tv Farah Pandith How We Win CSPAN March 30, 2019 11:50am-1:01pm EDT
party i recognize a chapter in a prison. and i was active in the prison itself in organized and prison corruption,. >> to us rest of the program visit our website book booktv.org. search for the author's name at the top of the page. [inaudible] [applause] >> good evening and welcome. i am president and ceo of the 911 memorial in museum as always it's a pleasure to greet you and welcome everyone to tonight's program along with those who are
tuning in to our live web broadcast it's a special pleasure to welcome to the museum. we were honored to have her participate in a public program cosponsored a few years ago with the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. during museum planning phase there graciously accepted our invitation to be interviewed of what came to reflect on 911 installation. we thank you again for that. this evening she will help us consider practical proactive ways to counter extremist ideologies. despite the years, lies in billions of dollars fighting tears organizations into extreme ideas continue to attract adherence and the threat of terrorism tragically process. in dialogue with gideon rose
farah pandith will share strategies for addressing global violent extremism. this happens to be the topic of her newly published book, how we win, cutting edge on entrepreneurs, enlightened business leaders in social media and can defeat the extremist threat. she should know. a leading expert and pioneer in countering extremism farah pandith served under president george w. bush, georgia under george bush and barack obama. serving both secretaries who were under hillary clinton and john kerry. under president george w. bush she was director for middle east initiatives at the national security council. chief of staff of the u.s. agency for national development bureaus for asia and the near
east. she has served the puma security advisory council sharing task force on violent terrorism. and currently she's senior fellow at harvard university john f. kennedy school of government and the dixie in the fellow of council on foreign relations. gideon rose is editor of foreign affairs. prior to that he was the fellow and deputy director and national security studies at the cfr. from 1984 to 1995 mr. rose served as associate director for near east south asian affairs. on the staff of national security council. he was assistant editor at the bimonthly national affairs magazine from 1986 to 1987. the domestic policy quarterly public interest from 1985 to
1986. following today's program we invite you to take reception where you will have the opportunity to purchase the new book, how we win on the day of its release. without further ado please join me in welcoming farah pandith in conversation with gideon rose. [cat [applause] >> thank you very much. we are on sacred space in america. this is tragic ground where there has been rebirth and recreation of a new form of the country in a new consciousness. the attacks on 911 disrupted american life in american foreign policy and were incredible shock. the initial response to the community and first responders and everybody around the world with an outpouring of love and
support of community building effort to recover to grieve and so forth. but that was soon followed by a second wave of emotion that potentially replicated the attacks and that we were attacked and lashed out and we were tortured and we were the subject of the binary thinking and replicated that. the war on terror that took place to respond to a real challenge often made that problem worse rather than better. almost 20 years we can think about how we should have reacted. about how we should behave. and what we can and should do now about. the psychologist said between stimulus and response there is a
space. in that space is the power to choose our response. in our response laser growth in our freedom. what we did with the wear-and-tear with the invasion of iraq was to essentially react rather than respond, we did a knee-jerk hijacking and capture instead of thinking how should we solve these problems, we took our pain-and-suffering. his work shows the alternative path that could have been taken. his work is essentially that of somebody who is asking there is a terrible problem of violent extremism in the world that we are in. it produced the kind of awful terrible attack that destroyed the towers.
how should we understand. what is the war against that the we are fighting. what is the considered thoughtful appropriate response to that and how could and should we defuse that violence extremist project in that way. in some ways, i see your book as a guide to the path not taken that we can and should take. with that let me get into the details. you say this is how we went. what is the fight that we are winning? who is the enemy and what is the fight? >> this book is about a very specific kind of enemy and its terrorist organization that use the name to lure muslims into their arms. we all know there ar all kinds f bad actors in this world and
unfortunately the timer and today we are seeing a rise of all kind of hate of us versus them. in this book it applies to the they apply to a common person experiencing hate in their communities. but what i'm trying to do is to say exactly what you just assigned defined. we cannot win against these tears. the only thing we are doing is preparing the strategy for physical work because there is not ideological mention that we are not focused on. >> it's almost like the demand-side and the close of the problem that we can kill them off are we creating more than we are killing off. in the facts of the negative result and visit more so than better. how do you fight the extremism without getting into it in a way that minimizes and dampens the
problem rather than exact a beating. >> one thing you have to do is understand the strategy that you put in place. the strategy is not what is the most vital piece of political architecture in the world, is that this part of the world, this part of the world, can reduce a little bit here and there. is to understand the ideas do not have to be involved, they are connected. for me, as you said almost 20 years since 911, the path that we have to take requires us to understand that there is an ideological battle that we have to fight, and we need to go all in to fight it, and be, the generation of people that are being lowered into armies like isis are particular demographic. those kids that have grown up post 911 having a specific experience for something really big that is happened in the
