tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 9, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
hly 600,000 to 800,000 around the world. we really don't have good numbers for america. it's been put in several bills i've authored but never seems to happen. we need put more pressure on the justice department to come up with good data. without good data you don't get good programs and i'm glad to hear we have 300 beds. when i did my survey three years ago we had 50 beds to treat victims of trafficking. and i have a bill in, probably with -- he should be on it, that would help and fund more beds for people that are trafficked. and a along with our important bill that shifts the focus away from the victim and on to who is causing the crime the molester of children this is an important step forward. building on that bill i i have a bill i absolutely love. why it hasn't passed i don't understand because it's so good and cost no moneys which the
republicans always love. costs no money, it makes money. it gives tools to the irs to go after the traffickers and to put them in jail and to fine them and take those fines and put them into building beds for those young people who have been victimmed, victimized and abused. we don't want to believe that it even happens in our own country, that it's trafficked into our country, and the numbers are staggering, about those trafficked into our country but it happens domestically too. often times foster care children are trafficked. they are trafficked, and when they come to you and tell you their stories you don't want to believe them that no one helped them. their teachers, guidance counselors when they showed them them their bruises and they were advertised in books to be a child prostitute. so the crime is out there. we need to really work hard together to stop it.
i became involved in 2000 when there was a constituent of mine in queens called big apple tours. norman babarash and he would advertise -- even had brochures they handed out to go to thailand to go to the philippines, have as many young girls as you wanted or boys just come with me and you can have just -- you want five ten? just outrageous. so, i wrote a letter to the d.a.s in my districts, and really to janet reno, and of their response back was, we do not have the tools to put these people in jail. it wasn't really a federal crime. and so working together -- his was always a unifying issue. debra price did a brilliant job. we used to have hearings and the financial services committee, and the oversight committee. i have difficulty getting hearings now. you guys have to help us out on
getting these hearings. we passed a number of bills that made it's crime. now you can go to jail for 30 years for going across the world to victimize a young child. you can go to jail, and people have been put in jail because of that. the first -- written in 2003 had a bill signing with the president of the united states then bush, and it has always been a strong bipartisan issue because it is such an outrage, and since then we have authored a number of bills most recently the wilber force named after the agrees leader to combat slavery, to combat this type of slavery, that gave more tools than previous bills. i tried to put in the language we have in this, that is very strong bill we introduced yesterday that goes after the child molesters and it was always shot dune. you could never keep it in. but as a prosecutor we can keep the language in. it's a tough and important bill. i feel so strongly about this
issue, i recent wrote a book about and it had a whole chapter, and i want to show you one picture that haunts me and inspires me to work every day on this issue, and it is mug shots of young girls who were convicted of prostitution. when you look at the first shot, they're young and beautiful and you see their personalities, you see their strength. thigh are then convicted, nine other times, and in each progressive shot, you can see the humanity leaving their face, leaving their body, and in the last picture they are a shell of a terror toured destroyed, person. it is haunt ' it is true, and in its own way it is inspiring for all of us to spend some of our time each day, each week, working to stop this horrible crime against humanity. so, i want to thank all the sponsors for bringing us together and inspiring to us work together to end and to
combat child sex trafficking. so thank you very much. it's my honor to be here. [applause] >> well, thank you for inviting me to be here, and i also want to thank the sponsors. i'm going to make a confession right off the bat. i'm really nervous. and i'll tell you why. i'm nervous because i'm afraid i'm not going to be able to get through this. let me compose myself a little bit. those pictures really threw me off. maybe some of you know, my background. i know you do. i am so excited to have these
people sitting in the die dais with me, and all of you in the audience and watching this because now we're shining a light on this, people can see the children are losing not only their dignity and their hope, and their freedom but in some cases they've lost their life. so for those of you who don't know i'm an old cop. people think that when they look at me, i've been in congress for 40 years. but i've only been here ten. i was a cop for 33 years. and 19 years was part of that
was a 19-year effort with a great team of people to track down a killer who murdered probably 70 to 80 young girls, pled guilty to 49, we closed 51 cases. closed 51 cases. most prolific serial killer in the united states. but you don't hear much about him, and i'm not going to mention his name. when i was working this case, when i started, was 31 years old. i was 6'8" 240-pounds and dark brown hair. this is what happens. but what i remember about that case is meeting the families and working with the families, and they still call me today.
one of the mothers lost a dear friend a few weeks ago. she called me on the phone to cry, and just -- i was there to try to console her. i just in the last few weeks got two e-mails from young woman who were working on the street back in the early 8 ares so, one happened to have the opportunity to meet the grandson at a church event, and she is now a counselor for young women, and she met caleb, and she started to cry and hug caleb. because she said he looked like me, so i don't know if that's a good thing. so you poor kid, you'll look like your grandfather, or -- but she felt that connection, and she added in her e-mail, i cried because i remember he cared. and i know all of you care.
my focus in congress has -- well, let me just say this first. i was a runaway. i grew up in a family of domestic violence and so i know that kind of part of the story. why people leave their homes. that's only one part of the story, domestic violence. but the physical abuse the emotional abuse, the sexual abuse, the kids being driven out of their homes, looking for -- as i think debbie said looking for love, or karen may have said that. looking for love and find it in the wrong places on the street, and then not knowing really what love is. and getting trapped in that life. and snatched away from people who truly do love them. we have a responsibility, and especially focusing on the kids who are runaways and end up in
foster care, and we just passed a bill -- this is the one bill that passed last year that came out of my committee, subcommittee, human resources that focuses on foster kids because if you were driving down the street and saw ten young children standing on a street corner, six out of ten of those would be foster kids in our system in our states across the country, that we have responsibility to take care of, and we're not. we're not. and i've talked to those kid on the street. you talk to a young girl, one week and the next week i'm recovering her body. you give hear warning get off the street. there's people out here who will hurt you.
