but let me just bring it back to one thing. however i agree with he and the brotherhood that undemocratic things go for it all of this is true. the point is their exclusion -- we are seeing one face after another but i caused euros on politics. lack of consensus building. the brotherhood did it when they were in power and the military backed government is doing that now. instead of bargaining with their

political opponents do you try to completely ask is that, eliminate them and force through your own decisions. i think it's really leaving egypt in a very troubling and potentially unstable situation that will go on and on. these countries that went through transitions had a praising. people knew in tunisia, egypt, et cetera, they knew what they did and why. you remember in egypt read, freedom, social is, dignity. these are brought concepts, they need to translate that into an actual plan. these roundtables and so forced and they came up with -- they came up with a plan of where they wanted to go. it could still fail. i hope it won't, but at least they are proceeding. that's because the recent natural entre national can answers. we see in tunisia some of the

silly fees are not on ward as a broad enough to do is to the country forward. i do reach a good if you are now excluding as many people as egypt is the political crisis. >> i was there across the regimes that trivialize throughout [cheers and applause] , to syria. the national narrative is a statement and just covering did not really as a result of how much it was gutted by these regimes had no longer any citizens. across the whole region in each setting very often in which the other side and we are the big.

even the reading of history, in the case of egypt you had one narrative that says the most brotherhood so the revolution. it was from within the revolution. they stole something that is not theirs. it's democrat, autocrats only for the across to step in and take it away. that's one narrative. this has been a revolution in the making since 1920s. our struggle in the future is being repressed and the education system is effectively getting to a point of realizing a part of the long march. these two narratives not only conflict, but also they generate generation of treason on the part of the others. the others are the ones stealing it. the case at tunisia not to

strategize tanisha and make up the story to reach them, you also had competing narratives. one narrative sense like you have is a whole century plus of reform in tunisia that comes from the east and elsewhere that's trying to undo. it's alien to us. islamism is tolerance, plural comment letter and our islam. what you have is a male colonial at 10.these are not competitive. the conflict is last steep and therefore is the possibility of compromise, even if the compromise is not totally sincere. i primacy many in the non-islamist camp in tanisha

wishes that they would be defeated and swept away. they wish that ultimately the others would be uncovered for who they are, asians and be defeated. but the exercise here you will never have the middle ground that allows if you lack a certain coexisting and not liberalism. we are far from calling on the military to eradicate anything could make generals against the muslim brotherhood, talking about some of the actions in the case of egypt, if you do this in egypt, you're a terrorist. it's kind of not conceivable to last that this is how far it has originated. just to answer your question, ultimately to get to the point, maybe because we were denied for

four decades or god knows how many decades who were denied their common space. maybe we need to have this, if you like, we get to have that base than once that spaces they are, will always have hard-core islamists. you always have hard-core anti-islamist whether they are whatever you want to call them and you'll have a large set of the population that is concrete issue oriented. the prosperity and better life my children and fight it off in the papers. not on the streets. >> gentleman in the back here. >> my name is mohammed dorsey and i am in washington. thank you, hussein. look at the image from the lighter angle and mask since we are an american task force, it

won't hurt to talk a little bit about policy and allocation and why the strategy point of view with some talk and they wish anyone of you in during me, thinking twice before answering me. the only reason to justify a jewish state in the middle east will be having its surrounded the states. thank you. >> anybody want to tackle that? i will list the panelists don't want to. >> okay. i don't think that's been the animating tries among the founders of his rail and among the jewish israeli majority since the first zionist great 19th century until today.

and i don't think that it's going to make much of a difference to the state of israel and the self identify and state identified jewish majority what kind of states that are surrounded by. they are going to persist with their national identity no matter what and the only real threat to it is the occupation and the demographics. other than that, i don't think they depend on this nature around them and this whole idea in the realization predates all of this. what they get more help from the united states? i find hard to imagine how much they could get. it seems to me they can

pretty -- i think they may have maxed out. i don't know. i don't know how you would increase that. they don't need more money. i think the closeness is about as close as you can get. when you have a situation that i'm a slacker day late most things most times in most ways, that's pretty close. [inaudible] please, yet. i think what the region is witnessing is the imitation for the intellectuals because i think to the extent to reflect a bit more on amity, the whole notion of paucity and the absorption on the parts of the intellectual strata in the middle east that enticed democratic from the west and the portrayal of the collect erase

the enemy and the bloodsucking that it is really an invitation to consider quiet in light of some of the horror that has been inflicted in all those places. the extent by the regime and some factions is no proportionality here. anything that is spent to excuse in true lies the actions of israel. it's a call for the reach and therefore the region to rethink in terms of the commonality that the pastor together and maybe if you like a little bit of silver lining to all this disaster. >> we have the gentleman right here. we have the gentleman right here. we have the gentleman right

here. i wanted to see if i can induce hassan mneimneh's point but the political environment that determines whether the contradictions of the program is the brotherhood towards democracy or towards violence. i try your attention to the similar experience we have in the united states war era. every single person who went into the weatherman terrorist organization was the offspring of liberalist that the schmidt aaron whose internal contradictions that whatever's wrong with the society could be dealt with in peaceful ways. those people dropped out. it wasn't they were taught. they rejected their parents that they could peacefully achieve what they wanted to achieve. you say the important difference at the numbers, i would think really do. the differences in numbers in the political environment if many people have been killed at kent state as ben kill them or be a squared and many people inside of a few dozen people

arrested, 20,000 liters of the antiwar movement have been arrested, we would've seen a lot more violent. >> hasan, any response? >> it is positively affect the meaning i don't think it's an either/or situation. to disagree on how much way in the overall direction of the process i think it's healthy, necessity, but i've always can learn what makes factories amplified that leads to be absolved of the need to be autocratic. that's my concern. i completely accept the fact that i'm 100% on the political -- the political pressure can help push in one direction or another. is that it the only fact or? positively not. in the case of the muslim brotherhood, it is the political theory that allows for that political pressure to push in one direction or another.

i give credit to the egyptian muslim brotherhood today despite all of that political pressure they have kept steady innings tasting that now, we are not going to slip into violent and i think when i started by saying they are humble and encouraged, it is because they are urged they can afford to say that not only because the principles, but the fact of the matter the muslim brotherhood has the accommodationist in the sense that as i said in cearley's when the belief that democracy and islam are intertwined, but they have not been able to themselves to resolve all the issues. the issue of the other, but not most home, not just a muslim but coulter is a christian, the muslim who says that no longer a muslim. what do you do with that? are they outside of the community? we have part of the terrorism -- this is what michelle was talking about.

if the estimate was terrorism. >> okay, one must question and then we'll wrap. make it brief and will make the answers brief. >> the former epg columnist. my question is i didn't care much of people. we know the people i've eject made that big change in the middle east. my question as, do you think that they mentioned qatar, saudi, do you think the people will shape the future of the muslim brotherhood.

