tv Discussion on International Efforts to Fight Terrorism CSPAN February 8, 2016 8:01pm-10:15pm EST
cherished of american political tribal rights. ♪ >> governor, thank you so much for coming to new hampshire. >> this is a place where you can abo observe a candidate in the heat dialog dialogue, in the heat of getting tough questions about their positions on the issues. it's not just a place where there's a scripted speech. >> new hampshire takes its first in the nation primary status, you know, really seriously. >> this is one of a series of town hall meetings we're going to be having. >> this is my 20th town hall meeting. >> welcome to our 115th town hall meeting here in new hampshire. tonight on c-span3, a
discussion on combating terrorism. then health officials update reporters on the zika virus at today's white house briefing. later, a house homeland security hearing on the visa process for refugees trying to enter the u.s. former homeland security second tom ridge and joe lieberman were part of a discussion on countering terrorism and biological threats. it's hosted by the patomic institute. it's just over two hours. >> if i could have your attention. i'm the ceo. it's my honor to welcome you to the 18th annual review of terrorism event. opportunities to deal with it. and concepts and studies for how
to prevent it from ever happening again. for the last 18 years, we have been the very proud home of the international center for terrorism studies that has been headed by professor yona alexander. i'm sure all of you are here because you know about yona and the tremendous work that he has done. we think of his center as the foremost academic center for the study of terrorism in the world. it's affiliated literally with dozens of ufrniversities and thk tanks around the world and publishes articles, seminar findings and books every year on almost every aspect of terrorism, how it is being carried out around the world and every part of the world, how different parts of the world are dealing with it and how academics, statesmen and scholars can come together to offer up ways for -- to deal with it and to deal with the underlying causes of terrorism.
this past year, yona has helped initiate a number of books that -- on the issue from the islamic state, which is just recently out, to a book on terrorism to the consolidated writings of osama bin laden. all of these are available from the website and also on amazon and lexington press. we will be happy to direct you to them or to the many publications that the institute and the center have published this past year on terrorism events around the world and what can be done to deal with them. i would like to report to you in summary that after 18 years of looking at the issue that things are improving. i think if i'm going to put a happy face on it, i can say that those focusing on the issue, the academic study, political focus of it around the world is increasing mightily and with
great purpose. unfortunately, the threat is still there growing, metastasizing and evolving in ways that threaten more people than ever before. unfortunately, this is something that most likely our grandchildren will deal with. it's up to us to give them as many tools as we can. i would like to ask you all to join me, however, at this moment in recognizing professor yona alexander. his contributions to not just ak democr academics but to the world is something we should applaud and hope it will continue. professor axer. yona brought together today a very experienced and senior panel to discuss these issues.
we have a keynote speaker who is the director of the defense intelligence agency and the dwsh i would like to introduce general al gray, chairman of the potomac board of wreath entrege. published this last year by the potomac insti institute which documents all of the things he has says. >> haven't you finished? i want to add my welcome to all of you. we're particularly honored this afternoon to have a very distinguished general officer speak to us in this keynote address. general vincent stewart is a great leader. has been -- and is a great marine. and i'm very honored really to have a chance to tell you a little bit about him. his biography is in your notes
here. i won't go through all that. but i do want to mention that general stewart not only has had and held all of the key command assignments in the signal intelligence arena in the marine corps, in the combat intelligence arena in the marine corps and has served also in staff and command positions everywhere from the department of the defense, you name it, he has done it. he is also a distinguished communications officer. he is an armor officer by original trade. he has been to many, many schools. in fact, eight different military schools and five of them were on my watch. so that's my fault for sending him to too many schools. but i say this because i think it's crucial that the intelligence community be
infiltrated with a goodly number of non-intelligence people, operational people, people who have operational experience so that you can do not just the intelligence analysis but the operational analysis, data analysis, from that standpoint. some of our greatest intelligence victories in all through our history were created really because you had operation and intelligence operating together and working together and thinking together. so i'm very proud of you, vin. without further adieu, i will turn things over to you. [ applause ] >> thank you. general gray promised you would do a short introduction. he has never called me distinguished. that's a first. thank you, sir. i'm going to try to do a couple things today. thing one is i'm going to try to talk a little bit about this terrorism topic.
then i want to touch a little bit about what we think we're doing to help to count er terrorism. it's an hower nor to be here ant next to governor ridge and with senator lieberman, our publish servants, is an honor for me. thank you for inviting me to this event. combating terrorism is unmi unmistakably an important topic. today's agenda constitutes an opportunity for sharing and debating ideas, defining the threat as well as to identify opportunities to undermine forces that use terror. i emphasize the defining the threat for this reason. i hear -- i will talk about this in detail. i have heard that it is all of
islam to thugs and criminals. until we settle which end or somewhere in the middle where he dealing with, we probably won't be able to define a coherent strategy. we will talk about that a little bit. ace menti i will highlight some of the things we are doing. terrorism, ladies and gentlemen, is not only a grave threat to international security, it's a direct assault on humanity. during our lifetime, we have witnessed individual acts of ideologically politically motivated terrorism transform into sheer barberism, covering vast areas and territory and shrouded in religious symbolism. although it's not new, it's increasing with intensity especially since the early 1980s. from hamas to hezbollah, to al qaeda and now the self-prola
self-proclaimed islamic state, it's to advance criminal and politically intimidating strategies. the recent paris, beirut, san bernardino attacks demonstrate that daesh, isis or whatever you would like to call them has now become a direct terrorist threat around the world, especially in europe and here in america. more information is coming out about daesh operatives allegedly here on u.s. soil. so these recent attacks may be just the beginning of violence perpetrated by daesh, by their inspired lone wolf actors, by returning foreign fighters or daesh coordinated and directed attacks. in daesh we see what our analysts call a protostate. we are confronting a quasi military force with state-like features and transnational terrorist organization driven by religious ideology.
like a state, it claims territory attempts to control its borders. it has an executive, a command and control structure, a set of laws, a taxation system. it builds an army and supposedly provides services as well. while not recognized as a state by modern nation state standard, it has been recognized by affiliates around the world who have accepted daesh's goals of a global caliphate. daesh advanced this notion by marrying its capabilities to transform cyberspace into another dimension of this battle space. one with immediate affects on non-traditional battlefields marked by terrorist attacks all over the world. the idea that the caliphate exists both in physical and virtual domain is daesh's center of gravity. to highlight, last year's daesh
remained entrenched on iraqi and syrian battlefields and expanded globally to libya, sinai, afghanistan, nigeria, algeria, saudi arabia, yemen and the caucuses. it even inspired terrorist attacks in beirut approximately the same time frame as the paris attacks. this year, daesh is growing more dangerous through emergent branchs in kntunisia and indonesia. it wouldn't surprise me to see them extend further into egypt. it's likely to increase the pace and leal the le th lethalness o because it seeks to unleash violent actions and provoke a harsh reaction from the west feeding its distorted narrative. we know that daesh does not represent islam or the 1.5 billion muslims around the world. yet daesh claims to be creating
by force a caliphate, the true caliphate, a notion that is resonating among the select segments of the sunni community who advocate violent jihadism. it's important to note that it takes all three of these words together to describe the current threat environment. in this setting, daesh seeks not only to pit west and islam but to stroke sectarian conflict between sunni and shia. not so different from the violence of shia jihadist groups such as hezbollah. they seek to create a chaotic environment in which they can thrive. these are exacerbated by the security challenges of the mid the east, which is now facing one of the most dangerous and unpredictable periods in the last decade. middle east countries face simultaneous internal and external threats, including terrorism, sub national armed groups or insurgency and
conventional military threats. some nations have even attempted to eliminate their political or sectarian adversaries under the guise of combating terrorism. while daesh might be at the forefront of our thoughts today, they are not the only nefarious organizations in town. increased international focus on daesh allows al qaeda to recover from its degraded state and it enables similar groups to flourish. we must not forget al qaeda and ats fi its affiliates exist. we cannot count them out. al qaeda along the afghanistan pakistan border, al qaeda notice arabian peninsula, al qaeda and in syria. while they may not have advanced third goals, similar ideology and analogous tools of terror drive them. furthermore, the jury is still out on the largest state sponsor of terrorism, iran and its affiliates.
