tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 8, 2015 12:00am-10:01am EST
struggle it transcends any distinction of national and religious identity, start overtime people who are intent on opening wounds versus those that want to close them. the legacy endures as a challenge, and then his memory i asked everyone to try to find a way that we commit to use our words and actions to advance the cause of piece. [applause] [applause] >> wonderful to have you here.
that was a great speech. i just want to say on behalf of everyone here how much we appreciate everything that you do. your untiring efforts in every regard, not just the israeli-palestinian issue, climate change. your inspiration, and we hope. in that regard. >> i have to ask him all the questions. your staff said i was the only one i could ask you questions. in that regard there is a certain sense of what you had to say. the underlying message is
basically it's up to them now. it is up to the palestinian authority and the government of israel that in a sense you have done what you can. is that the message? >> not completely. not entirely. is there frustration? sure there is. you were there working with us. we may great progress. we advance the ball in many different ways. very close. things got in the way of it. i don't want to go backwards , but i think that i believe we do still have -- exclusively not up to them but it is mostly up to them.
we can help shape, support, provide a foundation which will give them confidence that if they do x, y, or z we will be there, others will be there in the following things will happen that is important. the united states always plays a fairly critical role in providing that kind of assurance, and we are an unparalleled convener. we have an ability to bring people to the table, to help in these matters. but fundamentally -- and i say this respectfully, folks outside the on the other side of the fence, the choices are clear. if they get weaker i believe
that is a danger for islam. how is israel advantaged out of chaos in the west bank or to have another war with gaza? gaza is ready. it is very, very tense. it is important for us to take steps with respect to gaza and the west bank together. there are some things he is prepared to try to do. the violence is made the climate difficult. politicians screaming at you it closes the political space but nevertheless you have to do what is in the best interest of the country the one person who is most committed to nonviolence,
you send an incredibly negative message to the rest of the people who are frustrated. you have to give life to these instruments are want to find ways to give life to them in order to feel that different set of possibilities. right now a lot of young people growing up in the west bank you don't see a future and the question is what choices we will they make? i think israel has a vital national security interest in morning to do more. i believe there are people within the security establishment who believe just what i said.
is predominantly up to them and asked to be a greater indication of the thingsthat are willing to do to move down the road. >> an example, oslo divided the west bank and the three sectors. a sector which has exclusive security and administrative rights. security in israel, administrative the palestinian. 60 percent, as i just said.
notwithstanding that it is supposed to be exclusively within the jurisdiction, and the reason for that, israel asserts that they do not do it and have not done things to protect israel and so forth. so israel is going to resort to self-help. there should be a greater effort cooperatively with everyone including us. military representative to west bank. work with them and uphold the agreement. we started this process we put in a bunch of economic measures. increasing the amount of water that flowed, the number of permits for work.
the problem is we are three years down the road with a disappointing process in the intervening time that reduces trust and hope. just coming in with the same kind of measure will not get it done again. what i'm trying to persuade people is to go further to indicate a political horizon , something that begins to say yes, you can have a state. there is a way to get there. open up opportunities for them build, have some agriculture,agriculture, do some business and begin to strengthen themselves. that will begin to send a very different message. it does not mean you have a big negotiation.
that opening up a new set of promises personnel, you cannot produce, but it is real and tangible in terms of the transition. as i said earlier, it does not have any negative impact on israeli security because he was still have the legal right to israel for full security. only affects the right to build some housing. that is one of the kinds of steps. >> and it sends a signal. >> that is absolutely correct and very important. right now because of the municipality laws and the settlements that are there there is a significant reduction in the availability, a lot of areas that have been taken under state control and therefore
are not available to palestinians which raises questions about whether it is ever going to come back or not where israel is really going with this. both sides have legitimate questions, the other day i was in cyprus where we are working hard to try to break the conflict. and i had dinner with the leader of the turk and president of us does he at least, the leader of the greek separatists. and we have now built the support of the turkish government angry government very much supporting the movement forward, and they are talking to each other. they had dinner together and they sat there and had a discussion about how they can provide for each other security on my resolve. that doesn't happen in this conflict. 1948. it does not happen. so we have to change the paradigm.
rather than keep blaming each other we have to start saying you know what, we have to build. we need to build command that is what we think these policies can begin to do. >> well, he needs to change the rhetoric about law. he made some very incendiary comments about the alloc's of moss. there were some very insightful comments made. i think one of the problems is he does not control some of the people. it is not control the arab-israeli the runaround and grab a knife. nobody controls that now. that is social media driven and a reflection of some of the challenges we face with what is happening in terms of the radicalization of unemployed youthful populations that have no sense of future.
so the issue here is can the palestinians work with, deal with a transition in their own government which has to improve? there are levels of corruption and challenges that must be taken on. there are in addition textbooks, education, things like that, a lotthat, a lot of things that could begin to change that would reflect the israel that the palestinians are working. but if you are not sitting down all you are doing is hurling invective is on each other on aa daily basis, there is no prayer of beginning that kind of conversation which is a problem today. other than the security exchanges there is good cooperation there when they are working still despite everything else.
you could begin to break down some of these barriers. >> one more question. you have done an amazing job all of these external parties around the table. they disagree on so much. how do you see them actually getting to an agreement for the commitment? if i said i am going to go, the russians who fear that there will be chaos, the saudi's who won't do anything unless, how do you navigate that? in particular, how do you deal with the fears about the day after? that seems to be what motivates a lot of the concern. >> you don't have one day after.
you have a process. and this is what we work hard to achieve. i had a very constructive meeting with the prime minister in belgrade the other day on the sidelines of the osce. and that followed a very constructive meeting that president obama and i had with president the day before in paris. two days before in paris where we really talked about these questions and believe it or not despite all the other problems it was genuinely constructive and trying to find answers. i think russia understands and he ran is coming to understand that the better how much you might want to be, even if we were the most machiavellian and went back
on the promises, which we are not about to do. couldn't do it. you can't do it. there is no way to stop the support for the sunni fighters. on that side of the ledger there is no way to stop them from attacking going after. you can't end the war. part of the attraction is the fact that they are there
external assault by the rest of the world comeau which if you have the right narrative you can build and do a pretty good recruitment tool which is what they are doing which is the danger. and so if they stay those who are continuing to fight will attract more jihadists. and ultimately it is they who will be the tougher fighters of the better on in the more perceived as capable of getting rid of the sod. then what do you have? that is your day of implosion, progressive transfer. in doing so they are supporting hezbollah, iran,
and the sod. and if you have an interest in having a relationship with the sunni world which they do that is not a good equation. so i think that there is a reason here. that isthat is what happens and diplomacy or in anything. politics. people have to have a reason, and interest. your interest has to be defined and you have to be able to make a tangible. russia has lost america. a report on unrest in russia i think there are reasons that we all have to want to end this as fast as possible. we are trying to set up a transitional negotiation
where a sod has to begin to devolve some power. the election is fixed. a ran had its own proposal of cease-fire, constitutional rewrite, unity government an election. the question here is when and how can we get to the point where it is clear that a choice must be made and you can have a smooth transition with the christians are protected, jews are protected, the sunni are protected and you have all segments of society. the other thing, as i said is a nonsectarian unified state.
it is absolutely vital to have a ran, turkey, jordan, lebanon, russia, the united states and all the other allies united and wanting a united syria. that is why this is sort of a decent shot. if russia and iran stand as a block and allow a sod to simply stiff the process and get in a transitional it will be clear the problem children are and are options will be narrowed. what happened in paris. they can alter the politics of europe in an existential
way forever. we all have an obligation to recognize danger, danger to russia because there are more than 2,000 chechnya and spiting, learning tradecraft so there is a lot of reason that people have an interest. what we have been doing and is the right strategy, trying to underscore to everybody what their interests are and get them to act on those interests. if we can do that successfully we may get somewhere. i'm not sitting here saying that this will work. i am saying that it could if everyone plays the role making the right choice. if they don't we are still going to have to go destroy them. we will just have to decide to do it in a different way. >> i think i speak for
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the forum also heard from the israeli defense minister the talked about several regional issues and the role of the us. this is an hour and 20 minutes.
libya, russian airliner, i'll be sure front, al qaeda , hezbollah, buckle around, sinai, a sod, hamas, and many more. allall of the names, places, and organizations i just mentioned are united by a common theme which can be summarized into words, chaos and confrontation. everywhere we look around the world there is mayhem. and no one, no one is better positioned to address these challenges and to speak with us about them tonight than the israeli ministry of defense also known as bogie.
a little background. israel's minister of defense since march 2013 after serving as vice premier administer a strategic affairs. a defeat. throughout his career he has played an instrumental role in keeping israel secure and strengthening the ongoing security and military cooperation between israel and the united states. but there is another side that i would like to share with you. my wife and i are staunch supporters of friends of the israel defense. what we do is take care of the well-being of the young
men and women who defend the jewish motherland. and motherland. and i can attest to the fact that ministry alone has not just committed himself to the protection of israel and his people but he also carries the personal sense of responsibility toward every single one of these young men and women who protect the jewish motherland. and for that we are forever thankful to you, minister. [applause] so tonight the minister will be in a conversation with the seasoned savant form veteran. we all n associate editor and distinguished columnist of the post. and the author of eight spy
novels filled with tension with nothing to do with reality, all fiction. but a lot of fun. ladies and gentlemen please welcome defense minister alone in my friend. [applause] >> thank you. it is nice to be called seasoned, although i would note that when he heard that he said to me it sounds like a salad. maybe not so great. it is great to be here. i will call him mr. minister. and i want to begin with the issue that everyone here was thinking about today.
we have had a terrible tragedy in san bernardino california. and we have learned that shooters certainly a wife has had a connection online at least a sworn allegiance online to the leader of isi s which means that we are now living with a kind of terrorism in our midst that israel has lived with for all of its history. i want to ask you to begin by giving us some do's and don'ts. you know what we ought to do and you also know what we should not do. begin with that.
>> it is good to be here. thank you for inviting me. it is good to be among friends here. i can't start answering the question without mentioning the former minister. i knew both of them. both of them were committed and devoted. bless them. [applause] going to your question, --dash is not just a group of terrorists. ..
dash or something else or nothing. to be available in the united states this is a global challenge in which i believe in the united states should be the leader in order to meet this challenge >> so i need to ask is president obama danehy a strong enough leader in this moment? does he need to speak up more? >>. [laughter] meet.
states can sit on the fence are with the she axis supported by russia. or by dash. that is why we clean -- claim they will play a more active role in the religion. with a geopolitical division is very solid. and all of the elements are supported by russia. but to be complicated with turkey and nato.
is very complicated. and the elements but the most significant camp looking for a leadership on the same page with this camp the united arab emirates looking for leadership. >> i think i hear you say but in the contrast between flooded near putin and president obama the that obama needs to take leadership of the if you have any hope of success may
successfully and to fight back. a new phenomenon. with the soviets -- elements and in order to have western boots on the ground you cannot defeat dash without boots on the grounds of a power the local boots of the ground with the other elements in syria who are looking for something different this is an opportunity there should be orchestrated. >> there are people in this
and the tribal leaders that i talk to you say we will not make that commitment that you talk about unless the united states has more skin in the game and that want to ask you is that right to have more troops in the fight? >> that should be as a last resort to finance working as an example following from the very beginning and the
western party decided to support and they defeated dash in syria and pakistan. and many elements are to fight for their life. they should happen supported from the very beginning. >> susan rice talked about interesting part of the strategy that secretary kerry has led with the cease-fire to get around the same table is his real comfortable with the process to draw a river and the
with those billion dollars so does the president tried to present that with the idea we cannot verify their immune compliance. with the safeguards of the agreement through intelligence capabilities we can know a high degree of confidence if iran is cheating. wendy begin the implementation? it is simply publish.
to the one state solution to keep the business and interest. so i am not in favor of once the solution i'm not sure that is an option. >> i want to take back to iran. landers and the concerns about the deal but it is done now. fully implemented fully enforced then 15 years it could not have a nuclear weapon what could you do to address the concerns you identify? had argued take a vintage of the landscape to reduce the
strategic threat why iran concern to more i agree the states of the jewish people that people say what does it matter? why do they have to of knowledge that? when i met with him on the west bank he said israel can call itself would never once rigo to united stationed -- united nations to have their name changed. can you answer those two questions? >>.
carter do right here the intimacy for the security to security relations you have a high degree of confidence united states and israel will work closely on implementation? and you say it's a done deal. it is an important signal that i have a high level of confidence that they're sharing of information endeavor difficulties will not spill over into the implementation phase. to make sure you have that high level of confidence. into the first state to be jewish to orchestrate the
pragmatic coalition. are the things that the u.s. can do. not just the gulf state but israel. that you are not already doing? that the security relationship with the things you're not already doing. as the orchestra conductor? >> the first one we do share information diligence to include the iranian issue we
might have differences. but if we agree it should be strictly implemented then there is a lot to do together of course, . not just the united states and israel is part of the deal to share the information and having said that because of policy and to have such experience in the past with the interpretation because of
support from behind the scenes is our sensitivities regarding the coalition so we can find a way that is orchestrated by the united states. >> with the last explosive fireworks from jeffrey goldberg. [laughter] if you could ask a question anytime you want. explosive? mr. minister i will come back to something. you gave an interesting
answer and helping get the answer the question but what constitutes the one state solution? you said you don't believe in one state solution but it has to do with the demographic reality and what it will look like. you will have a country a single government to be in control of populations. of the jewish population have a franchise they can vote for their leaders but on the arab side only a portion can. i would disagree with your political independence and have no freedom of movement or not their own borders.