>> is megaforce is to it gives up writings the demographic realities of the region. any other information revolution. so you have a young dynamic under employing a net increase in the well-informed society throughout the region. they strive stores chain and an issue for every political social move in mls at the brotherhood. will mention that one point or maybe hussein is thought that the younger generation in the brotherhood perhaps becoming more inclined towards using violence or whatever. there's a gap between the elders and the younger generation.

sometimes the younger generation christ ideologically has more in common with each other than they do with the elders in family-run organization. this has been true at the brotherhood and i think that these are major underlying forces that are going to continue to drive change along with i agree with what my colleagues have said about structural forces number which will determine coming you know, to what extent the case is open for the brotherhood and other political forces supers do things politically versus other ways. >> anybody else? >> at the stratosphere the notion that the people, to use your word, have recognized that the proposed social contracts by the previous regimes is not violent. the previous social contract consisted of the following. in exchange for your political acquiescence in your political childhood affect only, we

promise you education, health, employment. it was not delivered. it is effectively the failure of that social contract of of people to propose and very complete terms were we have as a result, we have the education system, whether it's in egypt, but even in tunisia produces very little to the expectation of lifetime and retirement. so what we have is really effectively talking about the people, a rude awakening at yours. the state can no longer be the father or the mother. we have to be our own. as citizens responsible for ourselves, whether through entrepreneurship of the whatever it is. these are the complete issues that could have scared of ideological debates.

this is why the creation of middle ground will push the debate and even the identity affiliation to make these concrete issues front and center with out what mel b. on the part of the state. their own father, which is the international community. the whole notion in the case of egypt that is debated by many of the egyptian friends. and we have an effectively prepared earlier for the next year or two. would have been after that is a big question. it is not tenable. maybe egypt but in any case what we have is in the region and the

people been elevated from being civilian just to echo both python and shall, it is true that people are going to shape the future is that these different movements. you can have a positive effect, but also can be quite negative and given the political climate that is becoming entrenched in the region, particularly driven by saudi arabia and the uae and the too much mark fuller's nation before any political consent to see with need for the develop into visio to mark is in the long-term. >> my own sense, for what it's worth, as you needn't ask the question will people shape the future? they are doing it now.

would have been in egypt with the results even more of the downfall of president mubarak in an uproar, an unprecedented uproar of the size and scale we haven't seen before. similarly compromises by rivals. it is not credit for the compromise. it is shared. its full due share of the credit. seems to be the only party that gets credit because it is expected not to compromise. all the other parties in tunisia also compromise. so i think there's the public will have tunisia were not given anybody the majority and forcing everybody to compromise. you can see it at work right now. do we have fully developed areas nationstates that are completely response to two citizens and responsibilities? now, but we certainly have a very different dynamic already

playing out for the public is no longer as dependent on paternalism as assigned the same, neither have they broken with that, but they certainly have asserted into various ballot box and other meats in transitional periods, a way of expressing their views in certain terms. at the two thank you all for joining us today. we will be doing more of these in the very near future on similar timely subjects and i'd like to thank our panelists and thanks very much while at the appropriate in and to think our viewers on c-span and other networks. thank you very much. [applause] see you next time. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> coming up this evening, booktv in prime time continues with a look at conservative political ideology.

>> jeb bush. that's who you want to to know about. he's also my tenant. i saw him yesterday, in fact at lunch. >> ensued in new hampshire by chance? >> no, he does it. he lives in coral gables, florida. i think -- you know, i suspect that as part of what shapes his immigration is. the fact that it's an immigrant community and a lot of times the immigration debate can be about faceless government statistics, how many people across the border, how many deportees, how many children of undocumented are born here. it can be all about faceless numbers. when he lives in an immigrant community, when you speak spanish, when you watch spanish tv comic you know these stories

and you know that there's people, there smathers, women who get by human smugglers when they are crossing the borders and risk their lives serving across the river or seek in iraq to the united states and a lot of time leave children behind that they may not see for a decade. it is in the hope that they can come here and find work and help support those families and loved ones they've left behind. have they broken the law? yes, absolutely. is it an act of love? i would tell you it's hard to argue when i tally of the circumstances that it's not an act of love for those families. where he is, where he lives, the stories he knows shapes, that perception. i don't think you have to read when it comes to chad because i know it's surprising, but you now, he pretty much told us what he's thinking and where his head

is. he's a very disciplined guy and i think he's going to stick to his timeline, even when it comes to his own internal decision-making process. he has said what his criteria is. it needs to be okay with this family and by that i don't think it means mama bush as much as: the bush, the woman he's been married to for 20 years now, running for president today minster that as a family. it's not just one person. it affects the entire family's life, the entire family's privacy. he's also said he wants to do it joyfully. he wants to be able to offer a positive vision. he wants to be able to offer solutions. he ascites going to sit down, think about it over the summer, think about it later this year and make a decision.

the guy, i know him. he means what he says and he says what he means. i don't think he's doing this. we've gotten accustomed in politics to the art of the political tees, people who are trying to promote the sale of a book are maybe trying to get a gig on cable news, which is not a bad gig. get themselves on "dancing with the stars." trying to find themselves irrelevant to you. frankly i don't think jeb bush knows that. he's a very serious guy who's doing very well businesswise, who's got a fulfilled life and so i think it is about the vocation to service and is it the right thing for the family and for the country.