or take your life. once they're in the life it's hard to get them out. you all know that. all of you listening know in working in the field. the bill we passed tries to focus on what -- well does focus on the foster kids to get them out of the street, into permanent homes, not bouncing from foster care home to -- from foster home to foster home, from school district to school district to school district, but to get them in a permanent, loving home. it helps create an atmosphere for kids who are in foster care to have a normal childhood. where they can participate in events after school where they can feel part of the school community. it's hard to believe that the way the law was previously -- the laws were across the state and in some states the kid
couldn't participate in athletic activities. they didn't have a way home. they can only take ride with the foster parents. so the foster parents couldn't pick them up, they can't get a ride with the coach or with the music teacher or whomever another parent so they couldn't participate. the law also collects data and trying to find those services that really impact foster kids' lives, get them out of that lifestyle, and when we asked t and others to testify they told their stories and in my subcommittee hearings, what we tried to focus on were those young girls and young women who have been through the system who knew what services worked and what services did not work. it's great to hear from all the directors of the social and health services across the
country and all the caseworkers. that's valuable information. but the most valuable information comes from the people who lived it. and i think it's a great start and i know that ted and caroline and debbie and others are working on additional legislation, and we need to continue this battle. our goal -- i was on the domestic violence council in king county as the sheriff there, and the goal was to end domestic violence. not to reduce it. to end it. and our goal in human trafficking is not reduce human trafficking, but it's to end it, period. and i couldn't agree more with what's been said -- and she judge said it best, though, and
i'm right in line with that the crooks need to go to jail. these guys are raping young girls. they need to go to jail. and they need to go to jail for a long time. we need to send a strong message. we will not be tolerating people that take advantage of these young game and young girls, and we won't tolerate the pimps, either. so, i thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and share my story. i got a little emotional when caroline showed the pictures. i wrote a book also that goes to a charity called "the pediatric interim care center" in kempt it's called" chasing the devil" and a story about tracking down the killer. all the money goes to help drug addicted babies and one of the things i've always kept are the
photos of all of the dead bodies, the dead young women that it collected. over those years. and i can close my eyes and picture those remains each and every one of them. their names, and their sights and their families. that's our motivation, ladies and gentlemen. remember the faces of the young women that caroline showed you, and the faces of those young women that have died. i thank you for having me. [applause] >> thank you all so much for those powerful remarks. we began today's discussion by looking at the legislative efforts in the senate but re
turn our attention now to the house, where we witnessed incredible bipartisanship and dedication to the issue of child trafficking with the passage of several bipartisan pieces of legislation. the justice for victims of trafficking act is one of those pieces of legislation, and it was cosponsored by congressman po and congressman maloney, you spoke about the provisions of the legs but i wonder if you can tell us about its significance and the plans you have for exit in this congress. what can we expect? >> the will bass re-introduced yesterday. it passed nancely last congress. just didn't become law. one of the primary pieces of legislation we're pushing through the judiciary committee i'm on. we want get to it passed out of the house and senate and signed in lie and we think it will
happen very soon, add more provisions to make it stronger, but this is an issue that both the senate and the house agree in total principle that this has to be passed, needs to be passed to -- for all the ropes that have been stated. i think if anything is going to pass this year, i think this one be. something that actually passes out the house the senate, and thankfully becomes law so i'm very optimistic. >> i want to thank both of you for your remarks about -- and many of you actually mentioned the demand. i know that when we talk about combating child sex trafficking our attention goes to the trafficker and often times the roles of the buyers are overlooked and how they are not only fueling the sex trafficking market but also for their culpability in the crimes they commit, so i think with your leader show -- >> can i weigh in on that?
>> yes. >> always got something to say. texas, you in the. the number one criminal enter prize in the world that brings in the most filthy money is the drug trafficking. we all know that. but close and second behind is the sale and trafficking of people. primarily women and children. why is it such a moneymaker? one, because drugs are used once. children, like debbie pointed out, are used hundreds of times. second the laws don't punish the trafficker the demand as much as you get punished if you're a drug dealer. and, third the risk of apprehension is so much lower than it is for a drug dealer. and that is why it's
ever-growing money enterprise it deals with a lot of kidsed but it's all about the money. and that's why this bill that carol maloney and i sponsor goes after the root of the evil the child abuser, who is paying for that child. >> just to follow up on what ted said there is, as i mentioned really an under the radar piece of this, and that is the ability to traffic and promote trafficking exponentially because of the internet. previously, before you really had the internet it all really had to be done in person. there was very -- it was very difficult for the buyers to get
access to feed their habit. because of the internet, law enforcement -- and because of our advancements in being able to identify who are the victims and actually who are the perpetrators, law enforcement has been able to identify nearly 500,000 individuals trafficking in child pornography over the internet. now, before you glaze over on child pornography, what we have to remember is that this is a different element of child trafficking, because every one of those photographs is a crime scene. is a victim who is being victimized by someone who is raping them, and then that is a whole commercial enterprise by itself, beyond the selling of children. you have the selling of the photographs of those perpetrators, and actually one thing i want to do just to interrupt myself is cindy mccain has come back in, and i
want to congratulate you on the incredible work the mccain institute and you particularly have engaged in. we're here in part because of you and your leadership on this issue has been absolutely remarkable and we have made so much progress because of your involvement in it. so thank you so much. [applause] >> as much as we are able to realize how much of this is going on the internet because of the lack of resources, law enforcement is able to investigate less than two percent of these crimes. now, the protect act we passed a few years ago -- we have been able to appropriate $185 million specifically to be able to give the internet crimes against children task forces the ability to investigate more, but we know that they have the ability technologically to identify and go after these perpetrators and find their -- find them online bust up these child sexual predator crime rings, and we have been able to make, since the passage of the
law, 45,000 arrests. so ted, you're absolutely right. it's amazing to hear a republican -- i'm going to repeat it because you also said it's about money, which you rarely hear from a republican. often times we gloss over that people like to say in the appropriations -- in the legislative process you can't throw money at it. this is one thing that if we put money into this we're going to be able to get more criminals. but the other thing we have to put money into is the best way to deal with this we have been talking about, arresting people, going after the buyers, making sure that the girls don't get arrested and instead get into services. that's all after they're trafficked. we have to invest in the vulnerable population of girls to prevent them from being trafficked in the first place. we know who they are and there are programs like the pace center for girls in my district
the most amazing program. i want to get you all information about them. we have been able to get them appropriations grants, and what they do is they marry therapeutic services and education and other program because they have a vulnerable population of girls they know are the girl that would likely be trafficked, but you get them into a life and on a path towards having self-worth and recognizing that they should have self-esteem and they don't have to travel down that unfortunately too well worn path, and so we have to invest their, too. and i hope that to work with all of you make sure we can do that. too. >> i also wanted to connect the dots. what judge poe was saying, which is absolutely right in terms of the most lucrative criminal activity being the drug trade and also connecting that up with child sex trafficking, because there is the intersection there, and one of the things that is
happening around the country, certainly happening in the los angeles area, is the intersection between street gangs who were selling drugs, and still are selling drugs diversifying their criminal enter prizes and now because of the reasons that judge poe said are now trafficking in girls. and so if we look at it just as debbie was saying, on the prevention side, we really do have to look at transforming our child welfare system because we are fueling the number of kids that are trafficked because of child welfare. and die have 0 to say that sometimes there's also foster boys that are involved. one being trafficked but also as traffickers, and we have to stop that. we know how to prevent this. in the child welfare system, any child that is taken from home is our responsibility. we become the parent. we meaning government becomes the parent and so we shouldn't be neglectful or abusive.
