tv Counterterrorism and Homeland Security CSPAN September 22, 2017 2:23pm-3:47pm EDT
announced. and they were worried that he was going to be bad for them, in terms of voters. and i thought, really? you are worried now? considered how far back they have had an anti-woman platform, with reproductive rights, equal pay. a",unday night on "q and the washington post and thomas a nn. >> he was interviewed and he said he never goes to any washington dinners without his wife. and i thought, ok. this is a gift. you don't have any problems voting about a woman's personal reproductive choices, which is probably the most personal and intimate thing up woman -- a woman can deal with.
woman -- you go to won't go to dinner were a woman, fully closed, is at the table. "q anday, on c-span's a." a conversation now, on security threats during the obama presidency. and, what is ahead for the trump administration. , whoar from lisa monaco served as president obama's counterterrorism and homeland security advisor. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to our 2017 terry sanford distinguished lecture with lisa monaco, to discuss counterterrorism in the trump era. i am pleased to kick off the
year-long celebration of terry sanford's centennial birthday. i would like to welcome any first-year students. it is wonderful that you are here taking advantage of the program, tonight. learning from visiting scholars is a valuable part of your duke experience. this is sponsored by the sanford school of public policy, and the american grand strategy program. take you to the faculty and staff and made this possible. the terry sanford distinguished lecture is made made possible by a gift from the william r kenan trust. terry sanford is a much beloved figure at duke university. he dedicated his life to ethical leadership and public. from 1961 toserved 1965 as the governor of north carolina. sanford doubled state expenditures on public sick --
public education. he supported desegregation. building on his commitment to public service, when sanford was president of duke, he established an institute for science and public affairs to serve as an interdisciplinary program to train future leaders. the sanford school of public policy supports the primary appointment of over 80 faculty and researchers and houses one of duke's largest undergraduate majors, two masters programs, a phd program. and keeping of the spirit of terry sanford, the purpose of this lecture is to bring men and women of the highest personal and professional stature, to present to the duke community. our terry sanford lecturer this evening is lisa monaco. she left the government after 20 years of public service. at theained degrees
university of chicago and harvard lost soul -- harvard law school and served under attorney general janet reno. returned to, monaco a senior position at the justice department and in 2011, was asointed by president obama the assistant attorney general for national security. an 2013 president obama appointed her to be assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. she served in the white house for the entire second term of the obama presidency. she is now a senior fellow at ny law school and the harvard center for international science -- science and international affairs. the isanford was enough agent for two years. he popped the battle of the bulge during world war ii and iner the war -- he fought
the battle of the bulge during world war ii and after the war he obtained a law degree at u.s. c. before we begin if everyone would silence their cell phones, and please join me as well -- join me in welcoming lisa to for this-- to sanford very interesting topic. [applause] there is not an inch of space left in this building. do you have a super social media following? meis fantastic and it let echo the provost and welcome you to duke. it is great, great, great
to be here. thank you very much. >> i would like to start with an issue that has been on everybody's mind over the past two weeks, which is these historic storms that have caused such a devastation in the caribbean and texas and florida. our hearts, in the duke thoseity, go out to all who are still suffering, trying to recover from the storms, and houston, in the keys, and on the islands. it is devastating. thei know when you left white house, six and a half years after katrina, a big part of your responsibilities was still hurricane recovery issues. what are the big issues heading down the pike that the trump administration is going to be -- very serious issues by cleanup, recovery, rebuilding? to what should they be doing
prepare for very difficult -- veryholocene difficult public policy issues coming their way? lisa: when i was preparing to come down here, i thought that duke is pouring out his heart and help to the communities down there. so, hats off to this community. down with some students and fellows over the course of the afternoon. owed byalready been w the folks here and at the work that you are doing. it is a pleasure to be here. irma and harvey delivered a one-two punch in the southeast. the immediate issues are going to be in restoring power,
particularly in south florida, and getting crews into access able to get basic subsistence material and, generators, food, water etc. fema is going to have to operate, and i think our kudos need to go to brock long at fema and the experts there who are doing a negative person job trying to manage both of these crises and putting the federal government assistance to bear. in the meantime, it is power, rescue operations, getting subsistence materials in there. over the longer-term, from a strictly white house perspective, and having been in a role that had me juggling a number of different crises, and not only responding to the crisis, but, and it sounds boring, but focusing on the
long-term implementation. maintaining focus. for anya challenge white house. after the cameras go away, after the breaking news banners go away, there is a lot of hard work, in implementing the recovery. and that means bringing a full suite of tools to bear. it means housing recovery, a big issue in katrina. we ended up having the then sharingy of housing, attacks -- a task force with everybody from the army corps of engineers, understanding and thinking about how they were going to provide housing, rebuild, and focus on the housing issues, hundreds of thousands of people being displaced, in florida alone. environmental issues, health issues, toxins in the
floodwater, so there is a whole host of issues that the white house is going to have to focus on during -- have to focus on. maintaining that focus means setting up a structure at the white house that can be led from the white house with very clear goals and objectives, to continue to implement. and it is going to be not weeks, not days, but months and years, for this recovery effort. host: let's turn to the second big issue in the headlines. the security council this week imposed another round of sanctions on north korea. i want to get to the high-level principle here. our position in north korea, for a long time, has been that kim jong on should give up, or the north korean government should give up its nuclear weapons nuclearize.d de
is that a realistic position anymore? possible that kim, who essentially believes these nuclear weapons are preventing him from being in the same boat as saddam was a, -- saddam he doesn't qaddafi*, want to follow in their footsteps and he sees this as a guarantee against that. so what could persuade him to give that up, or has that train left the station? back andhave to step think about, what would be our objective here? endless think about, who is this guy? who is kimi, and others, have us like, he is unhinged, trying to send a message that he is not a rational actor. the fact of the matter is he is exceedingly paranoid.
