PREPARING FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-229 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 20, 2001............................... 1
Statement of:
Netanyahu, Benjamin, former Prime Minister of Israel......... 65
Zinni, General Anthony, U.S. Marines, retired; Dr.
Christopher Harmon, professor, U.S. Marine Corps Command
and Staff College; and Dr. Jessica Stern, Harvard
University................................................. 111
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia, prepared statement of.......................... 45
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 53
Harmon, Dr. Christopher, professor, U.S. Marine Corps Command
and Staff College, prepared statement of................... 113
Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Article dated September 19, 2001......................... 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 35
Netanyahu, Benjamin, former Prime Minister of Israel,
prepared statement of...................................... 73
Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of....................... 24
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, prepared statement of................ 15
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 63
Stern, Dr. Jessica, Harvard University, prepared statement of 127
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Calilfornia, prepared statement of................ 169
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 59
Weldon, Hon. Dave, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 32
PREPARING FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Barr, Gilman, Morella,
Shays, Ros-Lehtinen, Horn, Mica, Tom Davis of Virginia, Ose,
Lewis, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Platts, Weldon, Cannon,
Putnam, Otter, Schrock, Duncan, Waxman, Lantos, Owens,
Kanjorski, Mink, Sanders, Maloney, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich,
Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Turner, Schakowsky,
Clay, and Watson.
Also present: Representative Jones of North Carolina.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R.
Moll, deputy staff director; James C. Wilson, chief counsel;
David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; Mark Corallo, director of
communications; M. Scott Billingsley, Chad Bungard, John
Callendar, Pablo Carrillo, and Randall Kaplan, counsels; Thomas
Bowman and Marc Chretien, senior counsels; S. Elizabeth Clay,
Caroline Katzin, Gil Macklin, and John Rowe, professional staff
members; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office
manager; Josie Duckett, deputy communications director; Toni
Lightle, legislative assistant; Leneal Scott, computer systems
manager; Danleigh Halfast, assistant to chief counsel; Corinne
Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Michael Layman, staff
assistant; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Elizabeth
Crane, legislative aide; Phil Schiliro, minority staff
director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kristin
Amerling and Michael Yeager, minority deputy chief counsels;
David Rapallo, minority counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk; Jean Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant clerks;
Kate Harrington, minority staff assistant; and Nancy Scola,
minority computer information manager.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
committee will come to order.
Let me start off by saying former Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is on his way. He probably won't be here for about 45
minutes or so, so what we are going to do is we are going to go
ahead and start with our opening statements and have that
completed and then, when he gets here, we will go right to
former Prime Minister Netanyahu.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
written and opening statements be included in the record; and,
without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and
extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the
record; and, without objection, so ordered.
Before our opening statements, I also wanted to have the
committee fill the vacant chairmanship of the Civil Service and
Agency Organization Subcommittee. As you know, our colleague,
Joe Scarborough, retired on September 6th of this year. The
vice chairman of the subcommittee, Dr. David Weldon, has agreed
to serve as chairman of the subcommittee, and we are looking
forward to having you chair that subcommittee, Dr. Weldon.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Weldon be
appointed as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and
Agency Organization; and, without objection, so ordered.
We will now start with opening statements, and we will
recognize the chairman emeritus of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chairman Burton for conducting this very
timely hearing. As you know, we had a prior terrorism hearing
under Mr. Shays' chairmanship in our subcommittee, and I think
that was appropriate at that time, and I hope we will take
another look at the testimony of that hearing.
As the dean of New York delegation in my congressional
district adjoining New York City, I personally witnessed the
horrible devastation of the recent barbaric terrorist attacks
first hand. In my congressional district just north of New York
City, more than 86 Americans are missing, many of whom are
firemen and police officers.
While there has been an unprecedented outpouring of
charitable donations by our fellow Americans and our community
organizations and our corporations and a tremendous outpouring
of volunteer work in both the Pentagon and the World Trade
Center and with the Congress and our Nation standing united in
support of the victims and their families and our President,
regrettably, we are all well aware that on last Tuesday,
September 11th, our lives have changed. Terrorism has become a
common enemy of the entire civilized world.
Few world leaders have more experience in dealing with
international terrorism than today's leading witness, former
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and we look forward to
his testimony. Before thinking systematically about terrorism,
as was current, he wrote the text, Terrorism, How the West Can
Win. More recently, he wrote, ``Fighting Terrorism, How
Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.''
I recommend this book as good, important reading for our entire
committee.
Moreover, Bibi Netanyahu carried on that fight for his own
nation and collaterally for the rest of the civilized world
when he was Israeli prime minister.
These recent attacks on our own Nation were targeted,
coordinated acts of terrorism and were of a character beyond
what Prime Minister Netanyahu had to deal with. The devastating
kind of terrorism attack that a well-educated country can plan
over the course of years with the explicit intention of
committing suicide after living in the target country for years
is something that is hard for us to believe, and we have not
seen it before.
Our traditional profiles of suicide bombers are no longer
reliable. In fact, even Israelis were recently shocked when an
older married man with children, a Palestinian Israeli citizen,
blew himself up in a marketplace. The fact that suicide bombers
are coming from different sectors of society makes it even more
difficult to defend against such attacks, even in the State of
Israel.
In a broader sense, I know that neither Israel nor our own
Nation is inclined to making our war on terrorism a war between
cultures. Not a war between Islam and the West. Nor is this
necessarily a war between democracies and nondemocracies. Even
people living under authoritarian regimes have the right to be
free of terror, and even authoritarian regimes can be recruited
to help stamp out terrorism. Mr. Netanyahu, I am certain,
shares our views that the appropriate characterization of our
struggle is a war between civilization and barbarianism and not
one against my religion or any ethnicity.
We look forward to hearing the witnesses' thoughts today
and particularly Mr. Netanyahu's thoughts on how we can reach
the men on the street among whom terrorists operate and
encourage vigilance on their part. How can we deal with the
hatred of the West and what kind of compromises can we accept
on our freedom of movement today and what can we do about the
state's and powerful private sources that provide assistance to
terrorist organizations? We look forward to hearing our
witnesses today on these most important topics.
So, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this
very timely hearing.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Gilman.
I think it is extremely important that the American people
really have a thorough knowledge of what we are up against, and
that is why it is so important that we have these experts here
today.
We will pass on Mr. Waxman right now. We will give his
opening statement, along with Mr. Shays, myself a little bit
later.
I now recognize the gentleman who knows a little bit about
war firsthand, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it
is important that we hold this hearing today, and you put
together a stellar list of witnesses.
A week ago, Mr. Chairman, our Nation lost its innocence,
but it has found a new sense of unity and purpose. This new
sense of unity comes from the sudden realization that our
democratic way of life is under attack. It must be and it will
be defended. This awakening came at a terrible cost--the
devastation of thousands of innocent American lives and the
destruction of our national symbols of strength and prosperity.
It is precisely because we paid such a heavy price for this
awakening that it is so valuable. We are at the hinge of
history. We can bemoan the tragedy, or we can draw the
appropriate lessons from it and move forward. I believe it is
critical we learn from the tragic experience, not only to
ensure that such events don't happen again but that we take
intelligent and thoughtful and sweeping actions to deal with
the crisis.
It is also critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu's
appearance that we learn from those such as our friend and
ally, the State of Israel, who have been confronting terrorism
on a daily basis and who have succeeded in reconciling security
with democracy.
The world is watching, Mr. Chairman, our Nation's military
preparations and the deliberations here in Congress; and it is
asking, is the United States up to the challenge? Are we, the
greatest democracy on Earth, capable of mounting a sustained,
costly and concerted global campaign against international
terror?
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that we are. Throughout our
history the American people have risen to the challenge of
coming together and mobilizing all of our Nation's strength,
our formidable military might, our dynamic economy and our
indomitable spirit, and we will do so again this time. But in
committing to this fight, Mr. Chairman, let us not delude
ourselves. We are embarking on a costly, painful, difficult
struggle like none other in our Nation's history. It will
demand resolve. It will demand patience, and it will demand
sacrifice.
On the subject of sacrifice, allow me to expand on this a
bit. For many years now we have been conducting military
operations with a firm commitment to have zero casualties. That
is a noble goal, but the events of September 11 demonstrate
that debate is now behind us. We will have had probably over
6,000 casualties, and I think the Vietnam syndrome with respect
to casualties will have to be rethought. Every single American
life is precious beyond words, but it is absurd for a society
to tolerate thousands of civilian casualties and still believe,
as we did in the Kosovo engagement, that no military casualties
can be accepted. This issue will be a subject of protracted and
serious debate, but those who claim that no casualty is
acceptable better talk to the families of the 6,000 innocent
Americans who were casualties just this past week. This debate
is over, and the price we paid is over 6,000 innocent lives. It
is a return to the reality of living in a dangerous world.
Mr. Chairman, in this struggle, we are not alone. All
Americans deeply appreciate the many expressions of sympathy
and support from our friends and allies across the globe. We
trust that now these words will be translated into action. I
welcome our European friends' expressions of sympathy. I look
forward to our European friends' actions vis-a-vis their
policies of trade and investment in Iran, Libya and elsewhere.
We have been debating these issues in this Congress in a very
lonely fashion, and it is long overdue that our European
friends who are so strong in their expressions of condolences
should be equally strong in falling in line with respect to
policies.
In this fight against international terrorism there can be
no neutrals. Those who are not with us are against us, and I
welcome the decision of Pakistan in this moment of historic
crisis, that they have chosen to be with us. This will serve
them well.
As our military commanders and the brave servicemen and
women they lead prepare to wage war against the perpetrators of
last week's terrorist strikes, our sights are trained on Osama
bin Laden and his Taliban protectors and with good reason. But
I think it is critical that we don't personalize and trivialize
this war. If Osama bin Laden is turned over tomorrow morning,
the international war against terrorism must continue unabated.
Defeating or capturing or eliminating Osama bin Laden will not
spell the defeat of terrorism unless we broaden our efforts and
eradicate terrorism wherever it lurks. If we personalize and
trivialize this struggle and limit our focus to the
perpetrators of these acts, we may win some battles, but we
risk losing the war.
I am encouraged, Mr. Chairman, by the administration's
efforts to target not just Osama bin Laden but terrorists
throughout the Middle East and beyond. I applaud Secretary
Powell's efforts in the midst of this week's war planning to
pressure Syria and Lebanon to surrender Hezbollah terrorists
operating in their territories, a policy I recommended in
sanctions legislation that was adopted by this body by a vote
of 216 to 212 just a few months ago. As my friends will recall,
at that time the State Department issued two letters opposing
my amendment. By this week's action, I welcome them on board;
and I have no doubt that if this amendment would be up on the
floor today it would not squeeze by with a vote of 216 to 212
but we would get well over 400 affirmative votes.
Secretary of State Powell has affirmed the administration's
commitment to eradicate terrorism root and branch, a worthy and
necessary goal the American people passionately and seriously
support, but in the framing of this struggle, it is critical
that we focus on the forest, not just some of the trees. Osama
bin Laden must go, but so must all the terrorists in the Middle
East, in Colombia, in Indonesia and elsewhere who share the
evil goals and operational methods of terrorists.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Lantos follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.006
Mr. Burton. Let me say to my colleagues, because we have an
important schedule here with Mr. Netanyahu, and he ought to be
here in about half an hour, I would like to have our Members
limit their comments to 5 minutes, if it is possible.
Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In defense of terrorism, it is not simply weapons. It is
language, knowledge, writing and getting within the psychology
of particular languages and particular people.
Back in the 1980's, when Caspar Weinberger was Secretary of
Defense, he made a real point that America is way behind in
terms of educating our students. We do a good job with the
military academies but not so much with the civilian side. And
the people in great areas of the world, be it Indonesia, be it
Russia, be it the Middle East, Latin America, so forth, and
Weinberger said we have got to invest money in educating these
people in the secondary schools, even the elementary schools,
and we ought to, frankly, start in kindergarten and first grade
in some of these languages, because at that point it is sort of
fun, but when you do it later, the brain says, gee, I can't do
that. Well, we can do it, and we ought to put more emphasis on
that in the United States.
When this chaos of the last week started, all four networks
talked about an Arabic newspaper in London where columns were
in Arabic, and they wondered why wasn't somebody looking at
that. I have asked the question of a number of people that
should have known, and they say, oh, well, we just don't have
the Arabic skills that we ought to have.
So that is part of our problem. We do very well with the
Voice of America, but we don't do very well in some of our
basic intelligence agencies, and we could do a lot better. The
Department of Defense has a marvelous language school at
Monterrey, CA. They do teach people how to read, write, speak
in very complicated languages; and I think, Mr. Chairman, that
we ought to get from--all of these agencies into this committee
and see just where we are in doing those things. It is a little
late now, but maybe it won't be late again.
Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Horn; and we will be talking
with various agencies about making sure the coordination is
there.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The events of the past week have had a profound effect on
this Nation and the world. We all saw the events unfold before
our eyes on national television. Our cities, the Nation's
transportation infrastructure, including subways and airports,
nuclear power plants, national monuments and landmarks became
and still are vulnerable.
With weapons of mass destruction and biological weaponry,
it has become very clear that there is an increased need to
protect not only the citizens within our borders but also those
who defend our country against outside threats.
With that said, I am pleased that this committee is the
first in Congress to ask the question, how does America prepare
for the war on terrorism?
First, I believe we must come to an understanding of what
terrorism means. It is defined as the systematic use of terror,
and terror is a state of intense fear. America must work hard
to combat this fear.
Then we must ensure that our local firefighters, police
departments and emergency medical personnel are properly
trained and have the available supplies to respond in a crisis.
As we saw in New York and at the Pentagon, these groups were
the first to respond.
Next, the country must prepare our public health
infrastructure. We must assess the Nation's long-range
capabilities to respond not only to those weapons that are
physically visible and threatening but also biological and
chemical weapons. Are there vaccinations and antidotes
available if the need arises?
Furthermore, America must continue to build coalitions with
Nations around the world. The fight against terrorism will be a
long and difficult one, requiring the cooperation of many
nations.
Finally, America must stay prepared by being alert. We must
focus on enhancing our national security by ensuring that
emergency plans and procedures are set. U.S. citizens and
facilities have been targets for years and will continue to be
targets.
This was not just an attack on America but an attack on
freedom and democracy. Not only were Americans affected by the
terrorist attacks but citizens from more than 80 countries
worked at the World Trade Center.
During this crisis, America will be defined by how we react
and respond to terrorism. Our response must be carefully
balanced. On one side, we place our commitment to spare no
effort in eradicating terrorism and punishing those responsible
for this heinous crime. On the other hand, we balance the
responsibility to hold true to our Nation's principles, to be
cognizant of innocent life and to use military force only when
necessary. This is a difficult scale to balance, but I believe
that we have a duty to reach the appropriate equilibrium that
justice requires.
We are all living through this day by day and must stand
together as Americans. I would urge all Americans not to target
Arab-Americans or Muslims. Racial profiling and hate crimes
cannot be tolerated. Tolerance is the glue that has held this
diverse country together.
This is not a war against people from different cultures or
who practice a different religion. This is a war on terrorism.
We cannot trade in our civil rights and liberties.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing
and yield back the balance.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and Ranking Member Waxman for holding the hearing.
Protecting Americans and determining who is responsible for
the tragedy of September 11th have become the most important
issues for every Member of this Congress. I appreciate the
quick action by this committee in raising the issue today.
In many of the comments uttered after the terrible assault,
we heard people note that all of us woke up on September 11th
to a nightmare, and that couldn't be more true. But then we
found the nightmare became a reality. Last Tuesday's attack was
the single most calamitous day in terms of loss of life in our
Nation's history. And sadly, for many of us, though, the
nightmare we spoke of has worsened. But now we realize just how
vulnerable we are. Those who wish to do us harm are not only
willing to sacrifice their lives but have the resources to
wreak terrible violence upon our shores. We see violence as the
means of violence. Therefore, it must be the focus of this
committee, this Congress, this country to do everything
possible to prevent another tragedy. Today is the first step.
Among our responses, we should include coordination among
agencies, one office to oversee terrorism in this country.
Presently, we have the FBI, the CIA, FEMA, Department of
Transportation, Department of Defense, all with separate
offices to combat terrorism in different ways. We need one
office with representatives from each of the agencies to come
up with the cohesive strategy. So, Mr. Chairman, we have expert
witnesses that you have assembled to detail our present
vulnerabilities to terrorism and to describe what can be done.
We are honored also to expect the arrival of the former
prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has both
written about terrorism and unfortunately experienced it.
I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses in
learning how to best prepare ourselves for the new realities
that face us. The age of innocence is lost. The age of anxiety
is upon us.
I yield back the balance of my time; and, again, thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Morella.
Mr. Owens, do you have an opening statement, sir?
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I would like to
commend you for having these hearings.
It is another opportunity for me to thank the Members of
Congress and the people of the United States in general for the
way in which they have come to the aid of people of New York
and Washington. We are all mourning together those who died.
We also would like to together salute the bravery of the
firemen and the policemen who went in to rescue people while
others were coming out to safety. Firemen in my district
suffered a tremendous loss in one of the companies, and we of
course are struggling to deal with that in many ways.
I would like to take advantage of this particular forum,
however, to talk about the fact that so many of my constituents
have emphasized to me the fact that they would like to hold me
as a Member of Congress responsible for national security,
regardless of what committee I serve on. I have said over and
over again, there is a limited role I play. I am not on the
Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence. I am not on the
Foreign Affairs Committee. Certainly I think it is our
responsibility, but we play a limited role. They are saying
every Congressman and the institution as a whole must take
greater responsibility for national security.
There are too many comments being made about things that
probably could have been avoided or things that are not being
done that should have been done and should be done rapidly if
they are not being done. People take note of the fact that our
intelligence agencies have suffered some tremendous
embarrassments. They tell me. I don't have to tell them. They
read. They remember better than I do the Aldrich Ames disaster
with the CIA when the top person in charge of
counterintelligence with respect to the Soviet Union is on the
payroll, the--Hoffman--the recent FBI top intelligence person,
counterespionage person, being found to be on the payroll of
the Soviet Union. They bring up these things and they say,
well, why can't you tell us if they have taken steps to make
sure this never happens again?
The intelligence community, they know it is kind of an
incestuous community, and they don't like to have open forums
and discussions, and not many Members of Congress really
discuss those things that go on there. There are some basic and
simple questions that we can all ask without in any way
jeopardizing the security of the Nation. If the people don't
want to answer them and find that they are jeopardizing the
security and the operations of the intelligence community, they
don't have to answer it.
But basic questions like, how many high-level people do you
have in decisionmaking positions who have background and
understand Islamic culture? Are there people at top places who
are making these decisions who really understand? If they are
there, what kind of resources do they draw on? Is there a think
tank? Is there a resource pool that they can steadily draw on
of people that are currently monitoring and can really monitor
because they understand the language, they understand the
culture, they have background?
These are basics that surely the answer ought to be in the
affirmative, but we don't know until we ask.
What about the language situation? Mr. Horn has just said
we have the school out West who teaches all kinds of languages.
I have no doubt about their ability to do this, but what kind
of recruits are they getting? How rapidly are they taking in
recruits? And are we back to the basic problem of education in
America where the pool of young people who are coming out of
college who can tackle some of these positions--because these
are positions that will require a great deal of training. Just
as the terrorists show that they have a great deal of training
and education, the people who are going to be involved in
counterterrorism are going to have to have the same kind of
training and education. So we have the situation where there is
a great shortage in every profession in America. Law
enforcement is suffering greatly, as is teaching and other
areas in recruiting people to go into these professions.
So we need for take a look at the long run--and this is a
long-term battle. We all agree. The long-term needs of our
education system in terms of making certain that the pool of
people are always there so that you can recruit for doctors,
lawyers and other folks. At the same time, law enforcement,
teaching and other professions don't suffer, that we have the
very best that can be made available.
There was an advertisement on a station in New York a few
days ago by the FBI. They want people who speak Farsi. I said,
well, you know, that is great that they are doing that now. How
much of a deficit do we have in people who speak Farsi that has
to be made up? I am glad that it is being done now, but we
should ask the basic questions of, how many people are there
being recruited and what kind of process is there to guarantee
that the system is always in place?
I have served on this committee for a long time. At one
point I served on the Transportation Subcommittee, and we had
several hearings on safety. I am afraid that in the records of
those hearings you will find recommendations about airport
safety which included guaranteeing that the cockpit is always
secure and that nobody can get into it, and I am sure that many
other government reports over the last 10 years have repeated
the need for this guarantee with respect to the cockpit. And
yet we are now talking about, yes, this is a good idea. Well,
why is it that these things are not done?
The Federalization of airport safety, the security of our
airports has been recommended on several occasions. I don't
think that violates the private sector's rights to do certain
kinds of things. Some form of Federalization is needed, and we
should go forward.
I just want to repeat what my constituents are saying to
me. Security of the Nation, security of the airlines, all
aspects of security is everybody's job now. They hope that the
Congressmen, every Member, will understand it that way and that
the institution will understand it and all America will
understand it. It is all of our problems, and we should all not
be afraid to take part in the dialog and deliberations to make
things better.
Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As President Bush has underscored, the terrorist attacks of
September 11th were not just against the United States. They
were against freedom and democracy, against the integrity and
essence of our Republic. It was an attack against the free
world and the moral precepts which guide human relations. It
was an act of barbarism born of wanton disregard for the value
of human life, born out of a desire to terrorize the global
community of nations into submission.
Those behind these terrible acts sought to change our
American way of life. They hoped that fear would lead to a
transformation of our character and our society. They obviously
do not know what we are made of. Much like the attack on Pearl
Harbor, the terrorist acts of September 11th had served as a
catalyst, a call to action, a demand for the United States to
exert our leadership role and to use all available means to
confront this threat.
The United States is being called upon, as it did during
the cold war, to create conditions under which our free and
democratic system can live and prosper. As we did during the
cold war, we must take the necessary steps in terms of policy
and resources, offensive and defensive strategies to ensure
that this century will see the triumph of freedom and the
vindication of our democratic principles, to ensure that the
aftermath of this new war that we have embarked upon is global
stability, to ensure that we may again live without fear.
