abject poverty that is important for a country to succeed. so you can look at the countries that have made these reforms and you see significant economic growth; chile peru, colombia mexico to a certain extent. these are countries that are in their ascendancy and the states that have embraced state-dominated socialism are the ones having problems. it's a reminder of the obvious which is that the proper implementation of free market capitalism providing opportunities for people is the best system ever created. ..

but nevertheless there's huge opportunities there. i will be another example where engagement by the united states and the region has been a spectacular success. and that is colombia, i don't know what they call in english actually, company plan i guess. [laughter] >> i think that's a. [laughter] >> sometimes my mind switches and i apologize. this was the plan to deal with the dramatic social turmoil in columbia with the drug cartel and the violence was significant and the previous administration they made a significant effort

to provide technical support military support economic support, the president made a real commitment to open up the economy to allow people to liberate the economy so that it would be more economic opportunity. and it was a huge victory. we should apply that same type of approach right now. the president has not proposed a. i haven't seen the details of it, for the northern tribal states and central america which have a very similar situation perhaps even more grave. and that is the drug cartels and the gangs in these countries make it harder for people to consider investing there. and so the middle is getting squeezed, and the poor feel dislocated from the rest of society. and so a similar can approach combats the proper role for the united states unthinkably. that's a bipartisan support. during my brothers administration that received significant support from both sides of congress. and my guess is that if the president is a series about

this, advocates this and goes to will get support as well. >> governor, if we stay with your principles and we move across the atlantic and we think in context of economic growth robust allies -- >> now we are getting into trouble. >> well, we would need them to be. we would need them to be economically robust. we would need them to share our values, our ideals. we would need a sense of cohesion with what you said today what they believe to confront circumstances such as russia, ukraine. how do you think about the relative strength of nato of the alliance of the great democracies in confronting this threat? >> what i believe to be true,

the more tepid economic growth and the belief the growth will stay that way the more pessimistic people are about making a long-term commitment to defend themselves even, or to defend themselves through an alliance that has been extraordinarily successful if you consider nato's long life, it's been a significant force for good in the world. but as people in most of europe now see the world, these are deeply pessimistic about their future and their children's future. and so i think we need, and frankly, it's a directly related to our own country as well. we have a similar kind of feeling less so than perhaps europe, but it is in the significant judge force and that's why think growth first, growth above all else is really got to be a strategy for the next president of the united states and for opinion leaders in this country. because that will create optimism that allows looking over the horizon and thinking

longer-term. there's really not any country in the post crash arrow that has made a significant adjustment to be able to create sustained economic growth in the developed world. japan has gotten relatively close. they had two arrows, the system massive stimulation by the central bank and one other they did. the hard-won which was adjusting their entitlement system or whatever they call the the social contract, hasn't happened. europe has the same challenge. i think we're going to see a hollow core in europe and less we begin to see strategies to great i sustained economic growth again. and the demography of these countries is, including cars one of the big challenges. which is why immigration reform for our country is so hugely important. we don't have race is not a national identifier in this country. we are 34 flavors. we are as diverse as diverse can

get and that is a huge strength looking over the horizon right now where multiculturalism kind of grades pockets of despair in europe in the cases. the united states has this potential being young and dynamic again. if europe embraced the similar kind of approach i think they could see economic growth as well. and if it doesn't happen i think you will see nato being a place where maybe there's a lot of conversation going on but i don't think it's going to be a force that's going to intimidate anybody, you know, the treaty obligation to helping any of the fellow nato members will look hollow as well. and the minute that happened you create, you know, you create real uncertainty that could lead to miscalculations by people in the region. >> so in the backdrop of that discussion of the european union, european democracies and

nato itself, what's your sense of what we should be discussing with respect to our perspective of the mr. putin and the germans and other european democracies who don't have the benefit of the oceans if you described? he is proximate to them. he is physically proximate. >> unless they have centuries of war, and so they have a different attitude about all this, for sure. if we don't i think the first step of the united states if we commit to rebuilding our own military and making a commitment that we are committed to do this because we want to rebuild and nato for other obvious reasons, that that, it's very hard for us to go lecture europe about their declining commitment to the own

defense capabilities when we are doing the same thing. i think the first up is to show leadership. the second is to give europeans a sense we are not disengaging, not pulling back not music -- moving the fortress of america. we are in this for own interest but also for the interest of global security. and then i think we have to engage with the germans particularly because they are obviously the most important are in europe. and other countries as well, to say we have the back we will be in this for the logo. the second thing i would say as it relates to putin, and the president did this, i don't know what the effect has been because it's hard to be on the road manages a gladiator these days i don't follow every little detail, but the president did make a committee forward lean and the baltic states and i think that's the appropriate thing to do. show a commitment that we are serious about the nato alliance is important to i don't know how that's been implemented but the worst thing would've been to announce it and not do it so i'm

assuming it has been implemented. and i was just another thing as a relates to europe and putin. rather than react to each egregious act that has national, which he does on a regular basis because there is no price in effect in his world, there needs to be a higher price. he is a pragmatic man. he is a ruthless pragmatist but he is pragmatic and there is a calculation on each one of these actions that if the cost is too high, for russia, it will create a deterrent effect. and so think we ought to have, rather than react to each action we have to state what those costs will be as a relates to sanction, as it relates to isolating russia in the neighborhood and the things like that. finally, i would suggest the ukraine is not immediately in our national interest as i would say, it's not in her neighborhood per se but ukraine is an important country in a lot

of ways, and to the northern request for defensive military support when we are being invaded, because that's what's happened just seems, just seems feckless. i know that's the european side of his temperament at least of the trinity should lead in this regard as well. then you create a better climate for perhaps pushing russia back a little bit. they have structural problems as well. every one of these countries has long-term economic challenges that could point out if we were more patient. $45, $55-barrel is not good news for vladimir putin. >> let's talk a little bit about another tough neighborhood and move from europe to the middle east. >> man. is there a good neighborhood we can do to just temporarily? [laughter] >> you are in one. [laughter] [applause]

>> good point. >> thank you. it's hard to know where to start, but let's take freedom and democracy and the arab spring. and what has to know historically be perceived as a mis- judgment as to what would ensue following the arab spring from egypt to tunisia. >> tunisia has worked out -- >> right right. we would be remiss to celebrate tunisia and move on. whether or not the zombies some of these become western style democracy anytime soon come in the

neighborhood it has historically been true that you take your friends and your allies rather as they come, and understand that you have alignments of sorts, strategically. we got away from that a bit i would suggest in egypt. added has resulted in a bit of a confused state as to who it is we would actually wish were there. we don't have a strong egypt that we once had which created a significant buffer to iran. what is your sense of how we harmonize our ideological views relative to western-style democracy, or any form of democracy and freedom and having a secure ally that thinks differently than we do? >> this is your best question so far. [laughter] >> maybe my best period.

>> this is a question i think we need to think about a lot because foreign policy is not about just one thing. it's about, yes i mean i do believe american values and american liberty is a force for good in the world, that if we could create the freest world that we would have less threats less violence less lest terrorism and many of the things. but to get their that's a long-term challenge, and it's different in every country. so i would say that we got it wrong in egypt. we were we got it wrong three times literally in a couple of years. we were late to the game and we kept missing it. and now we are pulling back from providing support for al-sisi was the one if you think about i don't have to saw this about a month ago, he gave this incredible speech about muslim extremism in saying this is the responsibility of the arab world to step up to fight this that

the first risks are for countries like egypt and is he a little old liberal democrat that believes in freedom like we do? no come he isn't but if equipped to be practical, with the balance our belief in liberty with a belief that security and engagement will create the possibilities for the egyptians to garner more freedom. if we pull back and just kind of pull back and said well, you know, you're not on our team we get the result we have seen which is egypt going it alone egypt welcoming vladimir putin to cairo which they did last week. 1973, henry kissinger and richard nixon, in a brilliant stroke of foreign policy bold subtopic into the western world. and the soviets kicked out of the region literature that we're seeing russia being invited back in because of our disengagement. so i think the lesson learned is that has to be a balance.

the other, this is not just, by the way, i've been critical of the present a lot here. this is a problem of presidents past as well in all honesty that we view, if you have an election, you are a democracy. shabbos had an election and used it to steal freedom in venezuela. hamas had an election. hezbollah competes. these groups are not supportive of democracy. they use election process to take away freedom from people and we consistently come in american foreign policy think that just check the box and it's okay. has a how democracy works i think we have to assess that as well. in the case of egypt they can play, they can play a constructive role right now and we should be engaging with them. we should have trip ourselves

over to the turks and the qataris when the egyptians had a better seized by the cutter brought about a more lasting peace between the fight in gaza. we consistently are just -- this inspecting the allies that make a huge difference in the region. i think we have to rearrange that again. >> you spoke in your speech to having been in an extraordinary vantage point in your life to be among your father and his close circle of advisers, and then your brother and his close circle of advisers, and the quality of service that so many of those people are viewed to have contributed to those years. there's a perception that the

same quality, even if you use sort of a point of comparison no longer exists. do you think that that's true or a which is looking in the rearview mirror with -- >> no, i don't think -- >> on the rose tinted? >> i don't think it's true. we are much more pessimistic these days, so we stayed -- we see things, always viewed it in the negative. time for us to get off, get it, i feel like feel like i should be a marine psychologist in the geico ads. he throws the kleenex like -- get over it man this is the chris couch on the face of the earth. we should be as pessimistic as we are because we are on the verge of the chris dodd l.a. that's my attitude about this stuff and if you think that way -- [applause] look, the president has had talented people around it. what he hasn't done is given to

them, empowered them to do their jobs. he has taken away power from the departments that are responsible for defending the homeland and protecting you know creating a military strategy and our foreign policy strategy but it's become more politicized and it's become more centralized in the white house. i think that was a mistake. but the talent is there. now granted, i mean, you think about the people that served in previous administrations. you had henry kissinger common shultz and madeleine albright all testifying at a committee hearing last week, ford affairs committee. these are, i grant you these are incredibly talented people but we have those people. this country has that kind of talent. i'm not worried about that at all. we just have to start acting like it again. again. >> so the new bush cabinet would have no difficulty?