>> when he says have a quick follow-up question i say yes, sir,. [laughter] >> thank you. i want to follow-up quickly. i know you don't want the once a solution but it sounds like one-and-a-half that the palestinians have half the states or 40% with no sovereignty into demolish nine getting permits to any
to enjoy employment of the ambassador. so we can benefit if we talk about the court's assistance to live side-by-side we should find a way that yes with the political independence with the government's is the case we can talk about more territory. >> we have a long day tomorrow we should bring this to a close. i want to tell you one more way your powerful person with oldest daughter is due to deliver my first=4g%grandchid
talking about the vision for the future for the veterans of veterans traced by consolidating programs with the reimbursement rates severe enough preferences and a coordinated care for our veterans could be a reality in our lifetime. that will bring a number of decisions the first time a lot of people had heard it
is a critical number of decisions we have to make to make the new veterans traced as it does what it does best but doesn't get itself into things it does not do very well. with that network building as someone who ran the company every time you talk about information technology you talk about infrastructure and cost. retaken agency that has 314,000 then you make a big mistake. that we're delighted with the progress we have made i get stopped all the time the city were chairman are you frustrated?
i say the problem we see the success that is made fixing the problems of the past remake some good prof -- progress they're mostly stories of things in the past someone to start out by saying it is an approach to address the shortcomings of health care system in terms of the access and coordination of care to be sure that we magnify a choice to do with the challenges of the 21st century thank you to our witnesses this task of
>> i pay offer a more elaborate introduction being at the v.a. down for months coming up from a career of the health care organization being with the virginia 18 months is to continue to see patients inside as a brilliant young infectious disease dr. and joe is the director down in texas with the virginia 30 years. spending time on this report mr. chairman we're facing a historic opportunity by consolidating and streamlining v.a. care to the community so they had
best possible care in a matter where they receive it. we're grateful to responding to the need of consolidation. to modernize the culture to process the capability and and to consolidate community care programs as part of that. and has been a vital component of health care for veterans but lived too far and need care in the community and exceed the existing capacity. we were referring to a community care more than ever before been settled with programs and mechanisms that complicates the task to make sure they get the care they need.
each has its own requirements and different eligibility rules members rates for different funding routes it is too complicated for community providers and veteran then staff. it will make the process easier to use to have better access to the best care the courage to have higher quality care to also be good stewards of taxpayer resources. based on input from service organizations in employees and stakeholders we appreciate the discussions that we have had with your staff in the room today.
focusing on functional areas within a single set of criteria the wait time and the availability of services with access to emergency care. streamlined rules to simplify the referral process. third high-performance network partner in with community partners to enable v.a. to supply and demand utilization better. making health information easier and help veterans make the best choices possible. and prompt payment with the reverse process to allow the adjudication and a faster and more accurate payment to
make the a truly integrated health care system. it will take time but we improve the experience of care in the community in the near term expanding the provider based for those participating in medicaid and try to get the scene within two business-- when necessary. yesterday announced new changes with their house counterparts. veterans are eligible if not a facility full time position within 40 miles. now we take into
consideration the nature of the care and how often someone needs to accompany them if you just need the flu shot par round of chemotherapy they may qualify for choice no matter where they live. we're making it more accessible well working toward consolidation expect to accomplish a number of consolidation objectives with the authorization process standardization with the dot one dash dot with contractor support successful application with the coronation. these objectives are at the committee care team dedicated full time to consolidate community care
you're eager to afford with consolidation to be a collaborative effort with congress led many improvements is only possible with your support many congress to provide legislation with the required funding. cost is an issue right now the $421 million expect to spend this fiscal year with one time improvements that are essentials to improve the veterans' care experience trying to consider additional cost of the aspects of consolidation such as expanding emergency in urging care and expect some cost savings as well. read detailed are specific proposals in the report.
we will work with any member of the items. we congress to act on the proposal for provider agreements with the purchase care outside the choice program that complicate participation this is especially critical for long-term care they already see nursing homes not renew their agreements which means they have to find new homes. they give readers a porch we will look with you to work with the community into the v.a. system. >> i want to short answer you said you made two changes yesterday regarding the 40-mile rule needed is a long way to accomplish the
goal of consolidation. in one sentence describe the long-term goal. >> to improve the veterans' care experience to deliver that to the best possible value to the taxpayers. >> in the case when we had the hearing i don't thank you were there, the choice of provider for the east coast with the discussion of the eligibility of the veterans to get services outside of v.a. your choice it was an arduous process while after file with third-party but they could determine to get in the service. is that still going on?
will we want to see is easy access whether your private but this eligibility situation use that word a lot in seems to be more cumbersome were redoing to streamline the process so it doesn't take a philadelphia lawyer to figure out if they're eligible? >> alas the doctor to respond to outline what we have done to simplify the process. >> eligibility and the referral process is to of the foundational elements in the process is to help streamline eligibility of the different criteria and that is what we all line here.
that is easy for the veteran to understand and also to a minister and also the employees. so when we talk about referrals and authorization it is very cumbersome with any number of steps to go through to transpose information to send that over to a third-party contractor before they can make an appointment for the veteran. that is too long we're planning to streamline that so we are more automated to accomplish that. >> in the meantime we have modified the contract that now allows us to send the
because of republicans. last night, president obama spoke in stark terms about the threat terrorism poses to the united states. he detailed the extraordinary efforts our government is taking to protect americans. he also outlined a strong plan for continuing to combat terrorism at home and abroad. and president obama is right to say the first thing congress should do is close the loophole that lets f.b.i. terrorist suspects buy assault weapons like those used in the san bernadino shooting. senate democrats support president obama's plan to fight
isis and protect america. mr. president, president obama has made clear democrats do not believe we should put thousands of troops on the ground in the middle of another civil war in the middle east. but we do support the president's strategy of continuing to go after isis in the air with our coalition partners targeting their leadership, oil infrastructure and heavy weapons. we know that it must be local forces on the ground who ultimately fight for and hold their ground. because, you see, it's their land. senate democrats understand that the civil war only will be resolved diplomatically, with all parties supporting the removal of assad. we also know that we can do more to address the threats from terrorists. that's why beginning today, senate democrats will unveil a series of proposals to take the fight to isis while enhancing the protection of americans here at home. here are a few important steps we must take in order to combat
isis terrorism. the democrat plan would create a new isis czar, one person who is fully empowered and unifies the federal government's efforts in fighting isis. we did it with ebay, we certainly can -- with ebola, we certainly can do it with the scourge that is facing this country, isis. i'm pleased that president obama has taken a first step in that direction. continued continuing to target air strikes, strongholds and increased air support for anti-isis local fighters on the ground is part of our plan. we also must cut off isis money through new sanctions. isis runs its reign of terror in iraq and syria through extortion. oil sales and theft. senate democrats, our legislation imposes new sanctions and they are tough, including a cutoff of the united states international financial system if people knowingly facilitate financial transactions with isis.
one thing that would help. we have a person who has been waiting for hundreds of days to be confirmed. what is his job? he works with the treasury department, with the state department to stop the financing of terrorism. the republicans for reasons that totally are not understood by anyone are blocking our voting on this person. the job is vacant. we also believe that we should improve intelligence sharing between the united states and our allies in the fight against isis. some of that has already started, of course. we believe that we must screen and support migrants in europe and the middle east. europe is facing an unprecedented number of migrants fighting on their -- landing on their shores. almost a million this year. their screening systems have been overwhelmed by the large number of migrants. our bill would respond to the europeans' request to provide them with technical assistance to screen migrants and improve their own border security and our security as well.
in the middle east, democrats will help jordan, a strong u.s. ally on the forefront of the migrant crisis. four million people are displaced in the region, creating instability inside jordan, our ally, and also harming the neighboring countries. democrats' legislation includes a new stabilization fund for jordan and lebanon, helping those fleeing the conflict in syria stay in the region closer to home. these are just a few of the components of our plan to degrade and destroy isis. we're equally committed to thwarting terrorism here at home. the democratic plan would close the terrorist gun loophole. as of today, there is a legal low loophole that prevents law enforcement from verifying that potential gun buyers are not f.b.i. terror suspects. that means if a person has pledged allegiance to isis online and is barred from flying
due to the threat they pose, that man or woman can still walk in any gun shop and purchase weapons and ammunition. they can do that today right now. that's wrong. last thursday, democrats tried to pass legislation to give law enforcement the tools needed to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists. republicans blocked our commonsense measure. we're not finished from bringing this vote to the floor as often as we can. that's the way it should be. we need to strengthen the visa waiver program. it was amazing to see the republicans running for president waffle and weasel out of why someone has on a flight risk status, somebody who can't fly, why they should be able to buy a gun. it was interesting to see in the sunday shows the republicans waffle and weasel through answers on this. we need to strengthen the visa waiver program so isis fighters
can't access the program and travel to our country. this includes recurring visa waiver travelers to use machine-readable passports, requiring information-sharing with visa waiver countries and requiring visa waiver countries to enter into agreements to comply with u.s. aviation and airport security standards. we must improve aviation security. we must work to secure our airports. we saw all the news when isis brought down a russian plane with hundreds of passengers aboard. a recent report from the homeland security inspector found that 73 workers with access to secure areas in airports had links to terrorism. stunning. our legislation authorizes new vetting for aviation workers and new security measures for the most important areas of our airports. we must lock down radiological materials to stop a dirty bomb. with both isis and al qaeda saying they want to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, it's disturbing that there are 2,300 sites
around the united states with radiological material. our legislation requires a new plan for locking down those materials to places where they are held, like universities and hospitals, so we can reduce the threat of a dirty bomb. our legislation is concerned and we're going to do everything we can to put an end to home-grown terrorists by creating an office within the department of homeland security tasked with that alone, countering extremism. we must address encryption by directing the national academy of sciences, the intelligence community and the private sector to work and identify new encryption technology and how it's used to make sure that our national security needs and technology policies are not working across purposes. and finally, mr. president, senate democrats are proposing legislation to provide law enforcement with grant money to help prepare for active shooter situations. we know how critical first responders are to containing and ending active shooter attacks.
and so we should be sure they have all the tools necessary. this is the plan that we senate democrats are putting forward. it's comprehensive. it addresses international domestic concerns. the consequences of inaction are too grave for us to waste time seeking political gains. the security of our nation and the decimation of isis depends on the steps we take now. so i hope republicans will join us to implement these logical reforms and place the security of americansm the wilson centers
>> good morning welcome bright and early on monday to the wilson center. i and jane harman, president ceo recovering politician for many many years, too many for some of my detractors. i spent time in the house of representatives working on security and intelligence issues and numbers of people sitting here are my friends on a bipartisan basis. i'm very excited that we are doing something truly useful this morning, which is to host a panel discussion on security clearance, and nextgen overhaul. if you don't understand what nextgen means you probably should leave the room. today's problems are digital. too many of our policies and politicians are analyzed. anyone who has held a secret or top secret clearance knows what
i mean. parts of our system fit the 19th century like the paper timecards we are stuck with it. not kidding. bottom line if we want a workforce with secure and talented our approach to security clearances needs an overhaul asap. the way we do business right now and at least three serious problems. first, we are not getting the right people in the door. more than ever we need individuals with language skills and cultural staff working in national security but it's too hard for a native arabic speaker to make it to the fbi. we also need folks who know their way around the keyboard as fbi director james comey has said it's hard to attract that california's zero-tolerance for past where one is.
second we are not catching the people that really deposed insider threat. but every think of edward snowden and i don't think well of edward snowden, if one can agree that was too easy for him to get the access he got. we have to get smarter about using big data, open source collection and behavioral analytics to fly possible security risks. we are getting smarter but are we getting smart enough? third come after people make it into the system we are not securing their information. that's a disservice to her dedicated public servants including some who are in deep cover even as we speak. we must do better. but the right approach we can and we have a phone on the panel here to suggest 21st century solutions. introducing our speakers is a close friend, chris kojm.
