U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and Christopher R. Hill, dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, on Tuesday talked briefly about international affairs in advance of "Emerging Threats to U.S. National Security: From Iran to Global Terrorism," a forum planned for today at 6:30 p.m. at the Denver Art Museum. The deadline to RSVP for a seat was Feb. 15.
The CELL-sponsored forum, which will include Udall, Hill, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James A. "Sandy" Winnefeld, Jr. and former homeland and national security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein, will be streamed live from Udall's website.
Here are a couple of Hill and Udall's thoughts:
Q: Warrantless surveillance
Udall: "When it comes to surveilling Americans, I'm continuing to push this administration — and would push any administration — to be more forthcoming and, at the same time, enabling our law enforcement agencies to keep us safe. It's a delicate balance. There could be more disclosure. Our greatest strength is our Bill of Rights and our freedom."
Q: Reversing mistakes of the past decade
Hill: "Americans need to understand there are still bad actors out there. There are still dangerous situations out there. If we don't confront them, we could end up being injured again. I'm making the case for more engagement, not for disengagement."
Q: Continuing U.S. military special operations in Afghanistan
Hill: "The more we are engaged overseas — again, it needs to be thoughtful, well-informed engagement — the less likely we are to have to be engaged at home. There are a lot of factors that could make (Afghanistan) a launch pad again."
Q: Ill-will engendered by U.S. drones and other engagement
Udall: "You put the face of the local and national governments on whatever efforts are put forth. That's why the main focus of our efforts in Afghanistan has been to train the local police and military."
Hill: "The original concept of drones was to minimize collateral damage '.. You can attack a bad guy without hitting women and children. But obviously any weapons system, any military program, has a cost. It's always a question of weighing the costs and benefits. So far, (drones) have been judiciously used. So far, the benefits exceed the damage."
Q: Iran
Udall: "There's no good answer right now. Every option ought to be on the table. Those options range from "air strikes that would limit and push back Iran's efforts to develop the nuclear weapons" to "not using air strikes." Udall said he has heard from analysts "who believe that the best way and quickest way to drive Iran to developing nuclear weapons would be to attack them."