Fortunately, President Bush and his national security team
have learned this lesson of history. They understand the
mistakes of the past so we are not condemned to repeat them.
They have deciphered the elements leading to our victories over
totalitarianism and tyranny so that we may build upon them.
While the nature or manifestation of the terrorist threats
may differ from any we have encountered in the recent past, the
principles of Realist political theory, the tenets outlined in
the landmark cold war document now known as NSC-68, and the
Reagan doctrine of peace through strength still hold true.
The President and his advisers understand this reality.
President Bush and his national security team understand that
the dream and the hope of containing the cold war enemy and
deterring attacks against U.S. interests was converted into the
``long peace'' through the implementation of a policy firmly
rooted in U.S. military superiority and overwhelming strength.
The United States won the cold war and ensured peace and
stability by stating its resolve and demonstrating its
commitment to make good on these threats. Some would argue that
when the United States abandoned this principle in the closing
decade of the last century that instability and new forms of
conflict began to grow.
President Bush and his advisers realize this. They hear the
echoes of the drafters of NSC-68 who underscored that, without
superior aggregate military strength, a policy of containment
is no more than a policy of bluff.
Thus, the resources and funding we allocate for the war
against terrorism must match our commitment and our resolve. We
may not be able to deter the suicide bombers and the kamikaze
tactics. However, the threat of unleashing American power in
response to those terrorist attacks will have a sobering effect
on those who harbor these terrorists, who provide them with the
financial support and training facilities to execute these
attacks.
The military component of our strategy must provide for a
flexible but comprehensive response which includes many options
available to us in the United States.
Further, the application of the doctrine of peace through
strength to the war on terrorism requires the United States to
possess an extraordinary amount of intelligence, using not just
sophisticated technology but also expanding the human
intelligence capabilities. We must follow every lead and use
every method to uncover the network of individuals, groups and
sponsors which have empowered and enabled these terrorists to
commit such deplorable acts. In doing so, we should remember
that Realism contends that nation states are engaged in the
never-ending struggle to improve or preserve their relative
power position and that in the global system force is the final
arbiter.
Thus, based on this premise, we must look at both emerging
powers who seek to challenge the current global structure and
the U.S. leadership, as well as those declining powers who seek
to retard or halt their diminishing role. We must investigate
whether the terrorist acts on the United States were tools
employed by a state or regime to exert its position with its
neighbors and of the world stage. Is the approach of the
terrorist groups based on the same power and political
considerations which determine the behavior of nation states?
What are the geopolitical or strategic objectives of terrorist
groups?
Whatever the answers, we must not limit ourselves. As the
attacks of September 11th clearly demonstrate, anything and
everything is possible. For this reason, our response must
include a defensive posture that prepares for the possibility
that these new aggressors can obtain nuclear materials and
weaponry.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their well-being did not rest exclusively upon the threat of
U.S. retaliation? What if we could intercept and destroy these
missiles before they reached American soil and American
interests? It will not happen overnight, but is it not worth
every investment necessary to free the world from this threat?
Former President Ronald Reagan believed that it was worth
it. President Bush knows it is worth every investment. We in
Congress should know this as well. That is why, as part of the
coordinated U.S. response to these attacks and to the broader
threat of terrorism, the Congress should support the Bush
administration's missile defense program. Ultimately, it will
be the strength of character and the moral fiber of the
American people and our unity of purpose which will help the
United States and the free world triumph over evil.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811, it is impossible to
subdue a people acting with an undivided will. We have that
will. The terrorists will soon know this, also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.009
Mr. Burton. Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for
conducting these hearings this morning.
I want to start just by saying to my colleague, Mr. Owens,
that we took to heart your words a moment ago, and it was with
some pride that I was with 73 men and women from New England
who were the first to respond as assistance from outside the
city of New York. We all suffer for the loss of everybody that
was involved in that act, and their families and their friends
and everybody wants to do as much as they can possibly do. As I
say, we are proud that some from New England got the
opportunity at least to go directly there and contribute in a
very direct manner.
When a tragedy like this occurs, I think everyone naturally
wants to know what it is that they can do, and that doesn't
stop with this body. It is not a sentiment that is entirely
alien to the Members of Congress. We feel the same way, and
this particular committee and the Subcommittee on National
Security, Veterans Affairs and International Realtions in
particular has a unique role to play in making sure that our
government works as efficiently as is possible.
I want to take just a moment to acknowledge my colleague
and chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans
Affairs and International Realtions, Chris Shays, who, as many
of us will recall, has over the last several years conducted 19
or 20 hearings on related issues alone. He has shown leadership
and has identified in fact that this was a major concern of
this country. We are proud on that subcommittee to work with
him in a nonpartisan way over and over again to address this
and try to focus this government and the American people's
attention on what we thought was in fact the primary risk.
I think there are four things we have to look at here. We
have to look at assessing what the risks to this country are,
prioritizing those matters, coordinating what our response is
going to be, and then allocating the resources and executing
our plans to deal with them.
We have a refreshingly unified outlook of late amongst
committee members here, amongst Congress as the whole. We are
going to pursue our affirmative goals, and we are going to
avoid accusations of fault. We are being called together to
examine the system of our government and decide how to improve
it with respect to the issues that confront us today.
In hearings in that subcommittee in particular we have
heard the GAO tell us that we don't have the proper focus and
we have not prioritized the issues relating to terrorism. We
have to evaluate all the actions and all the threats together
and in a comprehensive way. Then we have to address our
resources, our spending to counter those threats in a way that
is linked to our priorities. We haven't necessarily been doing
that.
In 1995, President Clinton issued a Presidential Decision
Directive No. 39, and he set forward three goals that we had:
reduce our vulnerabilities, deter terrorist attacks before they
occur, respond to terrorism by preparing for consequences,
managing the crises and prosecuting offenders. Chris Shays and
the committee are trying to focus on those three areas to see
where we were, to see what it is we had to do and in what order
and how we would apply our resources to it and whether or not
we were doing an effective job.
We have had legislation filed attempting to address the
issue of how these roles are being coordinated across various
agencies of government, and we continue to try and move in that
direction. Obviously, with the events of recent days we will
see that this is expedited. It has now come to the full
attention of all American people the concentration that
subcommittee has had on this issue.
We have heard numerous witnesses. We have been to a number
of different trials and demonstrations of how it is that we
would respond to these particular types of situations or
crises. We have reviewed the Rudman-Hart Commission's reports
and heard testimony from the members of that Commission and
others on the issue, and now we need to go to work.
When I talk about prioritizing, let me give you an example.
You know, over the past several administrations we have focused
on the national missile defense as being a top priority. I, for
one, have opposed that, as have others, based on serious
concerns with the technical feasibility of that proposal. But
all of us can understand certainly the fear of the rogue state
ostensibly launching an intercontinental ballistic missile at
one of our major cities. The effects, obviously, would be
devastating, and we have to protect against that threat. But we
have to make sure that the technical feasibility is there
before we start spending money wastefully on that. There is
some $8.3 billion next year alone being addressed not just to
researching and trying to develop a system but to actually
deploying a system that so far has shown that it cannot work.
In our assessment of priority threats, none of our
intelligence agencies lift that threat above the one of
terrorism. So we have to ask ourselves, why is it that we are
projecting $100 billion in that direction and, according to the
Office of Management and Budget, across all of our various
agencies in this government only $10.3 billion to counter all
forms of terrorism threats combined?
Now, I do that not because I want to start a political
discussion here but only because I want to start a
comprehensive discussion of policy here. Let us start to focus
on those four things. Let's assess the threats, and then let's
prioritize them in the order that we need to address. Let's
coordinate and work on legislation that will allow this
government to coordinate responses across all of those agencies
in a comprehensive way, and then let us put together a plan of
execution that will let us apply the resources where they need
to be applied at a particular point in time. That will be the
patriotism that this committee has to work for. That will be
the patriotism that this country has to work for, the serious,
serious look at this and the way we go about our business.
I am looking forward to working further with Mr. Shays on
the subcommittee. I am sure our work will be pointed in that
direction, but, as Mr. Owens says, the entire Congress will
have to address legislation that lets us do those four things.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to depart for a second from the
regular order and take a moment to recognize the memory of one
of our staffers, Ned Lynch. Ned worked for me and others on the
Civil Service Subcommittee. He fought a courageous battle with
cancer. He died during the recess, and I want to thank the
chairman for his support. He left five children behind; and,
Chairman Burton, I publicly thank you for what you did in
support of that family.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to
remember Barbara Olson. I lost many friends on Tuesday,
September 11th, as many of you have. Barbara was very special
to me. She worked for this committee as well. Our heartfelt
sympathies go to Ted and her family, and I must say she was a
patriot and a dedicated American right to the very end. So we
remember her today.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for holding this
hearing. It couldn't be more timely, and it certainly is within
our purview and responsibility as the oversight committee of
the House of Representatives.
Obviously, the events of September 11th indicate that we
did have a substantial failure in some of our systems,
particularly our intelligence system. It is incredible to
realize that our intelligence capability could not identify and
even today we are having difficulty really gaining the true
identity of the terrorists.
It is also difficult that a Federalized system and under
the control of our U.S. Embassies and consular officers would
issue visas to the vast majority of those terrorists who
entered our country and used our borders as almost a swinging
door to enter, leave, and have their family come and go, almost
at will.
Something has gone wrong, and maybe it is our quest in this
country for political correctness, but we have got to really
examine what went wrong.
There are easy scapegoats. I chair the Aviation
Subcommittee of the House, and I have heard that the
Federalization of the screening process is a simple answer.
Ladies and gentlemen, the screening process did--those
screeners did not fail. Federal regulations allowed box
cutters, and the equipment that has been deployed was not able
to detect the material such as plastic and knives, and that is
partly due to our quest for political correctness. We have
machines that have been tested and deployed and then also
withdrawn because some said they were invasions of our civil
liberties. So we have the technical capability to correct the
screening process.
The rules for screeners--this is the Gore Commission report
which came out September 9, 1996, and some of it was a knee-
jerk reaction to TWA Flight 800, which turned out to be in fact
a defect in the electrical system and fuel tanks aboard the
aircraft. We spent billions of dollars to buy detection
devices, and we went off on various tangents. If they failed,
we failed, because we never instituted any measures until the--
Congress did not act until 2000 on some of these
recommendations. Some of them. Again, not very prudent, but we
did pass the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000.
As of the week before the incidents of September 11th, here
are the proposed rules by FAA as a real result of this law,
which is 4 years after this Commission report. This set of
rules for enhancing screening still isn't in place. So talk
about Federalization. Their folks are examples of
Federalization having failed, starting again with intelligence,
visa distribution and the screening process.
What must we do? First of all, we have heard that we know
what the recommendations are. We must penetrate the terrorist
organizations. We must penetrate their communications. We must
penetrate their finances. To do that, the Attorney General has
come forth with several maybe not politically correct but
several things we need to do, and we must adopt the Attorney
General's recommendations.
Additionally, you have heard, and Mr. Horn alluded to it,
of the stunning lack of qualified linguists, the stunning lack
of intelligence analysts. We have tons of information. We don't
have the people who can interpret it or even understand the
language that it has been relayed in.