>> that's a 15-yard penalty and loss of a down. [laughter] >> so that wasn't my best question, right? [laughter] we could i think one could easily conclude that a discussion of sovereign states the way that we have been receiving your is much easier than a discussion of this isys phenomenon. you mentioned in your speech. what to make of this a stateless entity seeks to be a state carving out territory to incorporate it into an image of what they perceived to be a caliphate. how do you come what type of diplomacy do you applies here? >> no diplomacy. i become with them directly? no. that's not, we have to develop a

strategy that is global, that takes them out. first, you know the strategy needs to be we strengthen, tightened the noose and then taking them out is the strategy. they're still talking about this. that's just not going to work for terrorism. and it has to be done in concert with, first, the folks in the region. i mean, you look at look at jordan. jordan's population has grown i think, double digits with refugees from syria. the refugees from iraq, refugees from previous wars with israel. palestinians are there. this country is a powder keg. similarly other countries in the region are seeing real challenges, whether it's turkey or the persian gulf states or the saudis that have an estimated, you know, close to 1000 saudi citizens that are fighters for isis. these are big security threats in the region and we need to

create a coalition led by the united states, because only the trade could lead to something like this, but in total concert with the neighborhood. and it's made more complicated by our pullback because there's no trust right now the united states is serious about this. the minute there's a problem the feeling is that we will cut and run. and october the the sunni-shia issue, and this is really, really complicated. so i don't, the president has a huge challenge. part of it is his own making. part of it are these trends that have existed for a long while. we have to be engaged in this because if we think that somehow, this is just going to be contained in a particular part of geography in iraq and syria, that is has no impact on us, which some americans believe, there will be a day where there will be a big awakening unfortunate because that's not the way it is. >> so isis, governor allows us to the barbarism to think of them in that context as a

horrific criminal element. what do you think -- >> i think -- >> what do you think about tribalism? you certainly handled that one. beyond that what about the dissolution of sovereign states in the middle east and a return to tribalism speak with well, i think that would be horrific to be honest with you but more horrific is, not horrific but i think it's a mistake to think that isis is not what it is. its violent extreme islamic terrorism, and the more we try to ignore that reality the less likely it is that we are going to develop the appropriate strategy to guard its support in the muslim world to do what i say which is tightened the noose and then take them out. it's important. i think people in our country including the president,

struggle with this. they have a hard time accepting what it is. i think our strategy would be more incisive if we accepted what it is. it relates to the breakdown of the nationstates. i don't have a solution. i've read articles about whatever the 1915 kind of breakout of the middle east and how that the law is a viable deal. i like to know what the alternative is before which is kind of discord nation-state status in significant important part of the world to be honest with you. >> what i meant to say is isis at least allows for its barbaric acts, you defined them as you did, boko haram and the others throughout, you know, whether it be africa or maybe less so but it seems to be a phenomenon that is taking place inside of states don't honor the sovereignty of the states within which they reside. how do you establish a dialogue with such a phenomenon?

>> let's go to iraq. there were mistakes made in iraq for sure using the intelligence capability everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not turns out not to be accurate. not creating and if i but of security after the successful taking out of saddam hussein was a mistake because iraqis wanted security, you know more than anything else but my brother's administration through the surge which is one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president has done because there was no support for this, it was hugely successful and it created a stability that when the new president came in he could have built on to create fragile but more stable situation the would've not allowed for the void to be filled. the void has been filled because we created the void. and so the lesson i think is engagement whether it's always the united states, it's another subject. i don't think has to be but when you have a failed state or a week state and you leave the

first thing that happened was balance he turned because it was not, whose fragile. to deter to? he turned to iran and iran's influence now has replaced the united states in a significant way. and so if you're a series about protecting the status of nation-states, you have to be able to protect the integrity. the void, isis didn't exist three or four years ago. in fact, the guy that is the supreme leader, whatever's new title is, head of the caliphate you know, he was in a prison in southern iraq. >> okay. with that we have 15 minutes to go before our heart stopped, and i have no doubt but that the governor's speech and his answers to my questions have provoked -- >> brilliant questions. >> except for the one. have provoked questions in the audience. please raise your hand and we'll

get to you probably, but you have to wait for the microphone. bill, that would be, we will get to you bill. how about this one right here? can we get a microphone right there? that and. >> thank you for this wonderful talk. my name is professor bernadette. i'm interested in a comment you made about cuba about her recent engagement with cuba. you said patients would've yielded a better result. and that just struck by a strange because we have been patient for over half a century in terms of our policy towards cuba, the embargo has been going on since the '60s and it sounded to me like you were saying that catalyst is going to be the oil prices in venezuela change position when it fact we know the collapse of the soviet union didn't do it. so why do we have cause to think

that a change in oil prices in venezuela is going to do it? and so i'm just wondering why not say the courage to say this has been a failed policy for over half a century? when you do something new and different. a policy of engagement like we have pursued with china, right another undemocratic country that we are trying to move towards democracy? if you talk a little bit more about your cuba politics. >> absolutely. policy, not politics. first of all the embargo can't be lifted unilaterally by the president. it has to be lifted by change in law come in congress. so the president can only tinker around the margins on this and strangely enough there's a very little support for lifting the embargo. many of the leaders in the democratic party that are engaged in the subject are opposed to that as well. what i'm saying is that if the

objective is freedom in cuba if that was the objective of this negotiation, and i hope it was compiled, because that's a legitimate aspirations of the legitimate a legitimate role for the president to play, then what he did prolongs the regime's existence. it doesn't shorten the existence. it's similar on one level with the negotiations people's interpretations of the negotiations and iran, that there's a feeling that somehow if we don't put too many conditions on our negotiations that they will end up being a democracy over time the repression will subside. you have to create the environment where that happens. and in the case of cuba, no one also believes that this is just going to happen by osmosis let's just say that the embargo did work so let's just lift the embargo, lift everything. very few people, lease, there are some, maybe that i disagree on this. i don't think it happens unless

you negotiated in a way that creates the conditions for it to happen. the famous one point is this. venezuela replaced russia, first the soviets and then russia as the main provider of aid to cuba. and cuba has lived on five or six live here by being patient it is the objective was freedom for cuba putting some pressure on the fact that venezuela's support for kid is going to subside and not opening of our piggy bank for it to happen, 95% of which those hard currency dollars are going to go to support the regime, not for the cuban people, i thought it was a mistake. >> there's the basis for a robust discussion. bill, how about you? go ahead. right here. >> governor, first think you three comments i want to focus on what your principles with which i agree about its economic strength can lead to political strength. if we take that and rotate to asia let's talk to china for

second. second largest economy in the world, soon to be the largest in the world growing at 7%. there's a quick they've taken that growing economic strength to try to project political strength including trying to redefine what sovereign territory is for example, the south china sea whether it is vietnam, the philippines or japan. the president talks a lot about a pivot to asia but has done very little. what should we be doing differently to really preserve the strength of our allies whether it's in asean or elsewhere in asia? >> i think the term pivot was probably a mistake because, two problems with that. pivots are in the eye of the beholder, right? so in asia people they don't see the pivot an attack i in my travels there people would always say consistently, you guys would talk about the pivot when you're in our region. you don't talk about the pivot when you are like back in washington. it's an important point that people, they don't perceive us to be a serious move then it doesn't achieve the desired result.

and secondly if it's implied that you're leaving some of the place. so the rest of the world wonders, am i the pivot the? what's going to happen there? i think the language was wrong. the intent to try -- pivotee -- reengage in asia think is the right one. but it has to be real. it can't just be talked about. it has to be real. and i would add this is in front of secretary paulson is probably the leading voice on this in the united states, that engagement with china is equally important, we've got great confidence with our traditional allies japan and korea, australia for sure but we also have to have an ongoing deeper relationship with china. act to the point, one point about the cuba deal if i could. we negotiate when we negotiated relationships with china, we got significant benefits from that in her own nationals to. we've created a relationship that then became a buffer

against the soviet union. when we negotiated diplomatic relations in an opening in vietnam, we got the return of the list of pows. we got something in return. i think just from a negotiating point of view this was fully handled as well as to cuba but china we have to stay engaged because my experience and it pales by comparison to men in this room am sure but my experiences it's so easy to create misunderstandings that we could easily go from being a competitor economically to being challenged in terms of security if we don't stay engaged at every level. it's the most complex, going forward perhaps the most complex important relationship that the united states has. >> right here, please. >> coming your way. right there behind you.

