Emerging Threats to Homeland Security

Thank you Lieutenant Governor Pence. I am pleased to be here today in the Bluegrass State to discuss what I consider to be perhaps the most important and challenging issues for our great nation in the past 30 years—the protection of our homeland and our citizens from the threat of terrorism. As I consider this incredible country that is ours to protect, I see great pride and spirit in the peoples of a nation that was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, and equal opportunity for all. Any person, regardless of race, creed, or color, who has the will and desire, has an equal right to pursue their dream, their American Dream.

But 2 ½ years ago, terrorists tried to destroy that dream, our way of life, and all that is great about our country. On that day, America suffered a devastating terrorist attack that ranks as the single bloodiest day in our nation’s history since the Civil War. Almost 3,000 Americans, and citizens from over 80 countries, were killed. September 11 changed our lives and our nation forever. But what the terrorists wanted most to change was our way of life, our freedom, and that indomitable spirit that epitomizes America. Well they failed to do that. We will remember September 11 in our collective consciousness. But we will never forget a nation, one nation coming together for the ultimate defeat of our enemy. Just as a phoenix rises from the ashes, New York firefighters raised our flag from the rubble of the World Trade Center. That was the ultimate expression of freedom and our unshakeable commitment to our Constitution and the freedom of all human beings from tyranny.

September 11 was a wake-up call. At the time, I was still the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism. I remember getting a call from Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage. He knew immediately that this was no accident, that no American pilot would ever fly his plane into the World Trade Center or Pentagon. Indeed, he was right. International terrorism, a plague of other nations, had finally come to the shores of America with devastating effect. And while we can debate whether the U.S. Government or law enforcement or intelligence communities knew this was coming or failed to see the signs, I think we can all agree that no one ever really expected this to happen here. Surrounded by oceans and allies, we were safe from war and terrorism. The vast oceans and friendly neighbors do not protect us any longer. 9/11 demonstrated the global reach and danger of terrorist organization to all countries. That is why President Bush called on a global response, not just a U.S. one. The world heeded his call and launched what is now referred to as the Global War on Terrorism.

Since that war began a bit more than 2 ½ years ago, the battleground, tactics, and philosophy of the war we have been fighting have changed for both sides. I'd like to talk to you today about three fundamental changes we have seen since the war on terrorism began.

Immediately following 9/11, our focus, indeed the focus of most of the international community, was on al Qaeda. We are now seeing that focus change, and let me take a moment to describe certainly what I think has been the most—the greatest—war our nation has ever been called to fight, and that is the war against terrorism. President Bush announced on the 20th of September that this would be the most unusual war in our nation's history.

As a former military person, we generally think of warfare as something done by our Department of Defense alone. Our President said that this would be a war that would use all of our instruments of national power. It would use our diplomacy, our intelligence, our law enforcement, our financial arms and certainly the military combined with similar capabilities from our allies to conduct an all-out assault against terrorist groups operating against the free world.

Diplomacy remains the backbone of our international campaign against terrorism. With the support and assistance of our friends and allies in the international community, we formed one of the most impressive coalitions in world history to fight terrorists in all corners of the globe. This cooperation not only serves our interests but those of our international partners as well. Arguably, that has been most effective weapon against al Qaeda. We have captured or killed 70 percent of the al Qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda, the al Qaeda that we knew on 9/11 is no longer in existence.

We have been very successful in Afghanistan, primarily in ridding al Qaeda of its organizational base, its training apparatus, and the place where most of these plots were launched. The centralized command and control we knew of before 9/11 no longer exists. Our ongoing operations are isolating the al Qaeda leadership. With sanctuaries in Afghanistan and elsewhere diminishing, the al Qaeda leadership is devoting much of its time to evading capture or death. And this is making al Qaeda’s communication and coordination efforts more difficult and complex. As a result, we believe that some terrorist activities have been delayed for extended periods of time as al-Qaeda operatives await instructions from an increasingly isolated central leadership. We have taken away an ally in Pakistan in terms of Pakistan being a conduit into Afghanistan and a covert supporter of the Taliban and therefore al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, as we knew it before 9/11, is no longer the same organization. Our success, however, has created other problems in the sense that al Qaeda as an organization is no more. Al Qaeda is no longer this hierarchical organization being run by Bin Laden's own training centers in Afghanistan. It is changing because of what I call the phenomenon of Islamic extremism. This was boldly represented by bin Laden and al Qaeda, who has begun to be represented by a political philosophy that is spreading far beyond those individuals who served in Afghanistan with the Islamic resistance and who have trained at the al Qaeda training camps that have come to be known as the al Qaeda group.

