benchmarks -- and they've got a lot
left to do. As more breathing space is created by reducing the sectarian
violence, Iraq's leaders have got to take advantage of that breathing
space. I have made it abundantly clear to the Prime Minister that our
patience is not unlimited; that we fully recognize that there has to be
political progress and economic progress, along with military progress, in
order for that government to succeed. And it's up to the Iraqi people and
the Iraq-elected folks to show America and the world they're ready to do
the hard work necessary to reconcile and move forward.

It's important to understand that Iraq's government is working hard in a
difficult environment. The day after its building was bombed, the Iraqi
parliament held a special session. Its speaker said the meeting sent, "a
clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare to try to stop
this political process that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue."
I found that to be a heartening statement; that here al Qaeda bombs their
parliament and this man stands up and says, you're not going to scare us;
we want to represent the will of the 12 million people who voted.

You've just got to know my view of -- the vast majority of Iraqis are
courageous people; they've endured brutality as a result of murderers
trying to stop their new country from -- their new system of government
from succeeding. And I'm impressed by their courage. And I believe this
current government under Prime Minister Maliki is committed to building a
strong democracy. That's my judgment, having talked to him. I've watched a
man begun to grow in office. I first talked to him in June, when he was
named the Prime Minister. I've talked to him consistently ever since. I
look to see whether or not he has courage to make the difficult decisions
necessary to achieve peace. I'm looking to see whether or not he has got
the capacity to reach out and help unify this country.

He says, you know, sometimes it's hard to get the parliament to do exactly
what he thinks they ought to do. (Laughter.) I know what he means.
(Laughter.)

As we increase troop levels, we're also increasing our civilian presence.
We're doubling the number of what's called provincial reconstruction teams,
which partner civilian experts with combat units to ensure that military
operations are followed up with rapid economic assistance. These teams help
local Iraqi leaders restore basic services and stimulate job creation and
promote reconciliation. Their work highlights a sharp difference: The Iraqi
and American governments want to rebuild communities and improve lives --
the extremists and terrorists want to destroy communities and take lives.
And when ordinary Iraqis see this difference for themselves, they become
more likely to stand with their elected leaders and help marginalize the
extremists in this struggle.

Here at home, a different kind of struggle is taking place -- and its
outcome will have a direct impact on the front lines. Despite the initial
signs of progress on the ground, despite the fact that many reinforcements
have not even arrived, Democrat leadership of the Congress is pushing
legislation that would undercut the strategy General David Petraeus has
just started to pursue. They have passed bills in the House and Senate that
would impose restrictions on our military commanders and mandate a
precipitous withdrawal by an arbitrary date -- they say withdrawal
regardless of the conditions on the ground. That approach makes for a vivid
contrast with the attitude in Iraq. A prominent Middle East scholar
recently visited Iraq, described the difference: "A traveler who moves
between Baghdad and Washington is struck by the gloomy despair in
Washington and the cautious sense of optimism in Baghdad."

We have honest differences of opinion in Washington and around this
country, and I appreciate those differences. The ability to debate
differences openly and frequently is what makes America a great country.
Our men and women in uniform should never be caught in the middle of these
debates. It has now been 74 days since I sent to Congress a request for
emergency funding that our troops urgently need. The leadership in Congress
have spent those 74 days trying to substitute their judgment for the
judgment of our generals -- without sending me legislation. And now, to
cover ongoing Army operations, the Pentagon is being forced to transfer
money from military personnel accounts.

The delay in spending is beginning to affect the ability of the Pentagon to
fund our troops and all our missions. On Wednesday, I met at the White
House with Congressional leaders from both parties; it was a very cordial
meeting. I think you would have been pleased at the tone of the meeting in
the Cabinet Room at the White House -- at least, I was. I urged the people
around the table to put politics aside, and to send a bill that funds our
troops without arbitrary deadlines, without wasteful spending, and without
handcuffing our commanders.

There is ample time to debate this war. We need to get the troops the
money. When we debate the war on terror, it can be convenient to divide up
the fight by location -- and so we hear about, "the war in Afghanistan,"
and "the war in Iraq" [as] if they were something separate. This is a
natural way to talk about a complicated subject -- I don't think it's
accurate. Our enemies make no distinctions based on borders. They view the
world as a giant battlefield, and will strike wherever they can. The
killers who behead captives and order suicide bombings in Iraq are
followers of the same radical ideology as those who destroy markets in
Afghanistan; or they set off car bombs in Algeria, and blow up subway
trains in London. The men who attacked Iraq's parliament last week swear
allegiance to the same terrorist network as those who attacked America on
September the 11th, 2001.