>> whether it's an award in journalism, as a politician you don't make a judgment on not. but an award for public service for possibly the greatest betrayal of our national secrets of all time strikes me as quite bizarre. and i do think there's a real danger although very cozy media world patting itself on the back

without fully understanding the ways for the dangers that we face in a very dangerous world. so i think there's a dangerous disconnect there. as for "the guardian" newspaper view itself, if it decides an individual gave the names of operatives outside the u.k. jurisdiction that would be a breach of the 2000 terrorism act in the united kingdom. if that would apply to me as an individual, why would that not apply to newspaper? >> former british defense secretary liam fox on edward snowden, government surveillance programs and privacy issues. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. i'm a tv, from texas to the san antonio book festival including authors and panels on the stories that shaped san antonio and the nsa big brother and democracy. saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> next a discussion on the evolution of american intelligence operations with eugene poteat, former cia scientific intelligence officer. he talks that the changing nature special ops from world war ii to high-tech reconnaissance during the cold war to the post-9/11 environment that integrates human intelligence gathering with high-tech weaponry, hosted by the institute of world politics, this is an hour. >> we are going to go ahead and get started. there will be some people coming in i guess this traffic allows. but good evening and on behalf of the student body, i'd like to

welcome you all to iw p. this evening or this defense lecture entitled the changing face of american intelligence from oss special operations to analysis and high-tech reconnaissance back to the special operations with mr. eugene poteat. whether 20 years ago the institute of world politics was founded as graduate school of a national security and international affairs dedicated to developing leaders with a sound understanding of international realities and the ethical conduct of statecraft based on knowledge and appreciation of the founding principles of the american political economy in western world tradition. this evening we're especially pleased to welcome you all here as our guest lecture, mr. poteat is one of the many fine professors undismayed iw p. what it is today paper. many graduates to venture into international relations, national security and

intelligence. ready to make the distinctive demands and challenges of the professions today. mr. poteat is a retired senior cia scientific intelligence officer and the president of the association of former intelligence officers also known as actio. he was educated as an electrical engineer and physicist and he holds a masters in statecraft of national security tears from iw p. i believe the class of 2009 and in his career and intelligence has included work with u2 and sr 71 class of aircraft and various space and nato reconnaissance systems. he also managed the cia's worldwide network of monitoring type, was patents on covert communications techniques. you cia assignments included the directorate of science and technology he, the national reconnaissance office, technical

director of the navy special programs, office and executive director of the intelligence research and development council. he served abroad in london, scandinavia, the middle east and asia and he's received the cia's medal of merit and the national reconnaissance office is meritorious civilian award for his logical innovation. following mr. poteat lecture we are going to be brief five minute break we'll ask if you have any questions you write them down on the cars provided on the chairs, have been passed to the side where we will collect them in that way he can go through them and it will help a little bit with the q&a session afterwards. now without further delay, i'd welcome to mr. poteat back. here you go.

[applause] >> perhaps in the future you have to have a flat place to set a cup of water. i want to be sure that i can be heard all the way in the back with this new microphone. does it work okay back there? well, it turns out that the cia got into the intelligence business really in a very strange and interesting way. during world war ii, the office of strategic services or oss

within intelligence arm during world war ii. at the end of the world war ii, however, the head of oss is known as william donovan had the idea that we needed the intelligence service in peace time. that's a rather radical thought in the u.s. at the time, but he envisioned an independent agency that did not interfere with any other intelligence that entities such as naval intelligence, the fbi, the army intelligence. the state department said had a lot of people that were interested in the subject. when donovan came up with this idea for a newscentral intelligence service, he ran into a lot of trouble.

everybody thought he was infringing on their turf and they all objected and it took three years before washington could settle down and agree to something called the national security act of 1947. it turned out president truman had been ignored by president roosevelt during his tenure and when roosevelt passed away in president truman stepped into his shoes, he had no idea what had been going on. it's interesting that joseph stalin, head of the soviet union knew about the american atomic on before harry truman did. that's how bad he had been kept in the dark.

so nonetheless, it was decided this warfare and washing 10 went on for three years and finally something unusual happened. the congress stepped in and did a good job. they fixed the problem. they decided such an intelligence agency would be independent and they passed the law and they modified it and it was finally passed however in virtually identical to the plan down the van had had three years earlier. so he prevailed, but something happened. he wanted to be the head of that narrow central intelligence agency. a harry truman did not like donovan. they couldn't get along.

and harry truman said i don't want anything to do with any cloak and dagger types. and yet, something happened when that national security act was passed. churchill made a visit to independence, missouri and he made his famous iron curtain speech. every student knows about that iron curtain speech. but shortly after that event, truman who didn't want anything to do is cloak and dagger tribes did something unusual. he signed the marshall plan, which went on to his days western europe from falling under the communist yoke and then he did something else most unusual. he dispatched the new cie to

southern europe to save italy, turkey and greece from being taken over by the communists. the interesting thing that happened, the original cia had been stabbed by donovan's oss. they knew two things. they understood the threat from the expanding communism and they knew what to do about it. it was not to collect secret intelligence. they knew what was going on. but they knew covert action is the answer to it. the cia succeeded. they worked with and to take over the election and they defeated the communism who was

trying to take over the election converted to demand working with cia and he is working with the priest who is the bishop in italy. that priest later went on to become pope paul. you can say in a way that the catholic church and the pope was working with the cia in those very early days. well, they succeeded in italy, but then they moved on the succeeded in taking over turkey. the most interesting success they had was increased. the communists had images they are in that very rocky, rough

terrain, but the cai -- the cia got a pamphlet of missouri mules and to decrease. and they were able to out maneuver the communists with the terrible rocky terrain. so it's often given credit to their successes or at least leased to the misery meals. anyway, they have these incredible successes. but the thing that wanders, why is it that truman made the sudden change that he didn't want anything to do with the types and suddenly he is dispatching intelligence and he's a strong supporter of it. it turns out that when churchill visited missouri, it is said by many people that he educate them

three days after his famous speech in their essay. at time where he was alone with president truman and it was that time that he educated truman on the threat from the soviet union. as a matter of fact, president roosevelt died four months earlier. guess who would've been president of the united states. the communists. the vice president in that early time before truman turned out to be a communist. nonetheless, the covert action was the order of the day. the cia didn't succeed in every case they tried. as a matter of fact, what they

did was beyond belief. there are also while they were working on italy, turkey and greece were also dropping agents behind the communist lines in albania and eastern europe. they were parachuting in these young men with radios to infiltrate indeed they are behind the lines eyes and ears. every one of those 300 young men that was parachuting behind the lines was compromised and picked up and never heard from again. the reason is it was a joint operation with the british and it turned out our famous ken philby, who was one of the british agents that was actually working with us and not operation turned out to have