>> governor, thank you very much. we live in the city where two miles south of here babies born black in a much shorter lifespan than expectancies i mile north of here. what can we do differently in the new white house? >> the question of the stickiness of poverty is a huge challenge for this country not just in chicago but around the country, and i think you start with the realization that the world we're moving towards, that they be brought into the world today board first of all he or she is going to be really cold -- [laughter] that precious little child if he or she is born in the wrong zip code is possible unless there's some kind of life altering change in the course will never have a job because the world we are moving towards is dramatic increases innovation, creating exponential increases in automation are making more and

more jobs when the child grows up more obsolete. and the ability to live a life independent become a life of purpose and meaning is going to be altered in many ways. and so this is a huge challenge and i think our policies have worked to provide material benefits for people in poverty. they haven't worked to lift them out. they haven't worked to help them have the capacity to achieve earned success. and so put aside as the president is, because this is not necessarily exclusively a white house issue or a federal government issue it as a society we have to build capacity for people to achieve earned success. that goes beyond transfer payments. that goes to how do you love a child with your heart and soul where you learn the habits that ultimately yield success? how do you teach people, young people great and determination? how did give them the tools with a better education, a much

better education, a radically different education so that they can dream bigger dreams and not feel so disengaged that they don't even try? it's a huge problem. and health issues i think are actually easier than the issues i bring it up your of the permits in poverty today. if you were born poor in america that you're more likely to stay poor than any time in modern economic history. at this time of enormous influence that should concern everybody. if you are born rich by the way you and your families, this is the greatest time to be alive and you're more likely to stay rich. we are sticky at the ends in the middle is getting squeezed out of politics doesn't seem really focus on how to address these issues yet. that's work in progress for sure. it's a great question. >> thank you for that. we have time for -- right in front of me. this gentleman right here. >> mr. bush, just to play devil's advocate, if iran wanted a nuclear weapon, why couldn't

they just go to one of the bad boys in the neighborhood like north korea, pakistan or russia were allegedly there are a couple hundred nukes missing with the u.s. -- when the uss our class. besides will go and buy one, too. if you bought a weapon that is made already it's tried and tested, after all you're not good was 2500 years of civilization on a dead. and cycle you can hide it more easily. you don't have to hide them under mountains and so forth. >> i don't think that the devil's advocate question mark that's a scary question that also, it's not a zero-sum game. it's not either or. i don't know if you follow the star of a.q. khan the pakistani -- the story scientist who stole technologies from europe brought it back. he's a national hero in pakistan. the lives, you know, out in the open. he created the capacity to do just as you were describing in

pakistan, and was caught trying to export that technology to wear iran. into libya. and so what your describing isn't, you know something, why would they do it. they try to do absolutely have tried and the idea that other nations are not trying to do this is, look, we've got to be real about this. they are trying and this is what engagement in the treaty and the proliferation efforts that are global and ongoing, to make sure it that we regard any effort in that regard are hugely important important. and so look, this is, the more i get into this stuff there's something she just go, you know, holy the shnide key. this is like serious stuff and we cannot be, it just makes me more committed to an american is fully engaged in the world. because the as the rest of the world gets week and more insular

into thinking because other economic conditions we have to be engaged because these things will occur. there are other threats as well but this one is probably the biggest in the globe right now. it's a great question. >> it is that it is going to be the last one. governor, we at chicago and that the council hugely appreciate your time and the opportunity to take your principles from your remarks and to have a conversation with all of us around those principles. and we are truly pleased to have been privileged to the first opportunity to do so. thanks for coming. >> thank you all for coming. [applause] >> well done. enjoyed it very much. >> in washington president obama spoke today to delegates from about 65 countries gathered for a counterterrorism summit

closing session at the state department. he drew a line between the muslim religion and terrorist groups such as isis. he told foreign ministers quote the notion that the west is at war with islam is an ugly lie. the presence of the coalition of nations need to fight the extremist groups. and you can find his comments online at c-span.org. more about that this afternoon with former officials from the obama and george w. bush administrations in a discussion on countering terror including groups like isis. bob schieffer will moderate the conversation and i will be live on c-span2 at 5:30 p.m. eastern. the three-day white house counterterrorism conference with the delegates from around the world will wrap up at 5:45 p.m. eastern when the ashes good adviser susan rice provides the closing remarks on building global partnerships to fight terrorist groups. she will be introduced by attorney general eric holder. live coverage at 5:45 p.m. on c-span. >> the barbed wire guard towers are gone but the memories come

flooding back for so many people who until today had lost such a big part of their childhood. for to many released after the war, some buried the minis -- the memories and with it the history of this camp now more than 60 years later. >> this sunday on q&a jan russell on the only family internment camp during world war ii at crystal city texas, and what she says is the real reason for this camp. >> the government comes to the fathers instead we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your families in the crystal city and turn the camp the family internment camp, if you'll agree to go voluntarily, ma and then i discovered what the real secret of the camp was. they also had to agree to voluntarily repatriate to germany into japan if if the

government decided they needed to be repatriated. so the truth of the matter is that the crystal city can't was key management is to by the ins but the special board division of the department of state used to as roosevelt's primary business exchange. it was the center of roosevelt's prisoner exchange program. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> a former military intelligence chief from the obama administration testified last week before the house armed services committee of retired general michael flynn called for a more aggressive strategy to combat isis when congress returns they will be considered the president's request for the use of military force against the cryptic this hearing is about two hours. >> the committee will come to order. on wednesday the president submitted to congress his

proposal for an authorization to use military force against isis. although they presidents order to combat operations against isis take place in iraq since last august and in serious since last september only now has he sought congressional authorization required by the constitution. despite the airstrikes press accounts indicate that isis has expanded its territory that it controls in syria. world has been horrified at its barbarism which seems to have no limit. in the meantime the united states has suffered a significant setback in human. we've abandoned our embassy there, place which the present once held up as a model for his counterterrorism approach. that we're in a much weaker position to prevent attacks by the organization that has posed a serious threat to our homeland in recent years. elsewhere ocoa rom is killing thousands instantly advancing in nigeria, libby has become a rating grabber two scripts.

aqim still misses the population is so north african countries and is concerned that al-qaeda and afghan region is becoming reinvigorated as u.s. troop levels are reduced. congress will consider the president's a u.s. proposal in the context of this wider fight against islamist terrorists. the purpose of today's hearing is to evaluate how the broader struggle is going. among the questions i have are what are the trends we see with islamist terrorists? is there a growing or division around the world is the threat to the united states becoming more or less serious? many in congress want reassurances that the president has a strategy to succeed against this threat and that he is personally committed to persevere until we are successful. it's clear that before we are successful we've got to understand the threat, where we are, and where we are headed. that's the purpose of today's hearing. mr. smith. >> thank you. i thank the chairman for this

hearing on a very important topic. i think it is the largest asp security threat that we face as a country. i know all three of our panelists have a lot of knowledge on issue and i think you be very helpful for the committee chair from them and engaging questions and answers to try to figure how to confront this threat. part of the problem with the threat is it is not easy to define, not easy to put a strategy around because it really is a broad ideology that has many, many different components. post-9/11 we saw al-qaeda as a terrorist group with a centralized leadership that was plotting and planning attacks against us and they think we responded accordingly to try and defeat that organization, to try to defeat that network and did reasonably effective job of it in afghanistan and in pakistan as we prevented in that group from being able to about further attacks against us. that's the positive. the negative is that the ideology itself has pesticides. it is going to do a number of

groups as the chairman mentioned, even more than that. in a lot of different places. the root cause is a lack of solid governance, lack of solid economic opportunity in the middle east, in north africa and much of the arab muslim world. they have an exploded youth population that has nothing to do no jobs and no prospects. so the ideology that comes along and says i have the answer for you has plenty of willing recruits. and meanwhile, they don't have much in the way of example of a good government anywhere that they could look to and work with. so it's going to be very difficult to contain. as the chairman laid out the challenges with isis and iraq and syria, the collapse in yemen, the difficulty in libya. but overall i think we need a long-term strategy. one of the things i think has hampered us is this notion that

we have to be able to confidently say either a that we are winning or that we're going to win it and here's how. i also think that this is a long-term ideological struggle not something we can say we're determined to defeat it, so let's just suck it up and three by four years from now it will be done. it took 75 years to defeat communism. i think we have to figure out how to have a long-term strategy for dealing with this ideology. that doesn't mean that in the short term the ideology runs rampant. a huge piece of that strategy is containing the threat, featuring out how to protect our interests from violence and figure out how to begin to roll back these groups and rollback the advance of the ideology. but it is an issue that divides an easy answer. so what we hope to hear today are some ideas how we can proceed in the forward. i am mindful of the fact it is a very, very large problem that's going to take a long time to do

