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 ultimately defeating the

islamic state of iraq in the levant, and on page 15 it says we reject the lie that america and its allies are at war with islam. i would disagree with the first statement, i don't think we're leading, but i would agree with the second statement, that we are not at war with all of islam. we are at war with radical islam and islamic extremism. yet nowhere in the strategy does that term appear. in fact, the only two times the word islam appears are in the two instances i just mentioned. yet climate change appears 19 times. i would ask do you think the national security strategy has enough specificity to adequately inform the documents of the national defense strategy and the national military strategy to actually have a positive impact on executing a strategy for degrading and ultimately defeating isil? and secondly dr. lynch, i would ask in your statement about the momentum of isil being halted. just within the last 24 hours,

they're knocking on the door of the al assad air base where we have 320 marines in a training capacity. how can you say the momentum has actually been halted? >> in any civil war -- those are excellent questions, and i really appreciate your opening comment about the validating of the idea we're not at war with islam. it's extremely important. and i, you know, there's been a huge debate about whether we should use the term islamic extremism or violent islam or extremist islam or those sorts of hinges. i actually -- of things. i actually fall in the school of i don't think it matters that much. this is something we concern ourselves with but whether we call them isil or isis or al-qaeda, i don't think it matters very much. and i think this notion that it would be interesting to talk about a bit more but i think forming a strategy is not dependent -- it's semantics there. i really believe that. in terms of momentum i mean, i

think if you look at these kinds of civil wars, there's constantly going to be a surge and a flow, and you're going to see a movement here a decline here and a e are treat there. -- a retreat there. we've been seeing this in syria a stalemate and this village gets captured, this village gets lost. i think you can't read too much into the daily pushes and flows. the defeat in kobani was extremely -- it was big because this showed they were not unstoppable. they put a lot of resources and propaganda efforts into this and they failed. that was big for blocking their momentum. i think we've seen them pulling back from aleppo, trying to concentrate some of their forces, we have seen their failure to move into irbil and into baghdad and so i wouldn't say -- and here i would agree with you. there's no sign that we've reversed, that we're pushing them back, but we've stopped their forward momentum and broke that patina of invincibility which is treatmently important,

i think for -- extremely important for this band wag goning effect. once they don't look invulnerable, that's when tribes and factions will start believing it's safe to flip sides again. so that's how i would group what is still obviously, a very fluid situation. >> yeah. so the national security strategy lays out the world which is a very complex array of threats, but i don't believe the national security strategy prioritizes what the united states should do about those threats. prioritizing sort of the here and now and then sort of what like what a harry truman said post-world war ii which was, and i'll quote him, we, you know, he rightly understood that the soviets were quote animated by a new fanatic faith, unquote. so we have to prioritize, we have to take this strategy, the national security strategy and

prioritize inside of it against the threats that we're facing. the fact that we even use isil and the word islamic in the framework of islamic state, it actually recognizes that in that document, in the president's letter on top of that document, he uses islamic state in the levant. so it recognizes -- we in the united states are recognizing the fact that there's somebody called islamic and there's somebody called a state inside of the levant. so again we're struggling to define it as clearly as we possibly can. and it is a radical version of islam. there's no doubt about it. and we can't not allow ourselves to define something that actually they're calling themselves in a sense. so if the enemy's calling themselves that why do we have such a difficult time? and the other thing just as a real small, minor thing but the word -- or the acronym die distinguish, okay die year that

we throw around now talks about, it describessal sham. al sham is the he haven't. so it actually to me, in my framework of really trying to understand who it is that we're facing -- and i've studied these guys i've dealt with them, i've talked to them, that actually benefits them. so we're using an acronym to describe this enemy, but it actually describessal sham which says you basically are controlling the levant which is, essentially what they want to do. so we have to be very very careful about the words that we use. when we use words like knew ya mujahideen or jihad -- mujahideen or jihad, those are recognitions of their courage instead of using about as ugly a word as you can call an arab. we don't use it. we should. >> mr. smith. >> thank you just two

follow-ups. one on the notion that al-baghdadi and isis is somehow doing better than al-qaeda did in governance there have been just as many stories out there. like i said mosul is a disaster, and if i'm wrong about that, please correct me. but from a governance standpoint and this have been just as many stories of isil cutting people's hands off for smoking and alienating tribes. i don't really see any evidence that they're doing any better in terms of governing muslims. the one thing that they have going for them is the baghdad government. sunnis have no place else to go because, frankly, i haven't seen much improvement withal badly. maliki was terrible, but the sunnis still look at the baghdad government as shiite and basically sectarian. we've had, you know massacres of sunnis by shia militia groups here recently.