been a spy for the soviet union. so he compromised the operations. it was sometime later went philby defect did that we realized we have been had. nonetheless, the covert action continued in some of them were successful. there was an interesting operation all that you've heard about the united fruit coming on the lot of in guatemala and they also had old railroads in the country. they both report. of course this is all about the banana monopoly owned by the rockefeller operation. interesting president rpms who was president of guatemala and

his wife in particular were last days and it was understood that they wanted to nationalize the united fruit company in guatemala. well, when that word got out, united fruit went to work in washington and set up a campaign to discredit our bentson guatemalans nationalizing as a matter of fact the cia was planning a coup to eliminate her events in guatemala. well, they succeeded. but it was interesting when we realize that in washington it turns out that the secretary to president eisenhower at the time worked for united fruit. the u.n. ambassador, henry cabot

lodge at denny's upholder in the united fruit. dulles brothers, the head of the cia, alan dulles and his brother who was secretary of state dulles and his brother who was secretary of state for the bank, which was a partner of for the bank, which was a partner of the united fruit. while that was clear that coup had full backing from washington and was a great success that the cia created a small air force and army and they had one plane -- two planes. one of the planes drop one bomb on guatemala city and fled. that's an easy way to handle a coup. but the second plane dropped a bomb on a ship leaving the harbor. they thought it was a czechoslovakian shape that was

bringing in arms that armed the rebels. well, it turns out they made a mistake. the ship was a british ship hauling bananas and coffee from guatemala. so covert action was discredited after a while. but they had one last time that was very important. eisenhower had approved of a coup against castro's cuba simply because it was clear now there is no question about soviet communism entry into the western hemisphere was through using castro. well, the cia was called on to do another covert operation. this is an old story, but it is interesting in the eyes i were

uprooted as a covert operation rather than an overt military operation to eliminate castro and the cia proceeded to plan this operation. under the assumption that castro was not yet fully in charge and in control of cuba. but at the same time, the cia analysts have made it clear that castro was completely in charge and he had jet fighters and old world war ii piston bombers. but jfk came into office at that point. and when he was briefed on the cuban operation, and they made changes. they changed the entire plan for the operation. they changed the landing site

for the original place over to the swamp called the bay of pigs. now you know where we are going with that. they also said we will not allow u.s. military, and meaning in this case, the naval aviation to backup or support this operation, to ensure that it succeeds. kennedy said that will not allow u.s. military twos for this operation, but the cia perhaps needed bigger mistake. they decided to go ahead with the operation in spite of what the president had to. it's a good guess as to what happened. the kennedy brothers that they knew more about covert operations than the cia. there is one eerie at the cia, meaning bissell, the head of the

operation believed that if the operation would fail, the u.s. navy would come to their rescue. but we know the story. it was a dismal failure and i think that the cia's covert operations came to a screeching halt a day. that was the end of covert operations. now during this time, the cia had no spies inside the soviet union. they were not doing spying. they were doing covert operations. but the cia had a man named sherman kent who also had come from the oss and he had been analyzed and he believed -- an analyst and analysis can do all the intelligence work that needed to be done.

as a matter of fact, was covert action that, sherman kent became the leader if you will but the cie de facto leader. he believed that he and his analysts could produce volumes encyclopedic information about every place in every situation in the world. when the policymakers need any thing to know about a particular place, they would give them a stack of papers with all you needed to know about it. still, i repeat today understands one thing. so analysis without any input from intelligence collection made serious mistakes. as a matter of fact enemy

1950s, the biggest question of the day was that the military attaches are reporting back that the icbm in the those through the streets on may day parades and scion had our modern ship commerce, the likes of which we had never seen. good modern jet fighters and then it struck washington. a reset and the outgunned by the soviet union? do they have military superiority acquired furthermore, they had already exploded that they had stolen and exploded an atomic bomb and now they have the means to deliver them. vessels and bombers.

it is called the bomber and missile gap. is the u.s. in trouble? eisenhower turned to the cia analysts they had no in their. they had no clue about whether or not we have military advantage impurities. eisenhower, however, had experienced from world war ii from photo reconnaissance and he called in his science advisors at the time. and this was an amazing group of men. there is the president of m.i.t. there was william baker from bill laboratories. the president of stanford university and we had that kind of talent. we had a man named penny lane who is one of america's greatest innovators. he had invented the polaroid

land instant photography and he was the piece and then working with eisenhower came up with a plan to answer the biggest question of the day, the bomber missile gap that came up and midsized eisenhower and eisenhower called a special meeting. ahead of the military, the air force, secretary of defense and so on. he read the borders. there's three things that have to be done. the first is to look at allen dulles and said get spies inside the soviet union. it's your job. yes, sir. then he said we will do photo reconnaissance. we will overfly the soviet union and see for ourselves what they've got. missiles, bombers and fighter

planes. the plane will have to fly high enough that it cannot be shut down russian missiles are fighter planes. but he added and the air force said we know how to do that. we are in the airplane does this. eisenhower said no, i want the cia to do it because it has to be done and secret and if you recall, eisenhower said he had ideas about the military-industrial con clicks. the air force with your resources, you support the cia. he said the third thing the plane will eventually be shut down. so let's start building satellite reconnaissance to replace the airplanes. again, the air force knew how to do that.

they were working on missiles could be said now, it's got to be done in secret. i want the cia to do this. but i'll need your help so you support them. that was a side day, but allen dulles, head of the cia said we are not in the high-tech business. we don't build airplanes. we don't build satellites. eisenhower said you are in a big test now. and i can assure you they got in that business very quickly. it turns out that the lockheed corporation was given a contract to build the satellite and also the u2 aircraft. they had designed long before he was ready to go, but the air force had not won anything that could carry bombs and had no

guns. but now they have a job and lockheed had the plane flying over the soviet union in less than nine. not sure we could do that nowadays, but that's how it was. the plan lasted four years and it came back with the answer to the bomber missile gap. there was no bomber missile gap. u2 was able with the airfields and so on in the u.s. now understood to have military superiority over the soviet union. because of that, president kennedy during a thing called the berlin crisis in 1960 when the russians were trying to get the u.s. and allies out of berlin so they could take over all of germany, jfk made the

statement, we are staying in berlin. the reason he could say that and he could call khrushchev's loss was because he knew that the u.s.-led military superiority and khrushchev had known it all along. so we didn't go to war over that. the same thing happened again later -- two years later and the cuban missile crisis. russia had been slipping in missiles to try to counter, if you will, check the u.s. military advantage and superiority. they brought their short range missiles to cuba. the same thing happened. khrushchev had no choice but to back down. they made the right decisions at the right time.