we should make sure that we take care of the kids on the front end. you're talking about a population of about half a million children that are involved in the child welfare system in our country. i'll give you good example in the los angeles area. we have a court system called the star court, and the star court is a specific part of the dependency court that focuses on girls that are trafficked, and i went to star court one time, it was amazing experience because before we went into the actual courtroom, we were with social workers, educators, treatment providers, child welfare folks, all sat around the table and discussed each and every girl. so when we went into the courtroom, the girl was not treated at all as though she were a criminal but you had everybody from all of these different agencies all of these different sectors embracing the child. but we also do have to recognize, and i believe that my
colleague, dave, was mentioning that it is difficult for these girls to break out of the cycle. well the number one reason is difficult for them to break out over cycle is because they have nowhere to go. judge poe referenced the fact it what happens is we wind up incarcerating them. so 300 beds. we need 300,000 beds. we certainly need the shelters and also have to understand, too, that just like an addiction, the girls have to make the decision on their own, and so we have to be open in addiction. you have to understand that it's a disease of relapse. well these girls relapse, too. they go in and go out. we cannot give up on them. we cannot say, we gave you a chance you didn't take advantage so to heck with you. hey have to continue to have our door open to have those resources, and to embrace these children. [applause] >> i'd like to once again thank
the mccain institute and google as media partnerships in this. if have been part of many bipartisan letters in congress that advertises the exploitations of children. the village voice, a whole section on it. they never stop. and one young woman who was trying to get out of the profession, came to me and she and her pimp -- she was drugged in a nightclub. she woke up with her pimp and -- anyway she became a prostitute. they had their own business just running ads in newspapers. where people would just call them. just -- so the use of the media to advance the exploitation of children is outrageous. and i heard that drugs was the worst, and i thought selling guns was the second. but now the selling of the human body over and over again,
usually until they die has become the second most lucrative crime. this one bill, when we finally convicted al capone it was on tax evasion, and this bill uses the irs to go after johns and traffickers and pimps for their tax evasion and puts them in jail and uses the money to supply more beds. so i think that's a good approach to move forward. but one of the problems we confront is that hollywood sometimes makes it look glamorous. a song called "the pimp song" won the best song of the year one year. "pretty woman" makes prostitution looks like it's a pretty profession. it's anything but. it kills people. and they even have a pimp ball in new york, where the pimps get together and have this big party. i think we should all go and demonstrate against the pimps. or do something to stop this sort of glamor approach to the
profession that you see sometimes in the media and in movies and other areas. it is exploitation. it is murder. and it is slavery and it's horrible, and we have to come bat it in every way. once again, thank you for bring us together. >> on of the other issues raised by some of the panelist is a factor that has come to light in recent years the fact that many if not the majority of child section trafficking victims in the u.s. have had previous involvement in our child welfare system. congresswoman, i know you had legislation in the last congress that would extinct reform child welfare. can you talk about that. >> very specifically what the bill calls for is training child welfare social workers to recognize this. there was one department in my region where i called and asked about trafficking, and they actually were not aware it was going on but yet i met with the
fbi and they said this particular geographic area is where it was the highest, and that they estimated -- they believed it was an undercount -- that the underage girls 60% of them were in the child welfare system. so, our system as a whole needs to be prepared to deal with it. we need to train child welfare workers, but we also need to begin to have the dat -- the data to document it. we do have this problem where a girl -- girls who are not abused by their parent or caregiver are not cared for in the child welfare system so we don't have a part of our social safety net even prepared to deal with this population. so that's why we have to look at it from those three areas. and then one of the other problems in the child welfare system system is that trebling nick click to access federal funding you need to break up the family. you need to remove the child
from the family. we need have a more flexible way to deal with the funding so you can actually prevent the problem from happening to begin with. one aspect -- thank you. [applause] >> one aspect of the foster care system that is the most vulnerable are girls in group homes, because they're not even in a family setting at all. so the group homes really become targeted very specifically by pimps. they know where the group homes are and they will go and recruit specifically there, and sometimes they'll get other girls to do that. the other place where girls are recruited are in juvenile detention centers where girls recruit each other. so given we know all of this information, we absolutely can prevent this from happening. but we do have to fundamentally change parts of the child welfare system in order to do it. >> coiningman reichert, i want to congratulate you on the passage of your legislation
preventing the sex trafficking and strengthening families act. you talked about that legislation. i i wonder if there are any other plans in the committee for expanding on the amazing work you were all able to do. >> well, i've moved on from the chairmanship of that committee, to the tax committee. so i -- so what i'm going to -- i'll be the chairman of the revenue subcommittee on ways and means, but charles bust d -- bustamonte and i have met. what you want to do when you talk about tax reform you want to humanize tax reform. you want to really show people what happens when you cut this tax, or you raise this tax, and when you apply it to the social
services world, you cut home services, home visits, for example, which are critical in rebuilding and connecting families together. home visitations are not a new thing. they've been going on since the '7sod. i started as a police officerin' 1972 at 21 years old. and those home visits were critical then and they're critical today in keeping families together. so when you talk about prevention can we'll be working together at that. but cops know loot about prevention, and the frustrating part nor as an oiled police officer, coming to a congress is that there's a tendency by politicians -- and i experienced this in king county and working as the sheriff with the king county commissioners and council members, there's called in
seattle -- there's this tendency to put out brush fires, and there's some political expediency there and political value in that immediate val knew saying whack look what i've done or ticketed, but it hasn't fix effected a doggone gone thing. just spent money that could have been spent on prevention. so when we think about how we're going solve this problem, it's already been said but i see this so clearly from my past profession. if we can't understand that putting our money up front to address these issues, to keep families together to find loving families for these foster kids, to expedite adoption processes, and get these young kids into permanent homes, we're going to lose this battle. we will never win this battle if we don't focus on prevention.
each and every one of the witnesses who came forward in the human resources subcommittee testimony, who were young ladies who have more than survived but they've excelled and been named most important -- top 100 influential people in the country or the world. i don't know. it is an amazing feat to accomplish-the-accomplishments they've made. but if we don't understand prevention and put our money there -- because at the back end, what we're going to do is -- what we are doing is we're paying for mental health counseling, we're paying for drug and alcohol abuse counseling we're paying for traumatic -- you know what's
called -- help me out -- yes -- ptsd. we're paying for those things versus paying up front and keeping kids in families. when i was working on this case -- i have to say this. in the early '80s, collecting body after body after body day after day, in some weeks six to eight bodies in a week i wondered who cared? and you need to know, coaches care. in this world today where police officers are being attacked as the people who are out there trying to hurt people, are there bad police officers? yes. but are there good police officers? there are lot more good cops out there than there are bad cops and we need to support our police department, because what they're doing out there for our young kids -- and i think if you
talk to these foster kids and some of the young kids on the street you'll find out they depend on those police officers to protect them. they counsel them, and i just needed to say that because there are some big hearts out there on the street that wear the badge and -- [applause] so i wondered who was out there. we didn't get the support we thought we needed. we weren't getting the budget. we weren't getting the money to investigate those cases back then. and today, in congress what i discovered is -- what we can -- the message today we can deliver across the country is that there are people who care, they're in this room they're in the audience across the nation and they're sitting on the stage and there's a lot more support in congress and in the senate, and i thank the mccains for
their support and involvement and leadership on this issue also. so we've got to get the prevention thing. we have to focus on helping these kids get into permanent, loving homes. the one question that was asked every one of -- i don't know if i mentioned -- how did you make it? what made the difference? what was the one thing that you can point to that made the difference? and every one answered this way. somebody loved me. i had a family that loved me. so we can talk about programs, all the programs you want, but these kid need love and they need a home. thanks. [applause] >> well, i think that that's a really profound note end on. i want to thank our panelistsistsists for join us today.
it's busy week and we're thankful for you taking the time to be here with us. so thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> in a few minutes a look at america's views on the fight against isis. then representative rosa -- lawmakes on opposition to fast tracking trade deals to other countries and later a discussion on pending legislation that deals with child sex trafficking.
>> some of these senators been there too long. it's time for them to go. give the younger ones a chance. new ideas. this country is on the wrong path. we not going to get anywhere as long as these senators stay in that same position. john mccain and them they been down there the lindsey gay good-graham. it's the same old thing it's familiar for change. people are working too hard in this country have to work two and three jobs to cake care of their family and still not getting anywhere. something has to give.