he recently -- a visiting professor at george washington's elliott school of international affairs. he also contributed to a fabulous book on intelligence oversight that we are putting together with nyu center's center on law and security that will be released in from oxford university press. chris, before that had 25 years and he just calculated that, quarter of a century with my predecessor here served here for 12 years and before that all of you know the enormously valued chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and recently received the presidential medal of honor. chris was on the house foreign affairs committee for 15 years and worked on the iraq study group and was deputy director of the 9/11 commission. please join me in welcoming him
now. [applause] >> thank you. with profound thanks to the wilson center and president hartman for sponsoring today's discussion. i believe deeply if we have a national debate on this question that the views you here today will prevail. the case is compelling. it's my honor and pleasure to introduce the members of the panel. first i want to start directly to my left the honorable charles e. allen who currently serves as the security policy reform council chair of the intelligence and national security alliance and for the past six years has been a principal at the chertoff grew. it would be remiss for me to stop their. mr. allen has 50 years of government service. he served as undersecretary at the department of homeland
security and assistant secretary before that. he was the assistant director of central intelligence for collection. he and i worked closely and i have the highest regard for him. further, to my left is the honorable joan dempsey. formerly she served as the deputy director of central intelligence for community management under president clinton and the executive director of the president for intelligence of advisory board. given her experience -- is the director of national intelligence. moving to my right here immediately to my right is the honorable randall -- fort in the cyberdomain team at raytheon corp. and assistant secretary of state in the bureau of intelligence and research at the
department of state, a very fine organization. all the way to my right is douglas thomas who is the director for counterintelligence operations and corporate investigations at lockheed-martin. he's the principle decade -- deputy, served as the principle deputy director for counterintelligence and the u.s. government. he has 35 years of service working on counterintelligence issues in the chair the national counterintelligence operations force. so the case i put two of you is that the experience and the depth of perspective for those represented on this panel i think deserve attention. with that quietly began with the first question and the question is why do we need security clearance reform? just as simple and straightforward as that. i will ask everyone to speak for roughly three minutes for the question on i will begin with
randy fort. >> thank you kristen thank you jane for hosting this event with a the think is an important dialogue to have. i'm curious people in the audience here how many of you drive a 1950s automobile today? anybody? does anybody in the audience have a 1950s telephone that you use? is there anybody here whose television set is a 1950s model? anyone? when you go to the dentist do you expect a 1950s dentistry or are you looking for something a little bit more advanced? okay, so the 1950s as a business model is pretty much over except in the security clearance business area which is still mired in that decade in terms of the fundamental processes and mindset of how security is done. there is this hand tool, we will
go around and knock on doors and talk to people who don't even know who you are an check those boxes and assume that somehow that is yielding something when it does not. and for many many years that process is all but oblivious to the changes in technology. it's not surprising the federal government was slow to recognize and respond to the revolution in the 1980s. they were slow to recognize and respond to the world wide web developments in the 1990s. they were slow to recognize and respond to the social media revolution taking place in early 2000 and we are seeing the same pattern today when it comes to mobility so not a lot of ability to grasp and understand the impact of influences of these technologies which continue to double relentlessly in their capacity every 12 to 18 months. so we have a system today that
is old, it is an efficient and it is ineffective. it is obsolete. it is slow, it is inaccurate and as we have learned with the opm announcements over the last several months is corrupt. we cannot even trust the information which is held in the various databases at this point because foreign powers have allegedly had access to that, not just thinking about whatever whatever -- whatever they been able to do to manipulate us so we are looking at a broken system. it's fundamentally broken and unreliable so this should be the opportunity to recognize that it is 2015 and in a few weeks a would be 2016. we are 15% of the way through the 21st century and yet we still are relying on the system which is mired in the middle of last century. i think there there's a pretty good case to be made that it's time to start looking toward the future and new technologies and figure out a better way to do business. >> thanks randy and i just
wanted to mention that we are live on c-span. next i would like to turn to charlie. >> thank you chris. the pleasure to be the wilson center again. i think what randy is just outlined sort of sets the stage iv the rest of the discussion here and abroad framework that we have to use new and better technologies. when i was at the cia the security clearance process is worked reasonably well, trying to transfer an essay cleared officers and get them assigned to my staff. almost took intervention by the executive director or by john dempsey to make things happen. when i went to the department of homeland security where is the undersecretary to secretary chertoff i found the process different and very slow and difficult. so when i left government in
2009 it was my view that it was vital to the intelligence and national security alliance as the senior adviser through ellen mccarthy was president i really want to form a task force in that task force has turned into a more permanent body. why? because we found the problems were very difficult. we found there were greater efficiencies in the way we did business, that the cost for extremely high, bad weather and government because the intelligence and perform in terrorism and prevention at the office of personal management in 2005 took over from the department of defense security services plus their responsibility for security clearances. the processes in government did improve because it did mandate some really expedited processes
for clearing the government site that i found on the contractor's side we have tens of thousands of contractors. we would not have weapons systems and we would not have payloads in space if we didn't have contractors with great specialties. i found, we found that was extremely slow and very difficult and the government really was moving at glacial speed. part of the problem was people who had clearances, it was mandated that they have periodic investigations every five years and we have a huge back log when the office of personal management took over the responsibility. it had been worked on hard by jim clapper who at that time was the undersecretary of defense and intelligence but it was improved. the government site in the contractor's side. and he given time, he published a paper in december of 2011 that said 10 to 20% of contractors
who were to be put on a contract could not work because there are periodic investigations were out of date. that caused literally billions of dollars when you think of the vastness of the department of defense intelligence community and homeland security. i found it very staggering. i have one experience where we had a top-secret cleared officer from bia who was born, had relatives in vietnam. he had been polygraphed for counterintelligence. i just wanted to transfer him from dia to the department of homeland security. we waited nine months to get that clearance past and approved by the director of security over at homeland security. that was when i arrived at the intelligence national security alliance, i had this earning a
share in this burning issue now turned into a council. the current -- a permanent council subcommittees and i'm honored that we have both randy fort hira who has worked on this and doug thomas who is working today on a new subcommittee on the insider threat. so it has expanded in its become permanent and improvements have been made that we have oceans and notions of places to go before we have efficient policy and security do not align. acquisition and security do not align. so that is sort of the background. i wanted to give a little history before we move on in our discussion. >> thank you charlie and i would like to turn to john please. >> thanks chris but i want to pick up on a couple of things but i certainly agree with the way randy put the challenges today in context. he's absolutely right, we need a
new approach to personal security inside the government. i also want to pick up and get a couple of examples of what charlie allen was talking about. government like most successful organizations have to pay attention to costing cost is a big driver but the cost of personal security for a boy the government doesn't know what personnel security cost us so i have a couple of specific examples or want to give you this morning and while the story is true the name was changed to protect, well-made because it's privacy information but everything else in the story is true. john smith is a technical expert in quantum computing. it's very hard to find american citizens who are willing to subject themselves to security clearances and work for the government. he then expert in quantum computing cleared at the information level within the department of defense and he is projected to be built for the
government at $195,000 annually, very specialized skills, an individual with a very high clearance. that number breaks down to $15,000 per month, $3750 per weekend $93.75 per hour. john is scheduled to move from one intelligence community organization contract to a different organization contract. remember he is fully cleared. his clearance has been submitted to the gaming agency so that he could be crossed over to work on a new contract. his company will carry the cost of employing john, roughly 15,000 mothers are set for this highly-skilled highly educated individual for the duration of the crossover. matt. who ultimately pays that though? of the u.s. government because that caused is embedded in the rate that the government pays for those individuals. the agency to which john is
moving is only to execute a polygraph to move him. we estimated six months for the crossover. unfortunately it took to 10 months and we paid 150,000 to keep john on what we call the bench while we waited for his polygraphed to be scheduled, which it was but we didn't know during that time whether or not it would be so as a huge cost for one individual that was a fairly simple process. the second one is a little harder. we had an individual who is also cleared by the department of information with a they polygraph but who was married to a foreign national. his wife was indian. he was in he was an advanced technology office at dod and we wanted to move him to an icy advanced technology office. now he had a bachelors of science in electrical engineering from the california institute of technology and a
ph.d. in applied and engineering physics from cornell university. there aren't a lot of american citizens that have those qualifications. he was also the author of more than 40 technical papers with over 5000 citations. he was fully cleared, his clearance took 294 days to crossover because he had an indian born wife. she got american citizenship before his clearance crossed over and she started the process after we submitted his paperwork these are two individuals out of the thousands of contractors who do highly specialized, highly-skilled information for the intelligence community. we have to fix this problem. with that i will turn it over to chris. >> thank you joan and doug. >> thank you chris. good morning. one thing we are going to see is that we need to start levering
levering -- leveraging technology. i think one of the things that has changed, the threat environment has changed in 50 years. somebody mentioned earlier that scott is a big deal and ensures up my spine because this is about -- the bad guys have much more information than they ever have before. it's going to make our job a lot harder. i look at this panel and no offense anybody but its decades of experience in the government. looking at this problem i think all of us could probably be a little bit embarrassed as to why we are where we are today because as randy said andis jones said andis charlie said we have been approaching this problem for 50 years now. it is time to start leveraging technology on the front end when you get clearance and throughout the whole process of having clearance.
>> thanks doug and i will just finished up with a few points as to why we need reform. secret clearance costs $400. top secret security clearance costs $5000. the direct cost to security clearance in any given year are $1.6 billion. that's a lot of money. we do hundreds of thousands of clearances each year. if we use technology guess there will be a cost up front but the cost of doing those clearances and monitoring people going forward is the cost of bank transaction. is it tiny fraction. that's the model we need to move to. okay, so let's start the next round and that i want to turn it back to doug. what changes do we have to make? doug is in the middle of making them so he is our speaker to start. >> i'm trying to remain
optimistic. following the opm report the 90-day review study in the principles are being briefed from it this week, i'm hearing that they are going to stand up a new agency called the national investigative service agency. i'm not sure where it's going to land. it's going to have a new director and a new focus. i'm trying to remain optimistic about that. what really needs to happen is like a mentioned earlier on the front and we probably need something before we hire somebody relative -- like the insurance companies do and the credit card companies do, give a risk score on somebody. i think what you need to have this continuous valuation of the people that you grant a a clearance to who by virtue of that has access to our -- it is not that hard. we have been been doing in an organization for the last few
years and quite frankly some people might be concerned about the cost up front. they are not that big of a deal but the money you save over time with continuous evaluation 24/7 on your employee evaluation is phenomenal. >> okay. why don't we turn to randy. >> first of all let's acknowledge the government just needs to come its like going to aa or or something any technology or problems of the problem is this terribly obsolete system which is simply ineffective. the second thing is to make a clear decision that we are going to move forward with the technology platform to solve this problem. the numbers that are being used here, hundreds of thousands or millions, something like a total of 10 million people government and contractor have some form of clearance. that number is a ballpark but
when you go to the private sector that's a small number. 10 million is not a big number if you are a visa or an american express or mastercard or insurance company, fewer amazon or google. 10 million come if you were actually their system with papa would have to dumb it down to get to a number as small as 10 million. so this is something where there's a lot allergy that is available. we were hearing about the days, weeks, then sometimes years to get these issues done. security clearances should take a fraction of a second. how long did it take when you take your visa card swipe at a point-of-purchase? you stand there and wait for a green signal to come back legs now, comes back later when you think of the night because the databases are being queried by sophisticated algorithms that are doing a lot of data correlation literally in fractions of a second. all this issue of crossover and
periodic review, the delay of all these things, security clearances took one second and if they cost 1 cent then we could all get security clearances dozens of times a day because it would matter. we have to figure out how to use the technology to change the fundamental picture of the way the process is go forward. i think yes there will be upfront costs. you have to pay a certain upfront cost to come up with that i.t. layer two -- all of the other technology companies have to do that. that's an investment. a 1.6 billion, i'm betting that's off by an order of magnitude. doesn't count for the delay in the downtime of all the people sitting in twiddling their thumbs waiting for their clearance to come through. that is billions and billions of dollars being wasted in time, value and money that's never catch elated. moving to complete digital
platform and yes there will always be two or 3% of individual cases that will require some hands-on treatment if somebody went off in went to a -- when they were 22 years old and that will take extra attention. the vast majority of the population we are talking about could he done using in all of digital modern technology that would give you a considerably greater insight into the behavior and the future behaviors and algorithms are becoming predictable. google knows if you are getting sick before you know you're getting sick. target knows you are pregnant before you know are pregnant and they know where your owing to be tomorrow based on where you are today based on data technology will keep doubling every 12 to 24 months as we move forward. the capabilities will become increasing glee predicted and we will be able to play is not an in the manning's not after they train over the court and have annihilated it.
so we will actually and up with a much more secure outcome and security dividend once these things are implemented. >> thanks randy. >> joan. >> a lot of them have spent time and effort and money trying to do it. we have had a lot of reform initiatives but i think what we have never come to grips with his pc security as really a supportive function. we don't see it as inimical to getting our job done or allowing us to get the job done if it's done correctly. if we treated personal security is a mission rather than as a demonstrated function that we have to deal with, then i think we would be able to spend the money and solve the problem.
we are pretty good at solving mission problems in the ic but because we don't think of it as something that either hinders or helps our mission we don't treated with the same seriousness as we do mission issues, so i think that's philosophical issue really affects us and our ability to deal with this problem. >> thanks joan. charlie. >> i want to reinforce what has been said by other colleagues here. we are in a new era and we have the technologies. continuous monitoring is something the director of national intelligence supports. certain agencies like the cia and nsa are moving ahead so that realm as well as others in the intelligence community and the department of defense of course which is a very vast population of people who are top-secret. but the progress is quite slow. i think we have to a line of policy level as well as the
security levels as well as the contracting because today it's segmented, separated and the security officer or chief information security officer that monitors network seems far removed from some of the very rapid and more efficient ways we could do this. and i trust the judgment of essentially independent agency will be stood up to replace with the office of personnel management did pay the office of personnel management did not have the infrastructure, capabilities or resources i think when this was decided back in 2004 and this responsibility in 2005 to execute this. they did not have the security. they did not have the counterintelligence expertise to handle the problems we face today. that is a given.
it is my strong belief however that we have an opportunity now not to build then if there is an independent agency or assuming an independent agency all the vulnerabilities of the password policy, security and the whole practical business of doing security clearances seem to be separated and divided. they have to be a unified way. 2008 there was a performance accountability board established and under this administration there has been continuing efforts to find efficiencies. generally as we have seen from the snowdon and manning events and the davis event at the navy yard we have not been very successful in doing all of this. i think right now i am updating my top secret sci clearance. ..