he made a couple mistakes in dealing with that. however, we will not interfere and invade cuba and the russian can stay in cuba. the missiles out is all that mattered and he kept the fact that he had agreed with khrushchev that we would remove our missiles from turkey and italy. so there is a quick pro-poe, but it is kept secret for six months. kennedy wanted credit for thinking second. khrushchev wanted missiles -- our missiles out of italy and turkey. so that was the fair trade it seems to me. but that was the high water mark between conflicts between the u.s. and russia. thereafter, we had some in

called mad, mutual assured destruction and that kept us -- in other words, he kept the cold war from getting hot. ..

turned out to be so advanced that nothing has matched that today that has been over half a century. the plane is still the fastest made that there was a secret part of that aircraft project. it had to be invisible to the soviet radar and that was the first effort the united states made to develop and build up a stall the airplane. i was very lucky in those days i worked on most all of those projects, so i thought i had gone to heaven it was just a wonderful time to be alive. but nonetheless, to launch the satellite, it worked and they got more intelligence from that

first satellite operation than the youtube gold in four years. it was like turning on a floodlight in a dark warehouse to see everything now you're not allowed to turn on your cell phone but i forgot to turn mine off. [laughter] well it turns out the technology that came out of the cia in those days they had the most advanced research and development capability in the world at the time. don't ask me what it's like today. i have lost track of what's going on over there today. but, so i have described three phases of intelligence, covert

operations, an analysis only came to an end into the science and technology which worked beautifully. now it's turned out that the cia did get to the soviet union to do their job. but then something happened that changed the world. with september 11, 2001. they felt that of the attacks occurred overseas in the middle east and africa against the embassies and against american ships and o the partisan golf ad so on. but now 9/11 occurred. so the cia had a small group called special activities division. it was the only paramilitary

covert action group in the country that was ready to go into afghanistan and immediately to counter the terrorists overseas so they are settling back into the covert action after all. they don't wear uniforms, they are happy to die just to kill you. it's a different world. what was the solution? it is back to covert action but it's a different kind of covert action. as a matter of fact, what we have now is we have intelligence, collections taking place. we have a military collection

underway. everybody knows the perfect example of the covert operation. it was the seal team six dot went to pakistan and finally caught osama bin laden. that was the new type of covert action. it brings in all of the elements of intelligence. the technology is there. the predator drones. they are doing the tactical field. the satellites are beyond belief now. the real-time imaging satellites

are incredibly effective. they say that you can read the license plate of a car that feels about right. i've not seen it but it's the impression nonetheless it is very effective and if you go back to the covert action let's go back and look at it again was a covert action. thomas jefferson sent the marines. we finally got it right at the present time. i want to leave that with you and make this as convinced as i

could but i would like to give you the opportunity now if you have questions to write them down. i don't guarantee the best answer but i will give it a try. >> if you have interest in your questions down pass them this way. thank you

>> it is true that i only covered a couple examples. i covert operations come u operf taken place in every war. they've taken place in vietnam and in laos. some of the covert operations during the korean war are an impression. they were very effective, but bt there is always failures that go with that. but not all of those covert operations have been publicized to date. a lot of them are still classifieclassified indeed, then was asked whether or not the covert authorizations you bet. there's plenty of them. i hadn't planned on going into all of those. just a couple of good cases everybody knew about.

it turns out that the generation now most people scribble print because the second to digest this. there is indeed a question about the church committee meetings. in the developing watershed that i think was probably more good than harm. they made a comment long after the hearing that he probably overdid it. but a lot of people don't think he did.

there have been some early had y problems that happened in any bureaucracy. he did not give sufficient adult supervision to the ranks in the cia. many parts of the agency did run rampant. as a matter of fact you remember the operation where the one division called technical services division had been experimenting with lsd, and that they had in fact been dispensing to people that were not aware of it and that causes death and that was the single most important issue and they had also developed the gun that could dispense or shoot, and i

remember the senator pulling the pentagon from the tv cameras and waving it. it never was used by the way at all but it got a lot of publicity. they served one purpose it created the committees that gave oversight of intelligence and that was necessary. i remember hearing one of them say about the planned cia operation good. do you have all of the money you need because they disappeared after the committee. and i think that's the supervision in the cia took a turn for the better after that.

they use the stealth aircraft into the hands of the enemy has the stealth technology been compromised or is it obsolete? not at all. it turns out that indeed, my principal job during much of these days was to work on the stealth technology. eisenhower made the comment that the stealth airplane will not fly over the soviet union unless you prove to me that it's invisible to soviet radars and indeed that was one of my jobs and it was one of the most fun things i ever did.

i might add that we answered the question we generated aircraft where we could spoof the radar thinking they are seeing a stealth aircraft we could vary the size of the target and we could therefore listen to them and determine the smallest size on the screen that they could see. but the answer came back the radar was good and they could detect that stealth airplane that we had and so it never was permitted to fly over the soviet union because of that the answer that we got from knowing how small o they target the radar cn see, that information was passed on, and they then designed and

built the f-117 which was invisible to radar but what happened as the plane was operating out of the base in italy and all-around they were watching a takeoff so they knew when it took off and when i got over the target area they opened up the doors and then the radar could see it. they knew that it was coming so they tried to miss it and knock it down. fortunately the pilot survived. but then having lost them the answers they now knew about designed a new generation of fighter planes. the f-22, the f. 35, they are

not intended to be completely invisible radar. all they need to do is be a smaller target than the enemy that they are facing so they have an advantage than of flying the missile before they can receive one so it is still valuable but it doesn't solve all of the problems. has that answered the question enough? that's how they shot it down. simply waiting until it opened up the doors. this is an interesting question. what do you see as the next biggest challenge for the intelligence community? i think we see that already. the biggest challenges the war on terrorism and its islamic

terrorism. it's not going to be won by. it's by good intelligence, covert action you have to be able to identify. that comes up to the one question that we all understand the metadata monitoring communications is one of the most effective tools we have and one of the most difficult for the american public to accept. i might add that the president link in during the civil war, the telegraph was brand-new and he set up an operation right away to monitor all of the telegraph communications from any and everybody that we were asked for and that people knew