we do not yet know yet if iran will behave responsibly or how they will invest the $100 billion they receive as a result of the joint comprehensive agreement. let's not forget that since 19, 1984, iran has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. we will not take our eyes off of these threats. we also face uncertainty in south asia, the taliban has launched its first ever winter offensive in order to make a comeback in afghanistan. and it has increased attacks in pakistan. daesh is attempting to expand in the south and central asia as well as southeast asia. drawing your attention to africa, a see a volatile security environment due to dysfunctional political systems and conflicts creating permissive environment for transnational terrorism. in north africa, years of civil
conflict over control of libya and an expanding violence jihadist presence remain the most pressing security concern. even there, daesh has established a stronghold causing instability and increasing illicit activities as well as increasing activities in algeria. west africa's lake chad region has violent groups. the recent terrorist attacks on a hotel highlights the terrorism threat. in nigeria, terror attacks by boko haram also known as the islamic state west african province who are the most violent daesh affiliate, which is saying a great deal, and are likely to continue especially since their alliance with daesh.
parts of central and eastern africa remains at risk of instability over the next year. al shabab attacks will persist. the risk of violence in the central african republic, the democratic republic of the congo, south sudan and sudan will continue despite peace and stability efforts. the key causes of instability, lack of political transparency, corruption, suffocated civil society, violation of human rights, religious extremisiouset rights, religious extremisxtrem insufficient economic opportunity and as far as social mobility are some among many. they will continue to serve as drivers for civil conflict, social problems. all of these issues daesh plays upon and blames the west for its
challenges. these terrorist threats and the drivers of conflict alone not taken into account the myriad other global security concerns, statement actors, the economy and technology, have impact on the way daesh shapes and sizes its force to deal with the future. our mission, simply provide intelligence on foreign military capabilities and operating environment that delivers decisive advantage to prevent andcisively win wars. we incorporate operations analysis as well as science and technology to support our mission. we face a complex security environment marked by broad spectrum threats from aggressive nation states. many of these threats bridge more than one of the war fighting domains.
it spans across multiple categories and multiple regions. all of these have implications for future joint, inter-agency, multi-national and public partnership at all levels. especially our military power will be used. pesh he especially to counterterrori in gray zones. whether the mountains of afghanistan or throughout cyberspace, in addition while these efforts continue in the military realm, military action alone is not sufficient. diplomacy through collaboration is also a significant force multiplier. therefore, we must think about how we do business. we have to take a broader approach to partnerships. collaboration across the services and the whole of government is no longer enough. fully interegrated partnership with our allied nations is now imperative. our relationship with our
allies, our military responses and the way that we practice intelligence must therefore adapt and posture for the future. we must be prepared to operate with greater speed, flexibility, jointness, partnership and accuracy. the way to do this is through integration, not as an end state but as a means to an end. to address this challenge, we have moved towards integrated intelligence centers. collectors next to collection managers, next to engineers, technologists, mission support experts. all in close contact with the full array of intelligence collection capability. this operating model reflects the success we experienced on the battlefields in afghanistan and iraq. it suit ours future challenges because it empowers leaders to manage then intelligence cycle from end to end, maximizing efficiency and effectiveness.
this creates a cohesive collaborative operating model that can deliver decision advantage. our functionally functioned center, it works in unison with the national counterterrorism center and our deployed military forces. especially the special operation forces. it integrates critical defense analysis, target and collection to enable warning, operational decisions, precise action within the far fighters operating environment against terrorisms and their networks. we maintain a broad set of capabilities that aid personnel recovery, exploit captured materials and build identity intelligence. we have also integrated our foreign partners because in today's complex security environment, we cannot understand the world without them.
when it comes to our partners, and other key international partners, it is unlikely that we will go to war again without them. we will be in combat as a coalition. so why shouldn't we fight and integrate as a coalition today? almost two years ago, in march of 2014, we stood up our center, tasked with integrated capabilities to the maximum extent possible. it advocates improvements to warning, collection, analysis, crisis planning, operation and information technology. i would like to think we are on the forefront of international intelligence integration. the more we can expand across our agencies, the more we can advance effective policies and operations. our goal is to take it from a five eyes enclave to an agency
that thinks and acts as a five eyes agency. we're taking unprecedented steps in intelligence sharing beyond the five eye community. take for example our collaboration are france, our oldest ally. we maintained a close partnership not just recently but before in countering terrorism around the world whether in afghanistan, iraq, syria or north africa. we also maintain many bilateral intelligence chairing and other relationships with other partners throughout the world. partnerships with muslim countries are vital to gain a we
here faced by fascists, not just their calculated brutality but their belief they are superior -- they are super kror to every single one of us. in this chamber tonight. and all of the people that we represent, they hold our belief in tolerance and decency in context. they hold our democracy in context. what we know about fascists is they need to be defeated. the caliphate must be destroyed. this movement must be defeated. this is definitely something to think about.
debate and come to a better understanding especially during the following panel of distinguished experts and statesmen. thank you for enduring me this afternoon. i'm prepared, i think, to answer your questions. [ applause ] how are you? norm, used to be one of my instructors at one of the many schools. the reason i went to a lot of schools is because i couldn't learn that quickly. i had to keep going back for more. >> you have done very well. i have a question. would you give us an assessment of iran as a belligerent in this effort, limitations, the problems that that presents and the challenges that that presents if you could? >> yeah. the underlying conflict that's
running across the middle east is the saudi iran conflict. and there they ared acomple the odds. it makes it very difficult. the focus of efforts should be on daesh. yet for the iranians the focus of effort is the assad regime. so i always remind folks that we saw this kind of terrorism that goes back to 1979 with the iranian revolution. so they play a difficult role on the battlefield, because they are the one state who continues to use or advocate state-sponsored terrorism, through hezbollah. they complicate actions across the region. complicates action in terms of our partnerships.
complicates in terms of how we target on the battlefield. they are not helpful. i don't know if that answers your question. i'm trying to not stir up too much trouble with my answer. sir. i generally stay away from the press. i don't know why i'm here at the national press club. >> in an open forum. i'm taking advantage. i'm wondering if there's anything you can share with us about -- >> no. >> well, i'm going to ask anyway. about the north korean missile launch the other day. and what you might be able to tell us that you -- about that launch and whether or not it successfully put an object or a satellite into orbit. >> i can tell you they conducted a space launch that looks to many of us like the characteristics that would you
want to have an for international intercontinental missile. i think it's fair to say that the launch achieve its orbit. and i think i might stop there. it did achieve its orbit. it did have a payload. and i think i'm probably safer to stop right there. >> two objects being tracked. are two objects being tracked? >> i don't know it would be a good thing to talk about what we track and how we track them. >> that's in the open right now. >> the fact it's in the open doesn't mean that i should confirm it. now does it? >> i'm only trying. >> confirming something because it's in the open is probably going to get me in trouble. i'm not going there. nice try though. i think i probably told you more than i really should have.
i'm very careful. sir. >> thank you for your speech. i just disagree with observation that it spread to bangladesh in south asia. our government position is that declared zero tolerance against extremism. in fact, there's no presence so far in the bangladesh soil. we have very effective and meaningful cooperation with the u.s. government and others in countering terrorism. so i'll be happen if i y -- >> there are -- >> so far there is no presence in bangladesh. thank you. >> daesh in their only publication offers five characteristics for someone to join to be an affiliate of
daesh. declaration of allegiance, unity and nominate a leader, develop a strategy to implement islamic law, establish contact with the isil leadership and gain leadership isil leadership support. whether there is a -- defining the scope of it, elements within bangladesh are on their way now to meeting all five criteria that daesh has published in their own open publication. >> it's no presence. the government has successfully contained the home grown mi militant. at present, the country is free of any islamic groups.
