Remarks by the Director of Central
Intelligence
George J. Tenet
at the
Nixon Center Distinguished Service
Award Banquet
11 December 2002
Note:
Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet was honored December
11th by The Nixon Center when it presented him its 2002 Distinguished
Service Award. On its website, The
Nixon Center said that the award recognized Director Tenet's "lifetime
of public service in intelligence and national security." In
written messages read at the awards ceremony, both President
George W. Bush and former President
George H.W. Bush lauded the work of both Director Tenet and the
Central Intelligence Agency. In the keynote address, Mr. Tenet discussed
America's war on terrorism. The text of his remarks, as prepared for
delivery, follow.
I am honored to accept this award, on behalf of those who truly earned
it: the men and women of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Richard Nixon's approach to foreign policy was, above all, realistic.
He respected history and the essential unpredictability of human events.
He was a strategic thinker who kept his eye on the big picture. He strove
for steady incremental improvements in the international position of
the United States and was skeptical of the durability of any advantage.
What would President Nixon have made of our time? He lived to see the
fall of the Soviet Union and the halting start of Russia's transformation.
And he watched the development of relations with China.
But the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty he negotiated is all but defunct.
NATO has expanded to include former members of the Warsaw Pact. United
States armed forces are bivouacking in the Central Asian states of the
former Soviet Union.
And what would President Nixon have made of the events of September
11 and the war on terror? He would have been as horrified as we all
were by what happened that day, and he would have strongly backed a
forceful US response. He probably would have been surprised that, after
9/11, the first phone call President Bush received from a foreign leader
was from Vladimir Putin.
That said, President Nixon would have made clear distinctions between
"the tactical" and "the strategic," and I'd like to dwell on those two
words for a moment.
It's routine to talk about the war in tactical terms: this battle,
that terrorist, this takedown. And I will talk to you about where I
think we are, what successes we've had, and what challenges we continue
to face.
But I also want to talk about a strategic imperative that runs along
side the tactical effort. President Nixon's national security adviser,
Henry Kissinger, suggested a year ago that 9/11 changed everything.
All the foreign relations of the United States were on that day, cast
in a new light. We soon found ourselves in new webs of relationships
that few would have thought possible before that day.
Following President Bush's call to world leaders to join in a great
coalition against terrorism, the United States moved to an emphatic
posture of engagement. Engagement was really the only choice we
had. And that great coalition came into being. It meant an even closer
engagement with the Muslim world.
- But we can't let this engagement stop at the level of tactical wartime
cooperation, as necessary as that is. We also need to make more fundamental
connections. Because at the end of the day, we cannot hope to make
lasting progress in the war against terrorism without serious steps
to address "the circumstances that give it rise." I'll come back to
this in a moment.
We are not at war with the Muslim world. As President Bush has
said on many occasions, "Our war is not against Islam, or against faith
practiced by the Muslim people." But we are at war with extremists.
We are at war with terrorists. We are at war with fanatics.
But we are not at war with Islameven though the terrorists
want to portray it that way.
- And nobody should confuse the Muslim world with the Middle East
alone. Not at all. The Muslim world reaches from Morocco to Indonesia,
the largest Muslim country. The next three largest Muslim populations,
all on the South Asian subcontinentPakistan, Bangladesh, and
India.
Our foes are literally "the fringe of the fringe" in the Muslim world,
the small subset of radical Muslims who also happen to be violent
and murderous.
- And targeting the United States, our people, our way of life.
This is an enemy we know very, very well.
Al Qa`ida and Usama Bin Ladin have been formidable adversaries, particularly
after their migration to Afghanistan in 1996. Before 9/11, we had a
lot of the tools in place but,we lacked some that were necessary to
wage a successful campaign.
Well before 9/11, we were hitting al-Qa`ida's infrastructure, working
with foreign services to carry out arrests, recruiting or exposing operatives,
and going after Bin Ladin himself. And we made progress in several areas.
- We developed a stable of assets and a body of information that pinpointed
al-Qa`ida's Afghanistan infrastructure, enabling its rapid destruction
when the war started.
- In conjunction with the FBI, CIA had rendered 70 terrorists to justice
around the world. Al-Qa`ida might have been able to operate freely
in Afghanistan, but the terrorists knew they were fair game elsewhere.
- During the Millennium threat period, we identified 36 terrorist
agents and pursued operations against them in 50 countries, building
on existing liaison relationships and forging new ones with governments
and sister services all around the world. These operations disrupted
attacks and saved lives. We had similar success overseas during other
high-threat periods, such as during Ramadan in 2000 and spring/summer
2001.
Within our own government, we have a sound foundation for working together,
and since 9/11 we've enhanced ties to Homeland Security, law enforcement,
and a range of other federal, state, and local agencies.
But before 9/11, as you know, Al-Qa`ida had some advantages, like a
safe operating environment in Afghanistan and a protective sponsor,
the Taliban government. These advantages were reversed, dramatically,
after 9/11.