>> i'm looking at the overall conversations you have been having and the congress, the government is so huge. what can they do when they go in there today? i tell you they could be like the leaders they should have been, the leaders i was raised around, the men that looked over at the minutes they lived in, and said, these are our children. these are our young men and these are our daughters. what can we do in the realistic way to make this a better place to live? i would -- anyone that is going to care power yield the idea of wisdom in front of the faces of us who are having to work and pay for it, we're living a pretty good life here. take what you got the opportunity to do, and do something right and quit playing games with what you think you're going to value in life that you're going to have to give away one day. >> my question to the 114th
114th congress that is going to do nothing for the american people. i can't understand how is it that congressmen become good people until they get elected. lip they go to washington the lies the propaganda, and just seems disturbing to me that it seems like everything president obama does is wrong and it is sad to me because i'm a past you're, and i happen people come don -- your colleague said he was aclysm jesus said if you do this to the least of them you haveles done it to me. >> continue to lettous what you think about the programs you're watching.
>> senator barbara boxer announced on her web site today she is retiring after her current term. at 74 years old the hill writes that the senator's decision to retire ends a three-decade congressional career and leaves the senate without wound of it strongest liberal voices on environmental issues. the news seemed to catch some lawmakers on capitol hill by surprise. hearst nancy pelosi's reaction about it when asked about it during to a a press conference. [inaudible question] >> what? >> going to retire senator boxer. >> before i came down here. she called me, said she wanted to talk to me personally. i thought maybe she wanted to have dinner tonight or something. oh my. well her decision is an important one for her and her
family. it's all person and individual. senator boxer has been such a champion for the people of california and indeed for our entire country. she has -- she is -- i've always said of congresswoman boxer -- senator boxer. i came to congress. senator boxer, she is -- this will sound like an oxymoron to you but she is one of the most unselfish politicians i have ever known of. she has always -- -- she reached across the aisle reached across our state, which is a gorous state, and -- glorious state and her leaving will be a great loss to the congress of the united states. people of california and to our country. but i wish as she goes as
she -- i assume she is not running but will be here the next two years, in the course of that time there will be real recognition of the difference she has made for fairness and our economy, protection of our environment, respect for our men and women in uniform. she is really a great leader for our country. small in size but a giant in terms of her contribution to the country. i didn't know. all i had was a call from her but i didn't want to keep you waiting. it's a real loss, i think. but god bless her for her decision and i wish her and stuart and their family well. thank you. my granddaughter just took her grandson out for their sixth birthday. they're born a couple of months
apart. so we are very close from a family standpoint. bash la -- senator boxer had a shower for my daughter christine four days ago, five days ago that would be -- and six years and then the next day her daughter nicole had the baby sawyer. so they're just very close in age, and our family celebrateses have been together over time whether it's weddings or babies or whatever. so close personal friendship and of course i wish the best for her in that regard personally. officially i think it's a big loss for the country, but she knows her timetable. thank you all very much. >> this story in politico wash written -- he conducted a pole
that show if current efforts to defeat isis fail, most americans would be in favor of deploying ground forces although a significant majority express open nose more extensive military engagement. the filings were discuss ted brookings instance constitution today. this -- the brookings institution. this is an hour and a half. >> ladies and gentlemen good afternoon. thank you all for braving the arctic blast to join us this afternoon for this event, which has been much in preparation pot
what americans think about the fight against isis. i district the center for milled east policy here at the -- middle east policy here at the brookings institution. one thing we do in the center is we host our project on u.s. relation with the islamic world, and that project is the organizer of today's event. the united states finds itself now just four months into what we're calling the anti-isis struggle. one in which our leaders acknowledge will probably take years to play out and along with the attention to the horrific violence that this movement has wreaked on syrians iraqis and others, questions of
momentum seem to dominate a lot of the media coverage around this new campaign. has the united states and the anti-isis coalition halted isis' advance? is the iraqi military retaking territory? are the kurd holding kobani? it's these momentum questions that seem to occupy so much attention, at least here in the united states. but a lot of the questions that i hear amongst our coalition partners and out in the middle east have more to do with the u.s. commitments to this struggle. after hard decade of war in iraq having only just ended the longest u.s. combat operation
ever in afghanistan, the question i keep hearing is whether americans have the stomach for another war of indeterminate length and scope against an ill-defined enemy that can shift to new battlefields as we saw yesterday to horrific effect. it's important as we evaluate this question of american commitment to ask yourselves, how do americans understand this threat? and then to think about how this struggle might play out not only on the battlefields of iraq and sierra but -- and syria but here in washington as congress meets to contemplate potentially authorizing for the long term american military force against isis. what exactly are americans willing to do on behalf of the
struggle and for how long? and it's to try and get a handle on those questions that we have convened today and it's to get a handle on those questions that shibley and his colleagues put together a wonderful public opinion poll that went out into the field last fall, and the results of which we are launching today. the first part of that poll we launched here at the beginning of december. that was focused on american public opinion about the israeli-palestinian conflict and american efforts to resolve it. the second part of that poll is what we are revealing today what americans think about the fight against isis. and i am truly thrilled that shibley is here to offers these fundings to you and that he is joined to discuss the significance of these poll
findings by two wonderful colleagues. shibley is not only a nonresident senior physical low of left-hand side are long standing here at the brookings institution and also the anwar sadat professor for peace and development at the university of maryland. he is joined today by susan glasser, the editor of politico who of course was also the founding editor of poplitea lit co magazine, edit nor chief of foreign policy and before that a highly decorated journalist at the "washington post" and at "roll call." and along with susan commenting on today's poll findings we have our friend and colleague, e.j. deyoung of the governance studies program here at brookings, also, a columnist "washington post" and a professor in the foundation of
democracy and culture in georgetown university, my mall matter. so shibley will be coming up to present the findings of the poll and then we will bring susan and e.j. up for a panel discussion. i waps want to just highlight before we start 0 a couple of things. first off, as an additional collaboration between shibley and politico today just now, has gone live susan's paper, an that shibley wrote based on his poll findings, called "are americans ready to go to war against isil? " that is up on the politico web site right now and i commend it to all of you. the other thing i'd like to note is that for those of you who are interested in joining a conversation about the poll on twitter today, during the event and following, please tweet using our hash tag, isis poll.
so with that, i'd like to invite shibley up to the podium. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you all for coming in this cold -- on this cold day. let me just say a couple of things by way of introduction about the poll, and then i'll go right to the results. this was sponsored by the sadat chair at the university of maryland in cooperation with the program for public consultation. it was done in the middle of november and it was two parts, as tamara said. first on the israel-palestine issue and the second on icele and syria, which we will review today. there are number of people that helped with it. please read their names. i won't mention them all. they were at the university of maryland, at brookings and the program for public consultation.
