President Obama in China: 'terrorist networks like al Qaeda' are 'greatest threat to U.S. security'

[bigtree]

November 16, 2009

Excerpt from Remarks by President Barack Obama at Town Hall Meeting with Future Chinese Leaders - Museum of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China

Q. Mr. President, it's a great honor for the last question. And I'm a college student from Fudan University, and today I'm also the representative of China's Youth (inaudible.) And this question I think is from Beijing: Paid great attention to your Afghanistan policies, and he would like to know whether terrorism is still the greatest security concern for the United States? And how do you assess the military actions in Afghanistan, or whether it will turn into another Iraqi war? Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that's an excellent question. Well, first of all, I do continue to believe that the greatest threat to United States' security are the terrorist networks like al Qaeda. And the reason is, is because even though they are small in number, what they have shown is, is that they have no conscience when it comes to the destruction of innocent civilians. And because of technology today, if an organization like that got a weapon of mass destruction on its hands -- a nuclear or a chemical or a biological weapon -- and they used it in a city, whether it's in Shanghai or New York, just a few individuals could potentially kill tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands. So it really does pose an extraordinary threat.

Now, the reason we originally went into Afghanistan was because al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, being hosted by the Taliban. They have now moved over the border of Afghanistan and they are in Pakistan now, but they continue to have networks with other extremist organizations in that region. And I do believe that it is important for us to stabilize Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan can protect themselves, but they can also be a partner in reducing the power of these extremist networks.

Now, obviously it is a very difficult thing -- one of the hardest things about my job is ordering young men and women into the battlefield. I often have to meet with the mothers and fathers of the fallen, those who do not come home. And it is a great weight on me. It gives me a heavy heart.

Fortunately, our Armed Services is -- the young men and women who participate, they believe so strongly in their service to their country that they are willing to go. And I think that it is possible -- working in a broader coalition with our allies in NATO and others that are contributing like Australia -- to help train the Afghans so that they have a functioning government, that they have their own security forces, and then slowly we can begin to pull our troops out because there's no longer that vacuum that existed after the Taliban left.

But it's a difficult task. It's not easy. And ultimately I think in trying to defeat these terrorist extremists, it's important to understand it's not just a military exercise. We also have to think about what motivates young people to become terrorists, why would they become suicide bombers. And although there are obviously a lot of different reasons, including I think the perversion of religion, in thinking that somehow these kinds of violent acts are appropriate, part of what's happened in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan is these young people have no education, they have no opportunities, and so they see no way for them to move forward in life, and that leads them into thinking that this is their only option.

And so part of what we want to do in Afghanistan is to find ways that we can train teachers and create schools and improve agriculture so that people have a greater sense of hope. That won't change the ideas of a Osama bin Laden who are very ideologically fixed on trying to strike at the West, but it will change the pool of young people who they can recruit from. And that is at least as important, if not more important over time, as whatever military actions that we can take. Okay?



President Barack Obama, seen here at a a town hall meeting in Shanghai (AFP/Mandel Ngan)

full transcript of town meeting: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-town-hall-meeting-with-future-chinese-leaders

[arcadian]

1. Other than the fakey, ill-defined Al Qeada,

what other so called terrorists networks are there?

[bigtree]

3. which actually 'threaten' the U.S.?

I dunno. I'm not sure how anyone can say definitively that 'al-Qaeda' actually 'threatens' America (outside of our interests and deployed citizens abroad). I imagine there are all kinds of individual nuts out there with all kinds of schemes to hit the Big Sam, but I don't believe it serves anything more than the government and military agenda to raise these to the level of importance or concern that's been used to justify all of the militarism they've employed.

[EFerrari]

9. Complete Forune 500 list:

http://www.hoovers.com/global/mktg/index.xhtml?pageid=14332&cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=YAH&cm_pla=FTN&cm_ite=fortune_500

[Soylent Brice]

11. bwahahahaaa!!!

:rofl:

[Toucano]

19. +1 n-t

[MilesColtrane]

15. Goldman Sachs?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The "New" strategy sounds like the "Old" strategy. Except it's in English rather than Texan.