with. and the final point that i will make, one of the things that hamstrings us is it's not something the u.s. for the western world can take care of. the muslim world doesn't want the united states to show up and tell it what it ought to do. this isn't true even of the moderate muslims that we look to work with. we have to figure out how we can be helpful to support those moderate voices so that they can triumph, so that they can defeat these extremist ideologies. it cannot be western driven by the very definition of the way those folks look at the world. so we can help but if we help too much, in an odd sort of way we conduct hurting the overall after. i think that's less we learned in iraq and afghanistan. so with that of the four so with that unfortunate testament questions and i appreciate the chairman holding the hearing. >> i thank the gentleman i thank the gentleman. i i thank the gentleman. i would just mention to them as they were supposed to vote on the floor roughly around 10:40, 10:45 and some going to try to

be fairly strict with the time limit so we can move along smartly. i ask unanimous consent that the full written statement of all of our witnesses be made part of of the record. without objection, so ordered. let me again thank our witnesses for being here. very pleased to see retired lieutenant general michael flynn, former director of defense intelligence agency. mr. william brennan executive director national consortium for the study of terrorism and responses to terror at the university of maryland, and dr. marc lynch with the george washington university all of these gentlemen have done very serious, helpful work for the committee and for the country on this topic of terrorists and we're very grateful to have you with us today. as i said you're full written state would be made a part of the record. if you'd like to summarize at this point and we will get to questions, we would appreciate it.

general flynn. >> great, thank you. chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, members of the committee, it is an honor to be here today. i really appreciate the invitation. you have asked me to comment on the state of islamic extremism. today i had the unhappy task of informing you that according to every metric of significance islamic extremism has grown over the last year whether they be the scale and scope of isis and its associated movements, the number of violent islamist groups, that territory which these groups control the number of terrorist attacks these groups perpetrate the massive numbers and something of refugees and displaced persons duty these islamist groups approximately 15 million people, not kidnapping and rape of women and children by these groups, the numbers of casualties they inflict, their broad expansion and use of the internet which is very cities, are just their sheer barbarism that we've witnessed. i can draw no other conclusion than to say that the threat of

islamic extremism has reached an unacceptable level, and that it is going. we are at war with a violent and extreme islamist both sunni and shia in the past except and face this reality. this enemy has an ingrained an unshakable vision of the world and society should be ordered and they believe violence is a legitimate means of bringing about this ideal state. of violent islamist is serious, devout, committed and dangers. is ideology justifies the most heinous and she made actions imaginable and he will not be reasoned with nor will he relent. this enemy must be opposed. they must be killed. they must be destroyed and the associate extremist form of the islamic ideology must be defeated wherever it rears its ugly head. there are some who counsel patients arguing violent islamist are not an existential threat and, therefore, can send to be managed as criminals. i respectfully and strongly disagree. i have been in the theaters of war of iraq and afghanistan for many years, faced this enemy up

close and personal, and i've seen firsthand the unrestrained cruelty of this enemy. they may be animated by medieval ideology, but they are thoroughly moderate in the capacity to kill and maim as well as precisely and very smartly message their ideas come intentions and actions via the internet. in fact they are increasingly capable of threatening our nation'snation's interests and those of our allies. furthermore, it would be foolish for us to wait until our enemies pose an existential threat before taking decisive action. doing so would only increase the cost in blood and treasure, later for what we know must be done now. our violent and extremely radical islamist enemies must be stopped. to that end i offer the following three strategic objectives. first, we have to energize every element of national power simmer to the effort during world war ii or during the cold war to

effectively resource what will likely be a multi-generational struggle. there is no cheap way to win this fight. second, we must engage a violent islamist whatever they are drive them from their safe havens and kill them. there can be no quarter and no accommodation for this vicious group of terrorist. any nation-state that offers safe haven to our enemies must be given one choice, to eliminate them or be prepared for those contributing partners in fault in this endeavor to do so. we do need we do need to recognize that our nation's who lack the capability to defeat this threat and will likely require help to do so inside of their own internationally recognized boundaries. we must be prepared to assist those nations. third, we must decisively confront the state and nonstate supporters and enablers of the violent islamist ideology, and compel them to end their support to our enemies or be prepared to remove the capacity to do so.

many of these are currently considered partners of the united states. this must change. if our so called partners do not act in accordance with international accepted norms and behaviors, or international law the united states must be prepared to cut off or severely curtailed economic military and diplomatic ties. we cannot be seen as being hypocritical to those we are partnering with to defeat radical islam. finally, in pursuit of these objectives i fully support congresses constitutional role in providing an authorization for use of military force. this authorization should be broad and agile but unconstrained by unnecessary restrictions, restrictions that today cause not only frustration in our military our intelligence and our diplomatic communities, but also significant slow down the decision-making process for numerous leading opportunities. it is important, however, to realize that such an

authorization is neither a comprehensive strategy nor a war winning one. if there is not a clear coherent and comprehensive strategy for the coming from the administration, there should be no authorization. with that, trying to i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you general. mr. braniff. >> chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, members of the committee to my would like to thank you on behalf of the consortium for starting to ask us to speak with you today. and 2013, over 22000 people were killed and nearly 8500 terrorist attacks. when we release the full database data set of 2014 we anticipate it will include over 15,000 terrorist attacks. our primary data from the first nine months of 2014 suggest that seven of the 10 most lethal groups in 2014 were violent jihad is groups and isil among them conduct a more just attacks than any other terrorist

organization. the trend organization. the trendlines over the organization. the trend went over last years our module driven by two factors. first the proliferation of groups associate with al-qaeda and hotspots around the world and second the rise of isil and its strategy of escalation through sectarian violence. what we have, therefore is the makings of a global competition involving the most violent terrorist organizations in the world. this is even more troubling when one considers that both the theoretical and empirical work in the terrorism studies field suggests that competition among terrorist groups is one of those important predictors of increasingly -- overtime. to better understand this i would like to contrast the operations and strategies of al-qaeda and its associate movement or a qam with those of isil. al-qaeda is waging a protracted war of attrition against the west. specifically aiming to bleed at the trendy. if they're able to treat the american economic, military political will to remain engaged in muslim world, global jihad is can overpower regimes and establish what they would consider to be

proper theocracies. to wage this war of attrition al-qaeda has sent operatives into conflict zones across the world to reorient the violence by militant organizations and individuals, we focusing their wrath on foreign enemy targets like western embassies or tourist destination to al-qaeda seeks to spectacular basque isil attacks by heavy-handed military responses from western governments that seem of the evidence the war on islam that al-qaeda portrays in his propaganda. thereby polarizing the most of the non-muslim world and the daily jihadists to mobilize. isil is not currently waging a war of attrition but one of escalation. instead of inviting muslim persons western violence it is benefiting from the resources already been mobilized by sectarian polarization that is taking place in iraq and syria and beyond it actively seeks to exacerbate. instead of the far enemy to isil smelter operations focus on attacking competitive in the midst that did not submit to

their primacy. and seizing the resources necessary to build the institutions of the caliphate. given this competition there are several implications for u.s. policy and regional security. the first was al-qaeda or al-qaeda's for any strategy relies on provocation to mobilize the masses to isil is ratcheting up already elevated levels of sector intention in the post-everything world. the continued presence of the assad regime in syria serves as a more salient rallying cry for isil than for a qam. and brought anti-assad sentiments in the majority countries help to dampen those responses to both isil and groups. they sectarian tensions remain high isil and jihadi groups will foster an exploit of those attention to isil veterans will travel to new fronts outside of iraq and syria bringing their their escalation strategy and sectarianism with them. in a worst-case scenario this

contagion effect runs the risk of inciting a second civil war in the muslim world. relegating the west to the role of observer, poorly positioned to take any meaningful action to protect itself or others. in addition, every new isil front opens up a new set of grievance narrative and a new set of mobilization pathways for terrorist organizations seeking to radicalize and recruit foreign fighters. three, both isil and a qam conduct attacks against the west as part of this competition. for isil attacks is the west can use as a form of deterrence making foreign countries think twice or pay the price for large scale military intervention in iraq and see. we cannot be fooled into thinking that al-qaeda's focus on the caliphate prevents them from actively seeking the capability conduct attacks against the homeland. isil's antagonistic rise to prominence as great a crisis of legitimacy come incentivizing than just foreign enemy attacks to regain the spotlight. furthermore, if i cities to

murder muslims and overstepped its bounds as we've recently seen with the murder of the jordan about, they might wind up looking more legitimate and mainstream by comparison as long as they remain focused on the true enemies of islam, the west. we cannot therefore take pressure off of aqim. to conclude we're seeing an escalating competition among groups at a time when sectarian tensions are high and many governments hold a legitimacy is weak it is essential therefore that any use strategy prioritizes working with sunni nations and communities to marginalize violent sunni extremist to to do this the u.s. must find a way to you sectarian to ease tensions and earn the trust of a partner site into focus their attention on marginalizing groups like isil and aqim. thank you. ..