width your squishy stuff, what does that mean. >> that's the stuff government doesn't know how to do it. on raw say we need to talk but the fact that muslim millenials agreeing up with 9/11 are having a crisis of identity. people's eyes glaze over. that's too squishy. we don't know how to that. you can tell me how much tanks need to go in, how many guns i'm going to next, how many troops need to go in order to win,out can't measure what you need to do to move someone away from finding an appeal of an ideology but that doesn't mean we can't figure this out. it means that the woke general, even though all of them have said the ideological war matters don't know how to do it at the pace we need to do it in order to win. >> who does? i hear that and that makes send, so farah, instead of trying to do what you do i'm just going to hire you, bring you on to my staff, give you a fancy budget,
now go off and do the stuff that will help be a force multiplier for my efforts. what do you do. >> in the physical world we have a chairman of the joint chiefs. that person we accept every day and that person is responsible for the physical wars that are happening in the world. who is the person who wakes up every day in our government and says, how are re doing on that ideal bar? there isn't anyone, never been anybody. there's no strategy since 9/11 to understand all of our assetss and the ideology space. while you can say, it's really important and we need to do more, somebody in government also needs to be responsible for what are all the things we have in our toolbox that we can use and how much of this do we need to use or that we need to use. >> let's play fantasy game continued here. for 200, now there is that czar. we have rechanged the structure of american foreign policy,
recognized the post 9/11 re-organize didn't work and now we have done another re-organize and now there's a ideology -- when i was with the clinton administering the nsc structure worked way to coordinate interests didn't have anything for economic stuff and created the national economic council as a ratchet version of the nsc to do the same kind of thing, and it actually made things better, easier to coordinate. enough it's not the entire thing but worked. now you have not just a national security council and a national economic council but you heave a ideology czar with mother, to reorient strategy or suggest how to do it. what do you do different jive. >> it's important to understand that in the bush administration and in the obama administration, many conversations like this were happening. what do we do but the organization of the problem that we have? can we build and fix a way wind our inner agency so we can call
for the problem. we need to do more. don't have any resources and that's a different conversation why counseling hasn't actually put the mo into the ideology war they have to the physical war and that's important to understand. but it isn't only a problem of structure. it's a problem of credibility. how can you build the kind of antibodies wind a community if government is the only one who is san diego you can't because you can't persuade a young muslim to believe what the united states government or any other government in the world has to say. young people talk to young people. so it has to be a peer-to-peer kind of thing, and the folkses that know what is taking place at the grassroots level are ngos doing this. so what government has to do is it has to figure out a way to work with the ng oohs and scale the ideas the ngos know work at the grassroots level and make it into a 24-7 machine just the way the bad guys do on their project.
we need to deploy that kind of focus, that kind of attention, and frankly that kind of experience and money towards the problem. >> if we did this, what essentially you would be doing would be to create a sort of counter-ideology force, a benign positive approach to thinking and viewing things that would offer the potentially radicalizable teenagers a choice rather than just leaving it to the -- by default. instead of yelling at the solid days for trying to cooperate everybody and convert them do our own kind of massive version of public education, derecallization, attempt to see or -- that would stop the radicalization process. >> before we get there, what is we're solving? it's not just -- there are kids who find this appealing. you have to ask, why?
why do they find this appealing? one thing that we haven't unpacked in a way that makes sense is that lure of that us versus them. it's connected to a crisis of identity that young muslims have been having all over the world post-9/11. so they're asking questions what it means to be a modern muslim, the differences between culture and religion? how can i live my religion out loud and the weird thing is, you can understand that intellectually but who enjoy so it's asurprising. no just muslims living in muslim majority candidate. it's happening with muslims living at minorities. so both of this demographic problem is huge, billion muslims natural the age of 30. if you understand it's an identity crisis we have to solve for, the only voices that can help a young person navigate through that can't be the bad guy would say i'm going to tell you how to be a better muslim.
got to be all the community. right? so it can't just be government. it has to be the other sectors which is why the czar is important, the inner agency is important, the money that congress gives to embassies around the world to work on this project, it's important. but so is the scale and you can't get the scale on the kinds of things that happen around identity if it's only one sector doing something and we're not allowing the ngos to do what they know they can do. that requires a partnership and a cooperation across three sectors, government, the private sector, as well as regular citizens themselves. >> that makes perfect sense and i see that as a sort of plan to scale up and distribute and maximize the benefits of any intervention you come up with. somebody does some good program here,'s, put the entire fear of the ngo community and the u.s. coordinating behind it and you
essentially end up crowd sourcing the problem and following the best ideas. >> yes. >> makes perfect sense. i'm somewhat skeptical but the potential intervention you can scale if. if hey two teenagers and they're living in parkship. can't get them to watch the tv shows want to watch, read the books i want them to rationed listen to the music, if i can't do that with my kids in spark slope how the hell, we do that with anymore yemen, checking their preferences and getting them on to right path we went them to follow. >> if it was only people inem win would have a different problem. we have people in trinidad, argentina and brazil, people in china, in india and pakistan, think about the diversity of each of those countries. think about all of the young people who are growing up through an identity crisis, that have all understood that they can connect to what it means to be muslim by their peers in a social media platform.