>> let's hope we embark on a new generation way to do security. >> let me round out to talk about the process the security investigation. your sister rhea be reinvestigated every five years if you have top-secret nerve secretary moniz with the secret that isn't effective because people's behavior changes things happen to people over time there are changes in relationships, the drugs, alcohol, personality changes and in our current system there is no way to
check on people unless it is a 10 year anniversary the system of continuous evaluation and others to identify problem employees frankly most of them will not be spies but people who have trouble in their personal lives that will lead them from verbal -- more verbal by hostile powers. so to identify the problems so the health and services that you need to be back contract and to help protect our people we can protect our secrets better than we
do today. >> moving on to the next round of questions what has to happen for these ideas to be successfully implemented by all parties? >>. >> to secure the never is critical. to enhance technology to continue the evaluation throughout the entire process. we're not trying to find a cure for cancer not solving peace in the middle east this is not the dark by a heart problem at this minute
to solve 99 percent of the problem and i have been contributing and of those have participated we have the solution set out. with continuous evaluation they figure how to into the privacy issues but if they just took the lockheed model to implement it will agree orders of magnitude more secure today than yesterday. but for decades this is not this is not have to get to the moon and those that
would be willing to do that. that is leadership we have to get senior leaders involved in the top two or three things they will do. for all those reasons every really do people are the most important asset to come up with a system that will better protect the people with the challenges and threats better against them and if somebody has an issue to identify that early on to get a good person back contracts so we don't have to go through the worst case where we spend billions of dollars of damage assessment to take adverse action with
the energy we burn up to do that. it is only because to better serve the people better working in these agencies or organizations for the that is the best reason to go forward and do so with alacrity. >> m1 to reinforce what they have said. it is a matter of policy but meeting prior to this formal session to have to improve the business process with the security side so with strong great leadership will take intelligence and with this administration and the new one to begin to change
solve the problem. >> so how to successfully implement so when you have a background check to apply for security clearance you agree to have your background investigated the nature of that investigation to the 21st century so instead of 127 pages of forms with your dead relatives to submit your neighbors and colleagues to move to a digital background investigation.
it should only be publicly available data. at this endeavor looks to data records to assemble an integrated and analyze it is a powerful tool stoloniferous get their clearance as continuously as those mitt thereafter so on that score amazon and google knows more about you with those very sophisticated data bases they know a lot about you.
those entrusted with the nation's secrets should be analyzed to protect our secrets. >> any more comments? we'll let willingly decided to disclose access the one she lovelorn if it is accompanied one of the true heroes in the security reform area from the u.s. army managed to get a pilot project undertaken to look at a subset of the overall
population to look at their online behavior so once you do that you log on to another account there is no expectation of privacy. i will not get the numbers exactly right the 125 people that work with the five years because they found serious violations but then to kill his wife from his military address another one said where can i score pot? there was an issue those ever instantly suspended for
access because they took a look what is going on digitally the they had never looked at before that was one tiny example so these tools are very powerful. if we leverage this technology will get more insight. yes. absolutely so they have successfully resolved that. to do things that is respectful and if anybody that has been i have spent half of my time with those documents the list of everything you are waiting
can congress do to have the same vision ocher? >> that is a great question. and makes that a priority. with that to the first century platform it will drive the process. the problem is still a little public discussion. no public debate. the public discussion help drive change semester a threat here at the wilson center. >> is great to be here with
a terrific discussion for you are all aging gracefully [laughter] you made the point intelligence community is behind the technology curve by 50 years. i've that. put the issues we have known about this for least three years. and some of those issues that you raise about the cost also the loss of expertise. we are working on that 25 years ago also. the point that i would make is we have slipped back from where we were because we're
spend any money that will fix them. and for very well with the inefficiencies of the current system. but what happens to the leaders while there are inefficiencies what we do discover to protect us is not worth the risk of changing. edison the alignment of leadership between the white house and the congress. congress doesn't pick up this issue.
for the leaders of the intelligence community don't buy into the change that is necessary. >>. >> i will respond to what he had to say because he is spa on in this historically correct losing ground so to move at glacial speed to modernize our process or policy. spending three years to decide 2011 through 2014 i could be wrong on the dates
with fairly elementary stuff. so with the defense communities the administration and congress is lacking. and as we point out interest from staffers the very little leadership on this issue on the komen security committee there is a lot of politics of those defensive republicans in the administration and here we have a major thing my wife
to scott her letter from 0:00 p.m. on friday because as personally as identifiable information about her after putting in might s f 86 to what they talk about so strongly. >> you are absolutely right the other area of similar dysfunction affecting the contractor world is on the acquisition side. both security and acquisition our rule based process and the environment it evolves over 56 years and it is very hard to get off of that with very important
functions the government needs done. i would agree 100 percent i have seen it backfire with the bipartisan in a bicameral parts of the government working together you begin to despair we can do this. talk about entities and the white house and intelligence community you would be very surprised how far along the companies are with regards to solving the problems that. >> the fourth amendment applies to the government's involvement with the citizenry not my employer's. there are things we can do in the private sector to move this problem further down the road.
>>. >> a very important discussion with the topic of great concern regarding though lost of productivity of taxpayer dollars with a security clearance process. so two years ago the reauthorization act for fiscal 2014 of title five if of authorization legislation requires the idea and i that the continuous monitoring takes place with clearance
reciprocity. passed into law almost two years ago it is an item of concern on the hill. maybe that is akin to cybersecurity with the officer and not the ceo that is why until there is a breach and then the ceo has to resign. and not know what else it takes to get that level of prominence and dash you pointed out to talk about the cost and maybe it is the new agency.
maybe that is the first step with the bifurcation between the intelligence community that is concrete what congress can do. >> it is clear they have made their views known on this. with their needs to be an additional amendment to the next authorization it could be done in six months so to allow for the usual crunch time. by june reversed of 2018 the intelligence community shall employ a fully digital, automated, secure
background investigation system for government contractors. now this new agency of to start to walk this back what do i need to do today? syllable of saying it you know, you're going to be hanged you concentrate wonderfully. [laughter] and the mine would become concentrated there was a date now they can stay with your team hearings how is it going on the deadline? anything we can do to help. iran i hate that i don't like congress to micromanage
projects m process these we still don't move fast enough. but at the same time that we're planning a spring event and then to speak of the importance nmb will be in touch with you. >> there is a lot of frustration but yet in the aftermath of the watershed moment it was a $300 million contract so it's not that we
cannot act in an emergency but we choose not to. to talk about the divergence of those actions. >> since you have government experience. >> ed is a good point shortly after the breach happened a couple of us wrote the op-ed it had to do with what we were reading is seem to be much more on identity theft that had nothing to do with identity theft everything to do with
presidential medal of freedom. i am happy to be here today i'm a victim of a process but i have testified some years ago before congress with the subcommittee of the process to do a background investigation on me. but they simply stopped the process so they created of file that contains obnoxious information and i never got the chance are you a loyal american? and i have information to have the opportunity to
attacks defense intelligence community participant. but with some of those illustrations how much risk we are willing to bear. i've understand it will drive policy changes going forward but with those algorithms is the notion of risk and that deals with the issue of trust that all your much of the notion of the ultra-conservative counterintelligence and how to overcome that if you drive that forward with automation. >> is a good question since
hitting a program is not that much different. they have strong privacy concerns vided is set up a program with the privacy side is a team sport with a privacy at the top of that issue and what the program does but doesn't do any profiling of people at all. and together we make a decision if we act on that. is all objective and publicly available the
subject of intense and what do you do with that of affirmation and? we're trying to look out for the employee if you think of workplace violence the had behavior in somebody's life but looking up for that behavior is to act on. >> can be transferred that thought process? >> left to its own devices we talk about risk management the most they will ever accept for personal security is zero
every single time. with the executive leadership has basically listen and. so there has ben scorers of spies so there has always been failures fees and aberrant behavior that has gone on so to use at as an excuse is going -- is ridiculous said to have real risk management said to have that decision based to attend those meetings once a
month whether we willing to except? how does that allow us to have better insight to figure out to set the standards for these things. here is what we have decided what you think? there always been those who slip through the net. right on down the list. it will also give us more truly security at the end of the day and you get on with
>> adjust one comment on the question but to ensure his not only the united states of america the toolkit digital evaluation tools with government employees ended is important before other people take action. >> the white paper we put out with a counter intelligence community did not believe a single word we had to say the rest of the world did. then you better understand
you can set the parameters in the we won but to set that digital model is the big data sets with the much richer basis of data so anyone who has intelligence community access ended is unique to you by is unique to me. so if you deviate from that norm than a light goes off why is that? there is the crisis you were called in.
may be your supervisor says i don't know. so that is the situation. and for a deviation those patterns versus someone trying to buy a carolyn or ecstasy but you can't be spoke those parameters that will have more clarity. and then to have a human but is trained to understand the technology to make human judgment were at the end of
the day to have a due process. the only takes you so far down the road so plugged in end let her do her job. >> one of the success stories with those adjudication for those who never had a clearance before. unless there's an extensive overseas time so those that we would like to have the cultural understanding it is almost impossible to get
them through. to be strung along via the process. >> the reason i am here before you today because there was a boiling point with a grandmother in the former soviet union it did them for years to declarant's. that is not a good business model for government or private sector or anybody. >> i am thinking that this
considerations that we collect as part of the process? with more computer auditing? or how to really get someone's perceived loyalty? in the case the snowden i saw some post-mortem looking at what he was doing digitally. the warning signs that may have seen the nine there was clearly a pattern is somebody had that entire set of behaviors they may have reached a conclusion something is going on.
need to think across the spectrum the wing from stupid to evil to see what happens when i click on this. then called the work goes down. those that will commit treason for many but he was clearly between psychopath in such a bad offenders assist with my view of the world. but the duty is to set the parameters look at the data sets in terms of priority that is in such a big deal and to figure out how to integrate all of that that
is very problematic. said the solution is the technology with that model of what has been done historically. >> you used the word evil but don't think that you meant that. i hate the phrase connecting the dots that is what we're doing. just because somebody has one or two or three behaviors' doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. . .
the government doesn't do that sharing with the private sector. if they see red flaggings about at individual who is a contractor, they hold it inside, and then the initial investigation, whereas the private sector sometimes has -- and will have in the future far better insight on the employees and contractors and what they represent. your question is very pertinent. is there new loyalties toy today? are we word citizens versus the united states and a western
civilization, et cetera? i think we have to have some new selectors that will try to differentiate and pull out the issues of loyalty. >> okay. so with that, i'd like to thank john dempsey, charlie allen, randy ford, doug thomas, and the wilson center, and thank you for your good questions and your attendance today. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> after they've had an opportunity to make comments at length, we will get into a broader discussion poir. first is katie katherine, council from global security. her and her husband two of the most thoughtful analysts. you get more -- [laughter] >> it's great to have her here. you might be familiar with a very important book that she
coedited. we ask her to talk about the domestic terror threat. obviously that's something on our minds. after her lisa curtis, analyst here at the heritage foundation that covers south asia issues, particularly important piece of the puzzle when we think about what the future of the terrorist threat would be. lisa is a remarkable analysts not just because of abilities but had service on that part of the world. look, it's lisa curtis and some guy with her. [laughter] >> she is without a question well-respected analysts. people there turn to her for what's going on.