he is indescribably violent. but, he is rational. why do i think is rational? he is rational because, what you just said david, he is focused on maintaining the regime's hold on north korea. nuclearoes view is capability as his ace in the hole. im with jim klapper and other experts, which is to say that de not realistic.is i haven't seen any signs that that is realistic. we should be focused, i think, on deterrence. the keyuld also say, ingredient of deterrence is a credible threat of military action. while i have differed
publicly with some of the rhetoric on this, about fire and fury and the like, i do believe a clear, consistent message, such as the one secretary mattis recently delivered, of military options being on the table, as is anactive as they are, important element of deterrence. host: if we are going to ultimately have to rely on deterrence, do we have to accept, mentally, that we can live in a world where kim jong as himactors such actually has the capability of launching a nuclear weapon at a large american city? is that something we can tolerate? lisa: i think we can acknowledge that he, and we have seeing this steady march, and it has been a steady march, right?
he is developing nuclear capability. we saw the most significant test a couple of weeks ago. capability, we have seen a very significant test. missile delivery, we have seen repeated, steady march on testing of the missile delivery system. miniaturization. miniaturization of a nuclear warhead that could be fixed to that missile delivery system. and we have seen some, and elite intelligence report, that one element of our intelligence community, the defense intelligence agency, that believes that capabilities miniaturization capability. i would like to see what the full intelligence community says about that but still, very concerning. and the fourth element's reentry. the ability to put that miniaturization capability onto the missile delivery system, and have it reenter from the earth's
atmosphere into the target. and that, our intelligence community believes, is not there yet. still, we have seen a steady march and a repeated effort to attain those capabilities. but as somebody focused on the threat to the homeland, we have to be very clear about where kim n is, on that march. so we have to have a clear view of deterrence. we have been north korea's on that steady march to get those capabilities. we should be increasing our defense capability, and we are steadily doing that. we should be reassuring our partners and allies, and working with them, south korea and japan being first among them, quite obviously. we should be working on covert and other means to seven ties, derail, slow, and rollback the made,that kim jong un has
and apply steady and increased pressure, including sanctions. and i give credit to, and i think the administration should be giving credit, for the success that states have had in the unanimous security council resolutions. but some of the weaknesses of some of them have artie been pointed out. but nevertheless, they have been unanimous resolutions and that has been very important. own,e can do some on our as well. unilateral sanctions from the united states. pressure on china and chinese banks that continue to do business with north korea. those are the tools that i think we should be employing, all toward, hopefully, a diplomatic solution to this. this week is also the 16th anniversary of 9/11.
we held that this distinguished lectureship many time on this anniversary, so it's a good time to reflect on that issue, which took a lot of your time in the white house, i'm sure. if youou reflect for us, look on one hand, 16 years, there hasn't been any sort of attack of the magnitude of 9/11 here. knock on wood, of course. so on that grounds, u.n. have to say -- you would have to say we have been quite successful. you would have to say that would be a good deal. nonetheless these al qaeda, are incredibly resilient and active around the globe. in the state department's report on 2016 -- on terrorism and 2016, terrorist attacks caused 25,000 deaths and 33,000
casualties around the world. so, 16 years after the events of 9/11, how should we evaluate how the u.s. and the world is doing, against this terrorist threat. lisa: it is very important to reflect on it, and no better time than two days after that horrible day. you used the word resilient in describing our terrorist actors and terrorist enemies. it is not a word i would use, mostly because i associate that with positive traits. i think of communities being resilient, and individuals who have gone through great tragedies being resilient. would, not to fight the hypo, professor, i would say we face a very adaptive enemy. that is an important distinction in my mind because it reminds us of where we need to go.
to get to the heart of your question, how would i gauge our success or failure, i think by any measure we have been successful in diminishing the forat of a complex, in-directed attack of catastrophic proportions, such as we faced and suffered on 9/11. owing to the tremendous work across democratic and republican administrations, from the military, law enforcement, homeland security, diplomats, and we as a nation did a number of things to make that possible. we broke down cultural barriers to how we organize ourselves and share information. we changed our legal structures to make that more possible. d oure change
structures and created new structures, including the i waszation that privileged to leave before i went to the white house, the national security division of the justice department. to we built an apparatus enable us to have success against that type of 9/11 style attack. now it hasnow it has diminished. to --have a lot more did
a lot more to do on that phase, which is the hallmark of the the radicalized individual, individual sometimes known as a olf, or homegrown terrorist. we have a lot more to do on that score. because the network i described, that we designed after 9/11, is not designed or that threat. because those threat actors, san orlando, the new york-new jersey plot from last summer, charlottesville, those actors don't come into the net that we built if they don't have contact with international terrorist groups, a shadowy group of hierarchical figures operating from caves in afghanistan, communicating with people here. if that is not the trait, that is the net that we built, and we need to construct a new one.
