Transcripts For CSPAN Hudson Institute Violent Extremism Con

CSPAN Hudson Institute Violent Extremism Conference - Leon Panetta October 24, 2017

The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by hermann khan. It has been devoted to the freedom, security and prosperity of the United States and the health of its institutions. Its work has especially focused on strategies for the longterm. Appeal to ourt most abiding challenges. It draws upon a wide variety of perspectives and opinions and it will do so today. It covers a wide variety of policy areas. Domestic, foreign and National Security. Let me, first of all, in addition, thank you all for being here and participating in this conference. This conference is important. It is so for two reasons. First, it subject, and second, the personnel who will address it. Our subject is countering violent extremism. Qatar, iran and the muslim brotherhood. We will, of course, explore each of these topics but also the overlap between them. I hardly need stress the importance of the subject of violent extremism emanating from the muslim world. To gravity has been evident the American Public ever since september 11, 2001 when so many thousands of our fellow citizens lost their lives. As general color general kelly reminded us last week, countering this threat is still taking american lives in many places around the world. Most recently, in west africa. Nor do i need to stress that it has also had many other effects on our way of life. Some big, some small. At this point, we all know that. What i may stress and should stress is that the threat has has its own Threat Dynamics and has evolved over time. The orebro faults of 2011 thated additional dynamics affect the terrain of this problem. Its consequences included the rise of the Islamic State of levant, the labonte as well as further opportunities for their regional enablers. Purpose of this conference is to address the present phase of these dynamics and its future. Where are we now and where are we headed . Where weve should we be headed if we are not headed in the right direction . To address these crucial questions, this conference brings together a most distinguished group of participants. This is the second reason for the significance of this conference. Participants in their public and private capacities bring to bear a vast amount of experience. Very hard experience, often. And thought about this grievous problem. We will begin with leon panetta. Knows,ho, as everyone given life long and to ouruished Service Country as a congressman, secretary of defense and director of the cia. In all of those capacities and several others, he really seems unfathathomable omable, he is here to address the problems we are here to discuss. Weymouth has also had a distinguished career and one that has also involved great public service. A seniorouth has been editor of the Washington Post since 1986. In that capacity, she has performed the Invaluable Service of helping the American Public understand the problems we face and the officials that are tasked with that purpose and sometimes, the people who are causing the problem themselves. I think back to an interview that miss weymouth did of gaddafi years ago. Please welcome me in good afternoon. Thank you all for coming. On behalf of the Hudson Institute, what i hope will be a fascinating afternoon. It starts off with leon panetta, who i am sure we will all be fascinated to hear from considering the number of crises going on all over the world today. So, i cannot help but ask you first of all north korea. How do you see the situation . Do you think where close to war . How do you assess north korea . Leon first of all, my thanks to the Hudson Institute for inviting me here and for having this opportunity. Look, we are living in a world where there are a huge number of flashpoints and danger points. Points. Ger probably more flashpoints then we have seen since the end of world war ii. The middlees in east. Isis. The war against terrorism. Iran. Continuing support for terrorism. North korea. Russia. China. Cyber attacks. I mean, this is a dangerous world. Demands very strong u. S. Leadership and in your leadership you have policies that are actually creatingopened it ok, i think you should let secretary panetta finish, please. [crowd heckling] host ok. Please. Heckling] host i would like to add, ng this mayhem [shouting] ok, shouting] ble host oh my gosh. [indiscernible shouting] around the world went black they are on this stage here re right congressionalto a hearing. Applause] host i would like to say, i completely forgot my intent to secretary panetta, who is Everybody Knows was secretary of defense there any chance that people will be quiet . Ok. He has served this country is secretary of defense and director of the cia, so i think that gives his views oh my goodness anyway, i think that gives his views added scope. You know, i think it is fascinating to hear what he asked his say. If members of our audience would be so kind as to just let him speak which apparently is quite have got. Ok, leon. Leon so we will try again. A challengingy time for u. S. Leadership because of these danger points. Were seeing that with north korea. Been a difficult challenge for a very long time. Nation. As been a rogue obviously, a nation where we have been extremely concerned about their ability to develop Nuclear Weapons and an icbm, which they seem to be making great progress on. And, think according to intelligence analysis, were probably looking at not that many months before they in fact develop both an icbm capability and a miniaturized Nuclear Weapon that could be placed on top of an icbm. The issue then becomes, how do this challenge to our National Security . That there have been military plans that have been developed over the years to try to confront north korea. The bottomline is that none of those are very good options because of the consequences into the concern that ultimately