and i'm not going to tell you it's one platform or the other. it's all of them combined. some people use instagram, some people using facebook, pick your thing. it's the messages they're getting not from pier parents because your kid aren't going to listen to you. they listen to their friends. they listen to what the friends are doing. what is cool? how does it feel be a young person today? you're not going to get it from whattor watching in now home you get what you're seeing in pictures and in emotion that you're getting from your peer groups. >> are we helping their peers? >> we're happening -- basically talent scouting around the world and we're finding young voices that are credible to other young people, and listening to the ideas that make sense for particular nuanced communes. it's not all of brazil needs to do this, or all of china needs to do that. it is which neighborhood are we dealing with? who are the influencers in the
neighborhood and gideon, sometimes it's music. sometimes it's art. sometimes it's a theology that is going to drive somebody to move in a different direction. it isn't one thing. it's many things at objects. but it is -- at once but the requirement is something has to exist. you can't have a vac tomb that the only place it's being filled if with the bad guys' content. we need content, too. >> so this is creating local constructive support groups and networks for at-risk youth around the world so they get some good influences and constructive support as well as the same things they're getting in civil society collected to a moraleddized mosque which gives them the community and monthing they want and the purpose and meaning. >> the central point here is there isn't a monolith that is islam. there isn't one way of being muslim. and kids need to understand that
they can live their identity out loud in a lot of different ways, and what we are seeing around the world is that instead of that happening, it's going in reverse. when kids are asking questions about what it means to be modern and muslim, they're seeing one answer, and one uniform way of thinking. and they're picking apart all the diversity, 1400 years of history, that have been pulled apart so that they only see one way to live their religion, in the way the think is pure, and that is problematic for a government because what that means is that the bad guys can lure them into their armies. what does it mean for nongovernment? your changing the very nature of what a community feels like. and that is actually the ultimate thing here. one piece of this is can you make america safe, let's spouse? can you make canada safer, the uk safe center there are questions around terrorist organizations doing bad things
but what we have to understand is because of the telegraphics we're talking about, billion kids under the age of 30 dealing with this constant, all-day, every day, angst and with bad guys who are there interested in that angst and we're not, that is the problem that we're facing because we don't even know what is coming, meaning we don't know how these kids are going to decide to live their identity out loud, and what i know is that government is limited in its ability to actually add value at a community level, but it can do some really spectacular thing. it become at the facilitator and the intel legal talk to partner and bring attention, america especially can being blake to ideaol war because when it as it is going to do something, a lot of countries say, what is america doing some what is he innovation there, the create it? where is the partner show with
the creatives in america? the designed thinking for the problem we have and most importantly -- the thing that kill met -- in thize have been working on this, am not a social sign -- scientist. i'm learn from what i see and when i talk to people about what i have seen and heard with the identity crisis, people have asked me, well, are there behavioral scientists you're talking to but the human brain? because if a human brain doesn't get mature until 24, surely government has brought in the social scientists to talk to us how to disrupt what the kids are seeing, and of course we have not because you have been in government, too, we know that does not happen. so i want to turn things on its head. want to say if we know we can solve this, at a local level,, here are all thing the we can do, the actors who can work
away. >> prevent extremism or deradicallization takes a village and some ways, like what year doing is helping generate the cultural and social antibuddy extremism that works by creating a healthy immune system in the society so that the individual involved can fight off the insection of bad ideological -- is that, so i gees hat while saying. you cannot fight this if we're doing it the same old way. we have tried for 20 years to do it and we have failed. >> i've got two big caveats because i think it's fascinating and i like the idea and love to do it. obviously sound like it would be great. one is this. and i think that -- you're on to something that i think is very important that is different from the way we usual usually talk bought this. we talk about the struggle against extremism or the war on terror or how to win the fight, as if it is a classic binary
structure, good guy/bad guy, we fight them, beat them. but it's not because what you're talking about is not, let's say, us fighting the saudis. it's us fighting with the saudis for control over the next mind space of the developing world'sing you. >> right. >> so, we're competing with the saudis for customers, mental customers, rather thatch fighting them. and 0 our efforts -- the reason it's important to reframe it like this. that means our job isn't to fight the saudi efforts. our job isn't to stop -- shut down the extremist because that's going to be impossible to do. it's to provide what your saying the way to win is not stopping the other people who we're fighting but provide a better product, at a better answer, do better effort of our own that will provide a more compelling product and alternative that the
clients and customers and developing worlds' youth will want to choose. >> it's important to recognize -- >> not a negative. >> it's a positive thing and i have written this book out of positivity. i'm not -- i do believe that there's a path forward but i want to say a couple of things. one is i'm not saying that we can only do this in we fight a physical war. we get that. but you can't only do it if you're only doing the ideal war. there is a balance here. what we have dunks is we have a warped system that is. baseballed. all we have undies tried and experiment it in the physical side. so, if we good to the project of the ideological of war and think how can we do this, you mentioned saudi arabia. the system that is underlying extremism, the thing that allows