distinction of being the eldest -- not the eldest in years but the longest-serving. he's not older than the middle east but in that region for a long time. most sought out analyst. i've been wait to go say this all day, bruce has been studying terrorism as long as i've known about my fiance, for 40 years. , bruce is also my boss. premier national security education programs not just in washington but in the entire country. he's had long service where he
is literally one of the most recognized experts in the world and he just completed a -- an important term as an independent commission that reviewed the -- the workings of the fbi and how they have adapted with transnational terrorism after 9/11. to have him here, that's really important. to round out our panel we have sarah carter, you probably heard about the carter, you know, tv character on marvel. maybe not. she's the real carter. she goes to all dangerous parts of the world. she's one of the most effective and bravest reporters you could ask for. and so i asked her to bring the first-person narrative to this. they're going to talk about the trends going on in the world. she's been out there and seen
how trends are on the ground. having said that, i am going to turn over to katie. you can stay there or come to the podium. >> well, it's delighted to be here. i'm very happy to be here. i don't want to use my precious time to run through the proof that isis is a threat domestically. i think everybody in this audience knows that and doesn't need to be convinced of it, and if you still do, shameless self-promotion, we have written a report on it and i suggest you go there. it's on our website. threat knowledge group. isis the threat to the united states. isis has the means, intent as well as domestic supporters. i think you know san bernardino
was evidence of that. i would like to leave that particular aspect for a moment and focus on three aspects of this conversation that, i think, need to be ample. three ways to think about why we are having such a hard time with this. i would like to start by recalling the 1972 olympics, most of you, i'm trying to gauge the age of the audience. the aspect of that event that, i think, is interesting for today's purpose, i think this is largely forgotten today, the german's asked to fofo
forensic psychologists and surpriseingly scenario 21 matched very closely to what ended up happening. even though he was able to give to the german government these various scenarios and they had even had asker it, they still did not act on it. why did they not act on this information when they knew there might be some real threat to some of the members, participants in the olympics. the reason was if you remember, germany was trying to get the terrible image of the 1936 olympics so these were supposed to be the happy games, they did not heave any of the warnings, in a sense they politicized the
threat assessments. i would argue we are doing the very same thing today. we have really down-play it had nature of this threat for political reasons. you can trace at various points in time but me a particularly turning point in this process was the fall of 2011. when the administration sent out saying all counterterrorism training needed to be reviewed, all the slides had to be reviewed and all the counterterrorism trainers themselves had to be scrutinized. many of the people who spent their careers or at least, you know, a good decade if not longer studying this threat were then henceforth forbidden by training further and a series -- so we lost many of our best
experts on the topic and pro processes are implemented. we don't know their expertise. some of the people who are presenting the training are ph.d's, people who have been studying their entire career and they're being challenged on the content of what they're training for political reasons. why does it matter? well, i think most importantly it's because it has left our law enforcement unprepared for the threat that we are now facing. so because this administration has down played the seriousness of this threat both abroad and you'll probably hear on the panelists, i'm just going to focus on the domestic threat, our law enforcement has not been
adequately trained. we have two issues, on the one hand, the narrative has been put out that it's from right-hand extremism. but if you asked them a year ago, there were surveys where law enforcement would say their biggest concern was right-wing extremism. our law enforcement is not prepared today to face the threat that we are facing, and that's a disservice to them and to the american people. and i think one last piece of this i'll just mention is that the department of justice much of the training that they've been carrying out rather than focusing on the nature of the threat, they're pro -- focusing on civil rights, they're so worried about people not being offended. i would say that my first
message is we need to stop down playing and start politicizing the threat. my second is, and i'm so glad to hear coming up on the news, let's start focusing on why people engage in terrorism. did anybody everyone asked why did a person become a white srumemacist, why did they become a nazi, we had to condemn it and we had to stop it. it's really -- that seems like such a simple thing to say but it's really actually a deeply complicated problem and i think it's going to be a very difficult one for us to tackle, and the reason for that in a sense goes back to terrible
attack in 1972 and as well as the general rise and terrorism, if you remember there was the -- you know, the wave of hijackings, hijackings to cuba in the 60's, there was a sharp rise in terrorism in 1960's and 1970's, people started asking why are people engaged in terrorism. there was the hope and desire that there might be some psychological explanation, they were abused by their fathers, abandoned by their mothers, all of which have been disproved. so that angle of inquiry, is there a psychology of terrorism has not yielded at anything
useful. and then equally frustrating has been the desire to pursue that question but also the socialology of terrorism. it's become more prevalent in the last two decades. there came a period in the 1980's where people who were sort of working on social movement theory started saying, what if we apply social movement theory to islamic radicalism and it became islamic activism. let's look for causes, let's look for upstream causes, why do people engage in terrorism, and you're hearing -- this is all we've been hearing for the last couple of days. is it because the guy's mother and father, he had an abusive father, a mother who was in a relationship with an alcoholic, it really doesn't matter. and i think the problem with that line of inquiry is it takes
the sense of judgment away from what they're doing. it's like we we are looking for justification. something has been done to them, right. there's no free will, no agency in it. i think it's really the wrong way to look at it and it's leading us the wrong path. it's not going to help us stop the terrorism and i'd like to see us get away from that. lastly, we need to think a lot harder about the ideology and that's what we are not doing. again, by focusing on the thing of psychology of terrorism, the upstream factors, socialology of terrorism, what we are doing is not talking about the ideology that's driving people into
terrorism. what's so interesting is if you look at the different cases, for example, our study focuses on the cases in the united states since march 2014 of people who have been introdicted by law enforcement. ours are the people from law enforcement. seven unnamed minors as well as those arrested. there's another study that's been done that actually kind of goes through each individual case and the conclusion is every case is different, right, every case. this is what you'll find. the motivations are very different. somebody was looking for love, you know. somebody else is angry, somebody else feels des --
disenfranchise. one of the areas that we have neglected. it's one of the areas that law enforcement is feeling very frustrated by because they're not going after the ideal laws. people in this country, we have both isis recruiters but more importantly we have people that are promoting the ideas that justify what isis and other islamist groups are doing. we need to pay more attention to that. lastly i just want to say that it's important to remember that the terrorism that's going on now in this country, this is war. this is not crime. and they're very different things and we have to seep sight of that. warfare cannot be an extreme tool of private parties.
that was one of the -- i mean, it's not the paramount achievement of western civilization is that warfare became a legal instrument. it became part of the cohersive power. we are not talking about the broader moral dimension to what's going on, terrorism, act of terrorism in the world, specially the act of terrorism inspired by isis that are going on in this country are direct assault on this achievement of our civilization, they will threaten to disrupt a lot and it's not merely that it's a terrible thing for innocent victims but it's the broader
construct of our civilization and state control of power that's at risk here and i think we need to be having the broader conversation about how important it is that we -- that we recognize the seriousness of these threats and these attacks that are going on in our country and i didn't mean to end on such a serious note but there you have it. thank you. [applause] >> hello, thank you for coming today. thank you, jim, for your nice introduction. so i just want to emphasize what jim opened with, which is that four and a half years ago after the elimination of osama bin laden is what we start the obama administration start to downplay
the threat to justify u.s. troop drawdown in afghanistan. in 2013 president obama referred to al-qaeda's leadership as on the path to defeat. well, around the same time in august 2011, the heritage foundation released a report counterterrorism the next wave and in that report we warned against underplaying the international terrorist threat that continued to threaten our country and argued against underresourcing efforts to fight that threat. we noted that. despite the fact that our drone strikes had the degraded al-qaeda's leadership in pakistan border areas, al-qaeda was dapting to the threat and were begin to go spread ideology through affiliated and associated associations throughout the middle east and north africa.
today they control more area than any other time in history. i'm going to talk about the terrorist threats that eminent from south asia. let's start with afghanistan. they require our training, battlefield, advice, intelligence and specially our air support. and i think that became evident when the taliban was able to overtake the city in northern afghanistan for two weeks in september, and i think it was that takeover which finally convinced president obama that he needed to extend the u.s. troop presence in afghanistan beyond 2016, and he committed in mid-october to leading 5,500 troops in afghanistan when he departs office in january 2017.
now, this is a welcome step but frankly it would have been better if he simply would have said we are keeping the 9,800 troops that are there now and reassess the ground situation next year. it would have been better if he would have dropped all what shall trair deadlines for withdraw but admittedly it was a step in the right direction. one of the most important things that's happening in afghanistan right now is the leadership crisis in the taliban and i think the u.s. should take advantage of these splits, some people would argue that it's easier to negotiate with the unified taliban, but i would argue that it may make it more difficult in the short run to negotiate with a fracturing taliban, it's a weakened taliban and will pose less of a threat to the u.s. nato and afgan
forces. rejected the leadership of monsour who was made the successor to omar when it was announced that he had been dead for two years. what he's saying is that they're suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of only ar -- omar and he thinks he's lying of the circumstances of the death and accusing of murdering and accuses of being too close to pakistan intelligence service. making himself to be more patriotic and not cooperating with a foreign intelligence service.
there have been reports that successor may have been wounded or killed just in week during a shootout. taliban is denying this, we have to see what, in fact, is happening. what is clear is there are problems within the taliban and great deal of factual inviting. and isis is taking advantage of this. just like in syria where we see al-qaeda-affiliated fighting isis, we are starting to see isis elements fighting taliban. isis has been able to establish some presence particularly in nanra province. now some of this admitting is
disgruntled taliban or taliban, pakistan leaders that have fled the fighting from the operations in north but clearly isis has its sight on afghanistan and seeking to make roads there. so this started back in january when isis launched what it calls the cortison group. according to to the jahid, prophet mohamed, key role of establishing a global caliphate and embassador who was the pakistan embassador to the u.s. and a prominent writer in
developments to parts of the world has written about how one refers to a battle of india and this is the final battle between mus will youlims and nonmuslims. another jadid say another with black flags will merge to help redeemer of islam establish at meca. isis is using references to recruit in south asia and justify presence there. but isis faces obstacles in afghanistan and pakistan. the al-qaeda and taliban are well established in this region, al-qaeda leader has nurtured al al-qaeda's relationship.