>> if it's okay, probably won't take them off my list just yet. i will kind of watch that. i take your word for it but i probably won't take them off the list just yet. sir. >> so until this past may, i was a program manager where i ran probably the largest research program in social media research in the united states government to date, $50 million. i was not able to get anybody in the united states government, more or less, interested in using any of this fantastic technology. that we developed. the reality is that daesh and the chinese and russians and everybody else in the information space is basically up to this point gone completely unchallenged. i don't see that canhanging any time soon. i wonder if you have any ideas or ways to go forward on this and to change that. >> the only idea i would offer
is that those adversaries who cannot meet us and confront us and be effective using conventional military capabilities will augment their capabilities by trying to win the warfare in the information space. so that space must be countered. now, my agency will not do that. i think it's important -- they are starting to do some things now in a number of other agencies that will counter the narrative and confront daesh in the information space. but i think warfare in the information age requires that we find the tools and the approaches and the techniques to counter narratives and present a more compelling narrative, our narrative to our adversary. that's as close as i can get to giving you an answer that a degree with you, but i probably don't -- >> i would suggest for the record that the tools now exist.
it's only a question of having the will to use them. our adversaries are using them well. >> yes. >> and we're not. >> i cannot disagree with you. sir. >> general, thank you very much. you mention intelligence integration of intelligence information. could you talk about the challenges of timely intelligence in attacking isis? there have been criticism the bombing is not vigorous number. some people claim they are being super cautious. can you discuss the difficulties and describe it in getting good information, also confirming targeting? >> finding -- i did an experiment many years ago where we tried to find small fleeting
targets in a large desert environment. 29 palms california. that's particularly difficult. because they're not massing. in spite of the images that you see, they're not massing their movements. finding targets though that gets after the critical vulnerabilities, we are starting to pick up the pace on that. i think you may read, if you haven't already, some attacks that we have done on some of their cash flows. we're going after the oil infrastructure. we have a pretty high threshold to protect against civilian casualties. and that's -- i'm comfortable with that space, because it separates us from other nation states who are not as careful in how they employ weapon systems. i think we're seeing an increased effort to understand the systems that make up this rr protostate. i think you will see increased
targeting. but we are on the side of limiting our casualties to civilians. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> moving on with the rest of our program, just a few hours ago the president of the united states announced a $1.8 billion program to deal with the zika virus. which is a relatively innocuous, can be deadly, can cause problems virus that's moving up from south america but hasn't resulted in any widespread casualties or problems in the united states, except for fear. few things cause fear and have the potential to terrorize u. i than biological events and the use of terrorists of this technology frightens us all.
end of last year a panel was empowered to lock at this threat. we have with us today the two chairmen of that bioterror ifl study panel. they just released the first report from the panel with recommendations on how to deal with one of the most frightening terror scenarios that could ever be brought together. the two chairmen i'm speaking of are two of the most distinguished, bipartisan public officials that washington has seen in the last century. both of them have served on national security issues for many decades and we're privileged to have them in our country, to have them here today to talk about this. i would like to first introduce governor ridge and then later senator joe lieberman, co-chairman of this panel. let's start with governor ridge who served as governor for quite
a long time and then the first secretary of homeland security and has spent the last couple decades deing with the issues of terrorism, national security and most recently biodefense. governor ridge. [ applause ] >> thank you, michael, for that very kind introduction. thank you for your warm reception. we are glad you are here. thank you for taking the time. i do want to say to you, michael, the blue ribbon panel is grateful for institute's strong participation. we relied heavily on professor alexander throughout that year, year and a half. on behalf of our panel members and those who participated, we're grateful and we hope we can continue to maintain that relationship as we go forward. ladies and gentlemen, senator lieberman and i were asked to co-chair the panel. one of the preconditions to accepting the opportunity and
the responsibility was that we didn't want to write one more washington report. we insisted that we also upon the conclusion of the effort and the writing of the report that we make very specific -- very specific short and long-term recommendations to the congress of the united states. we felt that strongly about it. so i'm grateful to be here with my friend senator lieberman. and we look forward to both he and i and the panel look forward to working with the institute as we take these recommendations and hopefully convince the congress of the united states how serious it is. you know, doini don't flow hokn of you figured you would have a briefing from general stewart about the kinetic threat of terrorism and all know there's a digital threat. they live in the digital world and physical world. but there's another world of concern that we addressed in the panel. that's the world of
bioterrorism. it's one of the lesser discussed aspects of the threat. but after a year of inquiry not just in washington, d.c. but around the united states, we concluded that the threat is real. it's growing. and frankly, given the nature of the threat, we don't think the country is sufficiently prepared for it. one of the interesting challenges that -- to try to frame this for the body politic and for congress, frankly, whether the threat -- the pathogen is thrown as you by mother nature or a terrorist group, the impact and the kwe consequences are the same. to a certain extent, it was dual. whether you are dealing with zika or a bioattack from a terrorism, we're still not
prepared. mother nature reminds us regularly the global need to combat contagious pathogens regardless of the origin, regardless of the source. nature is forcing us to deal with a great many infectious diseases. we witnesses the events as ebola ravaged three countries in western africa and across couldn't nens to reach europe and the united states. shortly after i accepted the opportunity to work with the -- with president bush as assistants to the president for homeland security, this is in 2001, i was the recipient of a -- obviously drank from a fire hose. one of the briefings included the pathogens that we should be concerned about that if they fell in the hands of the terrorists, we might have to deal with. this is 2001, early 2002. one of those pathogens was ebola. draw your own conclusions.
we thought it was serious enough then. whether as a country we had the infrastructure to identify and respond as quickly as we did in 2014 and 2015. there has been an awareness out there. think about 2003, the sars. began in china. took a while for global community to become aware of it because it took a while for the authorities in china to let the world health organization know. avian influenza returned to poultry facilities in the midwest this year. now we have the news about the zika virus. again, i think congratulations and admirable that the administration has recognized the need, understanding that resources are essential to deal with it. but if you listen to hopefully to some of our recommendations and let senator lieberman conclude that we can do the
q & a, once again, it's reflective, it's reflexive. one of the purposes is to build an infrafruk stir internally, from a scientific and technical point of view and a medical infrastructure point of view so when these things happen, you may need emergency appropriations but you don't have to scramble agencies, appointees to bring pofocus. we can't forget pandemic influenza, the rise of antibiotic resistant organismed like drug resistant tuberculosis. let's not forget about the spread of sars and mirs. the terrorist threat simers quietly but just as insidiously than ever before.
the aspect of the threat, the combination of intent and capability to use biological weapons, it's difficult to quantify. we all and agree on that. it's a challenge to collect intelligence on the development of bioweapons. how does our country or any country for that matter know whether someone working with pathogens in a laboratory is working for the benefit of that community and the world or to its detriment? the dual use problem is hard enough to tackle here in the united states labs no less in labs in makeshift facilities in foreign countries. here are some of the open source facts about this threat of which you may be aware but bears repeating. we know that al qaeda sought to develop biological weapons. they launched a program in
afghanistan to develop anthrax into a mass casualty weapon. the u.s. discovered evidence of that unsuccessful, or maybe just not fully realized program after our military entered. we know that isil has publically espoused the value of biological weapons for their ability to cause massive loss of life. they have certainly. he press their intent to use such weapons. we know, according to the intelligence community and the department of state, that china, iran, north korea, russia and syria all continue to engage in suspicious dual use for biological weapons. specific activities we believe are in violation of the convention. we know caches of biological weapons materials from old state programs can now be accessed
again. and smuggled to other regions for use in today's wars by proxies which include some of today's terrorists. and we know that isil now possesses what it needs to get a biological weapons program going. a large enough piece of land that can be controlled and secured, physical infrastructure like labs at manufacturing facilities, scientific experts, professional military personnel who would know how best to deploy these weapons. so we believed as part of the panel's discussion and recommendations we need dodd a better job of getting the intelligence community the resources it needs to address the biological threats properly. frankly, our assessment of the nature of the threat believes that the limited resources are far disproportionate in the negative way with regard to the
emphasis we need to pay attention and have the ic community pay attention to biological threats. let me be very clear about something. even with intelligence on nefarious intent, it takes obviously a very sufficient leap perhaps to go from intent to launching a successful attack. a significant amount of knowledge in the institution of some sort of program are necessary for the successful development and execution of a mass casualty attack with a biological weapon. these are fairly large hurdles to jump over and may explain why we have not seen a large-scale biological attack yet. but our study panel and frankly many of the experts who spoke gave us -- spoke with us and gave us guidance actually are concerned that as a biological science becomes democrat kra
advertised and ubiquitous, these hurdles become lower and they will be easier to jump. still our weaknesses in biointelligence prevent us from having situational awareness of both our enemies intent and their capabilities. we intend to work with congress on the upcoming intelligence authorization bill to realize the kinds of improvements the nation needs in supporting ic. finally, we're expressing concern reflected in the testimony of many groups and individuals that appeared before us. the interface involving the interface between the digital world and digital threat and biological threat. experts told us the united states is not well positioned to address cyber threats that affect the biology and biotechnology sector. we do not know how a cyberattack
would affect life senses. we're not sure how well pathogens data are secured. our panel recommended the u.s. government in partnership with the private sector move quickly to address this growing cyber security threat in this sector. we need a national strategy we must be prepared to commit the resources to it for stored pathogen data. we need to ensure that we provide the research community with standards and incentives and support to secure their data as well. although we came up with about 33 recommendations and about 100 very specific action items to help formalize the biodefense enterprise in this country, and to make it function more efficiently and effectively, there was one major, major proposal at the epty center of our aspirations in terms of building a national strategy and