also we have a sample of 1,008 -- a online survey conducted by gfk. the methodol you can find online. the margin of error after the weighting is plus or minus 3.4%. let me go directly into sort of what drove the questions first of all. what it is we're trying to get at when we designed this poll. first, i have been really surprised by the fact that the american public, which is -- which was said to be war weary in -- basically because of the iraq and afghanistan war and had opposed even a more minimalist intervention proposed by president obama after president obama told the american public that bashar assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. suddenly after a few beheadings,
was pretty much open to approving, certainly much more extensive intervention that was initially proposed against syria, and now some are even open to escalation of that intervention. so i know that one of the ease -- easy answers in conventional wisdom is that it's all about the beheadings. but the beheadings doe don't explain it. on the hand if it's about the rightlessness of the beheadings, we talked about the chemical weapon inside the case of assad and the public was still reluctant. itself were about americans, think but our conventional wisdom in the past when american soldiers were dragged in the streets of mogadishu in somalia in 1990, that was conventional wisdom that exactly why americans want to stay out of it, not to get into it. so clearly that doesn't explain it. we needed to probe more.
so we designed this poll in part to probe a little bit more into what the thinking is of the public and i'd like to share some of the findings. let me start with the finding we shared earlier but it's important to start with it. which is when you ask people about what are the most important threats facing american interests in the middle east and we have the israeli-palestinian conflict, iranian available instability in libya rise of isis, that by far the rise of isis is number one. 70% of the public say it's number one. and in some ways that brings down the sense of the iranian threat or the violence in the israel-palestine question. that doesn't mean that those issues are not perceived to be a threat to american interests by the public. it is just that they're so focused on isis we give them only one choice, that by virtue of the elevation of isis everything else looks less threatening in comparison.
so clearly isis has emerged as the principle threat as americans see it in the middle east. and that seems to hold across party lines and you'll see in the poll there are huge divisions across party line, particularly between republicans and democrats. on this issue there's very little difference you. have 70% for democrats, 67 for independents, 72 for republicans, so it's pretty consistent across party lines. now, the next question is, what do americans want to do about it? obviously normally it's when you ask a hypothetical question, you have to understand that it's hypothetical. not something they have to deal with immediately. and so we posed the question, what if the current efforts fail? if airstrikes aren't enough to stop isis would you favor or oppose sending u.s. ground troops to iraq to fight against isis?
so what we find is that -- this is hypothetical. so you find 57% say they're not open it to. 41% who favor. 2% 'owho refuse. my only sent when i say hypothetical, if the president were to go to the american people and say tomorrow, the airstrikes have failed, i'm asking you to send american forces to finish the job, i suspect the opposition would be greater. that is my interpretation of the hypothetical, because it's a real issue. when it's a real immediate issue, they are much more conservative in the way they react to it. and here is the interesting divide between -- across party lines, and i think this is huge if you look at it. only 36% of democrats and 31% of
independents would favor intervention -- second ground forces even if current efforts fail. whereas you have majority of republicans, 53%, who say they would favor it. now, that is really an important finding and very important for the political process, particularly in the primary, where how candidates are going to define their positions on those issues -- you can see it's going to be quite a difference. we have seen a lot of difference on the israel-palestine question, huge divide particularly between republicans on the one hand and democrats and independents on the other. we see this a little bit here. which of the following is closest to review in justifying possible use of american ground forces? we went to those 41% of the people who said i'm prepared to use ground forces if air strikes fail and we tried to try to figure out, what is it that in
their view justified -- justifies the use of ground forces. look at this. the rightlessness and intolerance of isis is in fact a factor, 33% give that as the principle reason, but the none answer is that they really see isis as an extension of al qaeda. they see it as just another manifestation of al qaeda which we're stale at war and unfinished business. so in a way it's hard for them to look at it separate tom the view of al qaeda and one reason they highlight it and 43% say that, well above the worry about the rightlessness of isis. now, two other things i want to say about this particular graph. if you look at the number of
people who say that what is justifying in their mind their openness to dough employing ground forces -- deploying ground force is -- they don't give the possible threat to our most vital interests as the number one answer. only 16% basically say that they see it immediately as -- or even can -- the question was potentially a threat to america's national -- that's not what is driving them in this particular regard, and certainly not a look at how many -- how small the number is of people who say, it's perceived out there to our allies. only 7% think that's the reason we should send ground forces. this is among the people who are prepared to use ground forces not the whole population. there's a bit of a divide across
parties but not all that much. now, i want to go to a second kind of question because we have understood -- everybody who does polling understands that on issues like this particularly when there's no immediate choice that the public has to decide on and you formulating some scenarios and hypotheses the public is often conflicted and all sorts of issues come into play. so wanted to push it's little bit more to see the extent to which the public is open to involvement. so, we have a -- the following scenario. the u.s. should stay out of the conflict with isis. the u.s. cannot determine the course of war in syria and iraq. our involvement would be slippery slope going from airstrikes to military advisers and ultimately to combat troops. on the other hand we must intervene at the level necessary
to defeat isis. isis not only threatens our allies, if it succeeds in expanding and increasing its control of oil resources it will back greater threat to our interests. zuo asked them which one of those views is closest to your view. so basically, just to see where they lean obviously in this regard and remember, they have already said that majority said they don't want to send ground forces. but look at this. so when you put this additional hypothetical with no reference to ground forces you still get a majority roughly the same percentage, 57%, who say we must intervene at the level necessary to defeat isis. this is not unusual. we see it also on syria, where on the one hand the public wants to do something. on the other hand they don't want to pay the price when you put a real serious option on the table for them. and we see that here as well. i just want to go quickly to a
few other questions. which is the klose to your view, even if we commit a significant number of ground forces it's unlikely we can defeat isis in iraq and syria. if we commit large number of ground forces we can defeat isis but as soon as we withdraw, they or something look like them will likely return. and the third is, if we commit a large number of ground troops we can defeat isis well enough so that it is unlikely they or something like them will not return -- will return soon after we withdraw. what you see her is essentially only 20% believe that we can permanently defeat isis. and that even those who think isis could be defeated majority 56%, say they will return soon after we withdraw. they oar something like them.