And when the fighting started last fall, al-Qa`ida's leaders genuinely
expected to mire our coalition down in a reprise of the Soviet
experience. They were just as genuinely surprised. And then sorely disappointed.
- More than 1/3 of the top leadership identified before the war has
been killed or captured.
- Almost half of our successes against senior al Qa`ida members has
come in recent months. During that time we've netted:
- Al Qa`ida's operations chief for the Persian Gulf. He also
helped plan the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the attack
on USS Cole in 2000.
- A principal al Qa`ida planner who was also a conspirator in
the 9/11 attacks.
- Numerous operations officers and facilitators.
- And a trove of information we're using to press the hunt further.
The United States has had lots of partners in this fight. Without
them, we could not have accomplished what we did.
- Since September 2001, more than 3000 al-Qa`ida operatives or associates
have been detained in over 100 countries. Don't get stuck on this
number. Not everyone arrested was a terrorist. Some have been released.
But this worldwide "rousting" of al Qa`ida definitely disrupted its
operations.
- Starting from almost zero, more than 166 countries worldwide have
seized over $121 million in terrorist-related financial assets.
And speaking of partners, let's dispel a myth tonight: the myth that
Muslim countries have lined up against us. Most governments understand
al-Qa`ida poses a threat to them as well. And we're making steady progress
with every one of them.
- Besides Pakistan's support in rounding up al-Qa`ida members, Pakistani
President Musharraf's landmark speech in January calling for the establishment
of a moderate, tolerant Islamic state has begun a debate across the
Muslim world about which vision of Islam is the right one.
- Jordan and Egypt have been courageous leaders in the war on terrorism.
- A number of Gulf states like UAE are denying terrorists financial
safe haven, making it harder for al-Qa`ida to funnel funding for operations,
and others in the Gulf are beginning to tackle the problem of charities
fronting for, and funding, terrorists.
- The Saudis are providing increasingly important support to our counterterrorism
effortsfrom making arrests to sharing debriefing results.
- SE Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore, with significant
Muslim populations, have been active in arresting and detaining terror
suspects.
- We mustn't forget Afghanistan, where the new government leaders
are providing support not only for their own self-interest, but at
great danger and difficulty to themselves.
And, after a few initial turnouts, the "Muslim Street" never really
showed up.
Intelligence information tells us the al-Qa`ida leadership has been
rattled by recent losses and is taking more precautions. But let's be
very clear: there is no letup in the threat at the moment. Despite
the loss of several senior lieutenants, and the security worries of
the remaining leaders, intelligence clearly shows al-Qa`ida is still
preparing terrorist attacks.
- Indeed, every al Qa`ida operations officer and facilitator we have
captured so far, was in the midst of preparing attacks when captured.
- Recent tapes by al-Qa`ida leaders threatening the US economy and
our coalition allies, were unprecedented in their bluntness and urgency.
It is no coincidence that those tapes were released in the same period
as the recent attacks in Mombassa, Bali, off the Yemeni coast (French
tanker), and Kuwait (US Marines shot).
- Given the reverses they have suffered to date, they are obliged
to say such things to bolster morale. But they would be foolish
to make so bold a threat unless confident that some impending operation
has a high probability of success. In effect, their credibility with
their supporters is more than ever on the line.
- And we would be foolish to take these threats in any way
other than with utmost seriousness.
On the homeland security front, keeping up our guard works. Our moves
to harden targets in response to threat information will disrupt or
slow terrorist plans. Any deterring of an attack, or of slowing down
al-Qa`ida's operational planning, allows us more time to disrupt cells,
take operatives off the street, and continue our protection of the homeland.
We are still in the "hunt phase" of this warthe painstaking pursuit
of individual al Qa`ida members and their cells. This phase is paying
off, but is manpower intensive and will take a long time. There are
no set battles against units of any size. We are tracking our enemies
down, one by one.
- And let there be no doubt that, day by day, we are winning this
war because of our military. Yes, we will have days when we are
less successfulthere will be battles won and battles lostthis
is the nature of war. But we are winning.
Beyond tactical victories, we need to show al Qa`ida's potential recruits
that al Qa`ida is failing in every possible respect.
And if we can't take them off the board, we need to keep them on the
run. At least then they won't be planning and operating. More than
the provision of funding or materiel, denying al-Qa`ida a new safehaven
is the best way to continue to disrupt their planning.
We can do more in many different areasin particular, we can address
the range of issues that affect the ability of our partners to work
with us and with each otherbut we need to engage more fully
in the Muslim world. This is the strategic component of the war
against terror.
- We cannot win the war on terror simply by defeating and dismantling
al-Qa`ida.
- To claim victory, we and our allies will need to address the circumstances
that bring peoples to despair, weaken governments, and create power
vacuums that extremists are all too ready to fill.
The Muslim world is hugely diverse and complexanything but monolithic.
- More than 1.3 billion people.
- Literally hundreds of languages and cultures.
For these reasons, Richard Nixon, pointed out the improbability of
such a thing as a "clash of civilizations" between the West and the
Muslim World. "This nightmare scenario," he wrote, "will never materialize.