but there are definitely obstacles in the long-terms for isis to make serious inroads in this region. in order to send off this isis enroachment they're also seeking in other parts of asia. in 2014 he was seen in video announcing the launch of al-qaeda in the indian subcontinent. in this video he assures muslims in bang -- syria that the organization has not forgotten you and they are doing anything to rescue you from persecution and suffering. and a recent series of attacks in ban -- there was attack in late september on an italian aid
worker, five days later a japanese agricultural worker was gunned down and this followed horrific machete attacks since the beginning of the year. another indication that isis is trying to make was publishing of five-page article called the revival of jihad in bengal. during testimony i warn that had threatened to derail social and economic gains the country has gained in over the last decade and that islamist extremist could take advantage of the increased political polarization there. i think this is what we are seeing play out. while the extremist attacks are happening, the government is
executing political opponents. so while we've seen a reduction in political violence more recently in bangladesh. the current prime minister moved forward with elections despite the fact that the opposition boycotted them and half of the seats in the parliament went uncontested. so bangladesh and country that we had previously having made important social and economic gains over the last decade now, i think, you know, we are worried that it could become the
next hot bed for terrorism and extremism. it certainly deserves more u.s. attention and i would like to see the u.s. become more assertive in encouraging political dialogue between the current government and the political opposition, so that we can avoid this situation. i'll just stop there. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think i'll just speak from here and i would like to focus my remarks -- >> mic. >> iraq and syria. my mic is on. can you hear okay? okay. the isis is now primarily a region threat but extending and soon could become a long-term global threat if it's allowed to consolidate its power and control over territory. i would argue that isis in the
long run poses a greater potential threat than the al-qaeda core group presently in the tribal pakistan and afghanistan for at least three reasons. first, it's lodged in the heart of the arab world unlike the al-qaeda core group which is kind of the back of the fringe and that's important because both al-qaeda and isis are primarily arab organizations and they're short-term targets, part of the arab states. and this control of territory a little smaller than maryland enables isis to attract, recruit and train not only arabs from the surrounding area but muslims from europe and even the united states. this makes it, although, it
that deprived iraqi government the intelligence, military training, counterterrorism, surveillance and reconnaissance assets that about places to grow in a much more permissive environment. the administration downplayed the threat of places last year when the president famously telling a new york reporter isis
was the jv team. after this complacent this thing was exposed as wishful thinking, when prices took multiple, iraq's second largest city in june -- mosul. the white house acted slowly with us his of half measures that were carried out in a piecemeal fashion. it initially committed a few hundred military advisers to support iraqi security forces and retrain they shattered iraqi army. gradually increased a number of these advisers to about 3500 but the overall effort to combat isis remains underresourced. this ad hoc incremental approach is no way to win a war. it didn't work in vietnam, and it's not working in iraq in syria today. the administration also has launched a limited air campaign that his procedure that is leisurely pace with up to three quarters of u.s. warplanes at
one point returning to base without dropping their bombs because of tight restrictions on targeting. also a lack of reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. the administration's lack of coffee sense of urgency has been breathtaking. the president proclaimed isis was contained the day before the pairs terrorist attacks. it's all the more disturbing because the long string of isis victories has given it an aura of invincibility and attracted a steady stream of foreign fighters who boost its strength by about 1000 buyers each month. is why the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dunford, admitted earlier this week in a congressional hearing to isis has not yet been contained. this is a conflict against global islamist insurgency and in that kind of a conflict if
you're not winning you are losing. and we are not winning. the white house needs to reconsider its incremental half measures in iraq, and devise and implement a coherent strategy that would more effectively match ends and means in the struggle against isis. so far it's barred combat operations, or initially it barred combat operations by american ground troops, dragged its feet on deploying advisers, restricted them from being deployed in close proximity to the front lines, and put tight restrictions on use of airstrikes to avoid civilian casualties. that's a laudable goal but in the long run, is pulling punches in the air war has enabled isis to kill more civilians and attract more fanatic followers. the administration recently announced the deployment of 50 special operations personnel to
syria and a large expeditionary targeting force to iraq. those are fine steps but you know, i think they should have been done long ago. we need to ease some of these political restrictions that hamper the effectiveness of the military effort and apply anymore extensive and intensive air campaign against isis. u.s. military advisers should be embedded and iraqi military units closer to the front lines. u.s. special operations forces should be deployed in restraint and embedded with kurdish peshmerga to enhance their effectiveness and coordinate u.s. airstrikes. we need to expand the size and the role of u.s. ground forces to include combat missions, to o in isis reign of terror. iraq needs much more help in
defeating isis, which already poses a growing regional threat and a significant threat to the u.s. homeland if it's allowed to consolidate its rule. a tougher, more realistic military strategy needs to be wedded to a long-term political economic ideological diplomatic effort. it's important that the islamic state, it's important to note that isis does not lead a monolithic insurgency, but there are layers of ad hoc allies it has acquired, including some of the remnants of saddam hussein's baathist military, sunni tribal leaders who saw which way the wind was blowing, and pursued a marriage of convenience with isis, not for ideological reasons but because they saw isis as a lesser evil compared to unresponsive governments in
baghdad and damascus. although it gets all the headlines, isis relies on these allies. they need to be peeled away in isis is going to be defeated. i think we need to exploit its achilles' heel. the fact that it's extremism alienates all the people forced to labor under its harsh rule. u.s. and its allies should be driving wedges between isis and less radical groups to siphon off support, particularly from the sunni arab tribes who are chafing increasing under isis rule. but the tribes will not defect unless they see a concerted and effective sign that the u.s. is involved with and that the tide is turning and that they can count on sustained u.s. support and protection in the aftermath. ultimately, the obama administration i think is right
that the iraqis and syrians need to do the heavy lifting on the ground, but firm u.s. leadership is needed to escalate the coalition military efforts and provide more effective support for them in their anti-isis efforts. washington also must lead harder on baghdad to pressure to rein in shia militias, reach out to sunni arab tribal leaders and give them a reason to turn against isis. the war in syria is going to be much more difficult in part because we don't have, we lag kind of reliable allies that we've already worked with on the ground. but the u.s. need to strengthen the elements of the sunni rebel coalitions are opposed to isis and prepare for an indie game and will cement a sustainable political structure within syria after the geopolitical kaleidoscope is twisted once again with work effectively military action against isis. that may come hopefully and this
administration but if not then the next administration. so the bottom line, i would say is this administration has been in denial about the persistent threat posed by islamist extremists, particularly isis. it has done too little, too late to help the troubling trends we see in the region today. thank you. [applause] >> i will follow jim's example and remain seated. also my challenge is to avoid repeating what my fellow colleagues on the panel have sent. let me begin at the risk of stating the obvious by saying gosh, how different everything looks today compared to four and half years ago when we were repeatedly assured al-qaeda was on the verge of strategic collapse. collapse. firstly, it is both this may disagree slightly from jim in this perspective, i think al-qaeda remains as much of a threat as isis.
one can see that in the fact that al-qaeda is present in more places today than it's ever been before. it currently has at least 17 major networks or affiliates and associates. more than double the number it had in 2008, at a think the addition of al-qaeda in the indian subcontinent which lisa tucker is a particularly dangerous and pernicious threat despite the fact on a couple of years ago when it first announced it was dismissed as quote-unquote a publicity stunt. second as we all know, even more worrisome that al-qaeda's longevity, stubborn resilience has seen the emergence of isis. whether it's al-qaeda or isis i come to the third point, that the jihadi message remains unfortunately both compelling, or remains compelling and both brands continue to resonate. i would say in isis case its message is fairly simple, which means it's extraordinary difficult for us to counter.
its message has become so but i think i can to the wretched of the earth, a classic text from some 60 years ago when it was described a cathartic cleansing, self-satisfied effects of violence a striking a blow at aided and dreaded enemy. today what we see is that same sort of ideology and since been taking root that affect the bloodier the more shocking, the more heinous the violence, the more attractive it is to those who rally to isis and al-qaeda's benefit at the end of the day how do you effectively counter narrative is based on a message of the cleansing and the positive effects of violence? this feeds off the increasing sectarian basis of the messaging of both the groups that see themselves in the apocalyptic struggle against therefore most enemy, the shia but also against the west and the united states.
and, unfortunately, we've seen in the past couple of years the enormous power of social media. the way that it underpins, facilitates and encourages foreign fighters. a recent report of the u.s. house of representatives homeland security committee estimated that the number of foreign fighters that have rallied to syria and iraq is upwards of 25,000 individuals drawn from some 80 countries throughout the world. i think these two developments in particular, the resonance of the jihadi message, the continued appeal of their brand, and this large number of foreign fighters ensures that this struggle will continue for years. finally we have to look at ourselves. obviously, in defense in san bernardino over the past few days demonstrate we are in a highly fluid and it was a complicated environment. but perhaps the complications our greatest because that threat has grown and is growing at a
moment when our resources and even our political will to engage this enemy has either contracted or diminished. that's one of the fundamental challenges we face. sadly as i wrote recently in the cipher brief, if bin laden were still alive he would likely be a very happy man. firstly in 1998 in a newspaper interview he said that he welcomed his death, that he looked forward to is opportunity for martyrdom because he was pretty confident that his death would produce thousands of more. certainly we have seen an exponential greater problem, serve the greater number than existed during the 12 years al-qaeda was active, for 13 years al-qaeda was active in afghanistan. is proved by the realization of one of his hopes. if you recall that thimbleful of documents that was initially released in may 2012 from the about applaud rate, about was
that one of the documents where bin laden complained about that al-qaeda was been misunderstood and digested reprint the organization to show that it wasn't only about terrorism and about using force, but that also had a political agenda. i would argue that dream or that imperative of bin laden has also been realized. look at how infrequently used the al-qaeda name to describe a variety of groups. the locales al-qaeda's active arm in syria al-qaeda into. instead we call it the owners were from. -- al-nusra front. we refer to them. there's any number of groups in syria that are clearly jihadi in the ideology that are clearly allied with al-qaeda yet we refer to them and thus far more obfuscating the terms. so he has achieved the rebranding of al-qaeda.
thirdly, september 2010 bin laden called on al-qaeda affiliates and associates to carry out mumbai style attacks in your. there were no takers because there were no groups capable of mounting those types of attacks, as hard as the design might have been. with the attacks against "charlie hebdo" in the supermarkets or last month with attacks in pairs, the mumbai style attacks have not materialized. finally, bin laden would be very content to see zawahiri's plea from his infamous nights under the banner published anti-semitism is one that an undeniable low point in al-qaeda's history where zawahiri called on al-qaeda's followers, acolytes, adheres, supporters and sympathizers of the world to carry out attacks on health of the al-qaeda cause in their own homeland which, of course, isis spokesman adopted for himself a year ago
september. we potentially see this having materialized into united states recently and in other countries certainly in recent months. against this backdrop i would argue that al-qaeda is quietly rebuilding, and very happily sees isis garner and happily sees isis carbon collar detention for taking all of the heat that al-qaeda has not gone the way, and the fact that obscured in the back pages of newspapers this morning, is that al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula has seized two more cities in yemen, thus extending its governance and control. let me move on to some of the implications in the future and wrap up in what should be some of our policy responses. one of the dimensions of the current devolution of this struggle is about at least a mighty distinction between terrorism and insurgency and conventional warfare capabilities of our adversaries is eroding. groups like al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, al-nusra front at isis are now ask
capable if not more capable than the established militaries of the region's convention, the conventional armies in the regions in which they operate. each of them has seized, held territory, has exercised some form of governance and sovereignty. and at the moment there's no real signs of any of them being pushed back. or having any of that territory taken away from them. the arab spring has resulted in a series of destabilize governments across north africa and the middle east that we have to admit now have led reluctantly to a renaissance of terrorist threat. and to the proliferation of sanctuary and safe haven. 30 years ago prime minister margaret thatcher said that publicity is the oxygen upon which terrorist depend that was the cold war formulation. in the 21st century sanctuary and safe haven is the oxygen upon which terrorist depend and, unfortunately, in the past four
and half years, terrorists access to century and safe havens across north africa and the middle east has only increased rather than diminish. what worries me the most is past history is any example, that once these types of adversaries have access to sanctuary and safe havens, they develop the capabilities of the research and development capabilities to engage in extreme edition with unconventional weapons. we've seen prices on innumerable occasions use chemical weapons against innocent civilians. one has to wonder how long that particular weapon and tactical will remain confined to the levant. the foreign fighters problem is not one that is exclusive to the levant or to iraq. foreign fighters are trained and deployed today in afghanistan, pakistan, libya, somalia, yemen and somalia. this is a problem that will not go away and will remain intractable for years to come. in terms of a response, jim went
over quite a bit of this so i don't have to repeat it but all to the good that a special operations task force, more special operation forces in recent weeks been deployed to iraq. the point is if i'm right that we face this hybrid threat of terrorists, conventional warfare, entities with those capabilities, the problem is that direct action and special operations is really only relevant to counterterrorism. not to take it on hybrid armies such as what i describe. first and foremost our imperative must be decisively rolling isis back from the territory that it sees in western iraq. i think without its diminishment, without having its territory and land taken away, that's the way to counter its narrative and to diminish its allure and its power of attraction. similarly as jim and others have discussed, we need a much more concerted effort to undermine
the logistical infrastructure that supports and sustains terrorism. the bombing of oil fields, isis oil capacity is all for the well and good but i would argue that the anemic level it's currently being conducted is having a long-term strategic effect. it takes isis about two weeks to once again start pumping many of these targets that we attack and cause all the but to a thousand dollars to once again draw oil out of the ground and transported. we have to enjoyed our regional partners and special our nato allies to do the threat as seriously as it must be viewed. in this respect u.s. leadership is absolutely critical, and i would argue turkey is going to be an enormous important test case. in many respects the problems and their travails we experience in pakistan and south asia over the past decade and have are being replicated in the middle east given our relationship with turkey. it's even worse because turkey of course is a nato ally. finally, i think we need to
develop an effective strategy to measure effectiveness against the one i think most important dimension of the terrorist threat, and that's the ability to spawn franchises or affiliates and associates or provinces or branches at isis calls them. we will know we're winning with a number of affiliates, associates, branches, franchises, provinces is diminishing rather than growing. and, finally, we need to recognize the haze as if we are indeed in a long war that requires unceasing vigilance at a continued military presence and military operations in key countries overseas. thank you. [applause] >> i don't know if we have the video we're going to run. i would like to start with that. thank you so much for being here. i'll just stay right here, but the beauty of that going to play it is from my trip.