i think that's the reluctance. that is really the principle reason for public reluctance to commit more because they think we're going to be dragged into an indefinite war and that's been the experience. i think that explains it quite a bit. and we see that to varying degrees across party lines. i want to transition feet set of issues, which is how the public perceive broad support for isis particularly among muslims around the world. obviously an issue that has become tragically relevant given the massacre in paris yesterday, where obviously a lot of people are asking the question if there's any connection whether communities in western societies will be dragged into it, whether there will be operations on western soil. so we had -- while we obviously didn't anticipate this kind of attack it's been to pick partly
cloudy's mind. so we asked situations related to that and i'd like to review the questions. the first one is what is your improgression of how muslims around the world feel about isis? must muslims oppose it, most muslims support it, or most muslims are evenly balanced. what you find here is that only 14% of americans believe that most muslims support isis. but they're really evenly divided roughly between most muslims oppose and it most muslims are evenly divide it. so it's a inmixed picture. over when you look at it again by party, it's interesting that just look at the last category most muslims support it, 22% of republicans say most muslims support it, versus only 6% for democrats and 13 force independents. you can see there's some kind of
difference in interpretation that carries itself through much of the poll, even though here it's not as pronounced as some of the others. how worried are you that a significant number of americans will join isis in the middle east? now you can see that you have 40% say there are at least somewhat worried. there is eight% who say very worried. and clearly majority is not worried. but when you ask how worried are you that a significant none of americans will join isis and carry out attacks in the u.s.? surprisingly you get actually a birth -- a bigger concern. you have americans are evenly divided on this one. by the way you get 101% here only because obviously when we
have .5 we actually go to the next digit. so that -- it's not a mistake. it's a reporting issue. but you can see that they're exactly equally divided among those who are worried and those who are not worried about it. and that's interesting. in and of itself. and you see also that there is a variation across party line that by and large you find a little more worry among republicans than the rest. do you think that support among americans for isis is likely to be greater than support for al qaeda less or about the same? the reason i inserted this is because we had this question about how does this compare historically -- we don't have
historical data on this so i don't now how they felt about it before. so i nut al qaeda to see at least we have some rough comparison, whether they see it's more or less threatening that al qaeda in terms of americans joining isis and their fear about americans joining al qaeda. and what we find is actually slightly less worried. roughly the same. you see 56% say it's about the same. 25% say it's actually less than al qaeda, 17% say more than al qaeda. and i think this -- again this reinforces this other issue about what is it that is driving the propensity to want to intervene is -- they're clearly combining isis and al qaeda, a large number of the public is combining isis and al qaeda the their mind. i want too switch to a few questions about syria and isis. and so one of the questions we started with, which is the
closest to your view. if if we expend enough resources to train and arm the moderate syrian opposition it could stand up to both isis and the assad regime. the syrian opposition is too weak and divided. i even if we gift significantly more resources it cannot effectively stand up to both isis and to current regime of bashar al-assad. so basically which one is close toast your view? here's what we see. clearly two-thirds say syrian opposition cannot stand up to both assad and isis no matter how much support we give it, and that is kind of a starting point for their attitudes on that. we then go and give them two scenarios that -- to evaluate two scenarios and see how much support those two scenarios have. one see narrow is assad killed -- see narrow is assad killed his own people with
chemical weapons and is as bad as isis. there's no way to resolve the war in syria without removing the assad regime. do you find this convincing or unconvincing? so now look at this. you find a lot of people find this very convincing. your have overall 70% say very convincing or somewhat convincing, but then we give them alternative hypothesis which is assad -- wait a second -- i don't have the full scenario but we into not a fight assad army and let it fight isis. we had both a scenario around that as well. what we find is that still a majority agree with that even though obvious live it's somehow juxtaposed with the previous hypothesis but fewer people agree with it. so 60 parts find this argument
somewhat convincing as opposed to the other one, which is 70%. then we good to the bottom line argument. now that you have these scenarios, do you think the u.s. military should or should not fight assad army in syria? and you have is a large majority 72% said the u.s. should not fight assad's army in syria. so, it clear reluctance part of it is based on isis i think but part of it is based on other factors as well. i just want to end with a couple of issues that i call linkage issues, in part because when with did this poll we had two parts, one on israel-palestine, one on isis and syria, and we wanted to see some connection in there and it was at time when, if you recall secretary of state john kerry was criticized for suggesting that violence on
the israeli-palestinian front played into the hands of csis-enabled them to recruit more people and focus more attention on the u.s. and israel in their effort. that was an argument he made. he backtracked in large because because he got a lot of criticism for it. so we actually wanted to see whether there's anything to this. how the public sees this issue. so we asked directly, which one of them is closees to your view one is escalation of the palestine-israeli conflict is likely to be used to draw more muss limes worldwide and the alternative, palestinians and israeli violence will not affect either the support for isis or its strategies. its aims are independent of the palestinian-israeli conflict and it's unlikely to draw more supporters because of it. okay so, very clear two options
i think summarize the debate. here what we get. a large majority two-thirds 64%, say they think violence on the israeli-palestinian front would be used to increase support for isis. and 30% say it wouldn't. we further just very quickly -- by the way here's an interesting thing about the divide between democrats and republicans. the secretary of state came under criticism from the republican side on this issue more but here's the interesting thing. wheel there's slight difference between democratted democratted and rubs more republicans think there's lynchage than democrats. 71% of republicans thing think there's linkage. one final note -- not going through all the issues but turns out also that in our polling which asks whether the american public wanted the u.s. to lean toward israel to lean toward the
palestinians or neither side we ran some correlations to see whether those who want the u.s. to lean toward israel had different viewed from the rest of the population. ... linkage in the minds of some people. we find that there is. among those who say they want the u.s. to lean toward israel, 73% say the palestinian-israeli conflict is likely to be used by isis to draw support. so surprisingly even more people think that among that segment of the public. and it also matters for how people want to -- those who want the u.s. to lean toward israel, tend to also be more open to
military intervention, sending ground forces. specifically, look at this slide in particular. where you have those -- among those who lean toward israel 61% say that if airstrikes aren't enough, the u.s. should use ground forces versus only 31%. for the rest of the population. now, i just want to make one point to -- i'm sure we'll have that in the conversation. this is not an indication of a causal relationship. most likely it is part of a connected world view an ideological world view of the same people seeing who want to intervene, also tend to be pro- -- we see that in the evangelical -- and across party lines. so don't be too quick to create a causal linkage but it's
those were quite a bit more highlights in the packet on the table and more discussion from his article in "politico" and we can get into what this means in a conversation with all of you. but let me start by propene batf that what he mentions that the outset. that americans went quickly from reluctance to engage to readiness to support this new struggle. at the same time what we have seen is americans say we have to do what is necessary to fight isis' but
we cannot win in a lasting way. we cannot to fight them or they will come back as soon as we leave but we have to do with it anyway. how do understand that contradictory sentiment? >> i am glad you started with that because clearly there is a lot to unpacked politically and the superficiality and the support for what we're doing is reflected in the fact first of all, what even are we talking about? basically of a war without a name without the political consequences that come with that to say i am struck by the broad support for whatever it is. also with the partisanship.
on the surface there is the striking appearance of over 70 percent to be fine with the policy we are conducting but basically there is a complete cynicism around the idea it will accomplish much and then say what you do to really open up that fissure in american politics for the entire arc of the presidential campaign that is about to begin. >> i want to get back to that we cannot avoid talking about 2016 but in many ways it does have interesting implications but first, and
the be one way to understand what looks contradictory or ambivalent commitment it is a hard lesson of the left and of the last 30 years we will not always achieve our goals but we have to get dirty anyway? >> i think it is a and it includes material that suggest even americans who are sympathetic to intervention the results might not be good. that is the people looked at from iraq by want to underscore is what i see is a ambivalence of the survey there are two different questions with two different answers. if airstrikes are not enough
to stop isis would you oppose ground troops? of majority oppose but you ask which of the following comes closest to your view we must intervene at the level necessary to defeat isis they will say yes. so that means something like 6418% of the people deviance errors to one question that did not match on the other. i do think some of that is that i think there has been a profound ambivalence from the very beginning and iran across this recently to look at the gallup poll before we intervened in afghanistan. it was broadly supported after 9/11.
it was november 2001 when president bush had a broad consensus in support of the invasion and 80 percent said yes but then galop point underneath the numbers in the of that 81%, 22 percent were reluctant warriors and said they classified them that way because they would not have supported intervention had nine beloved not happen to -- had not happened. but they knew had a reluctant warrior but then they're only 22 percent who are willing to intervene before.
so look at the deeper underlying reluctance to intervene even with circumstances when most americans have sympathy for the intervention. and one other point should we decide which comes closest 22 per said we are of likely to defeat isis but this is where iraq comes in. does 60 percent said they could defeat isis but they will return some of the iraq war has created a pessimism or to put it another way there was no longer pays excessive optimism. >> i want to ask you about the comments of a
longstanding tradition. >> first of all so we have international relations various why the american public said i have been enough at what point do they say we have had enough? it is the assessment they can win or not. and there is no real clear winner. but even afghanistan there is not a particular was so undoubtedly it is influenced but i think by ian blige remember after the cold war
i ended gin the mogadishu case of 1990 when the soldiers were in an ugly way. we were in the middle of celebrating that. so we could lead to yet the public said instead of going after them they said the public instinct was not to intervene so i think that instinct is there but then they assume america is safe if they think there is the threat they are convicted.