i mean i think that has more to do with the fact that sunnis are unwilling to break away from al-baghdadi and isil than it does that they're governing better. am i missing something? is there some evidence that they're not doing the same sort of violation against their vzs -- violence against their citizens that al-qaeda in iraq did before? or the taliban did, for that matter? >> ranking member smith if i may, thank you for the question. i think the biggest difference is that they're, they are governing. even if they're governing poorly, most of the al-qaeda and it associated movement have never really tried to establish formal governance -- >> that's a separate point. we're talking a little bit about what al-qaeda in iraq -- al-qaeda in iraq did control territory before the anbar awakening, and they did run shadow governments. taliban did as well. so where they have gored was the -- governed was the comparison. and in that sense are they are they doing better than the taliban did or some of these

al-qaeda in iraq folks did? >> perhaps one metric would be the flow of foreign fighters into iraq and syria. manager about the way they are -- something about the way they are portraying their governance of iraq and syria is inspiring the largest number of foreign fighters to flow into the region. i think it's because they are, quote-unquote, lewing up to the -- living up to the righteous values they espouse. they're not compromising. they're seen as uncompromising. they're purifying islam these kinds of macho terms. and while it's horrific stuff for the base, as dr. lynch mentioned, it's a rallying call. and they're calling muslims to build the institutions of the caliphate, to take part in this project of reestablishing a religious-political empire. and that's empowering even if the means by which they're governing is appalling. and it's seen as, for some, a more appealing alternative than, like as you mentioned, the

maliki government in baghdad. >> yeah. and one final point on guantanamo, the conversation back and forth about that. i don't -- i would not take seriously any arguments that says we don't need to detain enemies. we do. the question is, do we need to detain them at guantanamo? nor would i argue where the point that, look, you're not going to close guantanamo and have, you know the violent islamic extremists and go, okay we're good. i understand that. but it is not necessary is it to detain them at guantanamo? i mean, the entire reason that guantanamo was set up was the belief that maybe we could somehow sidestep habeas corpus, but the supreme court has shut that down. is will any reason that we couldn't take these people, as we have in many instances and detain them here in the united states? >> so we definitely need to be able to capture because if we only kill, that to me, is a moral problem. >> got that.

where? >> so, you know when you look at prior to 2003, there were many nonafghans -- non-afghans detained in afghanistan. so, you know, i'm not going to argue with you where because i think we have to decide, we have the make that decision. but to be able to do tactical interrogation -- >> i got all that. that wasn't my question. >> we can't -- if we bring them into the united states and they get read their habeas corpus rights, that stops the process of being able to get the kind of information that you can get through very professionally-done interrogations. >> i'm telling you i've got to tell you, i've heard that argument a thousand times. >> i have been involved in thousands of interrogation operations to be able to get to that point. >> so you're telling me that every law enforcement person in the u.s. every fbi agent gets no useful intelligence out of anybody that they capture in because once they mirandize them, it's over, and they can't get information out of them. >> it's a lot slower.

and i have been on both sides of it. >> [inaudible] >> ranking member, i've billion on both sides of it -- i've been on both sides of it. and it doesn't mean we can't have professional law enforcement representatives involved in the process -- >> right. >> -- from from a detention-interrogation process. >> i disagree with you on the fact that somehow miranda instantaneously shuts off the gathering of information. but putting that point aside, there's no reason that, you know as we've done with some other people i mean, you have to do that in guantanamo too. >> true. >> the same things apply in both places. so i guess the central question is there's no reason we couldn't do the same thing here in the u.s. that we do in guantanamo. guantanamo does not give us any particular detention advantage. >> you just have to make sure that -- you know there's a timeliness issue, and you have to make sure the concerns are set for that. again, that's a legislative to executive discussion about if we bring them into the united states, what does that mean