how do you understand and see when something goes wrong in somebody's mind, such that they take a machine gun and kill 50 people in a bar in orlando? do the work that we have to on this new phase is going to require partnerships, it is going to require innovation, working with it the tech industry on the role that social media plays in this, is going to require our communities. our focus, post-9/11, was partners, our local state and local law enforcement, and our international partners. this phase is going to require more from our partners here at home. and that is a challenge. host security i will get to the homeland issues a little later. the great thing about being a professor is you get to push back again. lisa: you do.
host: let's look at what bin laden was trying to do. a lot of people say he was a religious zealot out to kill people. but i happen to think he was a political actor with a political goal. he wanted to challenge the whole nationstate system put in place by colonial powers in the middle east. he really wanted to create this clash of civilizations between what he believed was the muslim community in the west. and he wanted to impose a big economic cost for its role of interventional is him, in the u.s.. and you can look at all these goals, and 15 years later is, maybe some progress has been made on some of those things. is this movement that al qaeda started, isn't succeeding nor is it being pushed back, is it failing that isn't succeeding -- succeeding, or is its
being pushed back, is it failing? lisa: i think the picture you layout is a valid one. but there has also been tremendous division amongst the movement itself. the very nature of isis comes from a schism with al qaeda central. support of your theory, professor, is what i think will likely be borne out, which is that bin laden has passed the mantle to his son, who has released for videos, i think, over the last year, or 18 months. so, is he the new leader of the al qaeda movement?
the alalready mentioned qaeda affiliate in syria, as in my role in -- the white house i was exceptionally focused on, which is why quite frankly, and the president was focused on it weeptionally, which is why begin the campaign against isis in syria and 2014. in syria in 2014. factory inmb making syria was one of the first targets the united states it. so, that has never been far from my mind. on the other hand, we have seen metastases of the movement that bin laden tried to promote. thein many respects, discipline that he try to impose on his organization to do
forlex and lengthy planning attacks like 9/11. that discipline has eroded, and we have much more opportunistic and freelance operations, some of which we have had success against, some of which we have not. i think it has diminished in its cohesion, if nothing else. start at a high level spot. did the obama administration and the united states led the syrian people down by not intervening in 2012, when the civil war was being heavily contested and there was a chance to topple the bashar al-assad regime? there have been almost half a million people killed in syria. 6 million people displaced. over 4 million refugees.
it's only a country of 20 million people, so that means half the population is not living where they were when the civil war began. from a humanitarian perspective it is truly a disaster. did we not fulfill our values by failing to do something, to maybe have a different outcome right now? probably the hardest issue that we dealt with, as a national security team. and i say that not, by way of excuse, but by acknowledging, and i think you are right to a knowledge it in your question, that the complicity here -- the complexity here was and continues to be something that was incredibly challenging, when you think of a situation that has, at any one time, three or four civil war's going on within it. you talked about values, and it
is important to look at hard problems from values perspective. room, where wen dealt with a lot of hard problems, we talked and wrestled with values questions more than you might expect, probably more than some people might be comfortable with, depending on the orientation you come from. but he does also important to recognize there is not a singular to that description, in other words, it comes in many forms. and the guideposts that president obama laid out for us, it was always, what is in the national security interest of the united states? and we came at that by recognizing that threats against the homeland and our allies and partners, was the preeminent
challenge we faced coming out of syria, and made that our top priority. us, were the threats to what were the threats to our allies and partners? that we took would be consistent with international law, would be consistent with our humanitarian and moral obligations, which is why we were the largest contributor of humanitarian aid, and i think still are, in syria. into the that when calculus, time after time after time, as we went that this. and you say, you know, should we have intervened at a prior time? one you always, have to ask yourself at that table, and the president always asked himself at that table in the situation room, what does the day after look like?
was an issue that president obama was quite public about saying, in the live yet context, we did not wrestle with enough, upfront. there a timeas when bashar al-assad would have been more vulnerable for removal? but, in favor of what? what would the institutions of the state look like, after the fact? a number of values that going to those discussions at the situation room table. the president made our guidepost the national security interest of the united states, and we went after that relentlessly in the campaign against isis and al qaeda in iraq and syria, and deployed our other tools, all in service of a diplomatic outcome in that country which, unfortunately, i don't see us
closer to then when i left the white house. : i want to get to the isis campaign, and a couple of questions about syria. issue was serious use of chemical weapons, the first time in 2013. obama made the redline and decided on the alternative, to cut a deal with russia to help get large stockpiles of chemical weapons out of syria. however, for years later, another chemical weapons attack. does that show that that wasn't really a very good deal, if asre was yet another -- sad was not deterred by. was that a mistake? i think that, phrasing it in terms of good deal or bad
deal, no one should be under any illusions, because we certainly obamat and president certainly wasn't, that putin was not a factor in any of these dealings. his goal has been, in his intervention there, has been to protect his client state in the form of bashar al-assad, to maintain access to the warm and to assertir, and project russian power in the region. but mostly, to protect his client state. the summer ofin 2013 was by no means something entered into, thinking that you for aot and even deal, player on the other side who is on the level. i don't think anybody has any illusions about putin, in that regard. the fact is, in the face of congress refusing to even take a
vote on the president's request, president obama's request for authority to conduct the strike he wanted to take, and that he thatved very strongly, that action, and the absence of any security council resolution, or international law, that there ought to be professional up approval and congressional weighing in on this. congress refused to even vote on the question. so, entering into the arrangement and the agreement with russia and others in the , wasn'tional community then inappropriate way to handle that. but there is no illusion that, to get at the heart of the question, that russia is an actor that was playing on the level. host: fast-forward, four years
later, the same thing happens and president trump decides to use airstrikes against syria. and when he did so, an assistant secretary in the obama administration, she tweeted, "finally, after years of loose -- useless handwringing, in the face of atrocities." so, did trump do the right thing in his response? lisa: i think he did a positive step. because it was the right use of that power, to enforce the norm against the use of chemical weapons. i think we should be asking and should be focused on, in service of what broader strategy? so the answer is, yes. as an enforcement against the norm of use of chemical weapons, i support it.