response to potential threat. let me just say this as an outset. we identified over 50 political appointees who are given narrow, important but narrow responsibility in the whole area of biodefense and you can well imagine the number of agencies that have as part of their jurisdiction responsibility biodefense so you have multiple people and agencies. perhaps you can understand the most basic recommendation. our foremost proposal was that the vice president of the united states should be the focal point for coordinating the many responsibilities inherent in running the lose conglomeration of activities and people we call within our government the biodefense enterprise. we need someone at the top who can get the multiple departments, dozen plus departments and agencies working together, moving simultaneously in the same direction so that we can make progress. for us in many instances, as a matter of leadership,
organization and implementation, all the things we americans are pretty good at and all these things once we bring a focus to it, put somebody in charge to hold others accountable for the mission to executing on the mission and the strategy that we proposed. we also made several other recommendations that support the vice president including being members of both the government and the private sector to actually build out a strategy upon which these recommendations would be implemented and execute that strategy again in building the infrastructure we think we need to identify the threat, build the infrastructure internally to respond and recover if, don't want to be breathless about it but in the event either terrorists or mother nature throws a contagion at us, particularly one that we are not well prepared for, if prepared at all. i think my friend and colleague senator lieber and i would be very pleased to take your
questions once he's had the opportunity to share his thoughts with you as well. thank you very much. >> senator lieberman served 24 hours, u.s. senate, but among his many i think over 100 awards and decorations was from the potomac institute which recognized his leadership in policy and law derived from science, technology and ra rationalism. he works across the aisle and gets things done. it's a real privilege to have him here today and a privilege to have him working on one of the hardest problems i think facing the country. ladies and gentlemen, senator lieberman. >> thanks, mike, and ladies and gentlemen. actually, of all the awards i
have that navigator award from potomac is one i still have, because it's a beautiful piece of woodwork and it has a clock in it. the only thing i got worried about, you were kind of to repeat the word, one of the adjectives you used to describe me as rational. after i got that award i got in trouble at home. that's a dangerous thing to be. thanks to you, mike, and particular thanks to mr. alexander for the support the potomac institute gave our bipartisan blue ribbon panel on biothreats to the u.s. we couldn't have done it without you. this experience, general, thank you, too, doctor, and most of all my friend and co-chair, secretary and governor tom ridge. my work on this panel proves that there actually is life
after the u.s. senate. it can be constructive life and working with tom ridge, i proved it can be more bipartisan than most anything happening on capitol hill today. so a great pleasure to work with tom. i just want to add a few points to what governor ridge said. he covered it. this was about america's state of preparedness to detect, prevent and respond to a biothreat, whether it be from terrorists or from nature and it's hard to look at the current state of terrorism in the world, particularly with the coming of the islamic state which seems to have built its credibility in a sense, a popularity in a small radical group because it went beyond the standards of
brutality of even al qaeda that preceded it, particularly with the beheadings, that they're not working now as we knew al qaeda was to develop biological weapons to use against us. the world presents every day, including this day with the announcement president obama has made about responding to the zika virus, the increasing threat of a naturally occurring pathogenic biothreat to the u.s. and to people all over the world. and i just want to talk about a few of the conclusions. this is a program about international cooperation, most particularly about international cooperation in dealing with terrorism, but i do want to seize the moment as the governor did and talk about international cooperation with regard to
naturally occurring biothreats. one of the things that i had known some about before from my work on homeland security but really learned a lot more about on the panel and also learned a new word which i'm embarrassed to say i didn't know about, soosh zoonotic, which means diseases that reach human beings through animals. we learned a lot about that subject and particularly about what i would call the generally prevalent and totally artificial separation between humans, animals and the environment when it comes to biological threats. in fact, among the biological threats for which the u.s. department of homeland security has issued a material threat
determination, all of them except smallpox, are zoonotic. the same is true of emerging infectious diseases, 60% of which enter the human population via animals. i saw an article awhile ago that started with a question, what is the animal or non-human being that has the deadliest effect on the human race. and you can make a lot of guesses, maybe today you will guess what it is. it's the mosquito. this study i saw said the mosquito can be blamed for 750,000 deaths a year around the globe. tom ridge talked about avian
influenza, devastated parts of the poultry industry in our own midwest, northwest and california last year. more than 48 million birds had to be culled and euthanized. that doubled the price of eggs, cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion and reminded us that there were no vaccines or treatment available to prevent the spread of the disease or treat the poultry that had it, but what is actually as alarming is how these diseases spread. avian influenza began in asia and was carried by migratory water fowl who then in various ways enabled it to spread to poultry. how it got to the united states
or to north america and south america are fascinating questions. some of the theories are, believe it or not, that the migratory birds meet in the arctics and sometimes the antarctic and blend and spread the disease back to where they are. this cries out for international cooperation because while it's true that individual countries can limit the spread of disease by applying public health standards in their immigration policies, that is to at least temporarily, perhaps permanently, stop people from coming in who show signs of the disease, ultimately that's not going to work. ultimately, no matter what your overall immigration policy is or if you put up a big wall, to stop immigrants from coming in,
it's not going to stop the water fowl or the mosquitos who are carrying the disease and that really calls on us all to figure out how to cooperate to cut the incidence of these diseases. i saw a statement by an expert on this awhile ago that predicted that sometime in the next two or three decades, there would in fact, unless we manage to come up with better prevention devices, approaches, and better major medical countermeasures, that at some point there would be an infectious disease pandemic, it would make as many as a billion people sick, would kill millions of people and would cost the world over $1 trillion, maybe trillions of dollars. so we need international cooperation to work to prevent that, of course, from ever happening. let me just focus quickly and
then we will go to questions, on two international organizations that the u.s. and a lot of the countries represented here are part of. one is the biological and toxin weapons convention, the so-called bwc, which has presented a lot of challenge to all of its signatories. given the dual use nature of much of the work done in the life sciences, it is difficult to verify that countries are not doing that work in support of an active biological weapons program. as opposed to a more benign and constructive activity, including dealing with the threats that i have just described, naturally occurring infectious diseases. you have got to recognize as our panel did the difficulties inherent in establishing effective verification protocols and america's representatives to
the bwc have expressed that clearly, but just because verification is hard does not mean that we can in any sense disengage from this international process. we have got to keep trying to establish a verification protocol that makes sense and enables all nations of the world to differentiate between legitimate work and that being used to develop biological weapons. and that from our point of view means that the united states must stay at the table, engaged with the rest of the world to make progress on this problem. the second organization is obviously the world health organization which has worked hard to maintain awareness of what i call global disease
pathogenic surveillance. in other words, which diseases are where, and to alert the world when serious diseases appear and spread. but w.h.o. does not have the resources or capabilities to do it all. we have got a responsibility, our panel concluded, to lend our resources and expertise in the global disease surveillance endeavor. i understand the united states has, i know the u.s. has contributed in the past, for instance, sending cdc personnel to work at w.h.o. headquarters in geneva, donating funds to the global outbreak alert and response network and sharing a lot of the information that we get from our own disease surveillance efforts. i also know that the obama administration fortunately has placed a high priority on global health security. we have got to maintain and
increase those efforts in our own self-interest and self-defense, let alone to protect the rest of the world. governor ridge talked about three recommendations, a hundred action items of our report. we don't have time to even begin to describe those. but it's online. i urge you to go to that panel. i do want to say on a day when president obama and i thank him, president obama, for announcing the $1.8 billion to take he preventive and responsive action to the zika virus, on a day when he's announced that, that the finding of our panel was that the federal government is simply not coordinating the enormous number of efforts in this area of detection and response to biothreats, and therefore, i
would -- while i'm grateful for the statement the president has made, i'm also concerned about whether this money will be used in a well-coordinated and most cost-effective way for our government and that's why as tom said, we recommended something unusual which is that the office of the vice president be put in charge of this to give it the power and clout of the white house and also to be able to coordinate what's going on. bottom line, bioterrorism, naturally occurring infectious diseases, are a clear and present danger in our time. that is growing, and we concluded that our response to that threat is not growing as fast. we need to pick up the pace and to go to the topic of today, we
will do it best if the nations of the world are working together to meet this challenge, which is to all of our citizens. thank you very, very much. >> some questions for governor ridge and senator lieberman? >> yes. there's been incredible progress in understanding the nature of diseases, there's been incredible progress in the ability to analyze massive quantities of data, that would be necessary in order to detect early naturally occurring diseases as well as people trying to create bad things and this type of data would include things like social media data, it would include hipaa protected data, it includes financial transactions of all sorts. so where there has not been any significant progress as far as i
can tell is in gaining access to that kind of data. so my question to you is, have you guys done anything or looked at anything to provide access to that kind of data to the researchers and the practitioners who actually need to use it? >> let me try to respond because i think it's a very germane question. first of all, there is disparate data all over the united states with regard to zoonotic diseases but unlike personal health and requirements, there's not a national registry of animal health diseases. so you might want to start with the basics. we don't even have basic information to give to you with regard to a recurring requirement either from department of agriculture, department of interior. so one of our recommendations clearly if you are looking to build a one health concept, that's people, animals and environment, you better
accumulate the data, number one. one, we have to meet that responsibility in the united states as well. secondly, engaging the broader global community to share with us timely and relevant information to the wto or whatever the mechanism is, it's just not our responsibility. we have to be reengaged in the global community in order to develop both access and credibility that we are interested in being a leader in this space. we have kind of pulled back from that over the past several years. it's not incriminating anybody. we have to be more engaged if we want to gather that data. then finally, we made very specific recommendations that the intelligence community is focused on the kinetic threat, on the digital threat. spend a lot of time or resources, have too many people using whatever capabilities we have to determine both intent and capability of other countries, nation states out there as well as terrorist organizations to see where they are in the development of a biothreat. so your question is germane.