the us vs. them ideology to grow and to make a difference to these young kids who are having a crisis of identity, requires us as government and as regular people to sort of explore, what are the planks that are underlying that system? one of which is the identity crisis. another of which is the kinds of things that countriesed that we call partners and allies are doing, that are actually at the end of the day destroying our ability to win over and to build antibodies. so in the book, i do talk about saudi arabia, and i talk about it because in every single country i went to a special representative to muss lime communities, nearly 100 countries around the world, no matter where i went, this pernicious, violent idea of an
us versus them and a monolithic islam was born in many different facets. it was seen by me with the eradication of cultural history, for example, same thing that hitler did to make sure you can never remember the past, that he has new way of think about the world, the saudis have done that to ancient mosques. translationstranslationstransla. translation that require to us not see the text but to see it through their eyes and their perspective of what it means to be a muslim. i picked up books in mosques in western uk that would say things like, all jews are pigs. okay? the printing of these kinds of material. >> is that a labor pamphlet? >> very dangerous to sigh but it was everywhere and one thing want to explore for all of us is
to look at the kinds of relationship we have with saudi arabia and understand that there's more we can be doing to make sure that the things we know have to stop, do stop it and isn't just one thing. it's not just the training of imams or the publication of korans but this effort to make islam a monolith and eradicate a sense of diversity within islam. >> let me give you a question two possibilities. you can do some kind of virus that will skew up the saudi dissemination program and their efforts at spreading their model, screw up the translation or their books and stop their efforts, or you can leave their efforts alone and you can launch and be -- given the power to launch a u.s.-sponsored version of our version of it. flood the world with our versions of things, support networks for the groups, infrastructure for community,
whatever. which would ultimately produce more benefit do you think? us matching them or stop are -- >> can i would the amount of money they spent. >> yes, equal amount of money. >> i would sill say erad case what she saudis are dying. >> their problem in radicalize is eight hugely signature then thing that wouldn't be count erred by our own efforts. we have -- >> i'm not the only person who has said this. right? so it is an-diisn't net context certainly of the brutal killing of the "washington post" journalist, mr. khashoggi. it's bought something much bigger and i would say that if we don't get a handle on that kind of ideology that has been spread over decades in a lot of ways we aren't even tracking or don't know, the is where cultural listening really matters. if we only apply our measurement
stick by what might be happening in morocco because of the saudis -- bad example but it's -- you can't understand what is really happening. go to tri-border area in south america. good look at ancient cultures in south asia and ask yourself, what is it about the experience of being muslim there now that is so different than it was even 30 or 40 years ago? what is the factor that has changed? and when you begin to ask that question, you see what i saw, and what i know to be true, this isn't just a thing that happened recently. this is decades long, it's very deep and it's very important for all of to us understand. i doesn't mean we can't be partner with the saudis on other things. it means we asner need to get serious but the fact that we are putting troops on the ground in places in the world that are -- that we're fighting there
because ideology has been building over years and have allowed other terrorist groups to come. in for me, as i look at that, as a former government official it's incumbent upon us to tell every american parent who has other child overseas, ask your government to do more because there's a role for us to be playing as honest brokers on what we're seeing. >> would you collegize aid to the sound -- conditionallize aid to saudis. >> win we think creative live about the kinds of ways we can work with saudi arabia one way has been we cold them they need do this. they come back and say we're working on it and then we kind of go to next year and we tell them that they need to do something and then they come -- or we write a human rights report that is the appears that goes through the interagency how much we can really say about
what they're doing and can we do this but we need them for that. let's take that off the table because that hasn't been working for us. let's be more creative about how we do things. if the saudis tell us that they have in fact been working on bringing korans back that, and there return anymore korans out there which they will tell you they've done sufficient a good call. >> product re-call. >> what's what i say. i buy them back, 25 bucks forrary koran that comes back. >> instead of buying back guns, buy back bad korans. >> that is fine or textbooks. >> don't burn them, just buy them back. >> you say we have done such a good job. >> put them in the 0 raiders of the lost ark warehouse. >> exactly. >> interesting stuff. the u.s. government was not doing a good job at this stuff
in administrations that supposedly cared about it. now you have an administration that doesn't even care about it. and after this -- what comes next, what realistic possibility is there that you could teach the united states government to do cultural listen? this is the real world. itself that's your answer, isn't that mean we're just screwed? >> so, you chose to wear that color suit today because you got all kinds of signals from wherever you go to buy that color suit. okay? everybody watching us today has little things they get moved in a particular direction because of littling? s -- little signals they're getting from the way people analyze behavior and the way we work on the web and how we go to stores and out that database collected and tells us a good
store who each of us are. and i believe that in trying to deal with this problem, this phenomenon we're dealing with, we can't just wait for government to suddenly wake up and say, okay, i'm going to work on this and put in a lot of money and this -- because even if we had all the money in the world, government can't do it alone for the reason i told you. we're not credible, all those kinds of things. we also don't have the latest information but how people buy things and how they're persuaded. which is why it's so important for the private sector to actually get involve in this. i see a role for the private sector play that isn't just about throwing money at a one-off kind of event they say they're trying to in fight hate and great that would be and their would be more of that happening around the world but there is a partnership that can happen between companies that have knowledge about how humans behave and what ngos are doing