>> is very interesting because both of you were talking about how america defines america's role in the world but we are not there as long as we are safe we should let things go and a 9/11 change that because of threats. when i found a striking was 40 percent of americans take a significant number will join eight isis and attack the united states. we will release a paper on monday the foreign fighters to fight than the threat that poses to the united states and europe we have not seen a large number of americans to go off. where does this come from? or the intelligence community said this was a
problem? >> first of all, this is the first mention of barack obama's dave is in the conversation. [laughter] but it makes a convincing case people are associating basis with al qaeda they see it as an extension of al qaeda. but my guess is that we are around the possibility from al qaeda those numbers are quite high even with subsequent attacks and is consistent for even in what may be a more harsher response to a perceived threat even if there is a
very low risk at home. and that is consistent from the american public and people do believe this is an offshoot of al qaeda or logical extension of the radicalization so this seems connected with the anxiety that has managed to manifest itself. this survey reflects the unresolved conflicts or contradictions in the administration policy to say he there represents a reflects our has designed a the policy that reflects the of the valencia a ambiguity and uncertainty is how
americans view the situation. and that is what has been conveyed but the president has made it clear he does not think we will be defeating. >> moderator: steve any time soon and will not go to war against the aside government anytime soon. >> obama is position reflects with the country to act on isis but it is reluctant to get too involved in it shows why the president did not push ahead to you get authorization.
and why the congress did not seem prepared. it is enormous to cross party lines. but i was struck by the enormous number that paranoia as strikes deep. and i would love to see work in this survey about which americans believe that the of what it might be like if you took that in the morning after paris. anybody who has free expression has to be horrified the murder does
not settle arguments it just tends lives. but it does appear the attackers were frenchify a.m. correct. will the nuremberg call-up or increase our paranoia? i would say i don't share that view particularly looking at the history of the american muslim community that is a historically moderate community so the odds of that happening strike me as very small but look at this people say to i have to check that? but it was a very big number >> you are probably right if
there was a poll today or tomorrow. because generally i think they have differentiated between europe and america. but second, that number is high but the number of people have said they're very worried is very small. is the most ideological and to have a rough comparison with al qaeda anything less with the capacity so it is high for asher but it is not as intense to be careful not to over interpret. >> so we're not in the
public opinion environment where people were willing to contemplate a lot of things but i want to come back to the point that is saved president obama has done a masterful job of reflecting public opinion. a year of his policy as he has regulated demands from the intelligence community and allies in the region and from congress to deal with the question of isis said the american public says aside is terrible but the syrian opposition cannot defeat them so maybe we should over investor the military should not try to
defeat him. it is not our priority. each of those three findings came out. if obama had tried to leave it well -- trey incubated well then word is a lead congress to authorize the fight? in those who want to you tie this administration and the next ones haydn's with issues of ground troops where they will have some support that is one question what is the authorization of look-alike if congress will reflect public opinion? what does this say the fight is in the republican party
over for a policy between more interventionist views and more reticent? to rehab in the ambivalent public. >> is that made john mccain has already lost the argument? >> go ahead and start. >> one of the paradoxes for the president that is even more obvious before is the election when his numbers were lower you seem to have all bought his policy of matching public opinion pretty well but yet the approval of his foreign policy was weighed down. republic hands would disapprove obama probably if he could change straw into
gold then there is wrong with the gold so there is a feeling against obama but americans do not want a disorderly world and they don't want us to do too much. and a famous observation that with the ideological conservatives they do in theory but similar the americans are interventionists but optimistically cautious. [laughter] >> you can see that in our faces. so with the president there is a challenge somehow they want the trouble stowaway
but republicans betted airstrikes were not enough bluetooth send ground troops? so if the hawkish views still her veils very narrowly i think that points potentially to a very interesting debate inside the party has always bendy libertarian view and rand paul will try to speak to that you but it is an awfully large minority. >> and i a agree there is the ideological component where support for israel is
much higher but to be as safe portion and the supporters of israel have not complicating it even further because you talk to a presidential race and for policies may not to line up with the evangelical forces like number one and if it is a bigger issue in that 16 presidential campaign i think that seems to be how would is playing out. also israel is much higher across the board more than direct to get back to the
previous conversation that is important when you think of the after effects very likely to play out very differently because this is a neighborhood issue for our partners say in europe to make it much more comparable to think is happening in canada they and our reaction and it also of those factors that exist because of that rock hard support for israel. in the democratic party recently about our attitudes talking about 2016 is the
republican story but remember it was hillary clinton when she was secretary of state back dash up with it david petraeus and also to do more with his syrian opposition. in that. >> did you design that the area of policy? civic maybe so that he did that would pay descanted through -- disapprove? [laughter] >> the consequences on for a policy is striking of course, but i certainly believe it is a major issue of the campaign but because
i think the president is relatively popular and other issues if the economy continues his numbers are not good on foreign policy and that will be picked on by the republican side but that will change the dynamics but the leadership is not a very wide. the grass roots that we sat on the run dash this will be
interesting for the primaries with said democratic and republican party. it will be in issue but the final point that you suggested maybe that it was calibrated this way because you end date gives the president with that insinuation that it could be helpful in dealing with cheese tin because in some ways that plays nine to this
that the with national praise. >> debra the policy is not s. hack but we said he. >>. >> is not have a structure students defaced a rich. and then to reach an first beta of faith payloads louise hay? >> that's right. but this is an issue that is deeply ingrained in a lot of the people that caveman with the president.