The fight in Iraq has been long and is trying. It's a difficult period in
our nation's history. I also say it's a consequential moment in our
nation's history, as well. It's natural to wish there was an easy way out
-- that we could just pack up and bring our troops home and be safe. Yet in
Iraq, the easy road would be a road to disaster. If we were to leave Iraq
before that government can defend itself, and be an ally in this war
against extremists and radicals, and be able to deny safe haven from people
who want to hurt the United States, the consequences for this country would
be grave.

There would be a security vacuum in Iraq. Extremists and radicals love
vacuums in which to spread chaos. The world would see different factions of
radicals, different groups of extremists competing for influence and power.
The extremists who emerge from this battle would turn the country into a
new radical regime in the Middle East. I told you they want to launch new
attacks on America and they need safe haven from which to do so.

Not every enemy we face in Iraq wants to attack us here at home, but many
of them do. And I believe it's in the interest of this country to take
those threats seriously. We don't have to imagine what might happen if a
group of terrorists gained safe haven. We've learned that lesson, I hope.
Precisely what happened in Afghanistan -- it's really important for our
memories not to dim. At least it's important for my memory not to dim,
because my most important job is to protect the American people. The lesson
of 9/11 is that when you allow extremists and radicals and killers to find
a sanctuary anywhere in the world, that can have deadly consequences on the
streets of our own cities.

What happens overseas matters here in the United States of America. It's
one of the fundamental lessons of September the 11th, 2001.

Those who advocate pulling out of Iraq claim they are proposing an
alternative strategy to deal with the situation there. Withdrawal is not a
strategy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent violence from spilling out
across that country and plunging Iraq into chaos and anarchy. Withdrawal
would do nothing to prevent al Qaeda from taking advantage of the chaos to
seize control of a nation with some of the world's largest oil resources.
Withdrawal would embolden these radicals and extremists. Withdrawal would
do nothing to prevent al Qaeda from using Iraq as a base to overthrow other
moderate countries. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent Iran from
exploiting the chaos in Iraq to destabilize the region, expand its radical
influence, threaten Israel, and further its ambitions to obtain nuclear
weapons.

If anything, withdrawal would make each of these dangerous developments
more likely. Withdrawal would embolden enemies and confirm their belief
that America is weak and does not have the stomach to do what is necessary
to lay the foundations for peace. Ultimately, withdrawal would increase the
probability that American troops would have to return to Iraq -- and
confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

So no matter how frustrating the fight in Iraq can be, no matter how much
we wish the war was over, the security of our country depends directly on
the outcome of Iraq. The price of giving up there would be paid in American
lives for years to come. I firmly believe that historians would look back
on that decision to withdraw and say, what happened to them in the year
2007, how come they could not see the dangers to the United States of
America.

No one understands the stakes in Iraq more clearly than our troops. Every
man and woman in our military volunteered for the job. They make us proud
every day. Michael Evans is a Specialist from Sumner, Illinois. His unit is
part of the new operation to secure Baghdad. He said, "It is a great
feeling to know we're contributing to getting insurgents off the streets,
so the people do not have to live in fear." He went on to say, "I'll be
coming away from this knowing that I was doing something to help the
American people -- so that what happened on 9/11 never happens again."

I agree with him. Specialist Evans represents the greatness of our country:
decent citizens volunteering to protect you. You know, for all we hear
about the consequences of failure in Iraq, we should not forget the
consequences of success in Iraq. Success in Iraq would bring something
powerful and new -- a democracy at the heart of the Middle East, a nation
that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and a powerful example
for others of the power of liberty to overcome an ideology of hate.

We have done this kind of work in the United States of America before. I am
-- you know, I marvel at the fact that on the one hand my dad joined the
Navy at 18 to fight a sworn enemy, the Japanese, and on the other hand, his
son, some 55 years later, best friend and keeping the peace with the Prime
Minister of Japan. I find that an amazing fact of history: 41 fights them,
43 works with them to lay the foundation for peace -- including working
with Japan to deploy Japanese troops in Iraq. It's amazing to me. But it
shows the power of liberty to transform enemies into allies.

We have done the hard work before of helping young democracies. As a matter
of fact, we did so after a brutal World War II in helping Germany and Japan
get back on their feet and establish forms of government that yield peace.
We did so after the Korean War. I suspect it would be hard to find anybody
in 1953 to predict that an American President would one day be reporting to
the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan that relations in the Far
East are solid for the United States of America, and that that part of the
world is relatively peaceful compared to other troubled parts of the world.
In '53 they would have been thinking about all the lives lost in Japan or
in Korea. In '53 they would have seen a communist China gaining strength.