it's at the heart of several basic recommendations we made to congress. >> what about [ inaudible ] in being able -- i say, so what about the legal and policy problems, even if the data you knew where it was, you still can't look at it. i mean, it's enormous. >> you mean because it's classified? >> no. >> no. >> well, it could be hipaa protected. it could be just ordinary social media data which the united states government is not allowed to look at on a large scale. it could be financial transactions of all sorts. purchases of different types, movements of different kinds of materials. we know where the data is. we know how to get it. we are simply not allowed access to it because of legal and policy problems and that's ev t preventing us from doing anything really useful. >> i must say we didn't directly focus on that. it's a good question. if you have any answers to it, you should -- i would welcome
that response. i would say this is part of the lack of coordination of the whole counter biological threat apparatus in our government. i will give you an example. it's not directly on point but it will tell you what the problem is. we estimated or we found estimates that the government, federal government, is spending $5 billion to $6 billion a year to counter the biological threat of the two kinds we talked about. but we didn't get that from the federal government. we got it from a university group. i think it was university of pittsburgh. because the federal government has no unified budget in this area. that's one of the things we have asked the vice president to do, if we can get him authorized to do it. so i got to tell you, i build on
everything that governor ridge said, maybe this is -- it's not easy because as you know, this information is hard to share, but it's in everybody's interest to make as much of this available as possible. now if you have left, you can go on social media and get the stuff. that's pretty ridiculous, isn't it? i mean, that -- >> well, it is ridiculous. for example, i was at a meeting of the intelligence community organization, i was on a panel about open source intelligence and i made the observation well, you know, isis, the russians, the chinese, everybody in the world has complete access to public u.s. social media data except the united states government. what's wrong with that picture? >> a lot. >> it goes on and on to medical stuff. >> good point. >> i'm with the united states
army. we haven't forgotten that governor ridge is one of our veterans from vietnam. i didn't realize until i read your bio you did that in the middle of law school, then went back and finished. that's a little unusual. the question i have, though, is about asking if you looked at the genetic aspects of bioterrorism or the prospect that some nefarious actor could manipulate a disease such that our existing vaccines and treatments were ineffective? >> well, it's a real danger but you know, the nature manipulates the threat regularly. we don't know that the next -- by the end of the avian flu outbreak last year that killed or forced people to kill almost 50 million birds in the u.s., chickens mostly, a vaccine was developed, but the experts told us we don't have any confidence that that's going to be adequate to meet the next avian influenza
outbreak, and this is not simple but we have got to figure out a way to coordinate our efforts better. now, we seem to be somewhat lucky in the sense that some of the work that was done on previous viruses may help us at least expedite the medical counter measures to the zika virus, but what you're saying is a real threat. if nature can do it, people can cou do it, too. >> one of the major deficiencies we believe exists within the multiple pieces of this infrastructure, the senator and i are very aware of washington's a silo based operation, and first thing you need to do is connect the silos. other times you need to build new capabilities in addition to the ones you have. is that there is no permanent
infrastructure to take research capability immediately to focus on a pathogen that suddenly appears not necessarily in the united states, but elsewhere. mother nature can change the genetics. we have seen that with the pandemic. it was h1n1, then a modification of that. mother nature does it all the time. with the democratization of science and more and more information out there about how you can since so many of these diseases are zoonotic in application and point of origin, the notion that somehow we will be fairly risk-free because nobody's going to get access to that information, they're not saying they secure it by a digital breach which they could very well do and we are very concerned about the pathogen data at some of the universities to make sure they have raised their level of cybersecurity as high as possible. we don't have an infrastructure, we have no capability internally
to devote resources and intellectual capital to finding an antidote, finding a counter measure. again, one of the recommendations we make, we suspect that even if we could get the vice president to accept that responsibility, build out a strategy, that would be a substantial infrastructure improvement because right now it's transactional. it's ad hoc. i thank the president, $1.8 billion. where's it going? who's going to coordinate it? and they will be responding to the threat rather than having a permanent infrastructure that says okay, we haven't seen it before but there's enough information out there, how do i identify the counter measure and do we have a surge manufacturing capability to deal with it. we don't have that. we are going to need that in the future. >> i would just add we spent a fair amount of time on this, which is there have been efforts, programs have been established that have aimed at creating public/private partnerships, particularly with the pharmaceutical industry but
with the academic community, too, to give us the capacity to quickly respond, ideally to be ready before there's an outbreak with a vaccine or a treatment, and some good work has been done, but you know, i worry -- i know that the naturally occurring infectious diseases are ahead of us. we are not ahead of them. of course i worry that the terrorists are as well. it's not easy to draw the incredible capability of for instance, the private pharmaceutical industry into this without incentives and subsidies because there's not a given market for a vaccine they develop because we all hope and pray that an outbreak doesn't
occur. so we got to find better ways. we made some recommendations in our report about how to do that. the ideal is that we would be ready, in a sense on the shelf, when one of the naturally occurring diseases or god forbid a terrorist attack occurred, to be able to respond and stop it and treat people. >> one more? >> hi. my name is ron taylor. for senator ridge, i had the honor of working with you in the early days when you were in the white house and when you became secretary, not senator, secretary of homeland security. that was my honor there. for senator lieberman, i always enjoyed our collaboration because i worked in science and technology at dhs. i enjoyed our collaboration, the collaboration with our staff and i got to understand your rationale totally through the
questions that came my way, formally, informally, written, unwritten. what a thrill to get to ask you a question. >> go ahead, senator. >> it's his question. it's his question. >> usually when this happened on the senate floor one of the colleagues would say my colleague from connecticut, really one of the finest people i have served with and i so admire his position on many issues, but on this issue. >> anyway, the question is ral f really for both of you. you both have touched on it. i have gone on, i work now internationally. i'm with george washington university cyber and homeland security senior fellow there so i stay in the business and i stay alert to the problems that you all have discussed. for me, you know, the issue is about safety, security and prosperity ensuring that for the nation. i was once director of a study that was called making the
nation safer, the role of science and technology in countering terrorism. so i very much appreciate senator lieberman, the comments about the science base because a lot of the solutions and a lot of the problems are mixed up together in what scientists do. so we have to keep track of that and they have to participate. but really, the question i have and i think that, you know, the solution is what is the role of the private sector. you can throw academic in there if you want but it really is the private sector, and i have heard you talk about the strategy with the government and i have heard you talk about incentives. i would like to hear a little bit more about that. because i think the strategy with the government maybe is too slow. the threats are too fast across not just bio, but other particularly when you mix in information technology with bio. so you know, how do we get the