ingrained in a lot of the people who came and with the president and it is partly an iraq hangover but i think it's partly much deeper than that. which is a keen sense of the limitations of american capacity to accomplish things particularly but not only using force in the world. we try and we may have good intentions. we may bring tremendous resources into it but it often impacted mostly doesn't work. i was struck over and over again by it while i was in the frustration and since i have left the sense of incapacity and the way that constrains willingness. this is not dare and dare greatly. it's also not importantly a caricature that i think many in the mccain camp of the
republican party put out there. it is not post-vietnam america is a bad actor. it's a maligned actor in the world. it's a believe that no america is a benign actor. it's just not a very capable actor. we are not bad. we just. and i think that's a pretty powerful sense. >> also among the american public as these numbers reveal and therefore something that i think coming in sense of the obama administration has only been reinforced by what they have experience in office and by what the public is telling them as the problems mount and mount. >> just one second because i don't think the public's ambivalence is stupid. >> i don't mean to say that it is. >> i know he didn't mean that but i recast the
administration's view just a little bit which is to say there are some things even a competent power can't achieve even if they put in vast numbers of resources. i think that is a lesson that a lot of people drew from iraq which is if the circumstances on the ground are not in a situation where an american intervention could then lead to ask why and see happening and a happy result than all the confidence in the world and all the resources and all the human beings we still won't get the result we want. therefore a certain amount of caution is in order. i think that would be my sense of the ambivalence view comes down to. >> fair enough and also an appreciation of how much more complicated the world is today. >> it's really hard. >> things are really really hard. i want to get to one more point before it opened up to all of you and shibley you mention this
in your opening presentation that there is especially on the right may be in those cross tabulations on the last couple of slides there's an ideological continuity across issues whether it's israel-palestine, syria and isis. can you help us understand a little bit what this constellation looks like? it's not neoconservative. it doesn't seem to be partisan. how do we understand that? >> is really interesting because we see it in the democratic party and the republican party and when i probed on the middle east specifically it's interesting what you get. on the republican side the most intensely held views on foreign policy that tend to be conservative come out of people who classify themselves as evangelical born-again. a significant percentage of the republican party right now nearly half of the republican
party. this is not a small group but a lot of those views, or worldview if you wish comes out of that. it requires deep analysis to how this group and obviously they are diverse and i do want to suggest they are not diverse but overall and foreign policy they tend to be much more in agreement that on the democratic side i suggest they're something you might call a human rights community that has emerged. i bunched bunched up and even tested to see whether for example people who are expressing views on israeli issues are serious issues are doing it because they care about israel or they have taken sides or they care about american strategic interests. turns out the number one concern for much of that constituency is human rights. so there is a community where the reference point isn't necessarily specific issues and what those without is a particular interpretation. doesn't always tell you whether
we should intervene are not because you could take it both ways but i think there's a worldview and may be multiple worldviews within each party and therefore i think it wouldn't be surprising if people are not analyzing the relationship between issues. is it good for iran are good for isis are good for assad and day on the whole have a propensity to ascertain it in a particularly because of the worldview. yes we can defeat assad and yes we can defeat aside the isis and iran at the same time. some people feel -- to take these views india people who say we can do anything, forget it. so what i'm suggesting is while obviously we need to focus on what is suggested on the small segment that sways from one site to the next we are starting off with people who have roughly
entrenched views that come out of the worldview and not so much out of analyzing a particular strategic consequence of a reaction. i think that's clear in my mind. that's why suggested we shouldn't jump to conclusions about cause and effect when we look at correlations in these results. >> okay, great. let me open it up for questions from the floor at this point and is going to reiterate our house rules. number one please wait until you are called the number two please identify yourself before asking your question number three one singular question. thank you very much and we will start right over here. >> former u.s. ambassador to syria. i'm going to get to the question pretty quickly but too fair --
to paraphrase dick cheney before the iraq war even if there's a 1% chance or less that terrorists or iraq gets their hands on weapons of mass destruction we have to go all out. and i wonder shibley if you had a question that would say something to this effect and what i'm getting at is a lot of americans seem to have exaggerated fear of terrorism and isis and what could happen to them and their families and communities but we keep sending the same people over and over again to fight a war that we say we can't win. so the question is if you had concluded in your survey how would you feel about this if the draft was reinstituted in somebody close to you was going to possibly be sent to fight this war that you are in favor of. how would you then feel about it? >> i would be interested in that. it seems to me it has become too easy for hawkish inclinations to
say i'm a little concerned so i think we ought to send in the 82nd airborne. >> do you want to take take one time? >> why don't we take one more if you don't mind shibley and then we will come back. in the third row here. yes. >> i am from the muslim public affairs council and the question is in spite of the fact that it's mostly muslims in the case of kurds and iraqis and syrians fighting against isis there are rumblings within certain sectors of the media here and in social media that muslims are somehow not doing enough to counter ices so i'm wondering if you actually included that kind of information or probed for that within your survey and what your findings were. >> good, okay. >> let me start with ted's question which is a good one in highlighting the choices that people face and as i said in my opening remarks usually the more
realistic the option is immediate to them the more conservative they become undoubtedly. it doesn't have to be about the draft. as i said when you're given a hypothetical one of the airstrikes are not enough? would you support it, that's a theoretical yes. if tomorrow i suggested obama obama says that at work i'm going to send troops they are going to get fewer numbers of people who support so you have to keep that in mind. there's always a connectedness with the reality and yet let's also be realistic. the president asked them to strike syria from afar just by shooting missiles punitive and they said no. the president said i'm going to send you now my air force and some logistical support to iraq and syria for the first time and they supported it. so the public you know, they
will sometimes support it but the question is what is the limit? and that wasn't just hypothetical. that was a real question. and on the second question i have been asked that question and i'm sure there are others who have. this is something certainly often that is debated so are muslims doing enough? i suspect regardless of whether they are doing or not doing enough you are going to get probably a large percentage of people who say probably not. i wouldn't think a majority but i would think he would get a large number of people who would take that position just like a lot of people are worried they would be americans who would join. i would expect that. that obviously doesn't mean that's true. you know there's a whole debate and all kinds of combinations of this and even in france talking
about quote we are not like the french and we are not obviously but the french when you look at the muslim french overwhelmingly they are moderate. most of them are secular and most of them don't want anything to do with religion like the rest of the french population. so the fact that you have these criminals who are conducting these awful attacks is not a representation. you can't lump it together. it's a problem obviously in some sentiments that people are dealing with. objectively i think the question on where you place the emphasis on who is doing what in terms of fighting. but if you want to look for voices or condemnation you could look in egypt today to leaders across the arab and muslim countries to community leaders including imams in various
groups so you have condemnation. i don't think that's going to matter because those people who are carrying out these horrific attacks use religion as an instrument. they are killers and their aims are political and i think, i'm not sure delegitimizing by the mainstream is necessarily going to be effective affected. >> it's interesting to the gap between i think the intelligence community both here and you're up there understanding of the muslim communities within their borders and the percentage that are radicalized versus the vast majority who are opposed to such radicalization and the perception of the public. clearly there's a big gap there and jim hoagland i think had a wonderful piece in the post they came out this morning about the challenged the french government faces in responding to this because they are going to face contending pressures.
it's very polarized. we have already seen a lot of strengthening of the very right-wing anti-islamic anti-immigrant political forces inside france and inevitably partly by design the guys who did this are stoking the growth of that sentiment. >> two quick points. one on the french and i'm not knocking the french. what i was saying is what i do think is the case in other words shibley i was talking about american muslims are not like they're muslims islam's specifically the class position of american than the class position of muslims in france and francis had a very large group of relatively poor
unemployed muslims to the degree degree. that's not the case in american-muslim community and this gentleman's question which i do think the whole issue about the fact that we don't have a draft and few members of congress have sons and daughters in the military very few is important. i didn't read this poll is terribly hawkish and even on the question we must intervene at the level necessary to defeat eyes to defeat eyes as they alternatively was worded worded strongly in the way to put people into that with the u.s. should stay out of the conflict with the ices which god 39%. i think a lot of people may have drifted to the more hawkish answer because their view is we shouldn't stay up but we still don't want to send ground troops. i saw a certain determination about ices but not a really hawkish result. >> interesting though that 39%