And yet, in 2007, we've got a Korea that went through difficult times to
get to the democracy she's now in and is now a major trading partner of the
United States. We've got a China with an open marketplace, based upon the
principles where consumers get to decide things, not the state. The
political system has got a long way to go, but the marketplace is beginning
to redefine that society. Or how about Japan, a place where we lost
thousands of lives and, yet, now they're a partner in peace.

America has done the hard work necessary to give liberty a chance to
prevail. And it's in my opinion and in the opinion of people like
Specialist Evans that we do so in the Middle East for the sake of peace for
a young generation of Americans.

Thank you. (Applause.)

I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions on any subject. Yes, sir.

Q How do you think the new Democratic Congress will (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. First of all, I just want you to know that even
though I'm quite critical of the delay in the supplemental funding, I
respect the Democratic leadership in Washington. We have fundamental
disagreements about whether or not helping this young democracy is -- the
consequences of failure or success, let's put it that way. It's also very
important in this debate to understand that even though we have our policy
differences -- particularly as the young lad that you are -- that we don't
think either of us are not patriotic citizens, okay?

So when you hear the debate, in my perspective, it's because of -- I just
disagree with the notion that when we have troops in harm's way that there
ought to be a kind of political process with strings attached to a piece of
legislation that goes to fund our troops. As I say, there's ample time to
discuss right or wrong. I don't believe there's ample time to delay funding
for men and women who have volunteered.

Secondly, I feel very strongly -- wait a minute -- (applause) -- this is a
sober forum -- or a forum of sober people, I hope. (Laughter.) There is a
-- there is -- I have a fundamental problem with a -- look, a lot of people
didn't like the strategy. In other words, people said, you shouldn't have
done that, Mr. President. And I fully understand that aspect of it. I also
found it quite ironic that the general I asked to lead the strategy, a
counterinsurgency expert, David Petraeus, gets approved by the United
States Senate 81 to nothing, and then, on his way over, they begin to
micromanage his ability to follow through on the strategy.

So we have just a policy difference. When it's all said and done, I believe
these troops will get the money they need. I think you're going to see
there to be a continual debate on this subject. Interestingly enough, I
said in a forum yesterday in Ohio and I'll share with you now, I thought at
this point this year, I would be announcing troop reductions in Iraq,
because I felt -- this is, again, a year ago -- I felt that the Iraqi
government was better prepared to be able to handle their own security. And
by the way, they want to handle their own security. The Prime Minister is
constantly saying, let me do more of it. We just believe he's not quite
ready to do so, and that it's in our interest to be able to help him to be
able to take on more of the security challenges. And I thought we'd be
reducing troops.

And then what happened was, the Samarra bombing took place by al Qaeda,
which caused there to be a sectarian outrage. And because the government
was ill-prepared to provide enough security in the capital, people began to
use militias to provide security. And the sectarian outrage, the killing
started to get out of hand. And I had a decision to make: withdraw from the
capital and just kind of hope for the burnout theory -- as you know, I was
worried about chaos, and into chaos comes more extremists -- or reinforce;
I chose to reinforce, all aiming to get to a position where we'll be able
to reposition our forces.

I liked what James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton suggested. I thought that was
a good suggestion. And that is to be in a position at some point in time
where our troops are embedded with the Iraqi units -- in other words,
there's Iraqi units providing security with a handful of U.S. troops --
helping them learn what it means to be a good military. That's not a given.
It's hard to have a good military. It's hard to have a chain of command
with logistical support and maintenance support. And we're good at it. And
we can help others become good at it. And embedding troops and training
troops makes sense for me. I like the idea of having our troops on the
over-horizon presence, to be able to help bail out extreme situations. I
really want to make sure that our special ops stays on the hunt for al
Qaeda in Iraq. We can't let al Qaeda develop another safe haven. Listen, we
spent a lot of energy to drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan; we don't want
them to be able to establish a same type of save haven in Iraq. That's
where I would like to be.

I made the judgment, along with our military commanders, we could not get
there until we provided enough security. And I fully understand this is a
rough war. As I mentioned in my speech -- let me put it more bluntly: The
enemy has got an advantage. They know that a spectacular bombing is going
to make it on the news, and it shakes people's conscience, and it should.
Ours is a nation that has deep compassion for human life and human dignity.

But they also know it makes people question whether or not we can succeed
in Iraq. Remember, we believe most of the spectaculars, like the ones you
saw -- I can't tell you for certain Wednesday's bombing was al Qaeda. In
other words, I don't have the -- I can speculate. But I can tell you a lot
of the spectacular bombings have been al Qaeda. A lot of the suicide
bombings have been al Qaeda. That's why I said al Qaeda is the main threat
for peace, because what they're trying to do is shake the confidence of the
Iraqi people and their government, and the coalition's ability to provide
security, and shake our confidence.