i also think we need to understand, and no, in service of what strategy was that done? and importantly, look, we have got partners in the region where long wanted us to take exactly the type of action that president trump did. i would like to know, how could we, how could we use that as leverage with partners that we need in that region to do a number of things , have beenofore reluctant or very slow, to do. host: the campaign that president obama put together in 2013, has really taken fruit. isis has lost its stronghold in mosul. it has lost its stronghold in racca.
a claims to be a caliphate but is has been -- but it has been vastly diminished. i wonder if you could talk about iraq and syria. who is going to govern these spaces that have now been vacated by isis? the reason isis was able to sweep through iraq is because they foundpeople, ice is a more attractive alternative than the iraqi government, at the time, to be governed by. so now that isis is being moved out of that area, how does the piece get won? lisa: like any good professor, in a kernel, of what you said there.
the solution is addressing some of the causal factors, in the first place. isis was born of the grievances, the sunni grievances that went unaddressed by the you had sunni populations, former military and civilian populations in sunni areas in iraq that had the following choice -- i go to fight for a government that is not addressing my grievances, has not done anything to indicate i can be part of an inclusive government, or i deal with a group that would like to kill, maim, chop off the head of my family members. so, they are left to that choice and you are quite right -- they rolled through areas like full asia and other areas -- full asia and other areas to swell
their ranks with people who felt they did not have much of a choice. so, one of the reasons why -- before the isis campaign began in earnest in 2014, one of the conditions of our entry into that campaign and deployment of weces was to figure out our going to have a partner that we can work with, and is that partner going to be rooted in an inclusive government, or at least making steps towards and down that road? pass and we saw a number of signs of that in 2014 which created the conditions, in president obama's view, to begin that work in earnest with the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. had toning the peace have the ingredients that were disorderat allowed the
festered -- to fester in the first place. that is continued, inclusive governance. base they continue to have to address, and we see irand and its proxies -- and its proxies, but inclusive government has to be the first ingredient. thecontinued work with security forces that now swell to some 100,000 in a rock that are having study, but clear games, and we going to have to continue to support them in many respects and work with them and assure them that we will be in it for some time to come. host: you did not -- david: you did not mention the third group in our rock, and
that would be the kurds. ethnically different from the arabs, but religiously with the sunni. they turned out to be the best fighters -- or among the best fighters against isis and were working with us just as closely as the iraqi army. they are having a public site this month on independence, and the u.s. is actually opposing that. how do you see this desire after themg isis ravitch one of -- ravitch one of their main cities, and threaten to go through, even the capital -- how can they be denied, and essence, a chance to be independent and express some form of sovereignty? yeah, i think this is 1 -- i saw brett mcgurk make these remarks recently, and i think he has got it right. thes a special envoy for
counter isis coalition, both under president obama and now under president trump, and there is no better, and longer career expert on these issues, and brett said recently now is not the time because of their we areous point at which just trying to focus on the stabilization operations after , and trying toul make sure that continues a pace. his point was now is not the time in the next, what, two weeks? for this vote. i think he is right. i think we are a particularly sensitive time on that, and our goal has been, both in the obama administration, and now in the sure administration, to be that we are working with the iraqi government, and i think we have to continue in that vein for a little while. i did not answer before your question about winning the peace in syria. david: yeah. lisa: we can't be ignoring that.
look, similar response, though, in terms of what is the peace -- ce going to be rooted in? int is in local control these areas isis has been pushed out of. one of the reasons this area problem has been sent -- the syria problem has been so hard iraq, weke in i.s. -- have a partner in iraq steadily growing more and more capable in the form of the iraqi security forces. no such partner exists or existed in syria for a good, long time in this campaign, and we have gone through many iterations of trying to support , asbuild up a partner force has been written about. we are having success with syrian defense forces, and a
syrianf both arab and kurdish forces. the challenge is going to be getting, and it has to be arab forces that control those places where isis has been pushed out. that is a big challenge -- which is one of the reasons i mentioned before -- i would like to see, and we would like to have seen our air of partners -- arab partners bring more to the table. david: if they don't, does that mean the u.s. is going to be there, essentially trying to protect the sunni populations from the kurds, the assad government, the uranian's --iranians? what is the role of the net states in this? lisa: i think the trunk administration has been quite clear that is not going to be our role and it is going to have to be local arab forces that move in their. the reports -- movie in their. the reports are the training
that we have been doing, and those efforts are proceeding very swiftly, very strongly, and the training we are doing is oversubscribed to hear the experts and to hear brett mcgurk tell it. david: so, if isis is disintegrating in iraq and syria, we have these questions about these people that left europe to comment fight, and we know it is in the tens of thousands, and we have seen attacks, which seem to be very difficult to defend in many cities in europe -- to questions about that. -- two questions about that. will this be increasing the threat over the next years both in europe and the united states, and second, have the europeans really upped their game enough to deal with the threat level they are facing now? lisa: this is a big, big challenge.