private sector to stand up for any responsibility it has and sharing some of this information that it owns that can be of use when we need information, we go to the private sector often and we get it from people as opposed to from the government. >> let me start and i see tom maybe come up with a specific section. we are lacking in this. we are living in an age of miraculous progress in so many areas of human life based on information technology, the advance in biological sciences has been extraordinary. we are all living longer on the average as a result of what pharmaceutical industry and medicine are able to do to help us, but we are not adequately
harnessing the -- what's out there for this public purpose. now, part of it is a lot of the companies, the companies that are doing some of the extraordinary work are profit-making companies. they are accountable to their shareholders. they are likely to invest more money obviously in something that has a mass market than something that is going to be on the shelf for a disease, an outbreak, a pandemic that has not yet occurred. so we looked, we have tried some incentives, we looked at different incentives, one of them we looked at was for instance would give them essentially not exactly a free pass, but a quick pass through the fda and a case where they are dealing with a current threat and they have a response to it. we haven't reached the depths of how to do this yet, but we have
proven our capability as not only a society, but a global society to do things that were thought to be impossible not so long ago. so do i think we can come up with medical counter measures that can both prevent through vaccinations and treat both biological terrorist attack and naturally occurring infectious disease, i do. but we haven't organized ourselves to make that happen yet. gov, want to add anything? >> take a look, we will get you a copy of the report, there are four or five elements to it. we want barta to take a contracting authority to go back to barta. we think that will expedite it. we understand in -- we have to do more with funding, hospital preparedness, that's going to be part of the response and recovery system. we speak broadly about incentives to the private sector. it's pretty difficult to
convince any company, anybody in pharma, to take on massive expenditures on their own for a potential market. we want them to build medical counter measures and frankly, we took a look at some of the existing medical counter measures. we know we have surge capacity for that. some of that money should be shiftd into innovation. some of it should be shifted over to the prooivate sector toe more innovative rather than cranking out counter measures. there are specific in recommendations weech recommendations. we want to streamline the process of contracting. we want to talk to pharma about the kind of insonnives they need to make collaborative investments with the federal government. know who will have to pay for the counter measures if we want to preposition around the country? tax payers. because it's not like you are going to go to your doctor, he will write a prescription for a medical counter measure in the event of an emergency. that's all focused in the
report. we think particularly if we have someone like the vice president making those very specific recommendations, we would like to think at the end of the day you find bipartisan support for encouraging the private sector because we don't have the capability to build counter measures in the federal government. better figure out how to incentivize the private sector to do it. >> thank you very much for both your presentation and for answering the questions. as was noted earlier, the blue ribbon panel on bioterrorism will continue on for the next year. progress is being made but there's quite a bit more left to do. hopefully the co-chairmen will come back next year and give us an update and hopefully much more will be done by thn. with that, we need to turn to our international partners, a couple of whom have joined us today. our effort has been noted by our distinguished panelists, terrorism and all the aspects of terrorism are a human and international problem, not a
foreign -- not a domestic problem per se. it's a problem for all of us. the international center for terrorism studies led by professor jona alexander has been partnered with international academics and organizations and governments for quite some time and it has been our annual tradition to have some of our partners here to discuss their views and their actions on terrorism over this past year. i would like to now turn the forum over to professor alexander, who will introduce our two distinguished speakers today from jordan and from sri lanka. professor? >> thank you very much, mike. as you indicated, clearly the work of the academic community cannot be conducted without international cooperation.
fortunately, for decades, we had opportunity to work with international organizations like the united nations, the european union and specific countries as you mentioned. i would like specifically to recall the many contributions in this particular field in terms of identifying who are the terrorists, what are the root causes, what is the outlook for modus operandi down to the mission level and finally, what kind of strategies can be developed. i would like to recognize and acknowledge specifically the role of nato and the nato centers of excellence, for example, in turkey, in ankara
and the partnership for peace as well as specific countries such as jordan, and again, the -- of jordan are well known in terms of advancing the cause of peace and stability in the middle east, participating with israel, for example, and also the role of king abdullah, who after 9/11, we should not forget that he mentioned that what those perpetrators of 9/11 stand for are completely against the wishes, the thinking, the principles of the arabs and the muslim countries. so with this introduction, i would like to invite our next speaker. you have his bio right here in
terms of his academic role. it's a very long list of academic achievements in the field of technology, for example, mechanical engineering, he was educated in the united states and the uk and major general engineer, i would say dr. omar al hadidi will make a presentation and answer some questions. >> thank you, sir. thank you very much. i would like to say a few words before i begin my presentation.
i'm very, very honored, honestly, very, very honored to be speaking in such distinguished organization as well as alongside with this distinguished panel. i would like to thank the audience for bearing with me for the next 15 minutes, 10, 15 minutes. i think i will speak ten minutes but if i carry on, please stop me. our area in the middle east, we all know that's always been driven by culture and religion. this is the history of our area. the home of the three great religions, plus of course civilizations that have existed for thousands of years and those religions have always complemented each other. judaism, christianity and islam. we started along like that and
whatever that came out from that area, it has always been the product of either that culture or the integration of these three religions. in so many centuries ago, anything that happened in that area that was related to those religions, it's always been a fact, a very well-known fact that people have actually used that, but the fact is that these religions do complement each other. they say the same thing and they talk about the same values, exactly the same values. none of these religions, they will say go and kill somebody. none of them. not islam, not judaism, not christianity. in fact, in the last maybe hundred years, 70 to 100 years, it was elaborated more and more
on religion that has become a norm that what i do, it's because i'm a muslim or because i'm so and so. so i think that in the last maybe 30 or 40 years, we have discovered that certain groups from all over the world, not just from our area, from all over the world, they have used islam to dwell on oh, there is jihad, there is this, there is that, when we know very, very well because we are muslims like his majesty king abdullah said a few weeks ago when he said, when i grew up, i grew up in a community whereever we see each other, we say -- like jewish pena people, like muslims, we say
that in both religions which means first of all, before you start, before you see anybody, you wish them peace. these organizations, they have used islam in order to become or to gain certain achievements and most of it was of course against islam. in the last 20 years, al qaeda have used that and we knew that al qaeda were a terrorist organization, purely terrorist organization. people started to know that through the way that they financed themselves, the way that they go to themselves or had resources drawn from certain
things, lots of people in our area, they knew that it was against islam and then al qaeda, as they started to become -- they started to surface. the people started to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. now, if i talk, the last thing that i would like to talk about daesh. i would like to quote her excellency when she said isis, iraq and syria islamic state, or islamic state in syria and iraq, it's not islam. it's not islamic and it's not a state. which is true. end of quote. it is true that it isn't a state and it isn't islamic at all. if we talk about daesh, what i would like here, i don't want to repeat what -- i thank him of course for his keynote speech.