And, you know, as I say, it is tempting to think, well, just pull out of
there and everything is going to be fine. I firmly believe, however, that
one of the lessons of September the 11th is that if we were to concede Iraq
to basically al Qaeda, in a sense, that they would follow us here; that
oceans no longer protect us. And it's also important for you to know that
my thinking was deeply affected on September the 11th, 2001. And,
therefore, a lot of the core of my thinking is to work to protect the
United States as my most solemn obligation.

Yes, sir.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: No, thank you. His question was, one, the relationship with
Tony Blair; two, they have reduced their troops in Basra, in southern Iraq,
and has that affected our relationship.

First, I have found Tony Blair to be a stand-up man. He's the kind of
person who keeps his word. He's a strategic thinker. He thinks beyond the
moment, to be able to try to project out beyond the current, so that the
decisions that we have made jointly are decisions that end up yielding a
long-term peace.

He, of course, like a good ally, informed me of his government's intentions
to reduce their presence in Basra. I concurred with him because the
conditions on the ground were such that he didn't need to keep as many
troops there as were initially stationed there. Secondly, what's
interesting, as he made the announcement on Basra, he also made the
announcement that they're going to send more troops into Afghanistan. Blair
knows what I know -- Prime Minister Blair knows what I know, that we're in
a global war, and that we think about Afghanistan and Iraq as separate
wars; they're of the same war, they're just different theaters of this war.

He also knows what I know, that we have got to work really closely and
share intelligence, and that's one of the reasons I appreciate Pete so
much. He understands the intelligence business as a key component of
keeping the country safe. We've got to share intelligence. This is -- Tony
Blair is the Prime Minister of a country which has been attacked; so has
ours. And -- no, I appreciate you bringing him up, he's solid. And in my
judgment, the world needs courageous leadership, people like Tony Blair.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. What's the next step for the United States, or
even the United Nations, in dealing with the belligerent behavior of Iran
with regards to nuclear development?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Excellent question. You go to school here?
No. (Laughter.) I was going to say, give the man an "A."

First of all, you do understand Iran is a Shia nation primarily.
Interestingly enough, though, only 50 percent of the nation is Persian. A
great portion of Iran is Azeri, Baloch, other kinds of nationalities make
up their country.

The Iranians have defied international organizations in an attempt to
enrich uranium - and, we believe, because they want to have a nuclear
weapon. And I believe this challenge is one of the most significant
challenges we face -- "we," the free world, face. There's a lot of reasons
why.

One, just as an example, you really don't want a regime that funds
terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to have a nuclear weapon as a part
of their capacity to create the conditions, for example, of diplomatic
blackmail. Secondly, the current leader of Iran has -- I can't remember
exactly his words, but the sum of them were that the destruction of one of
our allies was important to them -- that would be Israel.

Third, it's ironic, isn't it, that any time a democracy begins to take hold
in the Middle East, extremist groups prevent that democracy from moving
forward. One such democracy is Lebanon, a wonderful little country. And yet
there is a Syrian influence -- Syria uses not only their own agents inside
the country, but Hezbollah, to destabilize this young democracy. And
Hezbollah is funded by Iran. In other words, the Iranian regime's current
posture is to destabilize young democracies. And they're doing so in Iraq,
as well.

So our objective is to rally the world to make it clear to the current
regime that if they continue their practices they will continue to be
isolated. And we're making interesting progress. We've passed several U.N.
Security Council resolutions, the primary benefit of which is to say to the
Iranian regime, and equally importantly the Iranian people, that countries
as diverse as the United States and China and Russia and parts of Europe
will isolate you, will deny you, the Iranian people, the benefits that you
deserve. Iran is a proud country with a great tradition, and good,
hardworking people. And yet their government is making decisions that
endanger peace, and at the same time will continue to lead to isolation.
And so should the Iranian people worry about isolation? I think so, because
you're missing economic opportunities. You're missing the chance to improve
your lives. You're missing the chance to enhance your country's great
history.

The choice is up to the Iranian government as to whether or not they will
be accepted into the family of nations, all aimed at promoting peace and
economic prosperity. They've made a bad choice up to now. And so we'll
continue to work hard with the rest of the world, all aiming at solving
this very difficult problem diplomatically.

Yes, ma'am.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q I think that's a great idea. I was wondering, we did have a group -- a
commission, I believe, here, that was discussing how to solve our Iraq
problems, but we really haven't implemented the advice from --

THE PRESIDENT: Baker-Hamilton.