it so that was no question about the value monitoring communications in those days. as a matter of fact many newspaper reporters ended up in jail because they tried to report what lincoln was doing. but the metadata doesn't listen to your conversations. it simply identifies the number, who calls and so on while they put it together and try to identify potential sources i think that is the challenge is do we get over this or not. if we give up too much intelligence capabilities, we lose the war. this is a similar question what is the greatest advantage that we have today. i wish i could answer that

honestly, but i think that the united states is multicultural. we have more capability in terms of language, cultural background skills and so on. that is our advantage. but it is mission impossible right now. i hope the nsa survives. i can only hope. we have someone here that knows a lot more about this subject than i do. perhaps i would have to ask him to answer that question. but it goes back to world war ii. actually, in the balkans of the 1940s, what do they make of

the 2,671st special reconnaissance brigade? i am sorry but i'm going to confess i don't know the answer to that. what they have been doing in world war ii, and i don't have a good answer for that i get the person that asked that knows the answer and i would like to hear it. any volunteers? we have to move on now. [laughter] what's next for american intelligence and what technical concerns and how will that impact the covert operations? the technology is changing drastically but i think everyone in this room has an iphone and

ipad and computer at home and the world is now a wash of communications. the challenge the u.s. intelligence has is taking advantage of that. americans always have a love-hate relationship with intelligence. let me remind you that in 1923 the secretary of state made a statement he found out the state department had been monitoring communications and he made a statement gentlemen don't read each other's mail. henry stimson was his name and the congress passed a law called the communications act of 1924 that said it's against the wallw

to monitor anyone's communications including that of an enemy. that was the law of the land. however, the army and the navy brought to the law and continued to be experts in monitoring and breaking codes just in time to save the united states in world war ii. as a matter of fact, the battlee of midway japanese had a superior fleet. they were going to finish us off if one final operation of the battle of midway. but the u.s. had a lesser capable fleet, but they defeated the larger japanese fleet because the navy had broken the law and was reading the japanese

code so the american fleet because of that advantage won that battle but essentially i think saved the united states. if they had lost that battle we would have had to reach an agreement or truce with japan as much on their terms as ours but we didn't have to do it. so the communications everybody uses that is the challenge and we have to be able to manage the controls that. communications is changing and the enemy now knows thanks to mr. snowden how we are doing it. it's ever going to be difficult and that is the biggest challenge we have is because of the loss of that important technology.

>> what does the future of the intelligence community look like in light of the recent communications and the recent criticism from congress lacks well it doesn't look good, doesn't? they are claiming the cia has been monitoring and i fear what would happen if we don't allow that. i don't belief for a minute that they were tapping the congressional committees telephones. i don't believe that.

so all i can do is give you that opinion. but i know -- i don't think they would ever consider that. they might want to do it but they wouldn't dare. it's going to affect the agency and the cia. the criticism of the congress is never -- it is not a good idea, and it causes heartburn everywhere. because of edward snowden, they believe that the intelligence community would revert back to the way that it was before 9/11. not at all. i don't think so because if it reverts back, we have a serious problem. before 9/11, we missed it by the way and how is it that we missed

9/11 if we didn't see it coming back so i will give you a short war story that will be very brief, i promise. but, the morning of 9/11, i was having a second cup of coffee and reading the paper when the phone rang and it was a friend that i had known from the associated press and it was early in the morning. he said is your television on and i said well yes, but i never paid attention to it. he's a turn around and look at it and tell me what you see. and i turned around and i looked at the television and i saw that first tower burning, and while i watched, i saw the second plane fly into the second tower. and i remember the associated press follow-up he said what in the world is going on? what a weird accident.

he said it is not an accident, it is a terrorist attack. and they have their own trained pilots. he said how do you know that? i said no american pilot would do that even with a gun to his head. and then he said -- i said it has to be a train t trained -- e their own trained pilots. anyway, he put that on the associated press right way, and it was on the lawyers immediately and the phone began to ring. i began to get telephone calls from every newspaper that reads the associated press. they wanted me to tell them the same thing that i told the associated press. while come after three days i had to disconnect my code. i couldn't keep up with it. i called the fbi that afternoon,

and i said i can tell you where to find the pilots of those planes come and they thought that i was a bit crazy. and they did a lot of funny calls like that. but i said only the united states trains people, foreigners to fly these kind of airliners. so, you check the american flight training schools and you will find their names there. furthermore, i know one young man working in my health club from saudi arabia that is taking flying lessons and he's not interested in landing and taking off, he just wants to fly on the simulator. the woman on the phone said has this man done anything wrong yet and i said i don't know that. isn't that your job, she said. no it's not my job. i can't do anything until after he's committed a crime and she hung up on me. anyway, i did go through another

friend and got the message to the fbi to chec, check the fligt schools and in less than 24 hours they named all 20 of those. so, but right now, the problem that we face is that all of the advantages we had -- if you go back to pre- 9/11, you're going to have the 9/11 problems. i think the terrorists would have a field day. i am not answering all the questions i'm sure you have a lot of them. how is my time holding up clicks okay. do you believe that the community separates and now this is from the policy decision-making today as it was thought many years ago. i'm not a fan of sherman.

he just got through and intelligence. it goes back to what i said earlier. alice is only were if it has had input from intelligence collection. it's that simple. so, unless you have -- there is a problem when the policymakers -- i have to tell you the bad news. the intelligence works for the president of the united states, not anyone else. the president can accept the intelligence and use it or she can ignore it. and it happens on many occasions. sometimes the president doesn't want to hear the intelligence. he may have other reasons that are legitimate but he wants to take action and ignore that particular intelligence.

that's the way it is. he's the boss. the gulf of tonkin incident of 1964 where president johnson failed to stories that they were attacked by torpedo boats and he used that to start bombing and expanding the war in vietnam. he started bombing hanoi that day. it turns out the head of the cia was in the white house and heard that decision. but, john, the head of the cia knew that the cia had information that there was no attack that torpedoed the boats in the tonkin but he went ahead and made the decision ignoring the intelligence to bomb north vietnam. now i thought maybe we should have bombed it, i felt. but he has the power, so it is his nickel.