>> the world's history is full of insurgencies that have captured territory and sought to govern it by extracting resources from the local population, full of insurgencies that have used graphic violent terrorism to intimidate their enemies and to insure control over their own local populations. we've seen both islamist and other ideological movements over world history. this is a dangerous and violent organization which must be

confronted, but it's important that we place it in proper perspective. i think the most important perspective that we need to keep is to understand the fundamental, strategic dilemma that islamic groups have faced from the beginning whether it's the armed islamic group in algeria or al-qaeda in the 2000s or isil today. and that fundamental strategic problem is that while they do absolutely have the vision that general flynn described the characteristics that a general flynn described and that extreme dogmatism, the vast, vast majority of the muslims of the world do not agree with them, and they have failed every time they have attempted to reach out and to mobilize the world's muslims on their side. the ideology and the strategy of al-qaeda and isil is to create a clash of civilizations, to create an unbridgeable divide between the muslims of the world and the west. and what we must keep in mind as

we formulate any kind of effective strategy is that the way to defeat isil, al-qaeda and all forms of violent extremism is to marginalize them and form alliances with the vast majority of the world to reject their barbarism and who reject their extreme ideologies. the face of muslims in the minds of americans and the face of muslims in the mind of the world should not be al-baghdadi should not be bin laden, should not be the faceless murders of the journalists of "charlie hebdo" in paris. it should be the p dental student and refugee who was murdered in north carolina this week. to defeat isil, america must be seen as their champion not as their enemy. and if we are able to align ourselves with the aspirations and the hopes of muslims all over the world then isil can be defeated and only then.

so i do not disagree with general flynn's characterization of the threat posed by isil, but i believe it's extremely important that we approach this threat from the perspective of the need to constantly seek to deflate their pretensions, to marginal use them and to expose their extremism in the eyes not only of us, but of the muslims who they seek to recruit to mobilize and ultimately, to lead. now, this was, i believe, one of the great accomplishments, the great bipartisan accomplishments of both the bush administration after 9/11 and the obama administration. the immediate understanding of the strategic divide and the need to not allow al-qaeda after 9/11 to provoke this kind of clash of civilizations. president bush, despite some missteps early on, i think did a fantastic job of trying to reach out to the muslims of the united states and to insure that this divide did not open up. and i think that's a bipartisan

commitment that we should build on today. now, in my -- in the prepared statement, i go through in some detail explanations for why isil has emerged in the form that it has today. i won't repeat those here. let me just hit some of the bullet points because i think it's important to place this in a specific political context. ranking member smith in his opening statement mentioned the failures of government, and i think this is extremely important. the failure of the arab uprisings is a key part of the emergence of isil in the form it is today, an enormous number of young muslims and young arabs around the middle east have seen their hopes raised and crushed. the military coup in egypt is a particularly defining point in proving, unfortunately, to a large number of people that peaceful political participation is not an option. if we're going to respond to isil in the way as, again, i agree with general flynn that we must, we need to address those underlying causes of despair of

alienation and the absence of alternative paths which is building the possible pool of recruits for isil. that includes reversing the sectarian misgoth of iraq, it includes trying to find some kind of peaceful deescalation of the war in syria, and it means trying to find some way to align the united states with the forces of moderate and peaceful change. that's no easy task. i have some ideas about how we might go about doing that but for now i'll simply stop, and i welcome everyone's questions. >> thank you. again, i appreciate the testimony from each of you. i'd like to ask, hopefully, just a brief question from each of you. general flynn, towards the end of your statement you make a point that an aumf should not be overly constrained. you've had a lot of experience fighting these folks in the middle east and south asia. do you have an opinion about how difficult it would be for our troops to follow a restriction

that said they could not engage in enduring offensive ground combat operations? >> yes. so we need to be very clear in this aumf that, you know may come out of an agreement between the legislative and executive branches here. when we give our military commanders a mission, we should allow them to execute that mission and not overly constrain them with approved authorities but then having to come back to the administration for permission. so if we authorize the use of force to do something with these many times fleeting opportunities out there that our military forces see and then they've got to come back up through a bureaucratic process to get permission even though even though there's an authority

given to them then either we, you know, we need to review those authorities and those permissions, or we need to change the commanders, because we apparently don't trust them to do the job that we have given them to do. so that's a real problem today. give the commanders the authority to execute the mission that they've been given. if they're not the right people remove them and put somebody else in there that can do that. otherwise allow them to do the things that they have been assigned, tasked and are very capable of doing in this in what is currently the aumf that we have. we have become so overly bureaucratic in coming up through the system to get permission to basically do things that frankly colonels on the battlefield or captains at sea are very capable of doing. >> okay, thank you. mr. braniff, i was struck in your testimony that as i read it that just in the last 12 months we've seen a dramatic rise in

these terrorist organizations and in their attacks. now, as i understand it, one of the things your organization does is keep track of these with objective metrics. and am i reading that right, that even in the last year we've seen this problem get dramatically worse? >> mr. chairman in -- if you compare the most violent terrorist organizations in 2013 to those in 2014 the level of violence from isil the taliban shabaab, poco haram, al-qaeda in the -- boko haram and al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula have increased according to preliminary data. iraq ask, yemen, somalia and libya have all experienced increases in terrorist violence between 201 and our preliminary data from 2014. pack san is the only sort of affected nation which has seen a decrease -- pakistan -- out of

the countries where al-qaeda and its associated movement are active. so we've seen a year-on-year p increase over the last 12 months and over the 12 months before that and the 12 months before that. so the trend line is continuing to rise. a partial explanation is that a lot of the strategy now focuses on trying to build capabilities of partner nations, and that's a slow process, so things may get worse before they get better. that's an opportunistic read of the scenario. a pessimistic read of the scenario is these organizations have enjoyed greater safe haven in a post-arab spring world and have seized on the less stable governments and are exploiting that safe haven. >> okay. so dr. lynch i'm a little perplexed by a sentence you have in your prepared statement that says the u.s. has thus far crafted an effective strategy in responding to isil which has halted its momentum. is that the way you see the

developments over last year or so? >> thank you chairman. yes. i actually think that the way the administration has crafted its strategy as an initial step has been quite effective. they managed to leverage the increased military commitment in iraq into most important move which is, which was a change in the government of iraq and the removal of prime minister maliki who, in my opinion, had carried out a campaign of sectarian misgovernment and corruption which had lost and squandered all of the gain of the previous years by managing to then get a new iraqi prime minister willing and able to reach out to iraqi sunnies and then to use air power and limited military support, the momentum of isil has been, has been halted. they're no longer able to advance, they suffered a serious defeat in kobani thanks to coalition air power. and they've now seen a significant reversal in the eyes of arab public opinion after the

brutal murder of a jordanian pilot. and so -- and momentum matters for them because their appeal was rooted in the idea that they were a winner. and now people aren't so sure. and i think we might actually see people jumping off the bandwagon faster than we think. >> i appreciate it. i've obviously, i hope the optimistic scenarios prove right. i worry that we see momentum through our eyes, not necessary lu through their eyes. but at this time i'd yield to mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just following up on that rather key point there's problems all over the world. yemen, ironically is a shiite uprising that has, you know overturned the government this which gets us into whole issue that if, you know, decent governance in that region is going to depend upon, believe it or not, saudi arabia and iran figuring out how to get along this that part of the world. because neither one is going to be able to vanquish the other and in the meantime, they're doing enormous damage to each other. that's subject perhaps to a

whole other hearing. but this notion it's all falling apart, these guys are as you said dr. lynch superman they're going to take over everything, and i think the analysis of isil is interesting. the chairman's comments about how they're still spreading that's what people believe, that's simply not the case. several months ago, and i'm going to get my timeline wrong when they went rolling through, out of syria, rolling through iraq, everyone was saying oh my goodness they're going to be in baghdad next week. well they're not and they're never going to be. they were, as you mentioned rolled out of kobani. they have not taken any territory since that initial surge, and they have given back territory. they were also within miles of irbil and, again, my timeline is off here, but a i few months before -- but a few months before. but with allied support and support with the kurds, they were pushed back. so we have to keep this in a

realistic perspective because i think our greatest strength and possibility here is what you said. these guys can't govern. they cannot deliver for the muslim population. and in mosul right now it's falling apart. the electricity is off pretty much every day. nobody's picking up the garbage. they can't govern. the people there are only staying with them out of fear. so i do believe that isil's momentum has been blunted and it's really interesting. it's been blunted in part with the help of the u.s. military, but it's been p blunted more by their own weaknesses. and that's what we have to remember. and that's what i want to ask general flynn about. you know i get this -- it is an existential threat i agree with you. and, therefore, we have to, you know amass all of our forces and figure out how to defeat them. but fundamentally do you disagree with the statement that u.s. military might is simply not in a position to defeat this ideology because of this clash of civiles, because of the way -- civilizations, because of

the way the muslim world looks at western aggression and that the only way we're going to be successful is if we get moderate muslims to rise up against these folks and support them? or do you -- i mean do you think it would be good to have a whole bunch of troops to get them? don't we have a bit of a gored january knot in that -- gordian knot in that regard? >> so -- >> that was like six questions. >> i know. you typically do that to me. [laughter] so overall the answer is, yes. yes, i don't think -- i don't believe what you just said about dropping in, you know, hundreds of thousands or u.s. forces -- you also said that they are an