Q -- Baker-Hamilton commission. I was wondering how we were going to be
able to convince the countries that participate in this conference in Egypt
that we will actually consider implementing their advice --

THE PRESIDENT: That's a good question. First, there was a couple of aspects
of Baker-Hamilton -- a lot of it had to do with troop posture. And
Baker-Hamilton recommended that, as I described, a troop presence to help
keep the territorial integrity of Iraq, to embed, to train, to be over the
horizon to chase down extremists. That's pretty much what they recommended,
and I agree. The problem is -- and by the way, on, like, page 70-something
in their book, they said: And the United States may have to increase troop
levels necessary to be able to get there. And that's what I did. (Laughter
and applause.) Wait a minute, wait a minute -- because I realize that we
couldn't be in a position on the troop postures they recommended if the
capital went into flames. That's a judgment I made.

By the way, with the advice of a lot of people -- and just so you know, I
spend a lot of time listening to our military. I trust our military, I like
our military, I'm impressed by our military. I spend a lot of time talking
to Condi Rice. I spend a lot of time talking to allies in the Congress, and
I spend a lot of time listening to and talking to people who have a
different point of view.

It was after this considered judgment that I made that decision, all aiming
at some point in time. Now, the problem is, the Congress, many of whom
think that it's a good idea, however are unwilling to allow conditions on
the ground to make the decisions as to when we can ever get there. I don't
have that luxury. I must allow conditions on the ground to dictate our
position in order to make decisions.

Now, a lot of what Baker-Hamilton talked about was -- or some of what they
talked about was the diplomatic initiatives. There were -- they talked
about a regional conference, and we're happy to participate. They also
suggested that the United States enter into bilateral negotiations with
Syria, for example. And this is where I have a disagreement. As you know --
as you may not know, when I was a younger lad, Jimmy Baker was in Houston
and a good friend of my family's, and in spite of my deep affection for
him, I invited him into the Oval Office and said, I disagree with you. And
he said, fine, I disagree with you. (Laughter.)

And the reason I do is because -- now, there's a difference between a
regional conference, in my judgment, and -- I'll tell you what I hope we
can gain out of it -- but I do want to address why it's -- I think it would
be counterproductive at this point to sit down with the Syrians, because
Syria knows exactly what it takes to get better relations with the United
States. It's not as if they haven't heard what we're for. And we're for
making sure they leave the Lebanese democracy alone. They have undermined
Lebanon's democracy. When the United States and France worked together on a
U.N. resolution, the U.N. demanded that they leave Lebanon. They did, but
they're still meddling.

Secondly, there's a man who was assassinated, named Hariri. It's very
important that there be a full investigation of the Hariri murder. And they
know we expect them to support that investigation. We believe they're
hindering that investigation right now. Thirdly, they're providing safe
haven for -- I'll just say they've got -- Hamas and Hezbollah have got
centers of influence in Damascus. That's unacceptable to the United States.
We have made it clear to them that in order for them to have better
relations that they must rid their capital of these organizations, all
aimed at wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and preventing, for example,
the development of a peaceful Palestinian state that can live with Israel
side by side in peace.

And, finally, Syria is a transit way for suicide bombers heading into Iraq.
And some, they have been particularly unhelpful in achieving peace we want.
What happens when people go sit down with Bashar Assad, the President of
Syria, he walks out and holds a press conference, and says, look how
important I am; people are coming to see me; people think I'm vital. But he
hasn't delivered on one request by the free world.

I asked our security folks, the national security folks to give me a list
of all the foreign advisors and foreign secretaries of state, and all the
people that have gone to see Bashar Assad. And every time they send one in
there, we say, why, why are you sending somebody there, what is your
intention, what have you asked them to do? They all say basically what I
just said, and nothing has happened. And my attitude is, is that I think
talks would be counterproductive. I'm interested not in process, I'm
interested in results. I'm interested in this leader turning Syria into a
positive influence for peace, not an obstructionist to peace.

On Iran, I said we'll talk to Iran, but they've got to suspend their
enrichment. Diplomacy works when people sit down at the table and need
something from you. That's how diplomacy works. It is, in my judgment, just
talking for the sake of talking doesn't yield positive results often. As a
matter of fact, it can reaffirm behavior that is not in our interests. So
we've said to the Iranians, we will talk with you, but first do what the
world has asked you to do, and suspend the enrichment of uranium.

As I said in my talk here, and I'm speaking to you -- I'm also speaking to
the Iranian people. They must know that our beef with Iran is not with the
people of Iran, it's with the government of Iran that continues to make
decisions that isolates you from the opportunities of a fantastic world.

Now, what do we hope to gain out of the regi