This phenomenon of Islamic extremism—and let me be careful to mention that I'm not talking about Muslims who practice Islamic faith fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with practicing one's religion in a fundamental way—but what I am discussing when I talk of the "ism" of Islamic extremism is the political philosophy that says that, in order to defend Islam as a religion and Islamic people around the world, one has to impose, essentially, a 14th and 15th century nihilistic political structure over the people of the Islamic world to defend them against the people of the West and that this political structure must be implemented by violent jihad, or Holy War.

That philosophy is being spread in many of the Islamic schools, in many of the mosques all over the world. There is no part of the world where there aren't people who believe in this extreme ideology and have worked to spread that ideology among their adherents, however small they may be in our country and in many countries around the world.

Just after 9/11, there was a documentary on CNN that was filmed in the northwest frontier province of Pakistan. The focus was on the madras’ of Pakistan, which in Pakistan if you are a parent and you want your children to get some education, is the only way that you generally can do this unless you're a member of the elite.

In that piece, CNN interviewed an 8-year-old young man who spent almost 3 years in a madras studying the Koran and other religious subjects. What was most chilling for me was the fact that this young man, who had never been out of the northwest frontier province and had never met an American, at age 8 wanted to grow up and do jihad against Americans.

It was a part of who he was. He had been taught this hate and his personal responsibility to harm America to defend his faith. This is happening in hundreds of places across the globe. That is the "ism" of Islamic extremism that is now coming to fruition around the world and generating the warriors that we see in places like Madrid recently, where most of the people involved in the attack in Madrid were unknown to Spanish or international law enforcement as being members of the radical Islamic movement around the world.

So that's the first thing that has happened since 9/11. Our success against al Qaeda has brought on a new group of people that I believe will take a generation to be eradicated. This philosophy is almost like communism or fascism or totalitarianism in that it becomes its own kind of body politic that we have to address in ways other than through military force.

The second change we've seen is one that affects all of you and that is a shift in targeting. As we have hardened our political and diplomatic and military facilities overseas, terrorists are striking at soft targets, targets with strong symbolic value, economic or capitalist targets, and targets guaranteed to bring many fatalities.

The Bali nightclub bombing heralded this new targeting mindset. The J.W. Marriott in Jakarta, the hotel attack in Casablanca, the HSB Bank and British consulate in Istanbul, the trains in Madrid all represent targets of opportunity.

All of these are economic targets or key government targets. These attacks were calculated to intimidate the population and elicit a fear reaction and, increasingly, to influence politics. That, in my view, is even more sinister that our adversaries now believe that they can influence the political process of democratic countries.

Since 9/11, the terrorists have adapted their tactics and techniques to fit whatever environment they are confronted with during their attack planning. Take Madrid as an example. It is fundamentally different from the 9/11 attacks. Yes, the numbers of people killed and injured are equally horrific in each circumstance, but Madrid represents a very different approach. An attack just days before a hotly contested election pitting an incumbent government supporting United States actions in Iraq versus a contender that did not.

Was the purpose of bombing four commuter trains solely to kill innocent people? Or was the true purpose to influence the election? Because if it was, it seems to have worked, hasn’t it? Just as no one could have imagined on September the 10th that 19 hijackers would seize control of four airplanes and use them as weapons of mass destruction, no one expected terrorists to attack commuter trains in Spain last month for the purpose of influencing an election.