i won't like to repeat what he said but i would like to complement. daesh have always, always managed to grow to things and think of things and elaborate on two things. the physical entity of daesh and the ideology. the physical entity which we know from jordan and from our intelligence with the help of other organizations, that they have always, always had support from somewhere. they cannot exist on just what they have. they must have logistics and i did my ph.d. in logistics, by the way. they must have had very, very, very powerful and strong and very very deep logistics support from somewhere. and the problem is that they still do. so that is something to do with their physicality with whatever they are doing at the moment. the most important issue for us,
whether it is here in the united states or in our area, is the ideology that they are using, the ideology that they are implementing in order to radicalize people. the guy in california, i can't imagine that such a person with nice wife, nice home, nice job, and he does something like that. when the bombings in london in 2005, i was there, i was stationed at the base in london, the four guys, the perpetrators actually or the criminals or whatever that we want to call them, we can call them anything, these guys, they were very nice people. very good people. so the problem is that how do we look at ideology and look at it from the point of view where how can we counter that ideology. communication is very very very
open for everybody. social media is very open for everybody. transportation now, in europe, you can get into your car from glasgow and you end up in berlin with nobody asking you where are you going or where are you coming from. so communication as well as transportation, social media and the vulnerability of the muslims that we in our area, thinking that you know, they are jihadists, they are this, they are that. there is no such thing. we all started to realize that these guys, they are actually implementing their policies and their strategies on how vulnerable we are when it comes to ideology. the last thing that i would like to say is that in jordan we have suffered so many conflicts in
our area and the problem is that we had no interest in any of these conflicts. we, if i talk about now -- if i talk about development, social development, economic development, scientific development, anything, any kind of development, we have always talked about, we have always studied whether here in the states in america or wherever, you always have short term and long term plans. in jordan, we have never been able to have a long term plan development. i'll tell you why. in 1916 there was a conflict. 1936, '46, '56, '67, '73, '91, 2003, 2011. each and every ten years period, we have always had to come up
against something that was actually thrown at us. now we have 1.5 million syrians. everybody talks about syrians. we have 1.5 million syrians, that is about twice you know, according to my records, could be as much as three times as europe had in the last maybe three or four years, but we have iraqis. we have egyptians. we have yemenis. we have libyans. we started in 1948 as about 2.fi million people. 1967, we became five million or six million. now we are about ten million people. education, health care, economy, everything, housing. when i wanted to buy my
apartment in 1982, it was about about $25,000. my son last year, he bought his apartment for $130,000. sorry, jds. about $230,000. all that was implemented in jordan. king abdullah said last week that 25% of our budget goes to refugees. 25%. imagine that. that is a lot. i would like to finish with saying that we have had a wonderful relationship, magnificent relationship with both the government of the united states as well as the people of the united states and we still having a wonderful let's say period where we are working with each other, we are trying to implement peace over there. we have a wonderful relationship
with our neighbors, an excellent relationship with our neighbors, and hopefully in the very near future, we would like to think that that region will have peaceful time where our children and grandchildren live in peace like they live here in the states or like they live in europe. thank you very much. any questions, please? >> how would you say the u.s. could help jordan become an even more effective partner in the war against terrorism? what could the u.s. do that it is not doing to help jordan be more effective? if you have a wish list. >> yes, sir. yes, sir. first of all, as a soldier, i
would like to think the united states has done its share towards jordan tremendously in the last 50 years. we have cdone a lot together an we have always, always experienced that help and that support from the united states. but to answer your question, you know, we know that terrorism is' common enemy. funny enough, if i count now, you will be amazed of the syrians, the russians, the saudis, the iranians, the americans, the jordanians, the israelis, everybody think that daesh is bad but how much are we doing to try to get rid of daesh? this is something that we have always, always talked to our neighbors, talked to the people that have always supported us. the united states in particular, what we would like the united
states to do now is to be and to stand as they have stood before against tyrants, against dictators, and hopefully, you know, jordan will benefit from that, because you know, we in jordan, we have always, always thought that peace is the only way for social development and economic development and eventually providing goodness for our children and our grandchildren, and other generations to come. >> thank you very much, major hadidi. i'm presenting arab league in washington and i'm very pleased to be here today as a newcomer. major, i'm very aware of what you are saying and everything is clear to me and thank you for
clarification, but to say the role of arab league in cairo and washington, i would like just to answer the question my colleague just asked you about what is role of united states to combat the terrorism. i think the international coalition is very well known. most of our countries are joining the arab coalition as an international coalition against daesh and the other type of terrorism, so we are all agreed that this group of daesh or al qaeda, whatever, has nothing to do with islam and are very extremist and we -- very barbarian and barbaric attacks affecting us as a muslim. thank you very much. >> sir, thank you very much for that. when i see something like that, this is very, very nice. each and every single word that was written in here is chosen very very carefully and very very nicely. but the first thing that you see there, islamic.
you know, we drive ourselves as muslims, christians, jewish, from such an organization. this organization was collected from criminals. we know that. everybody knows that. there were originally criminal but very clever criminals, they used social media, they used lots of knowledge about communication and they started to, you know, to embroil people into their schemes, but they are absolutely nothing to do with islam. you are right 100%. yes, sir. >> much appreciate your candor and i think most americans that pay attention to the relationship we have had with jordan appreciate the strength of that relationship. and there is so much discussion about the impact of refugees on europe. i'm glad you brought it up.
it's even a disproportionate impact to one of our strongest allies in the region and that's jordan. and until somebody understands or deals with the instability in syria and elsewhere that generated the refugee problem, we are still going to be dealing with the consequences of instability. that's for a separate discussion. i'm very curious as to the kind of support, financial support, you are getting from other countries in the region, the kind of support you are getting from the united nations, the disproportionate burden of refugees in my judgment, because of the failure of the global community to deal with the crisis in syria and the genocide that's going on in syria has fallen on the government and the people of jordan. would you lay out for everybody here what the rest of the world is doing to support your efforts, instability in syria has nothing to do with jordan. you didn't cause it. the rest of the world's ignored
it. what's the world doing to help you? >> sir, i would really, really like to very very much thank you for such a statement. i'm not a politician. i'm a soldier. normally i speak from -- as a soldier. to talk about politics and things like that, we don't. i don't. so it's very very valid point that jordan is paying a lot. you know, you are listening to his majesty, you are listening to me, you are listening to lots of people who come here and talk or go to europe and talk, but there are millions of people who are actually affected by this crisis in both refugees as well as insecurity. at the moment, jordan is with the help of our allies, especially the united states, i would like to thank each and every single state that have actually contributed towards our stability which is now very very
vital. it's very very important. but the problem is that we are crying out loud that jordan cannot withstand that pressure anymore. jordan is crying for help. it's not just a matter of 300 million or 400 million that is going towards ammunition and going towards f-16s or something like that. what we would like that is we would like the people of jordan that have actually expressed themselves when the syrians started to come in, i was on duty and i knew exactly how people felt. lots of people, they have actually accommodated them into their homes. they did not wait to ask for, you know, help from the government or from the united nations. what we would like to see is that our allies from everywhere, not just from the united states, the united states like i said, have their own. i have been a soldier for about
36 years. and all the time, we have always, always experienced that magnificent support from the united states. the problem is that we would like the arab league, it's very very important, the gulf countries as well as europe, to do more. more not just for the war machine, but as well as for the people of jordan to try to support that conflict which is coming out of -- it's getting out and becoming bigger than the government of jordan. thank you, sir, very much. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much, general, for your insights. very rich issues that you raised and the challenge to jordan now
on the humanitarian level as well as security, just as a footnote, i want to mention i think the definition of bankruptcy that we are struggling with economically as well as policy makers for many decades, one of them as i mentioned, the definitional aspect that you raised about so-called islamic state, and i think again, it is very fundamental to say that we cannot attribute terrorism and violence to any particular country, any particular region, any particular religion. no question about this. i fully agree with you that we do have common ground of islam and judaism and christianity.
if we save one life, it's as if we saved the entire world. at any rate, the point i'm making is that i think we islamic state is, and i fully agree, it's not islamic, it's not a state, but they attribute, at least the so-called -- they declared the caliphate and certainly the muslim world has to provide some guidance with the dilemma. but at any rate, this is an issue for some other, i think seminars of discussions in the future. now, let me move on to our panelists today. i think it is rather a very significant to talk about a different kind of support and
combatting terrorism for many decades and the experience of sri lanka. with great sadness, i would like to report to you that the former foreign minister of sri lanka, we spoke at our seminars right here at the potomac and elsewhere. we see, of course, we know other leaders as well. so we know the story, as far as sri lanka goes, i think it is
important that we have some historical perspective as was someone else's from someone who spent decades as an historian to deal with identity crisis, for example, security and peace issues. the deputy chief of mission of the embassy of sri lanka is uniquely qualified, i think, to deal with these issues. it was educated both sri lanka and canada. it was staging for many, many decades. and he has the role of both diplomat and historian and academic. and i asked them to share with us some of his insights related
to the history modus operandi, for example. as well as how to end insurgency and waves of terrorism in his country. perhaps this will be a lesson for some other nations to follow. >> it is a great privilege and honor for me to be here. i am particularly thankful to professor alexander for giving me the opportunity to share this
podium with the panel of distinguished scholars. at the outset, i must state that i am here, not as the a member of the sri lankan embassy, but as a scholar that has studied political conflicts for years. the diplomatic mantle that i am wearing is very new. i am more comfortable in the economic cloak that i have for nearly four decades. as a historian, i can't agree more the prospect is the key to chart the future prospects. from this perspective, relieving sri lankan experience with terrorism is highly relevant to the discussion today.
in the last place. >> rudimentary arm. finally, the sri lankan forces were able to militarily defeat the military in may 2009. after seven years, we should be able to relive terrorism and counterterrorism in sri lanka in order to avoid the are you kearns of these ty -- recurrence of these types of episodes. >> what type of messages that the military defeat sent to the world. can the collapse of ltb be explained in terms of military strategy effectiveness alone? these issues i intend to address.