on the ground so they're marketing can people and their behavior analytics and the way in which they function to move people in a particular direction can be married with what ngos are doing to stop hate. the people who are on the front lines of this are actually nonprofit organizations. they work and skimp for every dollar they get to keep the lights on' pay salaries because that's they way ngos generally work. they go grant to grant, and it's really hard, and they watch beheading videos and they pay attention to these awful gruesome things that most of us don't think about all day, every day, because you're not in the space working on stopping a young kid from joining a group like isis, and instead of going to those ngos and saying what can we doin do your job better, to scale what itous know 20 years after 9/11, we know that we have to do far more. what we're doing is, we're saying to the ngos, keep
looking for me money you're trying to get to prove you're going to stop doing the and meanwhile we'll talk but a other things and there's a mishalf. when i think about if i could do anything, how we think about these things there, is a role for government to play in the way which we described, but i think there is a far more creative solution where government doesn't have agency, doesn't have the kinds of personnel the kinds of -- i don't want us to start building a brand new endeavor in government that is going to fix is this there are private sector candidate that do this. why not use them? >> i actually -- i like this because i hear you saying three things. one is, don't -- this is not primary lay problem that government can solve. certainly not the u.s. government. from the outside. and the efforts to do so aggressively by the u.s. government in an active, direct
way, would be ham-fisted, bureaucratically screwed up, insensitive and politicized and do more harm than good. so government has a troll play but as a coordinating, directing, supervising force, mobilizing force, chief community organizers, it's not the one. second, that the -- all the other players and actors that actually have human connections, the track two stuff, the milt context, all the various, every single point of contact between society a and society b, not just the official government ones which are kinetic stuff, the government has a monopoly on violence but no monopoly on community building. everybody is involved in the project, not just government. it's us talk us but what can we get our government to do. i hear you saying that's part of this but everything anything of us does and the third thing is,
sure, it's not going solve the problem but the problem has been here before and going to be here in the future but every little thing can help, and in effect the problem is the result of lots and lots of freaked out people doing bad things and if we can manage to sort of get everybody to chill a little bit and be tied together in more supportive and benign ways, and create healthier communes in various ways, that will lower the temperature of everything and the extremism and the terrorism and negative consequences will ultimately diminish. it's not the best is the enemy of the good. it's any little bit helps, even the small little things because every step toward greater empathy and connection that helps build real communes and real human relationships eats away at the source of the extremism that ultimately leads to things like the twin towers being knock down. >> 100%. when when you talk to people on
the ground in afghanistan, in iraq, and places we have been fighting wars, and you ask about the power of one person doing this, you can and you know that each of these nano interventions make a difference. it's march 12th, and it us almost the anniversary of the boston bombing. it with two kid who grew up outside of boston that decided they were going to do what they did on -- at the boston marathon. it doesn't take hundreds of bad actors necessarily to do something bad... it can actually make a difference in reducing the ã
which will make a difference. there is no magic wand. there is no silver bullet that's going to fit everything. he is not go away tomorrow but we can dramatically reduce the appeal so that we can have and we can see fewer armies. in my work in these years since 9/11 gideon, one of the things that was so frustrating to me is that we both know, you are in government too, there are so many serious problems for which we do not have solutions. and we don't know what to do and it is going to take b,100 before we can get to a place where we can say we moved on a particular issue. this doesn't have to be one of those things. when i look at matt >> is that not because the problem is a problem but because all unlike a lot of other problems, which really are insoluble, this one does seem to have intervention but if we were only able to take and scale and redeploy them we could actually make some
difference in lessening the problem. the hope for making things better is the possibility of making things better is what creates the hopeful population of discussion unlike other questions lots like, we have to manage this forever. that's a great can the boston marathon is a wonderful segway. one part of me says i hear everything you're saying, i sympathize, i want this to be true but it's never going to happen in foreign policy and its more significant and urgent as a homeland security problem. yes i'm upset at radicalization interna, but i'm sure there are a whole lot more upset about radicalization in boston. the boston marathon bombers were not out there, they were here. the call was coming from inside the house, in a horror movie
terms. the radicalization efforts that you're talking about a broader one thing, how we do it here? a year and and a half ago ãb and was back immigrant got radicalized here and drove a school bus and led them on a rampage and ended up after being stopped right outside cytosine, my son was at five is in the day i got a call, the schools on lockdown potential terrorist attack and i thought about this incredible irony because there is no place in america that represents the openness to diversity, the future of connection to the world and hope for in america that lives in peace and harmony with the world beyond its borders on a place like stuyvesant. thousands and thousands of extraordinary immigrants and people from different backgrounds making their way up through the american system and
then you have the crazy who's back radicalized immigrant who represents the mere edge image, the doppelgcnger, how do we deal with disciples of the world who are here, not out there reading bad koreans, if anybody knew what america is like it's people who live here, right? if they end up blowing up the boston marathon or trying to ã ãhow do we stop that in our own society? why is it a foreign policy problem, if we could do what you are saying why would we do want to do it here first? >> i'm really happy you brought up was happening domestically because i think it's really important. we are sitting here on sacred ground. when 9/11 happened they were 90 countries that were affected. here in this space.