it could lead not only to many thousands of lives lost in south korea but also could lead ultimately to a nuclear war. Reason, the issue has always been, how do you try to engage north korea and obviously the effort has been made to try to put pressure on china because china is the one country that has a large influence in north korea to try to get them to deal with north korea and get them to negotiate. Veryhas not proven effective. So, what are we left with . I think in the end, United States has to implement a policy of containment and deterrence which is the approach we have been taking. Wayi think that in some that news of containment and deterrence has to be tightened. Think we have to obviously increase our military presence and strengthen the region. We have to increase our navy presence. We have to continue to support and develop the security of south korea as well as japan. We need to develop a Missile Shield, and effective Missile Shield that can bring these missiles down. Korea, and japan. Obviously, in our country in terms of the threat of icbms. Tos toughenntinue sanctions. I do think of china is willing andestrict Oil Shipments deal with some of the other commercial areas that they deal with it north korea, that it can have an impact on the north korean economy. So tightening up those sanctions and then at the same time, working with our allies. Working with china to see if we cant work toward some kind of negotiations with north korea. This will not be easy. We have experienced that. But i think we need to push as hard as we can on the policy of andrrence and containment try to put as much pressure on north korea as possible, recognizing that if something were to happen we have to be prepared to obviously confront that. Also i might mention, developing both our overt and covert capabilities to try to deal with developforts to try to a larger and more effective missile system. I do think the administration northng in dealing with korea . Leon i think the concern has been that there has been this exchange of frederick between President Trump and this exchange of rhetoric between President Trump in north korea. The concern is, when you wretched of the rhetoric between fire and fury and destroying the United States and etc. That what it does is increase the tension level in korea. You have to imagine there are forces, we have 25,000 troops in south korea, along with south korean security forces. The North Koreans obviously have forces that are deployed along the borders. And, they are in a situation rhetoric,use of the the tension, it has risen a great deal. And, with that tension is the concern about a miscalculation or a mistake that will ultimately is going into a greater conflict. In so my concern right now is that it would be far better to andr the volume of rhetoric focus on developing both our strength and capacity and the region, developing better containment. Developing greater deterrence. Sanctionsto deal with that can really have an impact on theh korea and impact economy. The main reason we ultimately brought around to the negotiating table was because of worldwide that we ultimately brought iran to the go shading table was because of worldwide sanctions. Host speaking of her iran, and you think President Trumps decision not to ratify the in what bill was you think of his reasoning . Basically saying that iran was accord,g along with the behaving aggressively, restricting navigation, etc. Leon look, i and Foreign Policy, defense policy in many for a lot. Ord counts and, when you tell somebody that you are going to do something if you fail to stick to your word it sends a clear message to that, that as result of you cannot trust america as a partner. In many ways, you know, we experience that when president obama made the commitment on syria with ack in witht with a sad assad, that we would take action. Those attacks did take place. Many were lost because of that. The failure to actually take action at that time sent a message that we would not stand the red line. I think that had an impact in terms of credibility of the United States in the world. I think the same thing is happening now with the failure thebide by our word on agreement. Obviously, there are a lot of concerns about nuclear agreement. The failure to deal with these other issues, support for terrorism, missile development, promotion of instability in the region, etc. At, an agreement was arrived by the United States along with our allies and it was signed into place and up to this point, the agreement dealing with the nuclear side, even though temporary, is one that all of those that have been involved in the inspection process have said that from an inspection point of iran is technically abiding by that agreement. There are elements there but at least with regards to the development of a Nuclear Weapon, they have abided by that agreement. I think as a result of that we should continue to enforce that agreement and i think congress can add, obviously, this issue has now been thrown to congress. I am a little concerned about that because congress is having a hard time sometimes finding its way to the bathroom much thatdealing with issues involve an area that frankly the commanderinchief as someone who ought to direct Foreign Policy under our system of government, that i think far better for the administration, for the president to deal with these issues. And since the issue has now been tied to the congress, then i think that congress should hopefully develop a way to increase the enforcement of that agreement. Ties sanctions to the enforcement of it. Try to probably make some other recommendations about trying to take these provisions and make them permanent as opposed to temporary. And some other steps with regards to inspection. The end, to make clear that we are going to continue to enforce that agreement because my enforcing that agreement and then gives us the opportunity to work with our allies in trying