The problem has been described--and I will conclude with
saying this--as lack of the proper response.
Khobar Towers, I spoke at the graduation of the young man,
Brian McVeigh, in my district. I spoke at his funeral when he
was blown to pieces at Khobar Towers, and we still have no
response. The U.S. Embassy attacks, no response. The USS Cole
attack, no response. Now I should say no meaningful response.
What we have done is retaliate and on a limited basis and not
eliminate, and that is what our goal must be.
So, hopefully, Mr. Chairman and my members of the committee
and Congress will have learned from these expensive lessons and
do a better job.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Kucinich.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the Chair for holding these hearings, and I
agree with my fellow colleagues that we need to support
increased efforts to deal with terrorism. These hearings I
think will be productive in doing that.
I also know that I share with many of my colleagues concern
over the resources that the American people have already spent
to deal with terrorism, vast amounts of money to support
intelligence efforts all around the world. This hearing isn't
the forum to ask the question, but people still want to know,
what do we get for the money, and why didn't we have better
notification for the money that we are paying? Because if we
are going to now advocate more resources to fight terrorism,
wouldn't it be good to find out what the failures of the
present system have been? Because, obviously, there have been
failures.
While I appreciate everyone who chooses to serve our
country, whether they are in the uniformed service or they are
in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency, I think that
we are at a time when it is going to be very important to
establish measures of accountability for those who are in the
Central Intelligence Agency so that when they come before
Congress and try to brief us or explain to us what the
conditions are that we feel a certain level of comfort and a
certain level of satisfaction in the integrity of the
information that we are being given; and I think that every
Member of Congress knows what I am talking about. I don't need
to elaborate on that any further.
But, moving on, let's look at what the World Trade Center
represented: international cooperation, international
communication, international finance, international spread of
democratic values. It countenances a view of the world as an
interconnected whole. What the World Trade Center has stood as
the symbol of, and not just an important marker in the skyline
of our country and of New York, is this view that the world is
together, that we are connected, that what affects one nation
affects us all. Indeed, we know that 60 nations lost brothers
and sisters in this tragedy.
The destruction of September 11th has a different message,
too, that we are aware of today. It is a message about American
unity, but it is also a message about world unity to combat
terrorism. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, that what we see in
the world uniting to address the issue of terrorism is
basically the precondition for the end of unilateralism in the
United States. Because the United States, while we have the
power and the strength and certainly the courage to go it
alone, we do not need to do so anymore. We have nations around
the world waiting to cooperate with us in addressing the issue
of terrorism.
And, the truth be told, we have to have their help. We
cannot do it alone. We need international cooperation in the
same way that the World Trade Center symbolizes international
cooperation. We need to have symmetry in that cooperation in
dealing with the issue of terrorism.
So we must prepare for a new world that has already been
unfolding, working cooperatively with all nations for
democratic rights and democratic values, with security
sufficient to protect those rights. In this new world, go-it-
alone strategies are insufficient, which is why my good friend,
Mr. Tierney, when he speaks of the inadequacies of the national
missile defense system, his remarks are well taken.
In the year 2000, annual spending to combat terrorism among
various Federal agencies crept up to just over $10 billion from
an estimated $4 billion at the start of the Clinton
administration's term. In contrast nearly $60 billion has been
spent on a ballistic missile system since 1983.
Now, nonproliferation treaties have great promise. The ABM
Treaty as a model has great promise for the future, global
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, great promise for the
future because they symbolize a belief that the world while it
can be a very dangerous place also holds out hope for
cooperation, not just militarily, but in economics, in the
environment, in human rights, in addressing those issues which
give terrorists opportunities to gain a hold.
I am confident that the United States has the resources,
the strength, the courage and the intelligence to lead the
world in addressing the issues of terrorism. I am hopeful that
the United States will do everything it can to aid those
families who have suffered as a result of terrorism, because
this Nation certainly needs a period of healing and the healing
is going to take a long time for those who have lost loved
ones. But we have an opportunity to recreate the world again
here, and not just to address terrorism as it exists, as it
must be rooted out, but to look at what it means to have the
world working together on a problem that vexes all free people
but in a manner that gives us an opportunity to envision a
world where we are working cooperatively for peace.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentleman. Let me just remind the
members that the reason we have that clock up there is it shows
when their time is expired. I understand everybody has a great
deal of concern about what happened, but we have Mr. Netanyahu
coming and we don't want to keep him from coming too long or
the other members of the panel who are going to be testifying.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can see the clock from
here and I will be attentive.
In the aftermath of Tuesday's events, I want to pass my
compliments to you and to Mr. Waxman, because what things
really boiled down to was a measure of the leadership on both
sides of our aisle. And the chairmen and the ranking members of
the committees on this Hill basically had pushed on their
shoulders a tremendous burden. It is a measure of the
resilience of our country that the people who are in positions
of leadership from both sides of the aisle last Tuesday and
since were up to the task, and I want to thank both of you for
the roles you played quietly or otherwise. I thought that it
was an affirmation of our system to see the committee chairs
and the committee ranking members coalesce as they did, and I
want to thank you both for that.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Lantos.
I met Shimon Perez last month and he is a gentleman with what I
would call no illusions about the world as it lays. And I think
Mr. Lantos' remarks this morning reflect to a great degree Mr.
Perez' perspective.
I also want to point out Mr. Owens spoke about
accountability among our voters, people we represent, and he
indicated that there was some degree of distress in his
district. Well, there was a degree of distress in my district
too, and I think what the voters ultimately end up looking at
is what we do, not what we talk about but what we do. What we
do is post votes pro or con on this or that issue. One of the
things we post votes on is the intelligence authorization
bills. Most often they go through on a voice vote, but on
occasion they go through on recorded votes, and I think it will
be interesting for someone to go back and do the research on
who voted for or against intelligence authorization bills 3 or
4 or 5 years ago because last Tuesday's actions were
consequences of votes taken 3 or 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit the balance of my
statement for the record. I just thank you and Mr. Waxman for
the leadership you have shown in the last week. I know you guys
have differences. I mean I know you do. But I am just--I have
to tell you I am extremely proud to be associated with both of
you, particularly in the last week. So I thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Ose.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.014
Mr. Burton. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The horrific acts
of September 11th have deeply affected all of us as a Nation
and as individuals. We find ourselves taking stock of those
things that are really important in our lives. Yesterday I was
at the birth of my fourth grandchild William, and I want his
world to be safe like all other grandparents and parents do.
And now we are going to be deciding on the specific actions to
take to guarantee our safety and security in the future, to
help a faltering economy that has been made worse by this
terrorist attack and to bring justice to the perpetrators.
As we make those decisions, we must ask one question again
and again: Will this action achieve our goals of safety,
security and justice? We need to move cautiously and consider
all the consequences. The might of the United States is great
and we must use it carefully and to eliminate terrorist
threats, making sure that those who are responsible, and only
those, pay the price. We must allocate all necessary resources
to restore the lost sense of security that has been such an
important part of American life without violating the freedoms
that make us proud to be Americans.
Security measures at airports, on airplanes and public
buildings may be irritating but in my view both acceptable and
necessary. Intrusions into private communications, however,
must be thoughtfully debated and caution taken before we expand
the government's right to step in. This is a time for Americans
to come together, not to turn on each other. There have been
disturbing acts of bigotry and violence against Muslims, Arab
Americans, Sikhs and Jews. We must all take a strong stand
against this in our own communities. Last Sunday I sponsored a
solidarity walk in my district that drew hundreds of people of
all races and religions and national origins who joined hands
and sang God Bless America. We should also move quickly to pass
the Hate Crimes Protection Act as an expression of our
tolerance as Americans. We need to reevaluate how easily we
want potential criminals as well as law-abiding citizens to be
able to access firearms, flight training and other potential
tools that can facilitate acts of terror.
We must ensure that those who might endanger our security
never make it inside our borders, but we must never forget that
this country was built by the contribution of immigrants from
all over the world. Many of those who perished at the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were immigrants or the sons and
daughters of immigrants who have come here seeking a better
life and who made this country a better place. We must continue
to insist on an immigration policy that welcomes people who
make such valuable contributions to our diversity and our
strength.
We must make the proper investments in our public health
system so that we can prevent and probably address the threat
of bioterrorism.
There are many economic consequences of this disaster.
There are many industries and businesses that have been
affected and may legitimately be coming to the taxpayers for
help. But as we rethink our national funding priorities we must
remember that senior citizens still need relief from the high
cost of prescription drugs, children still need us to invest in
their education. Social Security and Medicare still need to be
protected.
In the National Security Subcommittee under the
chairmanship of Chris Shays, we have had many hearings in the
last few years on antiterrorism policy. We have heard from
scores of witnesses and members and have had numerous
discussions about the need to do more in this country to
prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
I am glad today that we have with us experts in the field
who can help us determine appropriate policy responses to
recent events. I want to extend a particularly warm welcome to
Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, a
country that is a great ally of the United States and one that
has the unfortunate distinction of expertise in responding to
terror.
Mr. Netanyahu's expertise in this field predates his
service as Prime Minister and we are fortunate to have him here
with us today.
Mr. Chairman, we will stand together in this country and
with our allies around the world and all those who consider
themselves civilized, and we will have justice. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky. We have a vote on
the floor. What I would like to do is keep moving ahead with
our opening statements. Those who want to go ahead and vote can
do that and then come back as quickly as possible. I will
remain here in the chair.
Mr. Weldon, I think are you next.
Mr. Weldon. I believe I am.
Mr. Burton. If you want to go ahead, and I know you have
something you want to show the panel as well.
Mr. Weldon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As we all know,
commandeering a passenger jetliner and converting it into a
weapon of mass destruction by flying it into an office building
filled with civilians is a terrorist act that we all prior to
September 11th would have never imagined. Nonetheless, today it
is the new modus operandi of a network of radical Islamic
fundamentalists who have for years been able to make the United
States their home.
Elements of this terrorist network, what I would call the
evil empire of the 21st century, has been operating in the
United States for years. I would like to use the balance of my
time to just show some clips from a video called Jihad in
America, and I am going to be showing or sending a copy of this
video to all the Members of the House and the Senate for them
to see. I don't know if the staff are able to do this, but I
would like to go ahead and show some of the clips from this
video.
Mr. Burton. I hope everybody will pay particular attention
to this video. I think it is very important.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I will just yield back. I am
delivering this to every Member. I just want to underscore one
important point of the enemies of these people are not only
Israel and United States but moderate Muslims who oppose their
agenda. I would encourage every Member and their staff to view
this video in its entirety.
This video is about 5 years old. But I spoke to the
producer of this video yesterday. He told me they just had
another meeting in July. One of the key radicals just came into
the country in July. INS was trying to keep him out, State
Department said go ahead and let him in. They are using our
freedoms to put forward their agenda, which includes a desire
to take away the freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dave Weldon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.015
Mr. Burton. I will be glad to assist you in any way to make
sure every Member gets a copy of that tape so they can look at
it.
Mr. Kanjorski.
Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After seeing that
tape I would caution Americans everywhere that this is not a
war against Islam. The religion of Islam is very peaceful.
There are, however, fanatics in every religion of the world. To
excite the American people to react against the Islamic
religion is a certainty for defeat for this country.