now, policymakers depend on the intelligence in practically every case. i don't think that there's any problem with them being ignored anymore. intelligence has improved to the point that it credible now. thank goodness. >> i have to turn it over. this is a long one. this question deals with covert action and the early directors of the cia resist the taking over covert action. that is true in the office of the policy coordination

responsible for covert action was initially placed outside of the cia. that was in the early days when it wasn't clear exactly how the cia would be organized and operated. it turns out do you agree that the cia was initially skeptical of the covert action? i don't agree with that at all for the simple reason that the cia was manned by covert operations experts. dennis fitzgerald come and i named those people. they were covert action specialists. specialists. they knew how to do it and they succeeded with it until they got to the bay of pigs. so, it's different. after they settle down right now if you look at the operation, the covert action is the key to success we are doing it right, so i don't think it matters.

i think it's been so effective. by the way, there's even a new intelligence agency that works into this covert action that's called the national geospatial intelligence agency were n. g. a. that is a group that has access on every center of every type from every satellite day and night capability. this organization is the one that helped plan the operation to catch osama bin laden. they build a model from their sensors of the entire compound, and they even planned the route for the helicopters in and out. they have that capability. now, there is no way that we could give up that capability right now. covert action i think is being done right finally. it took a while though.

i will stick around a lie ... have questions. you didn't want to ask them public that always happens i found out. but anyway, thank you very much. i enjoyed. [applause]

on the public policy side, we need a number of things. we do need to have people in companies that have security clearances so that as the problems arise they are able to access information from the government and act upon it.

so for example if your ceo had to be traveling in singapore and something happens you have to respond in five minutes, it's good to have have the co co wie general counsel has a security clearance and be able to weigh in on the discussion. number two we need better information sharing if you think about the government agencies that have useful information about cyber threats including the department of defense, the nsa, the department of homeland security, the cia in the case of the financial institutions, the treasury and more to my being able to work without the fear of legal liability or recrimination is important for the protection and the type of things you mentioned are important and frankly the current law and not need to be upgraded and they are not.

>> the national telecommunications information administration announced plans to transition its oversight of the domain name system to the global community. some of the key players in the process appeared at a forum recently to discuss some of the concerns on the change. speakers included the nti eight administrator and the president and ceo of the internet corporation for the assigned names and numbers known as ican that manages the names. hosted by the hudson institute is one hour and 20 minutes. >> i will be your moderator today. welcome to the center for the economics of the internet here at the hudson institute. the greatness in america can be measured in many ways. one of those is when innervation which happens often in the united states we often share those with the world whether it is global positioning services or the internet itself.

the other part of the greatness of america is the discussion of major issues that are decided not just at the top are discussed broadly throughout the united state. one of the issues that has been occasionally mentioned in the press has been the future of internet governments. and if you wanted to know about the future of internet governments, i think today we have here some of the people that you would most want to hear about that from. we are going to have an informal discussion. this is imagine if you can't we are sitting in someone's living room in washington on a fine spring day. you have the opportunity to hear from people that know the future of internet governance. let me introduce the panel

today. on your far left is the ambassador, daniel sepulveda. he's joined us from a flight in dubai and just arrived early this morning and we are very pleased to have him with us. sitting next to me on your left is fadi chehade who is the president and ceo of ican that has been mentioned a few times in the media about the internet governance. we are very pleased to have mr. chehade with us. he will be taking off later today for many other countries around the world. on my other side is larry

strickling, assistant secretary of commerce and the head of the national telecommunications and information administration. mr. strickling has been heads-up of the government telecommunications policy. >> and i have no travel plans. [laughter] >> sitting next to mr. strickling is my colleague robert mcdowell at the economics. the former commissioner of the federal communications commission and someone who has been deeply involved in the internet governance issues over the years. i would like to begin with just some of the background about ican and how it's organized in

almost a chicken and egg question what came first, the internet or ican. and mr. chehade, can you please tell the audience about ican? >> certainly. thank you for inviting us to this very civil conversation here this morning and open-minded conversation. ican definitely came after the internet. but at some point in the evolution of the internet, nearly 16 years ago it became clear that we need to organize ourselves and to coordinate free of the identifiers that underpinned the technical infrastructure of the internet. these identifiers are unique in that they make the internet one internet. of course as you know it is tens of thousands of networks that are linked together. but what makes them appear as the internet is the fact that there are unique identifiers that identify the various parts.

ican manages that the identifiers are working and stable and secure so when you type the website name are you always get to the website that you wanted to go to war when you connect to the internet with a device that has a unique ip number that connects you. 15, 16 years ago the government enabled the creation of speed by then with a great vision that i mentioned the other day. we think of it as a great american invention, and it is an equally important american invention. it's the multi-stakeholder model that underpins the government of the internet. and it's a model that is unique but frankly looks like the internet itself. it is a decentralized distributed model that governs the internet. difficult to capture just like the internet. everything in the spee the icane was designed frankly brilliantly from the beginning with genius

to ensure all of the stakeholders can participate equally on the policies and to manage these unique identifiers without the capture. they have done their job very well for 15 years. we have a structure of delivering a secure set of registries that underpinned the internet. not a second of downtime in 50 years. that is what they do today and will continue to do in the future. >> secretary strickling, can you talk about the current relationship between the department of commerce? >> i would like to join fadi in organizing the conversation today. it's obviously a topic o of a le interest and i think it's good that we can sit down and talk about what's been happening and to try to clear up any misconceptions about the announcement and the

implications of it. currently, the united states has a very important relationship with ican and it is multifaceted. the one aspect that has been the subject that is so much of the press discussion in the last few weeks has been our role in terms of the contractual relationship with tweeted elite co. ican in the functions into the activities that fadi just described. in addition, the united aids is an important participate in a te multi-stakeholder process. governments have a role as a set of stakeholders in the policymaking and we participate as a member of the governmental advisory committee, which is the group by which governments are able to present consensus public policy advice to the ican board. but even beyond that, there's yet another relationship we have through our affirmation of

commitments that ican signed in 2009 under which we've committed to the international internet community various things in regards to its accountability and transparency to that community and other matters that are set forth in that document. under that there are a set of teams that operate on a regular basis, the most important of which is the accountability transparency review team that has gone through two cycles of work. i have a seat on that team by virtue of the affirmation of the commitments and participated in 2010 and again last year in terms of an overall review of the accountability and transparency of ican to the community and we've made a series of recommendations ican adopted in 2011. we gave them a report card on that last chair with a second report and made additional