first, i intend to analyze the political anatomy of the ltt. then i will address the factors and conditions that contributed to the outcome of the armed conflict. finally, i will dwell on key reasons. primarily ltt was a terrorist organization. mi militaristic type of well planned assassinations remain a key tool and hallmark of political behavior. the political driving force of the ltt was nationalism. it's every move was justified in terms of national aspirations. hence, without reading the politics of the ltt, it is not possible to analyze its character. the ultimate objective of the use of terror was to achieve a
separate state for the tamil people in sri lanka. in order to understand this militant face off tamil nationalism that the ltt represented, it is necessary to project it in the trajectories of singular and tamil nationalism since independence. they are also seen a relationship between tamil and nationalism. in independent sri lanka. furthermore, the colonial state in sri lanka, and the reaction of the state to tam i l dissident a certainly decrgree legitimacy to their struggle at the beginning. another key feature of the organization was the politics. it was a tightly-knit organization and any dissenting
view within the organization was seve severely stopped. in the behavior of the ltt, military strategy always took precedent over the political strategy. totalistic perception of nationalism of the ltt prevented it from having a political dialogue with the performance forces in the south. at the same time, the ltt maintain a widespread international network. military defeat of ltt has been analyzed from different perspectives. the number of factors were identified with military strategy -- with military strategic factors given primacy in that the role of the political and military leadership of sri lanka forces affect a military strategy of
sri lankan forces and their dedication, and the newly acquired fire power within the ltt impact of the democratic changes in the north and the change of international context after 9/11. were given attention. i'm not discounting the validity of these factors. my argument is that defeat of ltt cannot be adequately explained only in terms of military strategy factors. the collapse of the ltt shows the limits of terrorism as a political tool. its organization was fraught with a number of flaws. ltt was able to meeblize suicidal scott and highly dedicated. however, it suffered from a
number of organizational and conceptual weaknesses and limitations. it was excessively authoritarian. there was no room for internal discussion. as a result, ltt did not adjust strategy or conceptually to the changes that were taking place in national and international politics. the leadership cult deprived it of the means of feeling the true pulse of people living under its control. in the finals of war, ltt planned a human shield. be uh once the sri lankan forces joined the sea, people desserted them. people failed to present broader democratic ageneral that to
restructure the sri lankan state. the state became more and more impracticable in the light of global sociopolitical social trends. ltt did not want to change its political objective and its military strategy to settle for a political solution, less than that of a separate state. the tamil society by the ltt watered down justification of their strug. terrorist face of the ltt rather than that of the liberation fighters was illustrated more and more by the neolistic type of assassination of individuals.
the political crisis and the failure to address grievances of tamil's distort of credentials of ltt at the beginning. enthe failure to compromise on any solution other than a separate state prepared for its doom. hence both the emergence and the collapse of the ltt highlighted the thirst of the people in the north for democracy. justice, human rights, good gofr nance, rule of law and accountability. therefore, it is the need to bring democratic political reforms.
wanted to maintain an ltt maintain very widespread international network. using the experiences in sri lanka during the riots in order to weave the network to. but during the passage of time, they also became divided and there are many forces. here with the passage of time, there were a number of wheels.
tlepted to counter. in order to find a solution, we have to defeat both extremism. >> that's it in. >> to uh very much. >> as usualle, i'm invited to say something when the program is already over and late. but i do want to thank our distinguished panelists for joining us today. governor rich and senator lieberman it's always a privilege to have you aboard and listen to your sage advice on where you're at. we really got a good update in this bio study on the future and
where we're headed. we're on the right track there. general, thank you, too. and let me just say from a personal standpoint, i want to thank you for you and your country for all that you quietly did during the iraqi conflict and the like. your knowledge and experience in the region, your understanding of the sunni tribes and understanding of economics in and around baghdad saved a lot of american lives. so thank you. dr., for you, some people don't know just how many years you have and how diverse your capabilities are with respect to studying for peace and bringing peace and working to that end. not just in our great country and the like, but you're well known in japan, you're well known in australia. you're well known in india. of course, you're well known here and thank you for joining
us as well. jonan said how great you are and all that. thanks for joining us. there is hope. i'm the eternal optimist, therefore you're going to have to suffer with me here. we're going to be successful in all these endeavors because we're building the right kind of team work, we're building the right kind of partnerships around the world. we're doing the right kind of things in many places, and we understand that it's not just a military thing, far from it. it's an economic challenge, it's a political challenge, it's a societal challenge, a technology challenge. and again, we've got to -- we've got to make sure that the people who are right now supporting this crazy isis and the rest, these people need to understand that isis and what they stand for is going to get beaten. and once you beat them, the people are going to leave them,
believe me. that's the way it's going to happen in the future. so thank you all very much. >> lieutenant general vincent stewart joins national intelligence director on capitol hill tuesday for a hearing on global security threats. that's live on c-span 3. later you recollect the two testify at another hearing with nib nib zr fbi director james comey. that's being held by the senate intelligence committee at 2:30 eastern. also live here on c-span3.
live election coverage starts on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> we're talking about taking pictures of all the presidential candidates.chieve what were you trying to achieve with this project. >> we've all seen photographs of the candidates over and over again. it from i was trying to come from it at different angle, sigh something more revealing and intimate. an
we were waiting carly to arrive. she basically blows right past us. i caught this moment, which i think is a different take on ad carly. >> a different take also that we see of bernie sanders.fa >> in typical bernie fashion, he he's speaking at the golf club . and he's done and he basically beelines right to his car, has staff that's trying to keep echl press away.ogut i'm standing rite next to him.i can't get him to even acknowledge me, but i think i caught a moment that says something about bernie. >> now somebody that acknowledged you was jeb bush.si in fact, he's staring right at you. tellon onn us about where he is the expression on his face.>> >> yes. we were actually on the jeb bush. jeb with a big exclamation mark. he has a great bus. and we were invited on. and i had a few minutes with jeb and he wass smiling. and i said, governor bush, could you please give me serious. and he said i think about isis.
and then he said i'll think about hillary and then he looked even more serious.and and then he said, i'll think lai about trump, and then he started laughing.ng >> somebody who was not laughing, though, is hillary ghg clinton. she has a bitis h of a smile onu facet in this paragraph of her. tell us about it. >> yes. hillary was not that accessible to us.ways sai people always say come on, we'll give you time with her. hands but that never happened. wen so we would go to where we would shake hands in the line and we found her offcamera. this is a moment where i'm basically a foot awayy from her and trying to capture something, some off moment, something that's not cliche. something that people will ll u remember. sounds like a lot of time invested in this project, tell us about it.. >> it was just -- it was crazy.d every other day, whenever i didn't have a commercial job in boston, i would zoom up, we would be.th my ma whatting schedules. i worked with my studio manager,
and we were just back and forth i would say 30 times, you know,e more. and it was just a wonderful project. it was wonderful to see everybody up close. governors, senators and business people. such a great mixture in this race this year. >> what did you learn most about doing this project zm. >> well, i learned -- i basically learned a new way to shoot portraits for me. to and learned aca way to capture special moment with someone. s i'm going to all these photoops and it was just very challenging to capture the moment when their smile sort of disappeared. by that's what i was looking for. >> we highlighted photographs, there are other photographs by mark ostile. thanks for your time. >> thanks. '. >> i am currently on the fence between hillary and bernie.
and the most important issue to me in this election is education. i'm a high schoolteacher and an elementary school teacher. i want to know where their stand stance is on the common core and what they want to do with that. >> and what's most important to me is our national debt because it's going to affect us teens. and what i find most important is not who you're voting for. i'm not endorses anyone. i want you to get out to the polls, use your voice because your vote is your voice. use it. >> my number one issue in this campaign is getting big money out of politics. citizens united needs to be overturned. until we address that in our politics, everything else is just going to keep getting worse and worse. a very small number of people are making decisions about what even comes before the rest of the population. and for that reason, i'm supporting bernie sanders. >> i believe that it's every american citizen's duty to be political active and vote in elections. as a first-time voter, i'm
trying to figure out what i like. i'm bouncing from candidate to candidate, campaign to campaign events. and i'm here at marco rubio's campaign breakfast pb i believe in's a candidate for everyone. i'm really excited to find out who i like and who i'll vote for. >> emergency operations at the centers for disease control and prevention have been given a level one status due to the risk of zivka virus transmission in the u.s. it's fourth time the cdc has taken such a step. it previously did so for ebola, h1n1 influenza and in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. we heard them talk more about the zika virus at the white house briefing. this is 40 minutes.