The Muslim world is too large and too diverse ..."
But imagine a large map of the world. Let's say we stick a map pin
in every country that had a low per capita income. And another
for a high rate of infant mortality. Another for a sizable "youth bulge"what
Robert Kaplan calls "unemployed young guys walking around," a strong
indicator of social volatility. And one for an absence of political
freedoms and participatory government.
- At the end of this exercise, we would have marked out a large number
of states some of which are in the Muslim world.
We could go on to mark out another set of what we could call "beleaguered
states"states unable to control their own borders and internal
territory, that lack the capacity to govern, educate their peoples,
or provide fundamental social services. And some of them have recognized
the need to address these problems and they need help.
We know from experience that states struggling with these problems
are the natural targets of the terrorists. We have seen in places
like Afghanistanterrorists taking root and turning them into terrorist
havens.
For a complex variety of reasons, terrorists feed on such fragile
states.
At the same time, however, we see glimmers of hope that, in pockets
throughout the Muslim world, we are turning a corner.
- I'm speaking about recent elections in Turkey, Morocco, and Bahrainwhere
Islamist parties acted through the ballot boxwhich suggests
that majorities in some Muslim countries want to work through a participatory
political process in effecting change through peaceful means. And
I'm thinking of recent events in Iran, where voices for change are
displaying a tenacious will to be heard.
My colleague and friend at the State Department, Richard Haass, recently
pointed to developments in these and other Muslim countries in observing
that, "when given the opportunity, Muslims are embracing democratic
norms and choosing democracy."
- He worries whether we are doing enough to foster gradual paths to
democratization. If we do not, he believes it will create a "democratic
exception"a missed opportunity to help these countries become
more stable, prosperous, peaceful, and adaptable to the stresses of
the 21st century.
I agree. We and our alliesboth in the West and in the Muslim
worldowe it to ourselves to pursue such broad, strategic goals
in the war against terrorism: to enlarge the opportunities within the
Muslim world to embrace democratic norms, to encourage open, constructive
political discussion in closed, reserved societies, to support experiments
in improved governance, to promote opportunities for Muslim women to
participate more broadly in the life of their societies.
- We can also encourage the silent majorities throughout the Muslim
world to speak out on behalf of moderate alternatives to radical Islamic
ideology. We need to find ways of encouraging the moderates to return
to the field, which has been dominated by the extremists.
Such an approach requires honest discussions with our friends in the
Muslim world. We need to discuss candidly what we can do and what they
can do.
- Friendship without such honesty is a hollow thing indeed. There
is no Marshal Plan in the war against terror. There is no "one size
fits all" for addressing these problems these states face.
Some may ask, what will the United States get out of such close engagement?
Naturally, we hope for better relations. But we most emphatically want
to ensure that we never again see the rise of a terrorist sanctuary
on the back of a beleaguered state. This is one great lesson of Afghanistan.
By denying sanctuaries to terrorists, we will deny them camps where
they can train, where they can indoctrinate, where they can plan and
ultimately, undertake operations that hurt US interests.
But we must also recognize we cannot impose an "approved" version of
Islam on the Islamic world. What we instead need to do is help the
Muslim world come to grips with its issues and to find its own way out
of the political and economic dead-end the radicals are urging.
I have been privileged in my workas many of you have in yoursto
meet with a broad range of talented, passionate people from this crucial
part of the world. Most understand the threat that terror poses to
all of us. Most recognize that it does not advance the legitimate aspirations
of anyone, and that its inevitable result is to bring suffering upon
suffering.
They may not agree with every policy of the United States. Even the
closest of allies differ over tactics and strategy. And so, what we
seek from our foreign partners and friends is not a unanimity of ideas,
but a sharing of basic values, a dialogue from which we learn together.
Of course, with the safety of our country in the balance, there are
times when dialogue and engagement are not enough. In intelligence,
as in other fields of national security, the principle that guides our
actions is a bit less elegant, but no less practical: with others if
possible, alone if necessary.
These conceptsthe mix of realism and idealism that is so closely
identified with the United Statesare at the very heart of the
thoughtful work done by the Nixon Center. We find ourselves at the
beginning of the 21st century in a very different place than
any of us would have imagined. We need to rely on well-honed skills
and new thinkingthe sort of thinking that was Richard Nixon at
his best envisioning a world different than the one he knewa
world in which you could open relations with China or agree to arms
control with the Soviet Union as a means of advancing our interests
without sacrificing our values or goals.
And here, at an event that echoes the memory of President Nixon the
statesman, I would like to close with his words, as non-partisan as
any can be: "I believe in the American dream," he said, "because I have
seen it come true in my own life."
All of us here find truth in that statement. And we find something
more: A reason why so many are movedand so many have sacrificedto
defend the blessings, the opportunities, the choices, the freedoms,
that we enjoy as Americans.
Thank you very much.
[Speeches
and Testimony Page] [Public
Affairs Page] [CIA Homepage] |