recommendations that the word is currently evaluating. as a fadi mentioned th fadi mene multi-stakeholder process and model of governance is very important in terms of what it has led to the growth and innovation on the internet before it's to succeed there also has to be a very strong commitment from the top down in these organizations to be accountable and transparent to the stakeholder community as a way to build up the legitimacy and the validity of the work of these organizations and so we've taken our role in the teams very seriouslteam'svery seriously tot where i'd spent personally many hours on these issues with respect to ican and it's been an important part of the relationship in addition to the very narrow specific functions contract that we made an announcement about three weeks ago. hispanic some of the documents

and the memorandum of understanding can be found on the website. it's quite fascinating son of the early documents describing the contract at some point is the value of services in bureaucratic speak it is less than $10,000. >> it's actually no cost. there is no money but has his hands with respect to the functions. >> secretary strickling, can you tell us a bit about the review process but that relationship and how it has evolved over the past many years? >> i think the major document in that regard prior t to our announcement on the function three weeks ago was the affirmation of commitments in 2009 because that really set the stage for much more of an internationalization in the

sense that rather than any continuing the sense that the united states provided some sort of oversight of the operations it was very much expanded to include the community at large so these teams in effect are now a major way which the community can provide its input and oversight into those committees that have operated since 2009 have been very international and have had representatives from around the world. this most recent team that operated in 2013 had representatives, just the government representatives from denmark, australia, china, costa rica were all members of the team as well as other national representatives from other constituency groups so i think that was a very important part of the evolution of ican in

2009. >> can you tell about the proposal and press the ambassador would like to comment on that as well, the background on the proposal and what led to the announcement. >> we announced the intention to transition to the global community and be asked to contracting party to convene the community to develop the plan for the transition. nothing will change until the plans develop so there's immediate concern that somehow our relationship changed in time and nothing has changed will be status quo as the process moves forward. in making this request, we set

some conditions around the transition and the play and do what needs to be brought forward to us. we say that any plans would be respecting the multi-sql server process and it needed to preserve the security and stability in the resiliency of the internet. they needed to preserve the internet. it wasn't a replacement for the united states that would be government led. so we made that express from the outside of all of this. asking them to convene the community, they immediately within a week at its meeting in singapore convened to large public discussions as well as a large number of other conversations within the individual supporting organizations and advisory committees as to how to organize the committee to move forward to develop a transition plan.

so the first is how to develop a process to develop a plan. in doing so we have made it clear we wanted t wanted the otr internet technical organizations the internet society and engineering task force. they aren't asking just ican to come back with a plan that's too seriously can be in the community to do this and i think that was accomplished at the first stage of this by the sessions that were held in singapore. so what we are doing they would be facilitating the process going forward but we expect the community to organize itself to develop a plan that meets the conditions that we put out and present a consensus plan the

existing contract expires at the end of 2015. we didn't intend that to be a deadline after which bad things would happen. and now that there has been some misapprehension about the idea to impose a deadline on the process and any work stream out to have some sort of a schedule for the community to look too and that is the contract can continue on after next september. we have the ability to extend it by exercising options of up to four years in the installment. so the community will have plenty of time to develop the consensus proposal that meets the conditions that we have laid out. >> would you like to describe how the administration has looked at us and with some of

the reactions have been from other countries around the world? >> for the preconditions of the contract taking the initiative to take the bill and move it forward in large part. they were connected to each other over the internet it is and our goal to connect the rest of the world for this platform as well and if you are going to have a global platform that requires a consensus on the underlining infrastructure. for that affected is one of the things that they have done is move bodily towards us into a tt governing that already supported us and others put out strong

statements of support for this decision. you also see the governments that were not decided so you see brazil and the african union put out a statement of support for the transition. and what that has done is shifted up a conversatio the com one where people were wondering what is the future of the internet structure are going to be is it going to be multilateral because the swing states like brazil and countries in africa and others were leaning towards the authoritarian states or with the multi-stakeholder the way that america wants it to be and this decision has shifted the conversation towards our point of view and brought more people into the fold to think about how that is to evolve not just to the global acceptance of involvement in global embrace.

they have been a fundamentally different. there is the understanding that america is open and truly committed really believes in the bottom of the structure and believes in the idea that the engineers and the firms into the users and the governments that are stakeholders in the infrastructure of the internet can work together to fulfill the underlining goals of what is the global communications infrastructure that reflects not just our values but what are essentially human values of the greater democratic dissipation in the development. >> this announcement has met with some hesitation and skepticism can you describe some of the reaction of some people

to the administration's announcement and what has been taking place on capitol hill. this has got to be the place right now for the discussion of the topic, the trifecta of the big guns that you brought in. while i was on vacation with my family last week -- >> so meeting a higher authority. i think what it really means is i should go on vacation with my family more often. but this is quite for the institute for the internet and i do want to thank the three officials of that in the former fresheners who are here as well as my colleague for coming here straight from the airport, on the way to the airport waiting

for the next airport -- [laughter] these three gentlemen lived in the aluminum tubes at 30,000 feet for the most part to thank you for finding this moment together. it's a very important issue, and as i said in my blog post not long after the announcement this is a complex issue i caution people at the time from acting reflexively or impulsively in any reaction to it there are a lot of functions and words and i want to talk about the words today. i also want to kind of operate from the jeopardy school on the panel with some of my statements that might be in the form of questions. i have lots of questions. i've reviewed the letter that came out this week, which i thought had a lot of very thoughtful questions some of which the secretary strickling

has already started to answer but this is a great preview we get the chance to hear before but the senator does on some of the interest between you and me and everybody watching on c-sp c-span. so when we talk about the multi-stakeholder historically that has meant no government. the interim board and the society are not comprised of government. government certainly show up to the meetings with their concerns they are not excluded currently have a seat at the table but they don't own the table. but multi-stakeholder is a means that governments are not involved in terms of making the final decisions. these do not have the power of

the law, the international treaties or the international law. that's important and there are other terms for a variety of levels of understanding probably listening here today. they are terms like bolton but i will -- multilateral. the same with intergovernmental. hopefully that is easy to understand. international can mean government. you have to be careful the way you used the terms of there are those that are very important but i need to look very carefully at some of the words that are used. so there are a lot of concerns here. one where he talked about. can they be aggregated by the treaty, so once the court -- by the way i'm all for privatization moving further and further away from the government

interference. but once that last little tether of accountability slips, one of the questions is who can grab onto that? ..