to apply both diplomatic and economic sanctions on iran so they will ultimately negotiate on other issues. That will not be easy under any circumstances. The worst thing you can do is break your word. Why should i, trust the United States in terms of any negotiation if they are not abiding by the agreement and therefore were not going to art as a paid in that kind of negotiation. So i think it is far better to enforce the agreement, stick with our allies, and try to put both diplomatic and economic pressure on iran to try to make some progress in this other region. Host net was interesting. Had he feel about irans action in the area. Do you think the United States should be taking strong action to contain iran. Lebanone already turned into more or less a rubberstamp in the sense that hezbollah controls a as the audience knows. I think many people think they would like to do the same thing now and iraq thanks to the militias there. So, do think it is important for the United States to try and push back and contain around bank . Iran . Contain leon look, there are a number of threats. We have failed states coming out of arab spring and syria which is in the middle of a continuing civil war. We have yemen, libya, other countries that because of their failure become crucibles for the development of terrorism and that creates even greater problems. So, instability, failed states and the middle east, were certainly concerned about but we are concerned about terrorism and the threat of terrorism. Isis, you know, we have had some success in dealing with isis into the hall of fame. Moving them out of mosul and the areas and iraq that they had conquered as well as raqqa now. By no means is ice is going away. Going away. The worst thing the United States could do is declare victory and then not confront isis and other areas. So, dealing with isis. Isis fighters are moving to the eastern part of syria. They are very likely to now engage in insurgency and we will see elements of isis not only in east, but north africa as well and so isis is going to remain a real threat and we have to confront isis. And we have to confront the influence of iran and that region as well. For provides support terrorism. Hamas,ve supported hezbollah, and supported elements of disruption in the middle east. We know that. They continue to do that. They continue to try to put instability in the region. Their interest is to try to develop a kind of triangle there andeen beirut and damascus baghdad. We know they are working on that because it is obviously a force that has been involved in disrupting areas not only in the middle east, but frankly, elsewhere around the world. So, he yeah. Yes. So, he that represents a threat as well. But we deal with that question mark that is obviously the fundamental issue. I believe, and i made this recommendation a lot but unfortunately it did not get very far. But i strongly believe that we have to develop a coalition, in middle east coalition of countries. That will Work Together in cohesion. Israel should be part of that collision, frankly. Because they, too, are concerned about isis and terrorism and iran. Made up ofalition, moderate arab countries in the region, ought to be coming together to establish even a joint military command. Identified targets. Deploying forces. Be able to Work Together with the United States as part of that coalition. Work together to go after terrorist pockets and go after leadership in terrorism in kind oft areas using tactics that frankly, when we did the war in libya, we had 50 countries that were part of that coalition. And, a lot of people, you know, were not sure if that coalition whatever work with the reality was we developed a joint headquarters in naples. We provided the intelligence support. We identified targets. He provided those targets to norway and other countries that were anticipating and we did it in a successful and effective way. I think we need to develop that same kind of coalition and the middle east to have that same kind of capability, not only to deal with isis, but to deal with containing iraq at the same time. Providing stability for countries that are unstable now. I mean, you know, the United States, we never really had a strategy for dealing with the arab spring. And, think what needs to be done able to once we are deal with some of these failed states in terms of the instability, how do you stabilize these countries . How do you provide the support system so that they can govern and so that they can deal with the different challenges and each of these countries . Look, these are tribal societies. This is tough. This is not easy. In the same time, if we do not work to provide stability in that region and will continue to be unstable and we will continue to have to deal with the terrorist threat. I think ultimately, some kind of unified coalition working together on these challenges makes a lot of sense. Past week, as you notice, raqqa fell. Developmenthopeful and unfortunately there was fighting in your cook the tween the kashmir there was fighting between and the kashmir military. What is your assessment of the kirkuk . N in is not good. T this is not a good situation to kurd,rab versus particularly in iraq rang. Thisve been dealing with in a long time. There was suggestions early on when we were dealing with the situation in iraq bank that iraq ought to be divided between sunni and shia and kurds. Andmember going to iraq talking to the leadership there and almost without question, every leader i talked to said, dont do that. Dont do that. Iraq is a nation. We need to operate as a nation. Placeu know, we put in some of the institutions to try to develop some kind of governmental system in iraq to make it work. Everybody has to anticipate. The kurds have to be there. The sydneys have to be there. The she is of course will be there. Shias have to be there. What has happened in iraq is the shia government, maliki, basicall

© 2025 Vimarsana