[bigtree]

4. I think it's fair to say that there's more of a difference than just accent

I think this administration (like all good Democrats who buy into the military posture Bush invented) believes their idealism can be used to mitigate all of the wanton and arbitrary destruction and killing caused by our considered advance on sovereign territory and transform a quagmire into an expanding base for all of their goodwill. The militarism almost always overshadows and dominates all of the diplomacy, aid, or development. It's all corrupted from the start by the pesky annoyance of our invasion, overthrow, and occupation. Best wishes, of course, if this president decides to blunder forward. Not much optimism from folks like me who remember this movie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I posted a long article from "The Nation" about Obama's political dillema re: Afghanistan.

You'll find it interesting. Follow the link for the whole article. I just posted the final 4 paragraphs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7025414&mesg_id=7025414

[bigtree]

10. "For LBJ the domino theory was really a matter of domestic politics."

I tend to believe that a lot of Mr. Obama's concern is certainly about domestic politics as well, but ambitiously, about much more. This new administration, as Schell pointed out, is somewhat insulated by the juxtaposition of Afghanistan as the 'good war' opposite Iraq (bad war). Further, there is going to be a tendency for the new president to believe that he has an opportunity to imprint his own decidedly Democratic 'doctrine' of aid, humanitarian assistance, and development as an alternative to conflict. Problem is, there's always going to be a military component in the mix which threatens to corrupt all of the fine ideals. It's interesting how Schell captures the administration's desire to split the difference between those ideals and the certain effects of the militarism which they use to support their efforts.

from the article:

"To most Americans, Vietnam taught one big lesson: "Don't do it again!" To today's military, Vietnam has taught a host of little lessons, adding up to "Do it better!" The military has in effect militarized the arguments of the peace movement of the 1960s. Are the hearts and minds of the local people arrayed against the United States? Then be nice to them. (In a Washington Post column supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan, David Ignatius cited the fact that US troops are issued petty cash to buy Afghans soda and other goodies.) Are civilian casualties discrediting the American effort? Cut them to a minimum, as General McChrystal is seeking to do (with mixed success). Is corruption in the client government rampant? "Pressure" it to be honest."

But, like I said, we've seen this movie before. Can this administration successfully insert a convincing, alternative ending? Having certainly seen this movie themselves (did our president get the point?) I'm sure they're hoping so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I think Obama is looking for an exit strategy that won't embarrass him. A vain hope.

Even if things should work out that he can escape from Afghanistan without an obvious catastrophe to American troops, the war will still be seen as lost. And, the RW will, of course, blame him for not being "strong".

He's trapped, and he knows it. If he does the most truly practical thing and arranges a withdrawal within a short time he will be seen as "cutting and running". If he continues to escalate by steps as LBJ did he will be delaying the inevitable defeat at a great cost in lives and treasure.

What's not spoken of by the hawks is the disaster this is causing domestically. Like Johnson's "Great Society" programs, Obama's inclinations to transform America into a more liberal society is being swallowed by another lost war.

[bullwinkle428]

6. With all due respect, Mr. President, I think the greatest threat is ignorance!

(i.e., teabaggers, birthers, deathers, tenthers, know-nothings, bigots, anti-science types, etc.)

[EFerrari]

7. Maybe we should invade Wall Street. Lots of terrorists there.

[Brickbat]

8. He said that because he was standing right in the middle of the biggest threat.

nt

[msongs]

12. wrong again Mr obama....our biggest threats are

US corporations the US military. the military sucks up over half the budget which could otherwise be used as tax cuts and things that help people, and our corporations are legally treated as humans with personal rights even as they send all our jobs overseas while management makes obscene salaries.

Msongs

[Echo In Light]

13. The "'greatest threat to U.S. security" is the US govt & its War Machine

[Deja Q]

16. I don't disagree, but I'm sure al quaeda would also like to destroy our economy just as much.

[bigtree]

17. good point

Certainly Mr. Obama would agree that the condition of our domestic health threatens us much more than some rouge terrorist. I wonder where he'll demonstrate fidelity to that concern as he considers that his defense budget (almost same amount as Bush this time around) and the expenditures for the occupations he's maintaining are exacerbating the ailing condition of our economy.

[EFerrari]

21. They're too late!

[Greyhound]

18. Rampant corporatism is both the greatest threat to our national security

and creates terrorism.

Try concentrating on something that will actually help.

[Toucano]

20. Sad.

Sad to see such a great man succumb to the lies and the lying liars who tell them.