>> i only wish i could take every one of you to sinjar to see the atrocities for yourself. you know, so many times we spend watching television, we are very disconnected. it seems like a movie. it doesn't seem real. we tell ourselves this will never happen in america. we will never see anything like this in paris. but for the people of iraq, and now we see what people, from their capabilities by having a sanctuary that they've established, that territory that has not been challenged to the extent it needs to be. they were allowed to metastasi metastasize, and that has become on most difficult objective. when i was on the ground, the most important thing for me as the reporter is to tell you the truth. what i'm seeing. not just to deliver a narrative,
not to listen to what the white house is saying is happening, or to the defense department. it's the value what i as a person on the ground and gathering as information to deliver to the american people or to lawmakers so that they can best make their own decision. what was interesting was, as i spoke to the peshmerga fighters and i spent some time with him upon the mountain right before sinjar village was taken, and as i spoke with the yazidis who escaped the atrocities in summer lost their family members, some who lost their daughters, their children to these people, and still don't even know where they are at, i began to put together a picture of how the narrative shifts. how it's so different. i remember last year when the president had said, you know, the ngos. they're going to send ngos and rescue people off about sinjar.
islamic state had taken over the province. were going to come in, we're going to make a difference. and that it was like we did need to rescue them. we just dropped some a. everybody is fine for most of the people made it off the mound and connected to a year later i do like no, everybody was not fine. more than 3000-5000 were executed in mass graves. these arthese are not just a mae them. these were small children and women and the elderly who couldn't get away from them fast enough. bodies were piled on top of each other. children were slaughtered. they were slaughtered. the rest of them were left to die on the mountain. and then groups like the pkk or why pg, why p.j., all the different militia groups are helping to make it to the mountain pass and get into syria. let me as reporter bring you a message. from a young unite yazidi girl t on the road, in sinjar, her car
had broken down to it was a beat up suv. her family was making their way back from turkey. they had escaped and are heading to a u.n. camp just outside of center hoping they would find some help for some food. she said we want the world to declare what happened to us a genocide, but where is the world? islamic state, daesh, she called, captured lots of people and they arise. many did not escape. they killed lots of children. we asked where is the world? where is the great u.s. of a? is ais in daesh a threat to your nation as well? where were we? where was europe? we all turned a blind eye to what was happening on the
ground. our air force, amazing air force pilots, trying to do their job, would literally fly over, to flyovers, get calls from peshmerga fighters on the ground, i indicated. they said we would call for airstrikes. we would know that our air force, pilots were up in the air. we would call for airstrikes and then we would hear no authority to strike. what? there could be civilians. we don't have authority to strike. there's no civilians driving that humvee straight at us loaded with ammo. or we are sure there's no civilians tell you there's none. one of the things that happened up with over the last few years is a breakdown in trust between the allies overseas and america. and now what we are left with is little pieces of information. so many people i've traveled to afghanistan many times as well,
are afraid. they are afraid to share information with us. they are afraid they're going to ask for help and no one will arrive. who can blame democrats our military, you know, just being a reporter from the ground into doing our men and women in uniform, are frustrated. they want to do this job. they volunteered to fight for our country. they don't want, this is what they tell me, for these islamic state fighters, these radicals, to be able to radicalized more people or to be able to come into our country and conduct attacks as atrocious as we have seen. my hometown of san bernardino. my prayers and thoughts are with them. but like we saw in san bernardino or in pairs or "charlie hebdo" or in turkey or in lebanon. we could just keep adding, adding, adding and we are still going be adding more attacks.
the first step, when i came to i thought, what is the first step? the first step is anybody, whether you're facing the enemy, is admitting that the problem is that even if it doesn't fit the narrative. so even if i would have gone to sinjar province and i had heard the rumors here and there, they would've told me everybody is great. u.s. came in, we were rescued, it was awesome. a lot of people's lives were saved. that's what i would have reported to you. because that's the truth from the ground. but the problem is now very few people are telling that truth. a lot of times the media, it's our fault, too, perpetuates a narrative because it's easier to perpetuate that narrative and actually go there, see for yourself, try to find somebody who speaks the language well enough that can help you with the interviews, put your life on the line.
and remember, the greatest information that we get from the ground off from the reporters that live there, but their lives are so threatened and so many have died. 181 reporters, bloggers, writers killed in syria. more than 29 still missing. because they are highly fallible asset to the islamic state, which have their own narrative to get across. a narrative that we haven't been able to combat. you know, the kurdish fighters were up against, are up against a 35,000 plus an islamic state militants. you know, who have former iraqis military equipment, much of which we donated or gave are left behind to the iraqi army or sold to them. what was interesting is that they are willing to fight. they say we're willing to go out there, willing to take on islamic state, just like they
did in sinjar, with air support, with a strong air support because it's very difficult for them because they are up against what happens to the islamic state, takes our hum trust in us and they're trying to rebuild that trust. we know that islamic state has gained such a powerful force. it's metastasizing itself across
the globe come across the globe, and then choosing from these amazing panelists with all of their information it's quite true, even in south asia, afghanistan and pakistan are i hope to visit soon. and we've seen this expand, and there's been very little that we have done to actually stop it or to actually tell these stories. the reality of what's happening on the ground. you know, mosul, and i think it was jim brought up a very good point, when we talk about mosul, the second largest city in iraq, and i saw the site on the way to mosul as a drove around mosul, not through mosul, to get to sinjar mountain, mosul is still getting money to pay for electricity, for their supplies, from the central baghdad government. who i was collecting all of that money can't islamic state. they are in control of mosul. it true there are many civilians caught in the middle of this big
on many disenfranchised sunnis on the ground. one of the things that potentially could be a major problem for us in this war against islamic state is the fact that sectarian divides have so increased over the past year, and particularly with shia militias within the sunni communities that it's like a hotbed right now. not only to have his --.com and we have islamic state but had a potential disaster on their hands inside iraq. some people say it's already there. i say it hasn't gotten to the apex yet and we will know that when we start seeing it on the news, people slaughter each other again. you know, disenfranchised sunnis live in the badlands not been able to return back to the villages. i'm going to wrap it up because i'm we've all talked for so long, but if there's anything i can maybe deliver to you is that we really have to listen to the people who are living with his everyday. we have to listen to their
stories and we can distance ourselves from them, from the people of iraq or from afghanistan and pakistan. there still people out there who are going to want the truth to come out, who want us to be their ally again. there are experts out here who can tell the united states how to accomplish these missions, but it's up to the administration and its up to the lawmakers to say what that mission is and what the strategy is because right now nobody knows. >> thank you. [applause] >> so we have a bit of time to open it up for questions. if you have a question just ration and then wait for the microphone. i do have a couple of resources i want to mention that are available to you. one of them is shown on the side screens here, which is a powerful analytical tool we developed. it's an interactive timeline. we have a database of islamist
terrorist plots aimed at the united states since nine 9/11, which is on our website, authoritative information on each one of these things. if you look at the nature of the terror threat against the united states, it's all of the above. so virtually every tactic technique that could potentially be available to a terrorist group has been aimed at the united states which is important when you think about accounting that as when everybody has kind of an easy button answer or a bumper sticker that says seal the border or keep out the refugees were cut off the visas or in the visa waiver program, none of these, the terrorists just move onto something else. so in your counterterrorism programs you want to be efficacious, have due diligence but the notion that somehow when we just put a plug in this part of the dam and the flood to stop is a really wrong way to do that. in many ways you will do more damage to yourself in terms of
the freedom and prosperity and on security by kind of fixated on something. if you just put my bumper stick up there, this problem will be solved. powerful tool. was mentioned today's report we did in 2011 the analysis administration catechism strategy for the next that i still think that's a very important paper but i would commend to you. another one that lisa co-authored was a report that we did a look at the ideological element and a political version, political islam. and how do you combat that which has to be paired with your counterterrorism strategy is also available online. the third paper which lisa has been laid on with a great team that looks at the foreign fighter threat, which is something that bruce and some others report is important, to be a chocolate we don't have an integrated foreign fighter pipeline strategy. after all, these years and many times we've seen it. that people will be out innovative new future. so having said that we are happy to take questions.
we will start in, i think why don't we start easy, go to india because it's the front and we work our way back to the center and besides. we would get as many questions as we can. >> i penny starr with cbs news. on the san bernardino incident, have the discussion has been mostly about gun control and workplace violence in the media. i mean, they are saying it could be terrorism but it's interesting to me that that's not been at the forefront of the discussion. i'm wondering if you could comment on that? >> i would just say first of all i think law enforcement and fbi have been unfairly criticized for not coming out and saying it's terrorism. they need to know. they didn't know. maybe not today we do know i think you done everything right. i think the media is another problem. i think the administration is another problem. i agree with you absolutely. to jump to guns as well as to jump to causes is really the
wrong way to go about this. and i think we have got a big problem on our hands because of that speed let me ask bruce to comment we were talking before and this is a plot that is kind of different from anything we've seen before. do you have any observations on what we've seen in san bernardino? >> well, firstly, a pair of shooters like this are extremely rare. i think only 5% of all investments in the united states has involved more than one person to buy secondly, the husband and wife team is a completely unprecedented but it is somewhat unprecedented. the only other example was last year the husband and wife shooting in las vegas, which was white supremacist related. here i think what has been reported and which suggest this a lot more than about gun control is just firstly the vast amount of any -- ammunitio inite stockbug but also this cache of explosives are clearly they were
intent on a more sustained campaign of something, which leads one to think perhaps that it is also terrorism much more, but also what struck me is why does it have to be either or? it could be both workplace violence and on top of ideological motivation. these things don't have to be message of exclusive. people become terrorists for all sorts of reasons. generally at least the most common, the conventional wisdom is that it's some sense of injustice. what motivates people to engage in workplace violence, too. it could be both deeply personal and there could be a profound ideological motivation as well so not sure where to exclude either, one cancels out the other. >> we have had an increasing number of plots in the last two years. to my mind this is the first plot that we've seen that wasn't almost exclusively homegrown where is been reporting at least
of some transnational connections and affiliations. >> the trouble is what often want attention to terrorism when tragically the blood is already spilled. so when there's blood should we pay attention to any incident. in my view, applaud that fbi director james comey talked about that was disrupt on july 4 of this year, that clearly had isis involvement, that resulted in the rest of upwards of 10 individuals, and it was publicly i assume because the cases under investigation, a lot of the details have not been released. we don't know exactly what the isis port. equally said it wasn't isis to mention of it. that failed. it was disrupted because of the sophisticated abilities of the fbi in recent years, but the point is we have forgotten about it. that should be a warning spirit there have been several attempted plots in the u.s. that
affect international connections. of course, the may 2010 attempted car bombing of times square, traveled from pakistan. never connections to the ttp. and then as well azazi plot, then your subway plot, also there was a connection international to that the contest will. >> did you have another? we have a question done in the center. the gentleman behind you. we have three. >> thanks very much for the wide-ranging presentation. especially sara's and the former journalist that correspond to we appreciate your comments. i spent many years in the state department agri-terrorism office, so i'm approaching this as a practitioner. i think one thing that may be overlooked as both the offenses and the defense of. in terms of defensive, the
training, for example, does it would depend on the nomenclature of the slides that what you call up the swat team we saw visible yesterday. and other types of training, including that that we provide to countries overseas. the motive doesn't matter so much as the techniques, et cetera. so i think there's a little bit too much over emphasis in some quarters on the semantics of what the administration calls or doesn't call islamic fundamentalism. the other thing that's overlooked, president reagan, following the crude bombings and other incidents, said terrorism is a crime, terrorists are criminals no matter what their motivation -- beirut. that's kind of overlooked. and i think, for example, the justice department and the fbi had contacted something like 270 prosecutions under the material
support provision which i helped draft with the justice department. so i think it's a mistake to kind of look at this purely as a war because we have to think and use all the tools available. the other aspect, wendy downgraded the psychology aspect. this is also an important tool to try to understand the terrorists, partly to try to detect them, whether border security or possible suspects. and there's all sorts of motivations. i don't think we can overlook this completely. it's a very useful tool. it's fashionable to say one way to get rid of gun violence is to improve mental health, but he we have a situation in san bernardino what it looks like it would never have been picked up on the screen, you know, mental health professionals. the other aspect of defensive of how do you make it more difficult for them to get speed so maybe we can get katie to do a quick response to go to the
next question. >> i just couldn't respond to the last book because it's what i feel very strongly about. the problem is the psychology angle has not yielded anything useful so far. we are putting too much effort into that and we are completely ignoring the aspects that are valuable. so, for example, if you look at the cases of, just the icing support in the last 14 months, they are repeatedly, you see, sort of appearance or behavioral indicators of radicalization, right? we saw in this case in san bernardino as well. we are ignoring that. the suspicious activities report lists that law enforcement uses, they are not allowed to even talk about those aspects. so i would push back that i would say i don't, i mean, god bless the psychologist who want to keep pursuing it. maybe they will unlock something useful at some point. they haven't yet. let's been more attention to the
other things that are of value and abuse to law enforcement. >> thank you. i'm with the australian government post here in washington and i got a question regarding syria. are there any, the views of the ban on political or diplomatic options that haven't been yet leveraged, wraps encourage president assad to step aside speak with let ask jim to address that. >> i think ultimately as long as assad is in power, that will come down to al-nusra, al-qaeda affiliates benefit. any long-term strategy for defeating isis there has to include removing assad from power. but i'm not as optimistic as some in the administration appeared to be about the prospects of having russia, greece, this gets under assad. they been continued dropping
hints at coming out of the u.s. ambassador up in new york who is continually saying, you know, we're not wedded to assad. we need some kind of structure behind him, where as the iranians are much workers supportive of assad. but i think these tend to be diplomatic winks of the i, kind of flirting to get u.s. buy-in for u.s.-russian brokered process that, you know, in the long run is needed i just don't think it's going to come about in the short run. >> anacondas with bloomberg. was a mass shooting in san bernardino an act of war? what are the conditions for victory if, indeed, it was an act of war speak with do you want to start? >> it's nice to see you in
person and not sitting at home playing game boy. i would bristle against, i would bristle against calling it or describe it as an act of war because that implies event that our enemy is a state. it may mean that our response has to be warlike, we are certainly involving military or kinetic force depended on the pedigree of the incident turns out to be what terrorism is in general. but i think the answer to terrorism is that we have swung in opposite directions. for the longest time until 2000 we treated this account as a criminal phenomena. there is no police force in the world that can take on the i suspect there is no police force in the world that could have taken on the taliban or al-qaeda in afghanistan. but at the same time i think we have to use the tool to counterterrorism with the make the most sense and in what circumstances. i would say that san bernardino,
whether it's terrorism or was it workplace violence or some other idiosyncratic justification is handled this entry to pass as a law enforcement problem. the difference is we still have to unravel what the pedigree of what the background is, which raises lots of different applications that go beyond criminality and beyond law enforcement that involves intelligence, international intelligence, if it was a process of radicalization, if that is being reported this when there was some contact with individuals overseas that may account for syed farook smashing of cell phones and delete files. in a cup and law enforcement. my earlier point i don't think it's mutually exclusive. we have to approach it from both dimensions depending on the circumstances, the situation and the perpetrators. and actually this is i think in recent weeks was france's approach with pairs but it's been treated both as law enforcement and a criminal issue but also as a military one, intelligence one as well.