I would like to raise some important issues with the
committee. This weekend we had several meetings on the
Democratic side to analyze the effects of the attack on the
American people from the standpoint of security. We also
discussed the possible negative effects the attack may have on
the economy by exacerbating the slowing of economic growth that
existed even before the attack. I urge that this committee
exercise its jurisdiction in every way to not only facilitate
the needs of the executive branch to provide for the security
requirements on the airlines, the transportation field, and
other vital industries but also to anticipate those needs. As a
Nation, we will indeed mobilize but in a different way. It will
not be simply calling up troops. Rather, it will include
getting the best people to reactivate themselves and the
various Federal services to provide the manpower necessary for
the security and protection of the American people.
The second area to facilitate mobilization within the
jurisdiction of this committee is the granting of permission to
allow retired marshals, FBI agents and other law enforcement
officials to be reactivated without going through a long
process that would delay their reactivation.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?
Mr. Kanjorski. Yes.
Mr. Burton. I would be happy to cosponsor any legislation
necessary to do that because a lot of them would also lose
retirement benefits, and so in this time of tragedy we probably
ought to suspend some of those rules. I will be glad to work
with you on that.
Mr. Kanjorski. Very good, Mr. Chairman.
Of utmost importance is the outcome of this battle. America
will win this battle and this war. The economy, however, is
probably the most important element to achieve this goal. As
legislation is being prepared, those of us in Congress must be
overly sensitive to the needs of the airline industry and be
certain that we help. We must also consider helping other major
important segments of the American economy to provide support
so that they will not deteriorate further but instead, that
they will rebound. Matched with the strong security protections
this government can afford to provide to the American people,
we can allow them the opportunity to display their courage and
patriotism through consumer spending as they all indicated a
willingness to do.
I urge this committee to act as quickly as possible and
exercise extraordinary jurisdictions which it has the right to
do in such emergency situations to facilitate the best response
to this attack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. As I said, Mr. Kanjorski, I would be glad to
work with you on any aspect of the issue you just raised. Mrs.
Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing and for your expressed cooperation. I also want to
thank Mr. Netanyahu for advising us during this time of great
need. As a New Yorker who has been to Ground Zero many times, I
have seen the tremendous need for relief and support because of
this tragedy. And on behalf of many, many New Yorkers I want to
thank my colleagues and the President for responding swiftly
and substantively with the $40 billion relief and support
package and antiterrorist initiatives package. Today we will be
reviewing how prepared or unprepared our government was to
detect and deter this disaster. And more importantly, we will
be reviewing what we need to do in the future to make sure that
it doesn't happen again.
I join my colleagues in calling for better intelligence,
better security in our airports, financial support, the tools
to track the financial movement of money for the terrorist
organizations. In the past we have used a variety of diplomatic
and economic tools to combat terrorism. In this instance it did
not work. We need a broad coalition around the world, and we
especially need the support and participation of peace loving
Muslim countries.
Millions of Muslims in our own country and around the world
are appalled by the evil terrorist act of depraved extremists.
I am especially appreciative to Pakistan, which has come
forward with the world community to combat terrorism. Our
enemies would like us to think that we are at war with Islam.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are at war against
terrorism, against terrorists, against their organizations and
support systems, and any country or organization that harbors
and supports them.
Believe me, the tragedy may have broken our hearts but our
spirit is strong and unbroken. We are united as a country
behind our President in whatever needs to be done to make sure
this doesn't happen again.
Thank you for calling the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.017
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't have to
repeat many of the important points made by my colleagues over
the morning and I also on behalf of the people of the State of
Vermont want to express my horror at the terrible deed
perpetrated on September 11th and the terrible loss of life and
offer our condolences to the loved ones of those who were
killed.
As you have heard this morning, Mr. Chairman, clearly I
think we are united in saying that people who commit mass
murder have got to be caught and they have got to be punished
and that we have got to as a Nation working with other nations
around the world do everything that we can to stamp out the
horror of international terrorism. Clearly within our own
country we have got to take a hard look at reevaluating our own
security systems and I think make some very monumental changes
in that.
I think the only point I would like to add--I came a little
bit late but I haven't heard it made earlier--is that while we
wage the struggle against international terrorism, we have got
to be mindful of a fact which is very, very distressing to me
and I think to the people of this country and people all over
the world, and that is that for a variety of reasons which we
must understand, somebody like an Osama bin Laden is apparently
being regarded as a hero in various parts of the world. I was
just reading in the paper today that T-shirts with his picture
on it and his videotapes are selling wildly in some parts of
the world. People see him as somebody who is standing up for
their rights. I think that as a Nation we have got to make it
very clear to the Muslim people throughout the world, to poor
people throughout the developing world, that international
terrorism and gangsters and murderers do not reflect their
interests and should not be supported by them.
On the other hand, as a Nation, as the wealthiest and most
powerful Nation in the world, we have got to be mindful about
the need to address many of those terrible economic problems
that fester in developing countries that give rise to support
for people like bin Laden.
There is discussion about military action in Afghanistan,
and one of the problems is the military doesn't know what to
bomb because this country is so poor, is so desperate that
there is virtually nothing there. One-third of the people,
adults can't read. People are hungry. Girls are not going to
school, etc. So I would suggest that as part of our long-term
strategy in dealing with international terrorism, in
apprehending, capturing the terrorists and doing everything
that we can to prevent other acts of terrorism in this country
or other countries around the world, we have also got to pay
attention to the very difficult and long-term issues of how the
rest of the developing world sees us as their friend, somebody
who is trying to provide decent jobs for their people, health
care, education, housing, all the things that every human being
and every mother and father in this world wants to see for
their children.
We must not allow millions and millions of people to see
this country as their enemy and people like bin Ladin as their
allies and their friends. So it is going to be a long hard
struggle. It is going to have to be fought in many ways. And I
just wanted to mention that I think that is an additional area
that I think we are going to have to look at.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you very much calling this meeting. It is too
bad we had a vote because all my colleagues are going to miss
these great words of wisdom to hear from a freshman. But I do
appreciate you calling this meeting.
There could not be a more important subject facing Congress
in a generation or in fact for years to come. It seems more now
than ever that the weight of what our witnesses have to say
holds a true relationship to the direction that we as a
committee and as a Nation must take to defend our fellow
citizens. For a long time we have been sheltered from terrorism
in the United States, and I want to thank the chairman for
inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to share with the United
States his experience and knowledge of dealing with terrorists
on a daily basis in Israel. Not long ago, we could only imagine
how the Prime Minister dealt with the terrorists.
Unfortunately, today we know too well and understand this
ongoing struggle.
Without question, many causes led to this tragic event of
September 11th. While we could spend this and many other
hearings assigning blame, this would be wasted time. Instead,
we need to assess past policies and readiness and do what needs
to be done to decisively fight to win this war on terrorism.
I hope that we as a committee will discover and address the
areas of our national security that not have received adequate
funding. Moreover, we must encourage witnesses here today and
in the future to speak freely about their knowledge of any
weakness and provide recommendations on what we as Congress can
do in aiding in combating this new war on America.
We were told many generations ago, Mr. Chairman, that
Americans were warned that each generation would be called upon
to polish, sustain and then improve this great Republic. We
were also told that these occasions would come disguised in
many ways. The events of September 11th have delivered the
occasion to this generation. We now have to begin anew the
establishment of policies and enhanced collaboration between
agencies and States and businesses and, yes, even Members of
Congress of both parties so that together, working closely with
our allies, we will vanquish these terrorists.
I am hopeful through the testimony today and in the future
that we will be able to shed light on the breakdowns learned
from past mistakes and make sure that the appropriate changes
and preparations are instituted into this war.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is equal importance that must
be given to identifying who the terrorists are. We must also
identify who they are not. Terrorists do not share a national,
racial, political nor religious DNA. They don't just look
alike.
They are as correctly defined by the testimony we will hear
today of the author, Netanyahu, in his book Terrorism and How
the West Can Win. In defining terrorism he said, the author,
``Terrorism is rooted in the political ambitions and design of
expansionist states and the groups that serve them.''
Again, on the day of the tragedy, in an interview, Mr.
Netanyahu identified terrorists, said they typically
misunderstand and underappreciate the resolves of free
societies. But amid the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers you
could see the silhouette of the Statue of Liberty holding the
torch of liberty very high and very proud. It is that flame of
liberty that these people want to extinguish.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we Americans
chose neither the time nor the place for these events and these
devastating events of September 11th, but we must convince
those soulless terrorists who have made their choice known by
these acts that they have once again grossly underestimated the
sterling resolve that historically visits this Nation during
our time of need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Otter.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate how quickly you have
called this hearing. All of us are still, I think, trying to
absorb what war by terror means. I am not yet sure what it
means, but I think I know what terror is. It was spelled out
devastatingly for us on September 11th.
I went last night to the Pentagon and asked to go close to
the building. Members of Congress are going out, and they
normally stand some distance away.
I have lost many constituents. Three children were on the
plane that crashed into the Pentagon, the three teachers with
them. These were honor students who had won a prize from the
National Geographic magazine.
When I went out to the schools yesterday, there were two
children whose father cannot bring himself to tell them that
the mother naval officer is dead.
I wanted to see the Pentagon. I wanted to understand what
it means for a plane to plow into a building. We have seen from
afar how the great towers of a great city could be taken down,
and we know that there is no city that is a greater target than
the Nation's Capitol. We feel enormously fortunate that there
was no harm done to this Capitol, to the 2 million people who
work here, to the 600,000 people who live here.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is something of a temporary
victory in the closing of National Airport. The hearing you
have today is very important because the closing of National
Airport tells us we don't even know how to keep the airport of
the Nation's Capitol open. When you close the airport, you come
pretty close to closing the Nation's Capitol itself.
We have lots to learn from Israel and other countries. Mr.
Netanyahu you have had the wisdom to invite, and others.
Because the attack of September 11th drives home that we are
starting at the basics. We have got to open National Airport
but certainly not recklessly. We don't want to fling it open.
But we have certainly got to open it. We can't let this
monument to the terror of September 11th remain much longer.
So I am hoping that the Congress and the administration
will give greater priority to making National Airport perhaps a
pilot for the rest of the country. Because if we can keep
National Airport, so close to official buildings and monuments
and the Congress and the White House, open, then we can protect
any city in the United States.
I am pleased that the Congress is now moving forthwith.
There was an important aviation hearing. Our airlines must be
saved. No great power can remain a great power if it is left
with one airline or airlines in bankruptcy. I hope that bill
will go to the floor no later than Friday or Monday.
At 2 today I am going to another of my subcommittees to
mark up a bill on domestic preparedness. Fortunately, the
Transportation Committee was working on this bill. Our
Subcommittee of Economic Development and Public Buildings was
working on this bill.
I have inserted an amendment to put the District of
Columbia at the table of domestic preparedness. Because if
there is an attack on the District of Columbia, the first
responder is the police department of the District of Columbia,
the fire department of the District of Columbia. And yet, they
knew nothing. There was no communication with them when in fact
the attack occurred last Tuesday.
Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate what I
believe is going on in the administration. I believe that the
administration understands that some of the talk we are hearing
is not the kind of talk that a great power can respond to.