we tend to think of 9/11 as something that is ours, it happened to us. but it happened to the world. and it happened to every religion in the world, every race in the world, we did have one kind of person that was attacked that was killed, excuse me, when we were attacked, the kind way in which we look at this ideology has to be a sober account of this then we are actually dealing with. ideology that affected that guy, who ran his truck, tried to kill people, or the person at the boston bombing, or in the nightclub, how many attacks we've had in our country since 9/11, thankfully nothing like 9/11. but the ideology that motivated those visuals from doing something is not ideology that
is over there. it's ideology that is existing within the entire demographics that i'm talking about. the ideology that doesn't exist and contained in a place that we don't have to worry about. my worry is that as we see a rise of hate, the rise of anti-semitism in our country if you haven't read the adl report for what's actually going on in our nation around anti-semitism, i hope everybody does, it's sobering. what is happening? we are seeing a rise of all kinds of hate, all kinds of ãb they're all connected to each other. when i think about what we ought to do when you're talking about the department of homeland security, we took a really long time after 9/11 to begin to say what do we need to
do on the ideological front and by the way you have done it perfectly but by the end of the bush administration there was a system in place to walk on the war of ideas by the obama administration were getting into place, we do scale the way we needed to but moving on this, today in america we are spending less than $3 million on the ideological war and it isn't only about every kind of ideology. we are not spending the kind of money. >> so program started and have been done well been cut? what's the logic for cutting them? >> is a political argument but i would say to you, as you think about how to protect america, i get hopeful when i think about certain mayors in our nation who decided to take it on. the not waiting for a grand statement from washington. they are saying, what do we want to do in our own communities? look at mayor kate in anaheim,
or mayor fisher in louisville kentucky, two amazing mayors, near kate says i'm good to be a city of kindness, mayor fisher who says i'm to be a city of compassion, what does it actually mean? it means that the artwork in schools, how they feel, what they are doing, how they unify their communities are making a statement about how they want their community to be. that means something to me. i believe there is far more we can do we can't just wait for dhs to get more money to do the kinds of programs and scale the things we know work, we can do far more. >> we were saying before we started we were trying to model the discourse, the professionals had this problem solving rather than heat generating, does the debate go on in congress over some legislation recently, it's politicized stuff on all sides as much of congress is these days. the core intellectual issue is real. you just raised it. i want to swing it back. it is hate connected?
or is it distinct? is anti-semitism, fund phobia, misogyny, bigotry of all kinds, whatever you want, are the all variance of a common negative negativity. like ghostbusters, the ghost under the city had badgered you for everybody and so do all the extremists feed off of each other when he put heat on society in which case the real answer is to condemn all of the hatred and negativity and get everybody back on common ground or is there specific low tide of hatred bios and extremism? you wrote your entire book not about why can't we all get along but about one specific community and subculture and there's people who say that's what we should focus on. how specific is the problem of extremism and hatred? or is it all just variance of a
common problem so we really are fighting all the extremists together not just you don't like these extremists and i don't like those extremists but we have to recognize they are all extremist. >> it's a critically important question but as humans i would hope all of us would reject hate in any form. whether against somebody because of their race or their gender or sexuality, we should be humans, we should be kind to each other obviously. we should respect each other. i believe here in america the most diverse country in the world, we should respect differences. period. it isn't about anything but how you give dignity to another human being. that's first and foremost. when you're looking at the research around how people get radicalized, of course all these kinds of things build off of each other. in the systemwide failure has been exactly that question, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time so therefore we need to pick this kind of hate
versus that kind of hate. we need to build coalition. we need to build coalitions across different groups that are experiencing this kind of stuff. and with regard to who we are as americans i go back to what george washington said in 1791 he wrote a letter to the hebrew congregation and he said in america to bigotry we give no sanction. that's who we are as americans. that's the ideals we should be holding onto. it isn't about who's the bigger victim and what must we do, it's who are we as americans what we stand for. >> i love that and that's wonderful, i wanted one final thing. this is interesting. those of us who lived through these debates in the immediate post-9/11 period there was this very strong debate about who is the enemy, what is the specific nature in various different context. when a few years later the pt set types and administration put together ãbthe global struggle against violent extremism and things like that,
you are those years? >> oh yes. >> it was a whole community of hardliners who felt that relabeling despite something like that was a pc way of diverting attention from the real struggle. there was another campus at this is not just what you think is a real struggle is one subset of a broader struggle and we are just literally addressing the core big problem of which yours isn't awfully secluded subset. i hear you saying strongly the second perspective is correct. even though we couldn't come up with a good acronym ã [laughter] [inaudible] she said ãbyour
point is, that's the real thing. it's an abstract struggle against hatred extremism and divisiveness which manifests itself in lots of competing but somehow aligned against us and tolerant as souls we need to fight. >> gideon, what's really important is separating how government talks about these issues and what we do day-to-day. regular people need to understand there are changes happening that bear on each other which is why these kinds of coalitions need to be built. different groups that have dealt with these very difficult ãbgovernment has the wrong analysis when it begins to say, what is the one thing we must do we made some serious mistakes and how we defined the problem we were dealing with. we thought this was a heart and
mind kind of thing. if we could just get everybody to love us as americans we can just show them how great we are you remember how many years we went on and on? >> why didn't it work?>> is the wrong solution for the problem. >> why? >> public diplomacy, the art of persuading someone to buy into what america stands for is an important thing that our country does for a lot of different reasons. but you cannot apply that toolbox to this problem. it is not what we are doing this over here. i think we should be spending a lot of creativity through our embassies to do far more to talk about who we are as americans i'm all for that i think that's important. but that's not going to be the cure for the thing i know we can do, if we learned anything
in almost 20 years since this country was attacked on 9/11 is that what we thought we knew the way we deployed our best and brightest hasn't work so ã >> every time we do that come every 50 years, it works out badly. >> it doesn't work. my hope is we asked the right questions and, the bad guys have those toolbox, the same tools we have at our fingertips they're using to do what they are doing so why would we let that happen? >> we have a few minutes left i want to get some questions from our guests here as well. please wait for a microphone. >> thank you so much for your very interesting talk.