existential threat. i wouldn't sit here today and say isis is an existential threat to this country. >> the broader ideology. >> but the broad or ideology is one that will get inside of our bloodstream, get inside of our dna, if you will, and will permeate over time if we don't do something about it now. so it doesn't help us to just kind of wait to do something. now, when i describcan, you know -- describe, you know, in what i recommended about the combination of the elements of national power i mean, you just look at the information campaign that is being waged not by just isis but by al-qaeda writ large ask the way that they're -- and the way that they're able to do it, the sophistication that they're able to do it, i mean that campaign alone, the military has some little bits and pieces of trying to counter that on a battlefield, but there has to be broader imagination that this country working with partners and working with some of these

so-called moderate nations -- and i say that in my statement about we have partners out there. and, you know, we've got to be really honest with ourselves about some of these partners. >> yes. >> we can't continue to fund and do all these kinds of things and have, and have some of these nations sit at the table with the united states of america when, in fact we know that they're funding some of these organizations. that's a diplomatic tool that we have to leverage. there is, there are economic tools that we have to leverage. when we say that we're going after terrorist financing and we're going the stop this guy we're going to shut down this money being with made by the oil refinery, those are tactical things. we have to look at how are we dealing with the moderate, frankly, the moderate arab world and these nations where we do have economic partnerships and relationships, and we need to ask them are they doing everything they can from the role of being moderate? >> let me clarify and i think dr. lynch would agree.

i, you know, i'm not going to say there's a you know moderate muslim nation. we're talking about more individual people and groups than we are one nation or another. and, you know, for instance, i mean the biggest success that we had in iraq was the anbar awakening. and that wasn't a government, that was sunni tribes -- >> yeah. >> -- riding up and saying, and and -- rising up and saying, you were there -- >> i agree. it took 50,000 more troops though too. the anbar awakening was incentivized by another 50,000 troops on the ground. >> that's a fascinating argument because the anbar awakening was a force multiplier of, like, two million. >> i talk to some of these individuals almost on a daily basis who were involved in this. i guess what i'm telling you, congressman, is that we have to be far more sophisticated, and we really do have to be -- use our imagination to defeat this ideology. tactically, we need to go after isis, you know and frankly any of these other safe havens. but we have to be more

sophisticated in our application of all the instruments of national power to be able to achieve what it is that i believe we need to achieve over a long period of time as you recognized in your opening statement. >> and i won't disagree with that. the only thing i will say is i worry a great deal about the notion that people are focused on the u.s. military as the solution to this problem. and i worry when we talk about, oh, you know, the aumf has to be open-ended so we can go anywhere anytime. and, believe me, i love the military, you know? you work with them you ask them if they can do something is the answer ever no? it's not. you tell them you've got five guys, can you defeat -- yeah. that's just how they're oriented. and that's terrific, but that isn't always the right strategy. there are things that military might can't do, and in this case can really sort of turn it back around on us if we aren't careful -- >> but there is, and i'm sorry because i don't want to go too much into this, but there is a benefit to applying pressure on

an enemy. >> absolutely. >> i mean, you -- so you have to not let them have a sound night's sleep anywhere where these vicious individuals exist and groups exist. and in the meantime, all the other pieces that we have to brick -- bring to bear, and that's my argument. that's one administration to the next. because i think the last administration really struggled and maybe come to that realization later on, it's not an easy answer. >> it's not easy to know when to apply force and when not to. it is more tactics and strategy. you've been generous with the time, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. miller. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the authorization for use of military force in 2002 basically said the president is authorized to use the armed forces of the united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. why do you think we now have an

aumf before us that puts restrictions on it, on things that the president claims he can do without an aumf? >> i guess my answer to that would be whatever the decision is between this body and the executive branch of government, we have to make sure in one sense -- we have to play our cards very close to our chest meaning don't discount any option that the united states of america has by telegraphing what those options are or not going to be. we're not going to commit troops, or we're not going to do this or that. i just think we have to play a very smart card game with the aumf. i think on this aumf thing though, like i said that's not a comprehensive strategy. that is a component of something that we need. and like i said to the chairman, we have to to make sure that we,

when we lay this out to our military forces primarily -- and, to a degree some inside of our intelligence community -- that they have the full authority to be able to execute the tasks that they're going to be assigned. otherwise, you know you're tying our hands behind our back, so to speak and we're slowing the system down through unnecessary bureaucracy. >> thank you. dr. lynch, do you really think that a group of barbarian thugs who would make a fellow human being kneel down before them and cut their heads off really care if they're marginalized? or do you care do you really think that a group of barbarian thugs who would put a fellow muslim in a cage, douse him with gas, set him on fire and watch him burn to death really care if

they're marginalized? and if you think that, how long do you think it will take for this marginalization to take place? >> thank you congressman. it's a great question and a really important one. i don't think they care. but the nature of their not caring is extremely important. so basically, when you're a group like al-qaeda or a group like isil, you have two basic strategies you can pursue same as an election here right? you can play to your base, or you can try and reach out to the median voter. and what you're seeing with isil is very much a base strategy right? they have decided that they want to mobilize the already-radical sized, the most dangerous people the disenfranchised, the ones who are already radicalized, and they want to get them out to syria and to iraq to join. so what we're seeing is at least by press accounts and open source accounts the flow of foreign fighters is increasing.

in other words, those brutal videos are actually inspiring that small number of people and getting them to leave cairo to leave tunis and come out to isil. but at the same time, they're alienating the broader mainstream public. so the way i would reframe your question is, is this drying up their pool of recruits faster than they can, than they can get them and extract them and bring them into their fight in and i think that the answer to that is still unclear, and that's why i'm advocating a strategy in which we try and accelerate their marginalization and alienation from that broader pool of potential recruits. and so, no, i don't think they care in the slightest. the strategy of al-qaeda in iraq czar saw by's -- zarqawi's response to criticism that he was alienating muslims by butchering shiites, he didn't care about the mainstream muslim

who has already abandoned god. he chose a base strategy whereas -- which is what isil has done as well. and so we need to recognize that and then try and make them pay the cost for that base strategy. >> and that cost is -- >> that cost is to continue to -- i think we've already started this, and i think our arab allies have done this is a really strong communications campaign to highlight their barbarity, their extremism toking pose the realities -- to expose the realities of life in isil-governed for stories and to puncture their mystique in such a way that the alienated, disenfranchised youth in tunis or in libya doesn't see it as an attractive noble or heroic thing to go and join this group. and i think that that's the way we need to approach them, to undermine them and deflate them rather than to exaggerate their capabilities. >> i thank the gentleman.

mr. o'rourke. >> thank you mr. chair. general flynn, thank you fur your testimony -- for your testimony, for your service. i think you made a number of excellent points including the need to have a clear and comprehensive strategy from the administration before we move forward with an authorization for the use of military force. you also talked about our need to rethink our leaderships with our regional allies, and i think you said something to the effect if they fail to adhere to global standards and norms and values in international law, then we need to rethink our ties and i think you maybe even said cut off those ties. when i think about our allies there, the royal family in saudi arabia the prior leadership in yemen, al-maliki prior in iraq sisi, these are governments that in many cases are amongst the most corrupt or venal or repressive in the

world. and yet they are our allies in this fight. how do we pursue a strategy in that region and be consistent to the advice that you gave us, which i think is really good advice? and i think those repressive regimes and our relationships with them complicate our ability to be effective in the middle east. >> yeah. so thanks very much for asking that question. this is the essence of the problem. this is not a military phenomenon that a we are facing -- that we are facing back to the ranking member's, you know, missive ant what he was talking about with boots on the ground, and everybody sort of throws that a phrase around. we need to stop using that by the way. we need to really understand what does that mean. this is a social a cultural and a psychological phenomenon, particularly in the arab world and the arab -- the potential breakdown of sort of arab world order over time if we do not

change this mindset and really move some of these countries to change their internal behavior. what we saw in egypt as an example of, essentially three regimes -- now president al-sisi in there. and what president al-sisi's trying to do is he's just trying to bring a sense of security and stability before they can even think about returning to any kind of form of prosperity. i think a country like jordan the king there and how they treat their population and how they are being, you know, really exceptional moderate example within this very, very difficult part of the world that we're in. there are others, there are other templates, if you will, out there. but the underlying conditions that i think everybody recognizes, all of us recognize

if those underlying conditions don't change then what is going to happen is this problem is going to continue to grow, and it's going to undermine the stability of these countries to the point where they're going to lose. they're eventually going to lose. and it's not just iraq and syria and what we're seeing there. i mean we're already talking about, you know, a lot of other places around the transregion area that are at risk. i mean, what just happened with this separatist movement down in yemen, this movement's going on for a long, long time. and then, of course you've got al-qaeda that took over this military base. i mean libya. those two states right now and you could, you know, we should look at ourselves, those two states right now are failing or failed states or will become that way because who will recognize yemen? will it be us, or is it going to be iran? because iran fully backs that

separatist movement that just took over yemen and that was a country that we were trying to defeat this threat the sunni version of radical islam. so this is really -- that's the essence of the problem and we have to look at how do we want to act? when somebody sits at the table of the united states of america, they'd better be sitting there fully recognizing international law and at least having a recognition of internationally-accepted norms and behaviors. if they don't, we're being hypocritical. >> and i wonder if we have the will to act on that and to really deliver some consequences ; withdrawing military aid, isolating those countries, rethinking our relationships. in the past we have proven unable to do that or unwilling for probably important tactical or streamic reasons, and i

think -- strategic reasons, and i think we'll really be tested. >> just real quickly we're not chained by oil -- the united states is no longer chained to the middle east for oil. that's a big deal. sorry. sorry, chairman. >> appreciate it. mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. mr. chairman. general flynn, i've got a question for you. i'm really concerned that just this week president barack obama was interviewed and compared fighting isis to a big city mayor fighting crime. ..