two, kind of, go back to your pullback question of where are we to days after the 9/11 anniversary -- what does the threat look like? zero ofed, but not catastrophically, internationally directed, not 11-style attacks -- 9/11-style attacks. the lone wolf, homegrown, self radicalized-style attack we have seen here, and adding to the mix the threat of foreign fighters attack,nd of, hybrid like we saw in barcelona recently, brussels, and other places. here, i do worry considerably about the continued foreign fighter threat. just to put this in some perspective, at the height of the conflict and over the course of the conflict, we have had estimates from the national of aboutrrorism center
40,000 foreign fighters from about 120 fighters that have flown into the conflict. those numbers are drastically down, but two words of caution -- one, the numbers are based on information that we know, which uh" that little bit, "d is a basic conclusion, but that because we have gathered and contribute to foreign-fighter watch lists, and the like from our partners. that is the information we know and can deduce who the foreign fighters are. there is a great wealth of information that i worry that we don't have, and the other issue is -- so we shouldn't be overly confident, i think, in those numbers, but i think we can be confident that they have gone down. now, the european counterterrorism court nader -- coordinator said he thinks there
are about 2500 foreign writer still in the united states. there, we have to be exceptionally concerned that they will be more capable than when they left and traveled to join the caliphate. aboute question you ask european capabilities is really a critical one. we are at the 60th anniversary of 9/11 -- 16th anniversary of 9/11. we have talked this evening about the changes we made. we underwent a sea change in how we think about this problem. we changed our orientation in how to deal with the present. we changed our structure. the europeans have not had that moment -- a strange as it may
seem, even though they have instead -- suffering a steady diet of these attacks. in sharingncy amongst european countries, and sharing this information among us has to be an area of focus for us. ls in missingul data -- that exist, but our focus ought to be more rapid exchange of information and intelligence with them, but really working with our european partners, the french, the belgians, others, to break down that wall, because they are facing a real risk of those returnees who have a lot of marketability. david: so, we're going to seem
turn to questions from our audience. a lot of people are listening -- or watching and listening on our lives feed -- live feed, and they can tweak in a question @dukestanford. we'll give us a try. is there a microphone there? is there another microphone over here? we will be able to take a bunch of questions from our audience. let me turn from very far abroad to pretty close to home for us university,southern and that is what happened in charlottesville and uva. know, i have studied a lot of the preventative efforts we are making to try to save the threat in the united states, principally under the obama
administration, when these efforts took on a more frankly,s, and, quite the vast majority of the resources seem to be directed at working with muslim communities to deal with the al qaeda /isis-related threat to the homeland, and there was not that much you could find directed toward the other threats -- the right-wing extremism, the white supremacy. the trump administration has even gone further, and canceled -- the the programs small numbers of programs the obama administration had gotten going. so, i guess i would like to ask you, what should our federal government be doing to try to counteract these groups that have a first-amendment right to believe what they want. they have a first-amendment right to protest, to put up websites, but they don't have a first second amendment right to try to intimidate people with violence, engaged in violence --
engage in violence. what should be done about that problem? lisa: first, i think we need to --ck is that the problem is we need to recognize that the problem is not confined to the muslim communities, certainly, and i think we made real strides to try to constantly reinforced that point in the obama administration. has been spilled on nomenclature, countering violent extremism. part of that was an effort to be very clear that violence in service of hate, regardless of its ideological backing, and whatever form it comes in should be unacceptable in a rule-of-law society. so, one thing is being very clear about what is part of the problem. we in the-- i think obama administration made a series of changes in how we
structured. this. the first -- structured this. the first was to try and treat this as a matter of concerted outreach with communities. the -- you know, we have to also recognized -- in addition to recognizing what is part of the problem set, it is how are you going to best get added? i think -- at it? i think we realized early on this is not a top-down, prescriptive problem you can solve. the solutions have got to come from the community itself. this goes back to what i was saying about the challenge we have in this new phase in the fight against terrorism, which is the threat is not susceptible, in all respects, to the net that we built after 9/11. communities have got to be part of this infrastructure and part of this solution. they have got to be part of our efforts here, because they are the ones who are going to be alsoto identify and
ramps to individuals who are becoming radicalized to violence. it is a lot tougher problem and a lot tougher for law enforcement and intelligence mary -- community. recognizing what is in the problem set, recognizing how best to come at it through communities, and then how do you organize yourself to do that? in the obama administration we saw it as a challenge of outreach in many respects. if you think about how the federal government is set up, we have our widest array of presence, in many aspects, in our law enforcement presence. maybe that was a mistake because many immunities, chiefly among them, the muslim community, felt like we were securitizing the relationship with the muslim community or the other communities we were trying to conduct outreach to because our chief, kind of, spokesman, or
point of outreach was the u.s. attorney in many areas -- the chief federal law enforcement officer in the area. we changed that over time, and set up an interagency task force to function more as a coordinator and more as a comic for best practices with schools, public health administrators,, kind of, afterschool researchers and the like. it is that that has been cut and a budgetary perspective s to those that are focused on combating hate from white nationalism and extreme far right groups -- that some of those grants have been pulled back, quite regrettably. david: ok.