We have got to be both strong and delicate. If you have any
doubt about that, look at what is happening in Pakistan.
Pakistan wants to do the right thing, and its leaders have had
the guts to stand up and say they want to do the right thing
and to go around the country and try to indicate to their own
people that they want to do the right thing. Yet, at the same
time, there is the same kind of internal politics in Pakistan
that we have here. We saw that when we refused to turn the Shah
over and, as a result, we had hostages taken.
People have got to deal with the domestic politics and with
their external politics. We have got to help them deal with
both. They have internal divisions.
There are, of course, in Pakistan some of the very same
people out of the very same schools that we had in Afghanistan.
So I want to commend the administration for what I believe is a
far more careful way of approaching this than some of the
bombast that I heard sometimes on the House floor last week and
that we are hearing from the American people. I believe that
the President's talk this evening offers an important occasion
to educate us about all of the factors that have to be taken
into account as we do what we have to do, and we know what we
have to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Putnam.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a member of a slightly different generation that has not
been exposed to many of the great wars of the last century, I
attempt to bring a little bit of a different perspective to
this debate; and I approach this debate about war with great
humility and respect, not having been exposed to the horrors of
war that many of those who served in Congress have. Unlike many
of our colleagues, not having been exposed to Pearl Harbor, not
having been a part of that greatest generation, that World War
II generation, not living through the tumult of the United
States during the Vietnam era, there are many in my generation
whose only exposure to the horrors of war was seemingly through
the eyes of CNN in a very brief and fortunately relatively low
casualty war in the Persian Gulf.
As we have debated in the Shays subcommittee over the
course of this year on terrorism, we have delved very deeply
into the causes and the impacts and the consequences and our
ability to be prepared and our ability to respond. And that is
no longer an esoteric discussion buried in the subcommittee. It
is now on the front page and in the front of the minds of all
Americans and the world.
So while it is with great trepidation and humility that we
approach this debate about the war, it is an appropriate debate
to have. Because we are now committed. The Nation is resolved
to respond to this network of terror that is around the world
and in our own country.
As we approach this debate and we have these very important
discussions about the balance of the American way of life, of
the civil liberties, the freedoms that all of us enjoy and to
what extent we are willing to sacrifice some of those for
security, the debate is about our preparedness, the debate is
about the proper use of force, the debate is about unilateral
versus multilateral responses.
We approach those in a very new way. There is no historical
precedent for a war of this magnitude with an enemy that has no
assets and nothing to lose in the traditional sense. We have to
go back to the Indian wars of the American West for a similar
comparison of American troops fighting rock by rock, cave by
cave, canyon by canyon after this type of a network of an
enemy.
I would encourage this committee and this Congress to take
into consideration and not squander the political and the
popular will that is out there for us to make the necessary
sacrifice and make the necessary commitment now and henceforth
to eradicate these networks to the greatest extent possible.
This is not the time to be timid. This is not the time to ask
others permission for us to respond to what was an attack on
American soil to American civilians. It is our mandate to
respond to that attack in the best sense and in the best way
for the United States of America.
I look forward to the debate in this country and in
particular some expertise from our good friend, the former
Prime Minister of Israel.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you calling this hearing.
I particularly appreciate Chairman Shays of the
subcommittee for the work, the groundbreaking work that he has
done in Congress on the terrorist threat.
Mr. Burton. Thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing and giving us a specific opportunity to sit and weigh
in the very serious consequences with regard to what happened
on September 11th. There is no doubt that we are faced with a
national crisis. There is no doubt that we have to take extreme
actions. But there is also a considerable amount of knowledge
and information that we need to sort out and ferret out and
come to a better understanding of why it was that our
intelligence agencies in this country were not able to learn in
advance these terrible things that happened to us on September
11th.
There is a tremendous amount of confusion and certainly a
tremendous amount of uncertainty in the body politic. Pick up
the morning paper and see that Waikiki Beach has nary a soul
where it would be wall to wall people on any day during any
year of the past decade. Suddenly, people are so overwhelmed by
grief, by a lack of knowledge and information, about how these
things could have occurred to so many thousands of our people;
and I think that the tragedy has overwhelmed a very, very large
percentage of our people.
It is not that we are immobilized. It is not that we are
uncertain about what we ought to do. We know what we have to
do. But the first thing I think that this committee can
elaborate on and help this Nation to come to an understanding
is to engage us in a debate and discussion as to how this
happened, what our intelligence consists of, exactly what these
terrorist units are within this country, where they are
located, who they are led by and also the worldwide network.
My own situation in Hawaii, we lost eight people, some of
whom are still missing and unreported from the World Trade
Center. Others--I actually have no words to express the depth
of my sympathy and condolences to those families because they
were on flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. To know of the
heroism that must have been demonstrated on that aircraft, the
decisions that were made undoubtedly to try to take command of
that airplane which ultimately led to its crash--I am convinced
that airplane was headed to the Washington, DC, area; and our
lives were spared as a consequence of the heroism expressed and
demonstrated by these passengers.
So every time I think of September 11th and I think of the
World Trade Center, I end up focusing on the sacrifice that
these individuals made on flight 93, the end result being that
they lost their lives and others were saved.
And I think in debating what we must do in this kind of
circumstance, we know it must take action, but we always have
to think of the presence of necessary facts. Are we being told
enough? Are we acting based upon the best knowledge that our
government can provide us? And are we making every possible
assurance that the basic liberties of our people are not being
unduly hampered?
All of us have got to endure enormous inconveniences. That
is not what I am talking about. Inconveniences are temporary.
What we have to safeguard are the basic personal liberties that
have been so much a part of our Nation.
So the burdens upon Congress, Mr. Chairman, are enormous.
We have to understand the threat, need to understand what we
must do and in the process save the fabric of our Nation to
make sure that our liberties are preserved.
I thank the chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank the gentlelady.
The vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Even in times such as these, the silliness of some of the
media is unbelievable--and the silliness of some in academia.
There is an article here dated September 15th by Jessica Stern
that seems to indicate that what happened last week,
particularly if it turns out Osama bin Laden is behind this or
people like him, that somehow it is our fault because we didn't
pay enough attention to the humanitarian and refugee needs in
Afghanistan, that somehow we are responsible for this. And I
suppose, you know, we will always have to put up with silly
notions like that.
Thank goodness here in this committee, Mr. Chairman, we
have your leadership, not people like Ms. Jessica Stern. You
understand the nature of the problem. You understand the
complexities of it. You understand what needs to be done, as
does subcommittee chairman Chris Shays.
As Members of both sides of the aisle today have indicated
and in the past week other Members have indicated, we certainly
understand that there were intelligence failures with which we
must contend with and resolve, but there have been no failures
of leadership in this committee or in Mr. Shays' subcommittee.
You have held a number of hearings focusing on key elements
of the war against terrorism and the terrorist problem out
there. Even though one could say, well, it is better late than
never, certainly it is good that people are starting to focus
on what you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Shays have been telling
Americans and the rest of us in Congress for so many months.
You also understand, Mr. Chairman, the differences between
the conduct of foreign affairs and the conduct of our domestic
affairs and the problems presented to us. The situation
presented to us by the acts of war committed against us last
week present that very clear dichotomy.
As the gentlelady from Hawaii just indicated and others
have also, how we deal with this problem domestically and
internationally is very, very different. Internationally, we
want our President to have maximum flexibility, maximum
authority so that he does not have to worry about reading
Miranda rights, he can read them their last rites. He can take
care of this problem the way it needs to be taken care of
without worrying about all of the panoply of civil liberties
that are very important to us and which necessarily come into
play in determining how we address this problem at home
domestically.
The Attorney General has put forward a number of proposals
that we are starting to digest. There are some concerns. There
are some concerns because we have a very carefully crafted Bill
of Rights that we must contend with here in this country
domestically when we address problems of terrorism or other
heinous crimes. We have statutes and case law that have been
very carefully crafted over 200 years that we cannot, no matter
what foreign crisis we face, throw out the window and treat
cavalierly.
So I and others and I know you, Mr. Chairman, will be
taking a very careful look at these proposals to grant the
Federal Government what necessary powers it might need, what
necessary changes there might need to be to domestic laws, very
narrowly focused, very narrowly crafted and going no further
than our Bill of Rights allows and no further than is
absolutely essential to fill gaps in whatever legal armor there
might be with which we can fight and defend ourselves against
terrorism, but being very mindful of the fact that we do not
want to engage in a wholesale unraveling of the fabric of our
Bill of Rights. That would accomplish in a different way but
the net result would be the same as the goal of the
perpetrators of these terrorist acts against us.
So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your balanced approach to
this. I appreciate your previous work and the work of Mr. Shays
in focusing attention on this and now moving us to the next
phase. And I would ask unanimous consent to include a more
expansive statement in the record.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Barr.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bob Barr follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.021
Mr. Burton. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I join
with other members of this committee in expressing to you our
appreciation for the fact that you have had the insight to hold
this hearing and to help us try and sift through, look at, and
better understand what led to these terrorist attacks and also
make some assessment and evaluation of where we are today and
where do we go from here as a Nation.
Since the attack, I have held several town hall meetings,
and I have observed very carefully what people were saying. One
of the things that they were saying is that, while we all
express our grief and our anger and our feelings of despair,
one of the things that we have to do is be cognizant of the
fact that what we are looking for is something more than
revenge, that we are not simply seeking to go and find the
culprits, although they must be found and everything in our
power must be done to make sure that we find them and that they
are brought to justice.
But, in addition to that, as we try and figure out how do
we prevent these occurrences from taking place, we need to look
seriously at our Central Intelligence Agency and all of the
intelligence apparatuses that we have and figure if there are
ways to make them more effective than what they currently are.
And I agree with my colleague from Georgia that while we
are doing that we must make sure that we carefully guard the
civil liberties and civil protections that our country has
become famous and known for. That is that each and every person
must be protected in a real kind of way.
I have never thought of myself as being any kind of expert
on security, but it appears to me that if we were able to make
sure in terms of transportation that those who were in control
of vehicles were absolutely safe and could not be approached,
that there were entry-free, entry-proof doors or access to the
cockpits of airplanes or to other vehicles where whoever is in
charge of directing the path could not be molested in any kind
of way--then if we could find detection methodology that would
detect even the ingredients that are used for the formulation
of explosive devices. That is, if we could detect bombmaking
material through the equipment, then we could have a certain
level of assurance that individuals, once they had gained
access to vehicles, were not able to assemble something that
did not exist as they were going up or as they were entering.
More importantly than any of that or just as importantly as
any of that, I think we need to chart a course of diplomacy
that at all times is focused on movement toward peace. And I
think that comes as a result of the way in which we interact
with others, the way in which we interact with ourselves, the
kind of policies and programs that we develop for
implementation.
Whenever I think of peace I am always reminded of something
that John Kennedy was supposed to have said at one time, and
that is that peace is not found in treaties, covenants and
charters but in the hearts of men. And I would imagine that if
he was alive today he would say ``men and women.'' And we have
to, I think, continue to move in that direction.
We have to teach tolerance, we have to teach unity, and we
have to teach equal justice and equal opportunity across the
globe.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity for
these hearings and trust that we will find, if not solutions,
certainly directions that will make not only America but the
world in which we live a safer place to be. I thank you and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Thank the gentleman very much.