a lot of the efforts you shared and discussed are often covered by the global engagement center. i'd be curious to hear what you would suggest on improving in those efforts are what is missing? >> the global engagement center for those people who don't know you're talking about different names. has about seven or eight different versions since it started in the bush administration. this is a government agency that has a mandate of pushing back against the kinds of things that are being said in the social media space. there also looking at russian propaganda. they are also looking at looking at the kinds of things we can do to push back. i take a very strong position in the book about the gu c. it's not to be disrespected, to be disrespectful of my former colleagues who tried really
hard but the idea that america can go out there tweeting our way out of the problem we are in is not going to work. there is not enough money. there is normal personnel. the system doesn't work fast enough. there's players outside of government who do that better. my recommendation is that we ask those players to do it and do it right. >> i work with a lot of youth and teen groups and it seems to me that they don't want to sit around talking about what they should be working on or why. they want to just do stuff. i'm envisioning having soccer games between people have to park slope where i live when i'm not saying ãbthe students
see each other at the end of school every day but don't know anything about one another, just setting up any activity that would engage them if the boys want to play soccer, if the girls want to do our, whatever it is, they could. i would think from their need to let them try to articulate what they might have in common. what they might need to form stronger bonds. what might help them understand one another better. they might set up discussion groups and thinking that while it's great to understand why things are the way they are and what we need to do instead that's not what the kids want to do. the kids want to do stuff. >> and the kids are doing stuff. >> i love that question thank you very much for it. you're absolutely right. sitting around having conversations is in their sweet spot. the sweet spot is to let us show you who we are and will do stuff. we build programs over the world which kids can actually do stuff and some did play
soccer matches against each other.others had open mic nights. others do different kinds of things with each other. to be able to find ways to get to know each other. i think one of the things that we haven't done enough of is to listen to young people who have these great ideas and the things they want to do and help them do it. that something every one of us can do. >> let me dip some cold water on this. you are a serious professional and i want to do the owner of what we talked about before and having the conversations we had inside the system which is straight serious honest questions. the professionals talk among each other they don't have posture. here's the thing, everything makes total sense. i thought it made total sense a generation ago when we did it with heaves of peace which is all the various organizations and government connected of the one that most seemed the logical obvious thing that israeli and palestinian children together until two wonderful camp in maine have
them do all the kinds of things, not just ãbut coordinating teams across, national dance institute teach mobility and motion and palestinian dancers and jewish dancers got together and as far as i can tell even though the wonderful efforts of seeds of peace is a great thing, i don't think there has been any actual measurable impact and the peace process isn't any better now than it was 25 years ago and i see no effort that that kind of stuff works and having a durable scalable intervention that gives those people to act differently when they are back in the home context and the intercommunal softball league is over and they go back to doing each other up and stealing the field. >> let me push back on you. one of the things that is problematic is the idea of a one off organization the 25th the world.