do we have any audience questions? from the first floor of their? go ahead -- up there? go ahead. king, andame is matt i and a senior here at duke, and i wanted to know from your time at the white house, working with our allies overseas, who are the friends that were just too great -- great relationships, and who were the friends you wish you didn't have? [laughter] to say i am no diplomat would be to state the obvious. look, we have a range of relationships, quite obviously. some are closer than others. i -- our relationship with the u.k. on counterterrorism matters what's critical, and i was on them -- was critical. i was on the phone with my counterpart in the u.k. when i looked up at the tv and saw that
bombs had gone off in boston. it was my third week on the job, by the way, in the white house. because we were so constantly talking to each other i had a button on my phone that was a secure phone that connected directly to him. that is a unique relationship, probably closer than any others. but one of the things we learned after 9/11 is we have to be able to form degrees of those relationships because the intelligence sharing, the partner operations, we're going to have to come not own -- are going to have to come not only from our closest and best allies, but we're going to have to work with others. that presented some problems in some areas, and presented challenges with some folks. we -- i think to the very good credit of the intelligence community, and i would say, drawing on my fbi experience -- one of the things bob mueller did was to really focus on -- i
longed a lot of miles with him traveling internationally, not just to our closest allies, but building up those intelligence and law-enforcement relationships which proved very important on discrete threats. david: do we have a question here? go ahead. lisa: see how diplomatic i was? ? thank you, ms. monaco. we had a debate about ethics and talked about the just war theory among other things in one of things we focused on was a significant increase in the use of drones over the past 10 years. i would like to hear about what kind of conversations took place when making the decision to just targeting town al qaeda terrorist other option organizations are making drone strikes, and then, perhaps not even from a legal
authorization to use force perspective, but from an ethical point of view, how far do you think we can go in continuing to justify individual attacks on al qaeda terrorists given that we have already taken out osama bin laden, and it has been 16 years since 9/11? so, sounds like a fascinating course. i am not teaching national security law and policy, so i can relate to some of your questions. it is a competent set of questions. let me give a little bit -- complicated set of questions. let me give a little bit of a frame for how we approach this issue -- how president obama approached this issue. we operated from the premise that we were going to work partners to disrupt threats to the united states and to u.s. persons abroad wherever we could , but where that threat was
posed, and our partner was unwilling or unable to address that threat, we would act unilaterally, consistent with law, and with our values. and it was very important to president obama to have that framework around our operations, and he made sure that we were putting those operations and conducting those operations in the context of something we called the presidential policy guidance, which basically said we are going to have a floor here. we have to make sure the target is a lawful target, first and foremost, but then always ask ourselves, is the action that we are taking -- the gravest action any nation can take -- is that required because this is a continuing, imminent threat to our country, to u.s. persons, and apply the highest standards.
it was important to him that we apply the highest standards to those actions, and this is outside the areas of active possibility that i'm talking about the context of terrorist threats outside of traditional, hot battlefields. he said we are going to ask ourselves questions to make sure that we apply the high standard that we can apply -- near certainty that that lawful target that poses a threat to us, isimminent threat to present, and that no civilian will be killed or injured in the conduct of that operation. setting out that framework. and it was important, he believes, to have that framework to guide and apply rigor to those very weighty decisions. foremost, by and protecting the united states and our people, but also so that we can set some type of standard and norms for the use of the technology that was
proliferating and continues to proliferate. and also so that we could apply some transparency about how we were making these decisions, and pushback, quite frankly, on terrorist propaganda about our operations. so, the, kind of, short answer to your question, i suppose, is when you are faced with those most weighty decisions and the gravest power that a government can exercise, it was very important to president obama that we do so consistent with the rule of law and in a framework that would stand the test of time for not only the united states, but for others around the world who might also be using this technology. president trump, when he campaigned, said he would loosen the rules of engagement, elected generals do what they wanted cut -- let the generals do what they
wanted, and essentially unshackle the military. new thinking the seven or eight months he has been in office, he has maintained this framework, or it has been jettisoned? lisa: i think it is useful to distinguish two things. the question here was about -- or i responded with the policy that we adopted and operated under when it comes to threatsng terrorist emanating from what we called outside of areas of active hostility -- so, outside the hot battlefields of afghanistan or iraq and syria. with regard to your questions, and the statement from the president, and for instance, the isis campaign, i think it is an pretty clear from the military, and others have been, that there is been a greater delegation of authority for the exercise of certain operations -- special operations raids, decisions to