We will take a 5-minute break. I would like for everybody
to be back promptly at 1. At that time Mr. Netanyahu will join
us, and we will get started with his part of the hearing.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene. We have three
statements to conclude the opening statements, and then we'll
go directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
For years we watched the turmoil in Israel from a safe
distance. We watched suicide bombers, snipers and car bombs. We
saw the terror, but we didn't really feel it. It was all
happening on the other side of the world. Even when Americans
were targeted, most of the time it was a long way from home.
Twelve Americans were killed when our Embassies in Africa were
bombed. Seventeen sailors were killed on the USS Cole in Yemen.
And those were terrible losses, but they were far from home.
Now that's over. Today we know that no place is safe.
Terrorists can reach us anyplace. We're now faced with the
greatest challenge to our safety and security since the end of
the cold war. If we're going to be successful, it's going to
take the same kind of commitment we had then. At least during
the cold war we knew exactly who the enemy was and where to
find them. Our enemies today are almost invisible. They could
be walking among us at any time. In many ways the fight against
terrorism will be much more difficult than the fight against
communism.
When Ronald Reagan stood in West Berlin and said, ``Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' we were on the verge of
winning the cold war, but it didn't happen overnight. It was
the culmination of a fight that lasted for decades. We invested
hundreds of billions of dollars in a strong deterrent. We lost
many lives, but we prevailed. If we're going to defeat
terrorists like Osama bin Laden, it's going to take the same
kind of commitment.
One of the things that concerns me is this, and that's why
I asked the Prime Minister to be with us today. I'm afraid the
American people don't realize how long it might take. They
might be thinking about a quick fix. I think people are hoping
that we can fire a bunch of missiles into Afghanistan, kill
Osama bin Laden, and it will be over with. We tried that
before, and it didn't work. After our Embassies were bombed in
1998, we fired dozens of cruise missiles into Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden is still there hiding in the mountains.
Terrorists are not easy targets. They strike, and then they
disappear into the woodwork. And even if we can get to bin
Laden, that's not going to be the end of it. The State
Department lists 28 major foreign terrorist organizations
around the world. If we're going to defeat the terrorist
threat, it's going to take years. We need to have the political
will to strike hard even when it's not popular. We may not be
able to do it from a distance with missiles. We have to cutoff
their financial support. We have to punish countries that give
them safe haven. We have to have much better intelligence than
we've had in the past. Our intelligence agencies and law
enforcement agencies must do a better job working together.
Most of all, we cannot become complacent. The terrorists won't,
and they haven't, and we can't either.
This is going to be a fight that's not going to take
months. It's probably going to take years. The price of freedom
is still eternal vigilance. That's more than ever true today.
We're relative newcomers to this fight. We have a lot to
learn about how to fight modern terrorists. While other
countries have lived with terrorists and terrible tragedy, we
watch from a distance.
No other country has been confronted by the evils of
terrorism like the State of Israel. Today we're very fortunate
to have with us someone who has been leading the fight against
terrorism most of his life. Former Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was elected Israel's ninth Prime Minister in 1996.
Earlier in his career, he served in the Knesset. He was Deputy
Foreign Minister, and he was Israel's Ambassador to the U.N. He
served his country as an officer in the elite antiterror unit
in the Israeli Defense Forces, and his brother was tragically
killed during the raid on Entebbe.
Mr. Netanyahu is a world-renowned expert on terrorism. He's
written several books on the subject, and we're very happy, Mr.
Netanyahu, to have you here with us today.
We're also going to have a distinguished panel of experts
assembled on our second panel, General Anthony Zinni, retired
from the U.S. Marine Corps last fall after 39 years of service.
His last assignment was as Commander in Chief of the U.S.
Central Command. His command included 25 countries making up
the Middle East and north Africa, including Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Until his retirement, General Zinni was the
Pentagon's top authority in that region.
Jessica Stern is a professor of public policy at Harvard
University. She worked on the National Security Council in the
White House. She's the author of a book entitled, The Ultimate
Terrorist.
Christopher Harmon is a professor of international
relations at the Marine Corps University. His most recent book
is entitled, Terrorism Today.
And finally, Dr. Bruce Hoffman is the vice president at the
Rand Corp. He studied terrorism around the world for many
years, and his latest book is entitled, Inside Terrorism. I
want to thank them all for being here today.
We're going to have many, many questions. We don't have
many answers. I hope that during the course of our hearing
today we can air some of these issues, and these are things
that I think are extremely important to be answered. Mr.
Netanyahu can help us with this.
Are there more terrorists among us waiting to strike again?
How do we dismantle the infrastructure of the terrorist
organization? Do terrorist organizations have access to
chemical and biological weapons? And do they have access to
small nuclear devices, like those which have been missing from
some of the arsenals in other parts of the world?
Before I finish, I want to make one final comment, and that
is I want to thank Mr. Shays for the hard work he's been doing
on this issue. Many of us are focusing seriously on this issue
for the first time. Mr. Shays has been laboring in the trenches
in his subcommittee for years. He's held, I think, at least,
what, 17 hearings on terrorism, Chris? Seventeen hearings on
terrorism and counterterrorism strategy, domestic preparedness
and medical stockpiles, all of the critical issues that we
face. Hopefully this hearing will build on that record that
he's established, and I look forward to working with Mr. Shays
on this issue in the future.
And with that, that concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.025
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman, do you want to make yours?
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on your statement, and
thank you for holding this hearing. When any of us think about
the horror, the tragedy of last week, no words can adequately
express how sickened we all are.
Congress is trying to do what we can to respond. We've
appropriated $40 billion in emergency relief, and we have given
the President authority to find and punish those who are
responsible for this atrocity, and the President will be
addressing a joint session of the Congress of the United States
tonight, and I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say
and to working with him to address the threat from terrorism.
Terrorism is an incredibly difficult issue to confront.
It's multifaceted. The perpetrators are often anonymous. Their
victims are defenseless men, women and children in an open
society like ours. There are a seemingly endless number of
targets and types of threats, and fighting terrorism is nothing
like fighting a conventional war.
No country knows about fighting terrorism as well as
Israel. In the last 5 years alone, Israel has faced over 100
terrorist attacks that resulted in fatalities, and for this
reason, I'm very pleased that you've invited former Prime
Minister Netanyahu to testify today, and I'm very pleased that
he has agreed to be here.
I've known Prime Minister Netanyahu for a number of years.
I have a very high regard for him. He is a genuine expert on
confronting terrorism. I'm looking forward to what he has to
say. He can tell us what he has dealt with on a practical basis
as the Prime Minister of a country which is every day faced
with terrorist threats, but he also has written a number of
books on the subject of terrorism. He has spoken out about a
network of terror that includes not just Osama bin Laden, but
it also involves Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, as the
chairman pointed out, maybe 28 other groups in this network,
and they're sponsored by countries such as Iraq and Iran and
Afghanistan and other Middle East regimes. They operate
worldwide, and a lot of their funding comes from within--the
U.S. operations.
I'm also looking forward to hearing from the experts on our
second panel. In assembling the hearing today, the chairman has
chosen people who have expertise in some of these areas, and,
after consulting with us, invited them to come and make their
presentations to us. All of these witnesses ought to be given
respect, even if a Member might disagree with a part of what
they have to say or all of what they have to say. No witness
ought to be attacked before the witness even has a chance to
make a presentation by any Member of Congress. I think that is
completely out of line.
We're going to look at how our intelligence agencies handle
issues of terrorism in this hearing today. Many experts think
there is insufficient oversight of these agencies. Some are
recommending that we appoint a terrorism czar to oversee all of
the decisions across agency lines. Other experts are critical
of our lack of a national strategy for addressing terrorism.
The U.S. Commission on National Security, which is a bipartisan
group headed by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart,
earlier this year reached the conclusion, ``Most critically, no
overarching strategic framework guides U.S. national security
policymaking or resource allocation.''
Experts sponsored by RAND and headed by Governor James
Gilmore reached a similar finding last December, stating, ``The
United States has no coherent, functional national strategy for
combating terrorism.'' Other experts were absolutely appalled
that our intelligence agencies last week seemed not to have any
warning of the attacks that we suffered. Senator Richard
Shelby, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, for
example, said that we experienced a, ``massive intelligence
failure.''
Well, now is not the time just to bemoan the past. It's
also time to look forward to the future. In a time of crisis,
Congress has learned from our experiences and moved forward,
but we're also going to be asked to deal quickly with many
issues, and we need to respond to these issues, but we also
need to make sure that we are not stampeded in decisions
without careful, thoughtful analysis. And this role of giving
an opportunity for airing issues and different points of view
is an area where our committee can play a unique role as the
main oversight committee in the Congress.
For example, Congress is considering providing immediate
relief to the airline industry. I'm sympathetic to the
airlines' plight, and I'm prepared to support providing
assistance to this important part of our economy, but we should
be sure that what we're doing is appropriate and effective.
News accounts say that the airline industry may be facing
losses of up to $7 billion this year, $2 billion of which
occurred before last week's attack. But last Friday on the
floor of the House, a relief package of $15 billion, far above
the amount of the reported losses, was presented.
As the committee with primary jurisdiction over the GAO, we
should ask the Comptroller General of the United States, David
Walker, to analyze the airline industry and provide us with
independent advice about what is the appropriate Federal
response. We can also make an important contribution if we
carefully evaluate the merits of other proposals, such as those
to stimulate our economy. Some are suggesting doing it by tax
cuts. Some are suggesting other means.
I'm pleased that Chairman Greenspan has urged that we go
slow in this effort. I think we need sometimes to go slow,
sometimes to move quickly, but at all times to do whatever
we're going to do with the most careful and thoughtful
analysis. Now is the time for considered bipartisan
decisionmaking and national unity. We need to come together on
a bipartisan basis to confront the new challenges and the
world--the new world we now face at home and abroad.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.027
Mr. Burton. And finally, Mr. Shays, once again, thanks for
all the hard work you've put forth on this issue. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first thank Adam Putnam, the vice
chairman of our subcommittee, and Mr. Kucinich, the ranking
member, and the members on our subcommittee, and then in
particular to thank you for your extraordinary support to our
committee, and to your vice chairman, Mr. Barr, and to Mr.
Waxman for his support as well.
The cold war is over, and the world is a more dangerous
place. On September 11th, we were forced to view the
unimaginable, to ponder the unthinkable and to face what some
among us deem the inevitable, a mass casualty terrorist attack
on American soil. This episodic, seemingly far-off threat of
international terrorism shattered monuments to our economic and
military strength, taking thousands of precious lives and
burying forever any illusion that barbaric scourge could not
strike here.
The nature and scope of the terrorist threat have changed.
In the post-cold war world, the rise of radical nationalists,
apocalyptic sects and religious extremists merged with the
increasing availability of the technologies of terror: toxic
chemicals, biological agents, nuclear material and computer
viruses. Loosely organized but firmly guided by fanatic
ideology, terrorism today eschews predictable political goals
in favor of random, increasingly deadly acts of violence
against vulnerable civilians.