does it indicate you like it does to me that he just doesn't get it? >> what i have said is that you cannot defeat an enemy that you did not admit exists. and i really, really strongly believe that the american public needs and wants normal -- more intellectually were the strategic clarity and courage on this thread. i mean, there is no comparison. and it's not to take away the danger that exists with the thugs and the criminals that are in our system but that's not what it is we are facing in this

discussion that we're having right now. it's totally different. >> also let me changed subjects and ask about guantánamo bay. there was an interesting exchange over in the senate the other day and my friend and colleague, senator tom cotton of arkansas was talking to an administration official and making the point that the fight was brought to our homeland before guantánamo bay ever existed. and even if the president succeed in shutting it down the fight will continue against us. so do you agree with me that it's important to have a place where we can detain the worst of the worst which takes them out of the fight, until such time as maybe they go before a military tribunal or in some way face justice? and that that outweighs whatever propaganda effect the bad guys have who will find something to

criticize us for if they don't have the? >> so thank you for asking that question. a couple things. there are three ways to deal with the terrorist. you kill them. you capture them or you turn them into work with these partner nations around the world. and the saudis had a pretty effective program a few years back where they were turning them dealing with their families and things like that. those are the three ways to deal with the terrorists. we say this gets back to the question on the aumf. because right now we are not capturing anybody. we might go out and detain somebody and it's worked between the military, the fbi like they did with this guy in libya, but there's a lot of other, there's a lot of others out there that we probably would benefit from capturing. we used to say when i was in the special operations community that had we not have the ability

to professionally interrogate those that we captured, the high-value targets or the made value targets, we might as well take that cadillac and bring it on home and parked in the garage. because the capturing of individuals in the survivor is actually, it's the best form of intelligence that you can get period, bar none. i have lived it. i have run those facilities and we know how to do them very professionally because we learned a really ugly lesson in over 10 years ago now. so you have to be able to do that. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. cooper. he's not here. ms. graham. >> thank you very much for being here this morning. you touched a bit on other terrorist groups in the region.

could you please provide an update on hezbollah? thank you. >> so hezbollah is an iranian backed group. they are i believe we are still designating them as a terrorist organization our state department. hezbollah is deeply involved in syria. so they are fighting in syria, members of hezbollah are fighting and they are actually leading and doing some of the sort of what i would call, sort of special operations type of training of some of the syrian forces. hezbollah is involved in yemen. hezbollah is certainly involved in lebanon and some of the disruption of things in that particular country. and hezbollah is involved in iraq as well. so members of hezbollah are, in fact, inside of iraq fighting with what i would describe as what we used to call the core

organization which is which we know is led by members of iran's irgc. so hezbollah is a very dangerous organization. they are responsible for killing many, many americans. and we do not let them sort of get a pass on any of this. >> thank you, congresswoman. let me just say very quickly that hezbollah actually has been in a very difficult decision for the last silver years because of its role in syria which has been quite controversial. it's exposed now in ways that it will never was before. it enjoyed in the past a very solid base of impractical base in lebanon and from there is able to play a dominant role in not just shia politics in lebanon but in the overall lebanese political system. now lebanon is a state that is hanging on by its finger nails more than a million syrian

refugees, ma growing signs of sectarianism conflict and violence. and even a lot there's increasing signs of grumblings among the shia middle-class community itself said what happened to protect our inches? why are our boys going out and dying in syria? but also at the same time radicalization of those shia communities saying why aren't you doing more? so the leadership of hezbollah is clearly i mean yes it is clearly a dangerous and extremely capable and robust organization but this is probably the most difficult political situation it is faced in many, many years. it no longer can claim to speak for a broad resistance to issue. nobody believes that anymore because they have seen, no sunnis believe that because of its in hezbollah men out there killing and murdering sunni civilians. so they lost that card. they are much weaker because the lebanese state is much weaker. so it's a very difficult time for them and they're having a difficult time navigating this

new situation. >> thank you, congresswoman. the only thing i would add is that i mentioned the word of sectarianism numerous times in my oral testimony. i find it to be a very important issue that we have to understand that one of the ways in which extremist ideologies can become more mainstream is when societies are polarizing people feel like they have to pick a side, they have no choice but to pick a side and the only candidates for their votes are extremist organization is very polarized environment. i worry about the sectarian violence in syria being exported to other neighboring countries and creating a wire sector and conflict. hezbollah is one of the organizations that could be a conduit for the spread of sectarian violence, in lebanon is a country with a very interesting sort of denominational system of representation, is really the kind of country that would be vulnerable to sectarian violence going forward.

>> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. >> mr. wittman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us today. thank you for your testimony. general flynn, how worried are you about american citizens becoming radicalized training overseas and returning back to the united states? and are there additional steps that the u.s. should take in addressing those citizens that travel to train with isis in syria, and iraq and then later to return back to the united states at the threats they would post your? i would like to get your perspective? >> first i think that our fbi and the leadership of the fbi is doing of an iowa job dealing with this issue here in the homeland. just to give you a little perspective, when somebody shows up in syria okay, and this is been going on for a while, they do a little vetting somewhat to

get their jihad on so to speak, they may just tell them you're going to be a suicide bomber, is will record to do here's what you're going to operate and go forth and do good. in the other parts of the vetting to look for individuals have different skill sets who have savvy with the internet who have some leadership skills, who maybe have some engineering capability. so they are sophisticated in how they recruit, particularly when they arrived. and those individuals then get put into a different pipeline. they may not get in -- get put into the suicide pipeline, they may get put into a different pipeline. those are the individuals that there will be sort of a different future for them to maybe come back to this country and get involved in additional recruiting, additional activities and maybe larger scale types of attacks that we are trying to avoid.

so i just think that a variety of reasons why they get recruited from the internet is a big, big part of this. i think our fbi is doing the best job that they can but what really need to recognize and track houthis persons are, and be honest with you if somebody is going to conspire to fight against us, which is essentially what they are doing, it also has to be a discussion at least about their citizenship. >> so you think additional steps is to look the recovery of those people travel, because my concern is turkey is a conduit for people traveling into syria and those areas. are there additional steps we should take in working with turkey to be more aggressive with them, looking specifically at those folks who have left the country with some kind of provision on the return of the conditions on the return back to the united states? >> the combination of intelligence and law enforcement is a big deal gets right what you're talking about.

so we have to make sure that there are good mechanisms in place, processes in place to rapidly share intelligence, rapidly share law enforcement information, and we need to be able to deal with a variety of partners. turkey being probably one of the principal wants right now because if we know someone is getting on a plane out of laguardia or dollars judgment dollars to fly over to ankara, the we need to make sure that we recognize who they are and they're being tracked them in the right visas and then turkey needs to know what they're doing over there. this is one of these difficult things because we're trying to also protect our own freedom of travel and all that sort of business. we got to know why are you going there. are you part of an ngo part of a private organization that is going to provide some humanitarian assistance, or are you going over there for some other ill-gotten gain? >> let me ask this. we've seen what's happened in

yemen, collapsing before our eyes, our u.s. marines our embassy staff the embassy now is abandoned. we can see the chaos that is going on there. wethese iranian influence there in that particular region. it was not long ago this is one of our foreign policy successes and how we dealt with terrorism, that we were support of the government there that our characters and efforts were successful. a couple questions. what went wrong? and is this an indicator of a broader weakness or failure of u.s. foreign policy? >> from my perspective the last decade plus of war if i had to give you one lesson learned that lesson learned would be that we failed and we continue to fail, to understand the threats that we face. and that failure is leading to a mismatch in strategy and

resources that we are applying against these threats. and, therefore that failure is leading to these types of things that we're seeing in a yemen and in other parts of the arab the greater arab world. i think the second, third, fourth order ethics of libya i'm really concerned about post a period of time and against them based on what we're already going to do. i noticed in the "washington post" today there's an article there about we are rethinking our timeline for departure from afghanistan. i think that's appropriate. so that failure led to a mismatch in resources and ended strategy as to how we apply it against this enemy. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and for your presentations. general flynn could you fall up a bit on your comment just now

because you're talking of the lessons learned about the mismatch and the threats. would you make that same analysis about even our not understanding the countries iraq, for example, when we went into iraq and may have created more enemies than friends? how would you respond to that? >> yeah, i think that that's a very, you know, what you are implying is very true. and i think that we, you know, in the spectrum of conflict, when we define the spectrum of conflict we in the military look at it from peace to war. the political damage -- dimension of our country has to look at it from peace and get us back to peace in order to get us out of war. and we did not we don't do a really good job thinking past the point of conflict or the point of war. we have to do that.

i think that's part of this debate. as the ranking member was highlighting, we have cannot just throw military resources this thing, we have to be far more sophisticated. but that's not comprehensive right now. that sophistication and i don't see it and i've been studying this problem for a long time and i'm hopeful that we can get our act together but it has to be it has to be one that is very, very comprehensive, and it's going to be multi-generational problem. and there are moderates out of the we do need to encourage. somebody sent me a note the other is that instead of 126 subject matter experts, clerics and others in the muslim world that came out strong against isis. why aren't there 126,000? why are there only 126? there's that many mosques in baghdad. there should be thousands and it should be leaders of these countries that we are dealing with the need to stand up and make a statement, make a strong statement about what it is we are doing or not doing.