deploy troops further in -- further down range, as they say -- in iraq and syria, and that debt -- that delegation has gone on. and that that has been quite fruitful in terms of the case of operations. brett mcgurk said that some 30% of the territory that has that isis has been pushed out of occurred in the last seven or eight months. argue with can not those kinds of metrics that that delegation has had something to do with it if you look into the commanders. and i am not opposed to that, because i think every commander-in-chief should be ise to take a look at how ,anaging the operations, right and sitting down with the commanders to decide how are we going to do -- handle the
decision-making in our national security operation. but, i want -- apparatus. if theret to make sure is no process to the decision-making -- in other words, if the experts are not being consulted, if there is not a clear process for deciding where should that authority be delegated to. so, the long and short of it is i think the delegation down has , andbly born some fruit that is a good thing in terms of what it has done in the isis campaign, but there has got to be some rigor around deciding where you draw that line. david: let's go to another question from here. miranda. nervous i am a very first year, in professor
schazner course. present obama said ideologies are not defeated by guns, they are defeated by better ideas. rooting out the ecological reasoning behind vallance, specifically with the lone wolf your you mentioned -- actor mentioned pizza, how do you quantify if there effectively achieving this -- previously, how do you quantify if they are effectively achieving this in the future? lisa: that is a clear challenge for us. you mentioned metrics. this is one of the things that has been the biggest? -- one of the biggest question marks in how much we use this program and how much we expand things like that countering violence and extremism task force that we set up in dhs. one of the ways that we came to arrive at that are metrics in
this is to do more, and see and research what that yields. we have not done enough research. we need a lot more research on what causes radicalization. we have some theories, right, and experts in this, whether it is law enforcement, social science, and others. they have their theory, but i think we have more to learn what causes radicalization, what does it look like, and one of the best ways -- what are the best ways of going about combating isis and its narrative? will be the most resonant counter narrative to what i just put out? for will be the best different types of communities? i my name is ted linhart and
am a student at the law school. strategyon the trump in afghanistan, his recent quote it wasworld in disarray, suggested there are two possibilities in afghanistan. one is focused on counterterrorism, and the second is focused on building solutions. given your understanding of the situation in afghanistan, which strategy do you think best serves american interest, and what you make of the trump administration's strategy there? lisa: the answer is going to be what which is in essence, i think we were doing, and i think president trump has continued, and doubled down on in his most recent speech.
they have to understand it is not a correct system, otherwise why would they put their lives on the line? it is all a continuum. david: i listen to trump's speech, saying we are not doing nationbuilding. are you saying he is not being fully forthright on that issue? i think you can look at president obama's speeches were he said we are not doing nationbuilding. david: what is building up institutions mean? that not nationbuilding -- is that not nationbuilding? at doing when you look the work of the state, forces, in iraq in the aftermath of the iraq, it is the planning and doing for as opposed to's -- opposed to applying and
assisting those apparatus to get them off the ground. you know, the doing nationbuilding -- i think there is a distinction between working with partners and building up their capacity. now, in the latter, you have to have enough risk tolerance depending on the situation that you are in, and the situation in that country. we, as a united states, have to have a sufficient risk tolerance to be there, to support those security forces, to take one example, to be willing to go on that joint raid with them, to give them the confidence to conduct that joint terror operation. all of that -- you then run the risk -- are you going to get drawn in, and this is the constant battle we face as a nation. i think there is a distinction to be drawn, but i don't think you can really separate out the
counterterrorism capability from existing enough in a state that has enough security institutions to allow it to survive and thrive. caitlin, do you have a question from the online audience? caitlin: yes, we are live streaming this event. some are tweeting in questions. i will ask one on behalf of -- he wants to know. the current that she wants to know could the current -- he wants to know, could the current buyer risk the used against us? lisa: yes. it is a great question. a former colleague of mine wrote a piece talking about how our polarized environment, whether it is rhetoric, politics, does contribute to and feed into the divide that our enemies, and our
terrorist enemies would like to see, and if that is not reason enough to get us to come at this differently, i am not sure what is. david: thank you. a question from the top. -- >> hi, thanks so much for being here tonight. i also want to say it is really awesome to see a woman that is so successful in national security. i really appreciate that. my name is leah. can a soft war, a student the law and terrorism counter policy class, and i know hindsight is 2020. i am curious, you terms of north korea, if you felt that there was more you could have or would have done with the obama administration to address the nuclear threat that are -- there? lisa: thanks for your question. the professor may have stopped the audience -- talked the -- stocked the audience.