>> i think we've run out of time. we started sometimes but we always end on time. we'll have two things to do. one is, i've asked our panelists and some other folks to join together in a private lunch, and that's in the davis from in the davis from. so if you exit and go down the hall and make another left will be meeting down there. for everyone else would get some sandwiches and stuff outside. we please encourage you to stick around and enjoy the sandwiches and discuss issues we talked about today. the only other thing we have to do before this, please, join me for thinking our panel for this presentation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> securities and exchange commission chair mary jo white and consumer ahmadinejad protection bureau director richard cordray on capitol hill today along with other members of the financial stability
oversight council. they are testifying before the house financial services committee about the council's agenda. that's life at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. in the afternoon were at the national press club force with some secretary david skorton who we talked about the smithsonian's operations and future live at 1:00 on c-span3. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home. teaching in a private school. she successfully lobbied congress for funds for the first white house library. mamie eisenhower's hairstyle and love the integrated fashion sensation. stores sold clip on banks to women eager to replicators doctor jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association, and nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name mistake on the blacklist of
suspected hamas sympathizers in the late 1940s. she appealed to screen actors guild and ronald reagan for helping children to begin his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book first ladies, presidential storms on the lives of 45 iconic american women get the book makes a great gift for the holidays giving readers an inside look at how their legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's first lady series and has received numerous videos including this one from michael beschloss, presidential historian and author who said quote, c-span is a national treasure and his pathbreaking series on america's first ladies is another reason why. judy woodruff comco anchor and managing editor of "the pbs newshour" says -- and jane
hamdan cook noted that c-span's first ladies is an incredible collection of rare insight on our nation's first ladies. at the important role they played in shaping america during their husbands presidency. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. c-span booktv's ladies is available as a hardcover or an e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy tod today. >> next, security and foreign policy analysts discuss the tactics and rivalry between isis and al-qaeda, and how the u.s. should counter threats from these groups. this was hosted by the group new america. it is an hour and 20 minutes. >> my name is jason to one of
the authors on this report. so the report was a done originally in support of, to take a look at the strategic competition between al-qaeda and the islamic state, and the intent of this was to examine ways that al-qaeda and isis are in competition with each other. we looked at the islamic state and al-qaeda as revolution groups. not only examined them. they are of course there is opposition advocates of islamic state also a quasi-state. billy acted as revolutions as both organizations have tried to fight against the standard world order and taken within the region of syria and iraq. in this way we have identified al-qaeda as more of a
traditional organization where they favor political preparation of areas they intend to go into. they use violence but it isn't in support of political objectives. so the politics come first and the violence comes second. this has been seen to a number of public writings of al-qaeda senior leaders. the islamic state we examine them as or of a focused organization, and by that feeding off of the experience and writings of the sheikh on how they put promise towards violence. and they create the politics through violence. excuse me for a second. ..
but i want to fundamentally just give a shoutout to jason, nate barr, brigitte, the team that worked on this finish and i might say a thing or two again my apologies to everyone for being late to my own launch event. >> right. i will finish very quickly and let daveed take over. al qaeda effort putting focus on politics with violence supporting the politics is that they're trying to present themselves to the muslim population of the world as more reasonable alternative to the islamic state. that's really about it. so, one last sentence in. hand it over to you. >> what i say to pick up on that, one thing that, one concept that i focused on a lot in my work is what i refer to
you as consensus areas, areas where virtual consensus, those of us who are operating in the public sphere about what a certain events mean that end up being wrong. so the niche reading of the arab spring as being devastating to jihadism is what i have described as consensus error. it ended up being the exact opposite. we actually see something that resembles a consensus error in this area. my predict un, you can check on this over time, my prediction, in two to three years one of the things we're talking about that al qaeda is able to operate much more openly than it ever could before. we already see this in syria, al qaeda, made itself almost impossible to attack, the reason being they're so thoroughly embedded with rebel groups, the syrian population, they have
genuinely won over large parts of that population with refractioning themselves making them think that they stand for what the population stands for. playing off isis as jason talked about, these have all been very important moves. you can see this coincide with a few disturbing trends. the increase in state support to al qaeda, turkey, qatar, saudi arabia are openly helping it to gain ground in syria. u.s.-backed rebels are helping al qaeda to take ground. this is openly acknowledged. it is not nefarious although i think an indefensible policy but the reason that the u.s. does it is just that we acknowledge that moderate rebels are so marginal at this point that they need to, they can't operate in areas if al qaeda wants to deny them the ability to do so. charities that we worked so hard
to shut down after 9/11 are back in business and sanctions regime at united nations is fundamentally collapsing. we had mohamed istanbuli, was delisted at u.n. this will be a very difficult situation if i believe isis ends up, its flame doesn't burn quite as bright in a few years. understand there are two different jihadist actors. one of them is playing off the dramatic rise of isis and the way in which isis has been able to capture all our imaginations and imaginations of so many like the san bernardino attacker just came out that the wife had put a pledge to baghdadi up on facebook during the course of their attack. they have been able to capture the excitement of jihadists, especially young jihadists and capture our imagination. not paying attention how
al qaeda is pivoting at this time is something we'll probably regret probably sooner than later. >> then i will turn it over to start with some comments on the paper where al qaeda sits now, where islamic state sits now and how interaction between them defines the current conflict. >> sure. really enjoyed reading this paper which clearly laid out the distinction between the two groups in interesting ways, in ways we're used to thinking about the two groups as different like we don't think very hard why that's so. we know there is the islamic state and we know they're a little more violent and we know there is al qaeda and we hated them for so long almost seems like we're ready for something new but we've not given a thought and parsed what are the distinctions and what are the differences.
i think that is something that this report does very, very well. if i could lay out even more simply than the report does, i think very shorthand, of course anytime you use shorthand you will lose some knew once but a shorthand way of thinking of this. islamic revolution, the caliphate, is now or later? or al qaeda? it's not yet time to bring around the full islamic revolution. the people aren't ready. they still live in relative content in the, not truly islamic states by which it means everything from malaysia to saudi arabia. so they're not ready. and there needs to be a period of education and teaching and preparing not only the people but also the cadres for what is to come. in the meantime there are these really evil far enemies, the united states and europe and
russia, who need to be dealt with and occasionally taught a lesson as september 11th so conclusively demonstrated. but that is their theory of the case. it's not yet time. obviously the islamic state thinks no, it's time. now is when we need to be bringing about this revolution and we now see what they consider that to be with the islamic state as they set it up in the territory that they have managed to capture in iraq and syria. then spreading throughout the world both in these affiliates and in these lone wolves who are to soften western targets whether that be in tariffs or san bernardino or where have you. so i really appreciated the paper bringing this to the fore and allowing me to think about it in that way. the second point that the paper really brings out what daveed emphasized at end.
he stole a little bit of my thunder but i guess i will emphasize it a little more. the way they put it in the paper, because of the existence of the islamic state or isil or daesh, al qaeda in general, and. >> battle -- al nusra in syria explicitly gets, i don't think this is matter this, is well-known in open source and classified materials they get money from saudi arabia and gulf states from turkey. if you ask them, no, no, we're supporting rebel groups at large. we're giving the sole legs and the fact there happens to be a big al qaeda affiliate in the middle of it is a regrettable necessity so there is a way to excuse it away but the combination of the syrian revolution and the fact that you have now isil to metaphorically
speaking to al qaeda's right as the new definer of what true evil is has now made it possible for people to talk about al qaeda and deal with al qaeda in case that would have been unthinkable in the early parts of the last decade. you know the day when prominent figures would publicly talk, well, maybe we can reconcile with pieces of this al qaeda affiliate. you can't imagine people saying that in 2002 and 2003. this al qaeda group, we will get into this may or may not still be a long-term significant threat now age to get state support which daveed points out, which the sanctions regime against which is showing weakness. i wouldn't say collapsing but is
showing weakness. and just in the public sphere is talked about in a much different way. almost as an afterthought. well we have these syrian rebels, oh, yeah, there is an al qaeda affiliate in the middle of them. unthinkthinkable in 2002 or thre would have talking about al qaeda in these terms. last i checked, until a few days, isil hadn't attacked the homeland of the united states. even now, we certainly regret what happened in san bernardino, it is a qualitatively different event than we saw on 9/11. when did a group that actually attacked our homeland became moderate to a group truly evil and brutal, everything we really say it is never really has or not in the same sense?
and then third, there was one thing that i didn't see in the report that i would kind of like daveed to respond to. i didn't see the report really treat the distinction in the way the two groups treat shia arabs which i think has always been something qualitativelily different about the two groups, starting with the founders. osama bin laden in my understanding, at least, always had kind of a soft spot for the shia. viewed them as mistaken, as quasi-heretics, who had a real problem that had to be dealt with but never talked about exterminating them, subjugating them or and they were a issue and had really regrettable political views and had to be lectured but they were with iran and that is a problem. they were a problem but zarqawi
saw them as a group of heretics that simply needed to be killed or at the very least transformed, subjugated, really put in a clearly subordinate status. i think that has been reflected in the approach of the two groups. i didn't see that really brought out in the paper and i would be interested in daveed's thoughts on that. final thing is, the as the paper brings out there are two responses that al qaeda could have to the rise of isil. do they try to mimic them and increase their visibility, their level of violence, their approach? do they essentially agree that okay, maybe we do need to accelerate the revolution? or do they double down on their -- no, no, we need to keep doing what we're doing, slow and steady wins the race. they're the tortoise and not the hare to mix metaphors.
a lot of this is determines where the islamic state in two to three years. if the islamic state continues to have success al qaeda may have to mimic them more. if on the other hand the international coalition is able to contain the islamic state and remove or hold their territory, and number of years from now there is no longer islamic state in the north of iraq and eastern syria, then al qaeda's longer-term strategy may look more prudent. i guess i will stop there for now. >> thank you for the report. i thought it was too generous of al qaeda, maybe too generous from where i stand. one thing if you look at fighters of al qaeda and isis they go back and forth. a lot fought with al qaeda and isis, and then in terms of ideology the difference is practically no.
to say things like al qaeda avoid frightening or alienating local populations, i thought that was in the arab world, somebody grew up in the arab world, we have much, much more generous political party who is really care much about the population let alone terrorist organizations. so we don't yet have the kind of democracies where groups or political parties care so much what the population wants. which is why we're having arab springs and civil war and terrorism springing in every part of the arab world. the other thing is, i would like the report to discuss the brutality between the two groups. i mean the, because it's a huge problem that fighters go back and forth. they fight for a month with al qaeda and then isis, they started executing whoever changes camps basically. there has been executions of hundreds and hundreds of
fighters, it's documented, it's always documented by al qaeda as well as isis. so it is creating such paranoia that actually at one point al qaeda executed four of its, i'm sorry, isis executed four of its amirs, where as isis executed 100 people at one point. the brutality, there is no shortage of brutality by al qaeda. the other thing is, when we talk about caring about the population, we really are not, we have to make an enormous distinction between in the west, what we think about when we talk about caring for the populations and public support and the arab world which is again the bar is so low, like maybe an ant can crawl underneath it, it is so low. so we're talking about, maybe
the best-case scenario, if we're talking about al qaeda is taliban. so do you consider taliban a regime that cares about its population? that -- i wouldn't. i think there is enough coercion, intimidation and violence as the main mechanisms of exerting influence that you know public support is all relevant. when we talk about public support we can not take these leaders words, ah, they talk about public support. we're talking about night and day differences. another thing is the organic, i really have an issue with this because prewar in syria, actually, everywhere in the arab world the practices al qaeda has can not be called organic anywhere except saudi arabia. that is the place where they gave birth to the ideology,