>> right now i think there are perhaps some opportunities that we are not using the thinking of the peshmerga in kurdistan. have you had any thoughts about that? why we are not utilizing and doing as good a job as again and really facilitating greater involvement on their behalf? they are asking for it. we are not doing it. >> yeah. i mean, i think that's a great question to ask you know, especially from this committee. we could do more and give them more support. we could help in training them, giving them more sophisticated and really putting in the right kinds of military tools. again, we need to be careful that we don't always get drawn back into what is actually the easiest part of a strategy, which is to throw a military force at it.

>> i can't occur with you more. >> so we just have to be more sophisticated. >> if i could go on. >> go ahead. >> shifting to boko haram. the growing connections between isis in the boko haram was mentioned, i don't know whether you happen to hear that that discussion, but it shouldn't, i mean, where even in terms of the aumf are we thinking about that connection and i guess horrible potential that that would bring as will? >> i will let bill answer this because i think he mentioned the boko haram in a statement. one, number one, boko haram is incredibly vicious. i mean my god look at what they have done with children young women. i mean these are children. so, and i can't put that aside

but the connection between these organizations is very real. and we know we know that al-qaeda, so they al-qaeda command-and-control, al-qaeda senior leaders were, in fact, dealing with the boko haram you know, any sort of cursory way when bin laden was still alive. so this is not some connection they just happened in boko haram just popped up. hopefully using general rodriguez, our commander of africom recently document we need a full sort of counterinsurgency effort. and again i think a seven or eight nations in africa that are trying to come to grips with dealing with boko haram now. they just postponed their elections. i mean, again this is a long-term problem and these groups are, in fact connected. >> thank you. i think my time is up, and perhaps dr. lynch can bring this up later. >> mr. coffman. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

just a question about isis. i served in iraq in the marine corps into the house and five in ramadi in fallujah in 2006 and the western euphrates. and what i found in the sunni arab population is a clearly didn't like us. we upset the apple cart. they saw the government in baghdad as a shia dominated government, that carrying government that was against them. and they were against the government. but when they saw later on a path, the fissures between the al-qaeda element of the local insurgents became more significant over time. and i think when they saw a path where they could be a part of the government, then those seizures exploded between the two. and i found them to be a very

moderate people. boys and girls went to school together in these accounts. secular curriculum annual exams, and very dependent upon a lot of government services. and so it's hard for me to envision them subjugated to this, this radical islamic group, isis. they were in line with al-qaeda, and then they broke out. so what's the prognosis here? i will refer to each one of you. >> thank you congressman. i think you're absolutely right about that and about the nature of the iraqi sunni community and the reason and. both of us and especially of the shia dominated government. i think one of the great strategic missed opportunities that we've had in the middle

east was that nouri al-maliki was unable to capitalize on that and to rebuild connections with the sunni community. instead he decided to rule in this sector anyway going after sunni leaders not getting the awakening forces into the security forces. it's a tragic missed opportunity i think that you're also absolute right about the long-term implausibility of people like this being willing to live under isil. the problem right now though i think is that the sectarianism has gone, has become so intense and so deeply ingrained big you are talking about population with enormous levels of display by both internal and refugees, people who have seen family members being butchered on sectarian grounds and enormous amount of missed trust a state institutions like the ministry of the interior the iraqi security forces which makes it very difficult for them to look at the iraqi government as a partner. and i think that until they're able to get the iraqi government and see it as a viable partner then it's going to be difficult

for them to make that leap that they made back in 2006-2007. that's what i think getting a new prime minister in place and trying to begin some serious security service reforms and institutional reforms is what you need to do in order to win in iraq. and reversing that sectarianism is going to be extraordinarily difficult at this point but we have to begin taking those steps. i think the national guard project that is begun to work on i think is absolutely the right way to do. something which is institutionalized and canceled to be dissolved at the stroke of a pen the way that promises to incorporate the awakenings were done back in '08-'09. >> thank you mr. congressman. i would just reiterate, our model has an extensive survey data surveys in the most world come and the iraqi population is overwhelmingly secular and how to respond respond of the national level polls even within the last two years. and to me a secular sector in his own trumps secularism the

way it has in iraq, because of the sort of identity politics that are being leveraged by groups like isil then we better make sure that our national strategy to address violent extremism in other places really pushes back on sectarianism because it's such a powerful force, a force of nature. if we don't deal with sectarianism, isil, aqim and these groups have relatively easy time forcing people to pick a side through violence. >> really briefly, a lot of lessons learned between the way dark alley operate in a way al-baghdadi is operating, and that has been a discussion within the ranks of the al-qaeda movement. so they learn the lessons of the way start how we did things and al-baghdadi is avoiding many of those mistakes. and then really three things come incredible levels of corruption within the government, in this case the rack, lack of inclusiveness

which is very real and even though the new president that is in there now still, not a sense of that by the people and just a real desperate economic conditions that these people live within and that just, it's going to be a difficult thing to change but it could change because these countries actually have the wealth to provide for their citizens. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> ms. gabbard. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. each of you has made points throughout this morning about how the sectarianism is a driver for violence, how the trust of the sunni tribes and people must be earned in order to take the oxygen a way that currently exists, especially in the rack for isis. how can this be done -- especially in iraq. you talk about new leadership in place, talked about different

rhetoric. a different way of doing things but the fact and the reality is that iran's influence over the current government in iraq continues, as it has been. their ability to have any sense of control over the shia militias and to their attacking what they are doing does not exist. and endless you go to a different model of governance and go away from this attachment to this continued policy of one central government in iraq and mood is something where you're actually truly empowering the kurds, where you're not having to funnel everything through the baghdad government were at this point even a small margin of the weapons and ammunition that we are sending is getting to them and empower the sunnis and about the shias in some type of three-state solution. how is this current strategy in winning strategy to defeat isis unless you get to the core of this issue? >> i believe that we are going to not go back to the way things

were. the breakdown of the boundaries within this region are going to be incredibly difficult to get back to, not impossible, but i just don't see that happening anytime soon. potentially in my lifetime. i would say that iran is a greater problem. they do not see inclusiveness of sunnis, you know, from the iranian viewpoint. and i think that they they like you saw in yemen recently with some of the chanting that we saw, you are seeing in iraq things occur that are clearly iranian influenced and against everything that we are trying to do. so i will leave it at that. >> thanks for the question. the problem with iraq your

absolute right about the role of iran and iraq. it's pervasive and it goes beyond the shia militias. it at every level of the government, every level of the state, the security forces from the kurds. they have relations with everybody in iraq because they actually have a full spectrum strategy for dealing with a close neighbor. i would actually not pose iran as the primary problem in iraq. i think the militias are a primary problem and iran can use that instrument when it is useful for them come into the decide it's not useful for them and they begin to move to try and shut it down. and i think that the key point is going to be that it's impossible to have, ma as you said it's impossible to have a strategy which is about keeping a unified state in iraq that isn't going to include some kind of tacit or maybe in a formal but at least tacit cooperation with iran. there will in iraq is simply too pervasive into real. security forces can't be is

aggregated in only working with sunni units. if you want to tamp down sectarianism, you can't than doubled down on a sunni-shia division of iraq and trying only work with the sunnis and fight against the shiites. what you need to do is try to bring that country back together, tamp down sectarianism and have a state based on citizenship. there's already been huge progress on the decentralization in the constitution. they are deemed with these issues of oil revenues and all these things and no one is very happy with any of the solutions that have come up with, but they are working on them. i think the idea of allowing the courage to go their own way i take at this time is not a good one. i think that certainly we should continue to support the path continue to advocate curtis self-interest but i think the kurdish self-interest still are to be a part of iraq in the decentralist or framework and that's what it is simply a good idea to funnel support, military support and other things through baghdad. in other words, even what they need, help them in the ways they need to be helped but don't

encourage fragmentation of the state. .. >> on the white house web site it states that the strategy is america's blueprint for how we address global challenges while advancing our nation's interests and values for the future. on page 3 it says we are leading a global campaign and degrading and