Al Qaeda and its adherents again are evolving. Now we are seeing al Qaeda employ loose affiliations with terrorist organizations to achieve their aims. They are employing unknown people in their plans. This makes vigilance on all of our parts even more important.

The third change we are seeing is the phenomenon of glocal linkages. While terrorism has been with us for hundreds of years, the global war on terrorism obviously is a recent one. While it is the shocking events of 9/11 that precipitated a global effort to deal with the issue of terrorism, I think that one reason why the global war on terrorism has been the success that it has been thus far is the ability of people to connect instantaneously across the world using technology, technology that did not exist a few decades ago.

Fax machines, internet, cell phones, and such other technology has enhanced our ability to communicate globally. It is also the same technology that has allowed terrorists to strike effectively. Just as technology allows a soldier on the battlefield to pass intelligence to a law enforcement officer thousands of miles away so that an arrest can be effected and another tragedy averted, technology also allowed hijackers, the 9/11 hijackers, to pinpoint the exact coordinates of the World Trade Center, enter that data into the cockpit data recorder, and steer that plane unerringly into the side of the building.

Technology is allowing al Qaeda to proselytize its message far and wide across the internet. Al Qaeda is able to reach out to people who have never been to Afghanistan or Iraq. The same technology that allows two 6th grade pen pals on different sides of the world to share with one another their cultures and lives through word and picture is also being used by terrorists to share knowledge, plans and ideology.

I am obviously not saying that technology is bad or that we should return to the pre-Information Age. I don't think that would serve much good even if it were possible. But I am saying that technology and the Information Age allows global linkages to be formed. This means that al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are able to connect with other terrorist organizations such as the JI in Southeast Asia or ETA in Spain and franchise their ideas.

Does it matter that it wasn't an al Qaeda operative that set off the bombs in the trains in Spain or blew up the Marriott in Jakarta? Probably not. The reaction was still the same. Fear, intimidation, and scores of innocent people killed.

Saudi and other areas in the Middle East and South Asia will remain high value targets for terrorists. The Saudis turned a blind eye until last May when they, too, became the targets of a terrorist attack in their own backyard. Yet, al Qaeda is making mistakes and from mistakes come opportunities because each time Islamic extremists hit civilian targets, every time their actions cause innocents to die, they are actually hurting their own cause.

Our enemy is like a seven-headed hydra. We can kill one head, like al Qaeda, and another head representing another terrorism organization will take its place. This is why military force alone will not win this fight. On September 20, President Bush stated that this fight would be like no other. It would take the combined efforts of our military, political, economic, diplomatic, and law enforcement efforts to fight this war.

As a former military officer, I am proud of our men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but history tells us that it is the rule of law and the strength of international values and cooperation that will allow us to prevail. International law enforcement, financial institutions, and public diplomacy efforts will be critical in breaking up their organizations, bringing their members to justice, and de-legitimatising violence and terror as a legitimate political pursuit. So to will programs of political and economic reform in Moslem countries lessen the pool of available foot soldiers involved in terrorism.

Iraq represents a different paradigm. In any other country, at any other post, if we had the same situation we now have in Iraq and will likely face after July 1 with the hand-over of power, we would have ordered departure and evacuated our mission by now.

Iraq represents a call to fanatics to come and serve the cause of Islamic extremism. Iraq is their crucible, the place where fledgling terrorists can cut their teeth, practice with explosives and go to war training for future battles on their own ground.

I am reminded of the letter that (Abu Mussab) al-Zakawi sent to bin Laden talking about what al Qaeda should do in Iraq to foment civil war between the Sunni Shiites and the Kurds to undermine U.S. foreign policy. Iraq is the new battleground for the global war on terrorism.

But the challenges there notwithstanding, we cannot fail either in Afghanistan or Iraq. They represent the cornerstones of our current war on terrorism. If either of those countries fall, our fight to create a safer and more secure world for our children and for our children's children will certainly be significantly damaged.

I do not mean to imply that this is a fight we will win quickly. We are dealing with generations of problems that have coalesced into al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist organizations, and it may take us generations to defeat those organizations and remove them.

Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.