In this new war, our first task is to define the enemy, to
pierce the distortions and shadowy obscurity that camouflage
terrorism. As the President has indicated, our foe is not just
Osama bin Laden or any terrorist organization, but includes the
states that sponsor terrorists and tolerate the inhumane
ideology that animates them.
We can no longer indulge the tidy, familiar mechanics of
solving the crime and punishing individuals when the crime
offends humanity and the individuals are actually eager to be
martyred. That approach has been compared to battling malaria
by swatting at mosquitoes. To stop the disease of modern
terrorism, the swamp of explicit and tacit state sponsorship
must be drained and disinfected. The threat must be confronted
with the same focus, intensity and vigilance with which the
terrorists pursue their malignant cause.
In the course of our subcommittee hearings on terrorism and
domestic preparedness issues, we heard the General Accounting
Office and other experts call for more frequent, more dynamic
and more broadly based national threat and risk assessments
upon which to base counterterrorism policy. A naive or blurred
perception of the threat fragments our defenses and leaves us
vulnerable to the deadly plans we must now assume are being
implemented as we speak. Our national security demands a clear-
eyed view of the threat, a strategic vision to address the
threat and a restructured, reformed Federal Government effort
to combat terrorism in all forms.
Our witnesses this afternoon understand the motives and
dimensions of the terrorist threat that plagues the world and
changed our Nation that Tuesday morning in September. So we
join with the President in forging an effective Federal effort
to combat terrorism and be prepared to respond to terrorist
acts.
All those testifying today bring impressive experience and
credentials to our discussion, but none more than former
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We are grateful for
his time and patience, and we value his unique perspective. And
we thank all our witnesses for their participation as well.
Mr. Burton. Thank you again, Chris, for all the work you've
done on this.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7229.029
Mr. Burton. Mr. Netanyahu, first of all, I want to publicly
apologize for calling you in the middle of the night and waking
you up when you were asleep and asking you to come over here. I
forgot about the time difference, and I think I woke him up at
3 a.m., but he was very kind, and he realized the gravity of
the situation, and he consented to come over. And I also want
to apologize for the mix-up at the airport today, but thank
goodness you're here, and we're all very anxious to hear your
testimony. So, Mr. Netanyahu, proceed.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF
ISRAEL
Mr. Netanyahu. Well, thank you.
Chairman Burton, distinguished Representatives, I want to
thank you for inviting me to appear here today. I feel a
profound responsibility addressing you in this hour of peril in
the capital of liberty. What is at stake today is nothing less
than the survival of our civilization. Now, it might have been
some who would have thought a week ago that to talk in these
apocalyptic terms about the battle against international
terrorism was to engage in reckless exaggeration or wild
hyperbole. That is no longer the case. I think each one of us
today understands that we are all targets, that our cities are
vulnerable and that our values are hated with an unmatched
fanaticism that seeks to destroy our societies and our way of
life.
I am certain that I speak today on behalf of my entire
nation when I say, today we are all Americans, in grief and in
defiance. In grief, because my people have faced the agonizing
horrors of terror for many decades, and we feel an instant
kinship, an instant sympathy with both the victims of this
tragedy and the great Nation that mourns its fallen brothers
and sisters. In defiance, because just as my country continues
to fight terrorism in our battle for survival, I know that
America will not cower before this challenge.
I have absolute confidence that if we, the citizens of the
free world, led by President Bush, marshal the enormous
reserves of power at our disposal, if we harness the steely
resolve of free peoples, and if we mobilize our collective
will, we'll succeed at eradicating this evil from the face of
the Earth.
But to achieve this goal, we must first answer several
questions. First, who is responsible for this terrorist
onslaught? Second, why? What is the motivation behind these
attacks? And, third and most importantly, what must be done to
defeat these evil forces?
The first and most crucial thing to understand is this:
There is no international terrorism without the support of
sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be
sustained for any length of time without the regimes that aid
and abet it, because, as you well know, terrorists are not
suspended in midair. They train, arm, indoctrinate their
killers from within safe havens in the territory or territories
provided by terrorist states. Often these regimes provide the
terrorists with money, with operational assistance, with
intelligence, dispatching them to serve as deadly proxies to
wage a hidden war against more powerful enemies, which are very
often, by the way, democracies, and these regimes mount a
worldwide propaganda campaign to legitimize terror, besmirching
its victims, exculpating its practitioners, as we witnessed in
this farcical spectacle in Durban the other week.
I think that to see Iran, Libya and Syria call the United
States and Israel racist countries that abuse human rights, I
think even Orwell could not have imagined such a grotesque
world.
Take away all the state support, and the entire scaffolding
of international terrorism will collapse into the dust. The
international terrorist network is thus based on regimes, in
Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, in Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser
Arafat's Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes
such as the Sudan. These regimes are the ones that harbor the
terrorist groups; Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hezbollah and
others in Syria-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the
Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations
based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad and Khartoum.
These terrorist states and terror organizations together
constitute a terror network whose constituent parts support
each other operationally as well as politically. For example,
the Palestinian groups cooperate closely with Hezbollah, which
in turn links them to Iran and Syria, and to bin Laden. These
offshoots of terror also have affiliates in other sates that
have not yet uprooted their presence, such as Egypt, Yemen,
Saudi Arabia.
Now, the question is, how did this come about? How did this
terror network come into being? The growth of this terror
network is the result of several crucial developments in the
last two decades. Chief among them is the Khomeini revolution,
which established a clerical Islamic state in Iran. This
created a sovereign spiritual base for fomenting a strident
Islamic militancy, a militancy that was often backed by terror.
Equally important was the victory in the Afghan war of the
international mujaheedin brotherhood. I suppose that the only
way I can compare it is to say that the international
mujaheedin is to Islam what the International Brigade was for
international communism in the Spanish Civil War. It created an
international band of zealots. In this case, the ranks include
Osama bin Laden, who saw their victory over the Soviet Union as
providential proof of the innate superiority of faithful
Muslims over the weak infidel powers. They believed that even
the superior weapons of a superpower could not withstand their
superior will.
To this should be added Saddam Hussein's escape from
destruction at the end of the Gulf war, his dismissal of U.N.
monitors, and his growing confidence that he can soon develop
unconventional weapons to match those of the West.
And finally, the creation of Yasser Arafat's terror enclave
centered in Gaza gave a safe haven to militant Islamic
terrorist groups, such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Like their
mujaheedin cousins, they and their colleagues drew inspiration
from Israel's hasty withdrawal from Lebanon, glorified as a
great Moslem victory by the Syrian-backed Hezbollah.
Now, under Arafat's rule, the Palestinian Islamic terrorist
groups made repeated use of the technique of suicide bombing,
going so far, by the way, as to organize summer camps, for
Palestinian children, beginning in kindergarten, to teach them
how to become suicide martyrs.
Here is what Arafat's government-controlled newspaper--he
controls every word that appears there. Here is what his
newspaper, his mouthpiece, Al Hayat Al Jadida, said on
September 11th, the very day of the suicide bombing in the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon, ``The suicide bombers of today are the
noble successors of the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught
the U.S. Marines a tough lesson in Lebanon. These suicide
bombers are the salt of the Earth, the engines of history. They
are the most honorable people among us.''
Suicide bombers, so says Arafat's mouthpiece, are the salt
of the Earth, the engines of history, the most honorable people
among us.
Distinguished Representatives, a simple rule prevails here.
The success of terrorists in one part of the terror network
emboldens terrorists throughout the network.
This, then, is the who. Now, then, for the why. Though its
separate constituent parts may have local objectives and take
part in local conflicts, the main motivation driving the terror
network is an anti-Western militancy that seeks to achieve
nothing less than the reversal of history. It seeks to roll
back the West and install an extreme form of Islam as the
dominant power in the world, and it seeks to do this not by
means of its own advancement and progress, but by destroying
the enemy. This hatred is the product of a seething resentment
that has simmered for centuries in a certain part of the Arab
and Islamic world.
Now, mind you, most Moslems in the world, including the
vast majority of Moslems in the growing Moslem communities in
the West, are not guided by this interpretation of history, nor
are they moved by its call for a holy war against the West. But
some are, and though their numbers are small compared to the
peaceable majority, they nonetheless constitute a growing
hinterland for this militancy.
Militant Islamists resented the West for pushing back the
triumphant march of Islam into the heart of Europe many
centuries ago. Its adherents, believing in the innate
superiority of Islam, then suffered a series of shocks when in
the last two centuries, beginning with Napoleon's invasion in
Egypt, by the way, that same hated, supposedly inferior West
came back and penetrated Islamic realms in north Africa, the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf. For them, the mission was
clear and defined. The West had to be first pushed out of these
areas. So pro-Western Middle Eastern regimes in Egypt and Iraq,
these monarchies in Libya, were toppled in rapid succession,
including in Iran. And indeed Israel, the Middle East's only
democracy and its purest manifestation of Western progress and
freedom, must be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Thus, the soldiers of militant Islam do not hate the West
because of Israel. They hate Israel because of the West,
because they see it as an island, an alien island of Western
democratic values in a Moslem-Arab sea; a sea of despotism, of
course. That is why they call Israel the Little Satan, to
distinguish it clearly from the country that has always been
and will always be the Great Satan, the United States of
America.
I know that this is not part of normal discourse on TV,
where people think that Israel is guiding Osama bin Laden.
Well, nothing better illustrates the true order of priorities
of the militant Islamic terror than Osama bin Laden's call for
Jihad against the United States in 1998. He gave as his primary
reason for this Jihad not Israel, not the Palestinians, not the
peace process, but, rather, the very presence of the United
States, ``occupying the land of Islam in the holiest of
places.'' What do you think that is? Jerusalem? Temple Mount?
No. ``The Arabian Peninsula,'' says bin Laden, where America
is, ``plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers and
humiliating its people.'' Israel, by the way, comes a distant
third, after the, ``continuing aggression against the Iraqi
people.''
So for the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is merely a
sideshow. America is the target. But reestablishing a resurgent
Islam requires not just rolling back the West, it requires
destroying its main engine, the United States. And if the
United States cannot be destroyed just now, it can be first
humiliated, as in the Tehran hostage crisis 20 years ago, and
then ferociously attacked again and again until it is brought
to its knees. But the ultimate goal remains the same: Destroy
America, win eternity.
Now, some of you may find it hard to believe that Islamic
militants truly cling to this mad fantasy of destroying
America. Make no mistake about it. They do. And unless they are
stopped now, their attacks will continue and become even more
lethal in the future.
The only way I can explain the true dangers of Islamic
militancy is to compare it to another ideology bent on world
domination: communism. Both movements pursued irrational goals,
but the Communists at least pursued theirs in a rational way.
Any time they had to choose between ideology and their own
survival, as in Cuba or in Berlin, they always backed off and
chose survival.
Not so for the Islamic militants. They pursue an irrational
ideology irrationally with no apparent regard for human life,
neither their own lives nor the lives of their enemies. The
Communists seldom, if ever, produced suicide bombers, while
Islamic militancy produces hordes of them, glorifying them,
promising them for their dastardly deeds a reward in a glorious
afterlife.
This highly pathological aspect--I can use no other words--
this highly pathological aspect of Islamic militancy is what
makes it so deadly for mankind. But in 1996, I wrote in my book
about fighting terror