i will sit here and talk to you, we could talk to you the peace which is amazing organization by the way, you know that too. >> i love it.>> right. i want to be clear that you're not criticizing seeds of peace. but also because individuals within organizations actually are transformed in some of these ways. here's what's missing though, the scale allow these things there is not enough of them. on an individual level what we haven't seen is the kind of momentum by ngos that are doing the kind of work that i've been describing, they are only hitting a very small sector and it's ad hoc. it's not coordinated. what i argue is that will never get will never be able to see any changes anywhere it's kind of like a waffle whole kind of situation. what happens if you go all in? what happens if you decide for the next five years in this particular town all day every day we are going to use all of the ngos, all of the libraries,
all the schools, all of the parents, we are going to do this, we are going to do it big, we go all in for five years and then measure. then tell me what we are doing. you cannot measure the way we have the world today because it can't just be that little thing that's happening in ontario and that little thing happening in palm beach, it has to be a coordinated effort, that's why i talk about the mayors because i think that cities can do something. i think libraries and schools and parents can do things and ptas conducing. i'm not pollyanna. if i were sitting at the policy table with you at the eob and we were having this conversation about where to do things and what paper we recommend to the president, these are the kinds of questions obviously you asked, are you kidding me? that little thing is gonna do something?no we have to show how many are we doing, how often are we doing them and what is the return on that investment. i believe that we haven't even tried.we have no way of even measuring because there's been nowhere in the world that's done it all day every day on
this issue but they've done it on other issues. they've done it on recycling, they've done it on awareness with help. they've done it in other ways where we can measure what happens when come over and have a recycling town and this is working to do and in five years they went from doing this to doing that, what happened? there was a systemwide experiment that actually changed, in my book it took about an example in iceland and not give it away but it's exactly to that point because obviously we are not living in lala land over here, we are not wishing his many unicorns and rainbows exist in this world, although i would like that that would be nice, we are talking about real deal. i think it's fair to ask that question, what are you talking about? one ngo doing, that's totally fair but it's not fair to measure this idea of peace or less hate if we never even tried. >> i think that's a wonderful answer and i think that the analogy that pops to mind is
public health. what i hear you saying is, public health is a long-term correlated integrated project team can go after one specific disease or not one specific program you have to build good local public health systems and countries and it's more important than the specific one off aid extremism is almost like the kind of public mental health issue. so in the same ways what's going to stop it or control it or give it back is not the one thing that is building stronger community systems ãbthink of it more like public mental health then genetic military. >> absolutely. >> farah, this is wonderful. so this is a taste of how serious professionals talk about issues. in the u.s. we have a set of
penetrated political system unlike other countries which run foreign policy but double medic professionals like sir humphrey runs everything or have amateurs come in, in the u.s. we have a whole several top players of people who go in and out and in and out, but can be bad when it becomes politicized, hacks to come in and don't know anything or campaign contribution investors who just get patronage of things but the upside potential of the inter-penetrated system is you can have people who are not just government officials and technocrats but spent upside doing research they spent time in this industry or that area and they can bring an infusion of new ideas and new approaches to how government works and the best of them like farah can bring up an appreciation of what government can do, what can do and how you should mix these and that's genius and that's what these kind of conversations should be like. secondly, the last thing on
this is the connection to social science you say you're not a social scientist but what you just called for was more social science and a wonderful partnership between not just the government and the ngos but the government and the ngos and the social science community which is just now starting to apply real-world techniques of project management and assessment to actually tell what the interventions do the randomized trials, things we are actually seeing in the aids world is revolutionary compared to what we thought about it a generation ago how you evaluate programs. it's similar to the kind of scientific and social scientific approach we use in public health and i think if we can bring rational social science the best passionate comstock to these kind of areas and evaluating what interventions are and the public health models will be on track to a progressive and cumulative strategy to work
better over time as we incorporate the results from real scientific tests rather than trying something and having it work or not and coming in with a new set of people trying it. the key thing is to build research in and reflectivity in so that our programs go better over time and not worse. >> 100%. >> thank you for this, i think all of you coming and hopefully we will do better in the next generation on this challenge then we have done on the last generation. if we can be mindful and avoid introducing space between stimulus and response and thinking of national policy as a considered response rather than a knee-jerk reaction just to most. if we can do that and then fill that space with wise empathic policies we might have an answer. we have one quick final comment to overhear. >> a few years ago ã >> wait for the microphone so everybody can hear you. >> a few years ago i attended the 70th commemoration of the liberation of auschwitz and there is a phenomenal gentleman called roman cat, you can google him, he was a survivor
auschwitz who lives here in new york and spoken at the un, etc., and he said if he could have 1/11 commandment it would be thou shalt not be a bystander.i think we all need to remember each and every single one of us can do our little bit and see other people has human beings and help. do whatever it is that you can do this is a movement starts not only from government policies, from the grassroots level. and that's how so many people did survive the holocaust because maybe a simple person help them. not government. think of roman can't. >> we will think of roman kent and victor frankel who accorded the beginning was himself a survivor and found in a life dedicated to meeting something that kept him alive when everything around was disaster, it doesn't mean ãbbut the people who had lock and defensive purpose survived and
had healthy happy lives. the people who didn't have luck died but the people who didn't have a good mental attitude ãb we can make things better and your half full rather than half empty. >> i know there are solutions and they are affordable and they are available and it takes all of us stop thank you for being here i really appreciate it. [applause] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. for complete television schedule visit booktv.org. you can follow along behind the scenes on social media at booktv on twitter, instagram and facebook. booktv and prime time starts tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, retired army colonel joseph slutsky reports on america's secret war in laos. david mccraw recounts his work as the general counsel for the new york times. doctor stephanie stransky and thomas patterson describe their
search for a cure to an antibiotic resistant superbug, george papadopoulos details his role in the trump potential campaign in the russia investigation on "after words" and university berkeley's collar ãblooks at criminal justice system happening tonight on booktv in prime time visit booktv.org or check your cable guide for a complete schedule. >> now booktv recent coverage of the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville. a discussion on some lesser-known leaders and social and political justice movements. >> good morning ... ...