[laughter] lisa: you are right with the hindsight 2020 -- there are china, whoors like really do -- experts are fond of saying all roads to the solution of this goes through china. they are the single biggest trading partner with north korea. they are the ones that are most concerned about dissolution on the peninsula there. could we have calibrated more or less at various times the pressure that we as the united states -- as opposed to a multilateral form -- apply to china? potentially, but you can't be -- this is one of the great things about this area that we're all talking about and many of you are studying -- it is not easy, right? you cannot look at these things in isolation. it is going to be a multilayered
problem at any point in time that you are looking at any one of these questions. i think you are right at the start, hindsight is always 20/20. byid: i want to sum up asking one final question. i'm sorry, we are according all the students that i planted in the audience on this. i did not tell them what to say. the questions about careers, being a student here, in national security, interested, possibly, in a career, and of course you had a long, fruitful career starting from the start in public service -- what should they be thinking about doing now to, kind of, or themselves for that, and for those that are going to be getting their well-earned degrees -- either graduate degrees or undergraduate degrees in may, and let's say they don't have as same ideological bend
the current administration, should they factor that in when they are trying to decide whether to pursue at least federal public service right now, or what should they think about? lisa: so, on your last part of the question -- look, this is -- it is a highly personal decision about how you weigh what is important to you from a policy did -- perspective and where you are going to work if you go into public service at the federal level or at any level, but in the current environment. i think you should know what your lines are, right? is there a particular issue that is so important to you that you a policybe part of limitation or a policy development along a certain line , and know what those lines are. have a hard conversation with yourself about what you want to but don't be
scared off of public service because the current moment is one that is scary to you or depressing to you, or makes you uneasy. i think the recipe for those things invariably is to engage -- to think about it, to get yourself educated, to engage with ideas you disagree with. now i will get to the first part of your question, really. folks that i talked to earlier today heard me say a little of this, but, you know, i like to tell people who ask how to write get this or that job, and what should i be doing now -- i will give you a liberating answer. rest assured, you are not forgetting to do something right now. you're not missing a particular path, because there is no one path. you have to be open to opportunities that come your way, even if they look like they were outside of your plan. that ought to be a clue that it right, anduitful,
expose yourself to different ideas and different pursuits -- two ideas that you disagree with. follow people on twitter that you disagree with. engage with ideas that get you out of your comfort zone. chamber,y in your own because you may find that there is a whole different world that to engageterested in with more, come back, flat against, or refine your thinking. the open to different possibilities. don't think there is one track. that is what is great about being in a place like duke. you can find out all of those things now. david: with that wonderful answer, i am left with two more tasks. the first is to give you a very small token of our appreciation, and i imagine that when you wake up in the morning, and you turn on some of the -- whether it is "morning joe," or whatever
you watch, and you see your successes, whether it be h.r. mcmaster, or tom bossert dealing with the press and getting hammered with the press, that you have a nest egg cup of coffee, -- i ain't nice, big cup of coffee, and you say to yourself i am glad it is not me, and when you are having one of those cups of coffee, i hope you'll remember us from the duke sanford counterterrorism program and a travel mug. my second duty is to thank lisa monaco for enlightening us this evening. [applause] david: thank you. lisa: thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
trumpight president attends a campaign rally for alabama senator luther strange in huntsville. right after that, we show another rally for roy moore, senator strange's opponent in next week's primary. sarah palin spoke at that event that was held thursday evening after the candidates held a debate. c, a march on washington, d titled the march for civility. lifen's coverage begins saturday 10:00 a.m. eastern time. monday, the senate finance committee holds a hearing of the latest republican health care plan and affordable care act repeal. the measure sponsored by louisiana senator bill cassidy and south carolina senator
lindsey graham. they are expected to testify on their legislation. live monday, at 2:00 eastern, on c-span 3. earlier today, arizona senator john mccain came out against the proposal after kentucky senator rand paul announced he would oppose the bill as well. senator mccain released a statement saying in part -- control thens senate 52-48, and with republicans opposing the bill, 30 p.m. -- with democrats opposing the bill, three no votes by her publicans would block the bill. saturdayrday -- >> hillary clinton gets her personal account of a presidential campaign and election with her book "what happened." hillary clinton: it really hit me that there were these very important issues that needed to
be discussed, debated, even, that our democracy and country relied upon that kind of self-examination, and i thought, well, i need to know what happened, and i need to be as honest, candid, open, as i possibly can in order to figure it out for myself, and maybe would providebook the discipline, the deadline to try to think it through. >> then on sunday, paul hollander, from the university of massachusetts, and his book "from benito mussolini to hugo chavez -- an election was an a century of lyrical hero worship." atl: these people are good projecting a personality intellectuals found the traffic. as i said, -- founder traffic. attractive.
they use political power wisely and benevolently -- that they actually this is the most important for intellectuals. they bridged a get between theory and practice. >> for more of this weekend's schedule, go to booktv.org. on american history tv, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, temple university professor andrew eisenberg on the environmental movement in the 1970's. >> what i want to argue here is the noble savage environmentalist was a kind of product that was sold to american consumers just like big macs or cars. >> then john penney, former united airlines captain, and a
former d.c. international guard pilot talk about their expenses during 9/11. >> we take off, and we had northeast -- head northeast into a serene, peaceful, and silent sky. there is no one airborne. out to the northwest, and we never find anything. -- and i were not heroes that day. the passengers on play 93 were the heroes. artifacts," tour the harriet tubman underground railroad center. >> it was an horrific injury, but it opened up a new world for her. she got epilepsy that allowed her to have amazing visions, and a direct connection to god. she heard voices, saw amazing things, and had vivid dreams.
it was terrible on the physical side, but amazing for her fate. >> are series on photojournalists continues with eric draper. >> that image that shows dan bartlett, the two medications tv,ctor pointing to the that was the first time we started seeing the replay of the second tower getting hit. >> american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, only on c-span3. next, a discussion on immigration policy and applications for immigrant communities. we heard about the latest with daca, immigration law enforcement at the borders, and deportation enforcement priorities. this was hosted by the brookings institution. it is about an hour and a half. -- goodgood afternoon morning, everyone. thank you