legally? i'm not a lawyer don't know that. but i know there's probably going to be a different set of conditions when we wring them inside -- bring them inside the united states because we don't have designated combat zones anymore. >> [inaudible] >> wherever they go, we have to be able to capture these individuals -- >> i agree. >> -- to be able to get the intelligence out of them. >> there's no difference at this point between guantanamo and the u.s. i yield back. >> mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. interesting discussion about guantanamo. and i, i absolutely in my home area we have the largest federal prison ever, and i would just suggest when you detain these folks whether it's gitmo or in the u.s. that's the issue. that's going to be the issue to the bad guys and their associated friends and fellows. so i think it's -- i agree with the general. when you bring them back to the u.s. being a former law enforcement officer, it just

creates a whole bunch of other issues that we have not had to deal with when they're held at gitmo. one thing i'm struggling with with the president's request for an authorization -- and you sit on the -- [inaudible] what would that look like? i guess that's where i'm struggling. what does a clear comprehensive strategy look like in regards to dealing with the issue that we have in front of us? because, you know we had the king of jordan here, and his comprehensive strategy is you can't just look at isis or isil you've got to look at it across the world in regards to islamic extremism. >> so, i mean, we've talked about this business about clearly defining the enemy and making sure that it's comprehensive. and i think those are sort of two parts of this, and you've just addressed certainly the second one. i think the third one is that we

have to really take a hard look at how we are organized as a nation to deal with the sort of tactical problem of what's happening in iraq and syria, but we also have to look at how we're organized as a nation to deal with the wider, longer-term problem of this radical version of islam. and that's and, you know, specifically it's the department of defense it's, you know the department of state, the central intelligence agency and the intelligence community as it supports our national interests and then i think we have to look at how we're organized internationally. and i've really, you know, i i use the nato model as a model although it's got its, you know shortcomings. but we need to have some sort of arab world/nato, if you will like structure and not deal with each one of these countries as though they're individual countries dealing with individual problems. they're all dealing with those kinds of problems. and i do think we need to put

somebody in charge of it. i think we need to designate someone in charge that has not only the backing of this country and the full line of authority from the president of the united states to execute authorities and it's probably civilian led, but somebody with that kind of gravitas, i guess, but also a international accepted to run this -- internationally accepted to run this campaign. should it be somebody from the u.s.? i believe it should be somebody from the u.s. doesn't mean we have to have large numbers of boots on the ground. it just means we have to come together, organize ourselves first, make sure that we are organized correctly internationally and then make sure that somebody's in charge of this effort and then frankly, tell the american public that this is going to last for generations. i mean, this is not something that's going to go away. >> to the other panelists -- >> and the aumf is not that. it's only a component. >> right. and that's, i think the mistake that people -- >> right. >> -- that it is a comprehensive

strategy. it is just part of the tool kit in regards to it. to the other panelists in regards to a comprehensive strategy, do you think today today at this point in time that we have of a comprehensive strategy? today? mr. lynch? >> no, i don't. i think that we have we did a very good job, i i think, of assembling a coalition and stopping the immediate crisis, and now's the time when we need to formulate that long-term strategy. i think your question is exactly right. in terms of your specific question about what that strategy might look like i mean, i could repeat the things i said before -- >> i appreciate that. >> i don't need to say all that but what i want to emphasize and second and third something general flynn said. if we are going to have any success in dealing with isil and with extremism in the middle east, we have to make sure that our allies are on the same page as we are. because they've been as much the problem as the solution. >> absolutely. >> extraordinarily destructive in syria and abusive of human rights. and so a comprehensive strategy,

i think, has to have that component of political reforms and everything else or else it's just spitting into the wind. >> mr. braniff? >> i think thus far we've been dealing with issues at an ad hoc basis in part because of the ip stability associated with the arab spring and frankly, it was a pretty tumultuous two years. any strategy has to -- >> comprehensive strategy, do we have one though today? do you believe? >> no i think al-qaeda and isil have pulled us into the realm of nonstate actors where we're forced to operate in extrajudicial terms, and we should try to push this back into the international system where, again, we have those rules working for our favor. >> thank you much. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. langevin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here in particular general flynn a fellow rhode islander. general, welcome back before the committee, and thank you for your years of service.

so i'd like to -- probably the question would be for dr. lynch and also for general flynn, whoever goes first. i would clearly this rise of radical violent extremists didn't happen overnight. it was allowed to fester in many ways. in many ways the religious community for whatever reason, as i understand it, was allowed to preach hate and violence, and a lot of the leaders in the middle east kind of looked the other way for whatever reason. so kind of took a long time to get here, it's going to take a long time to get out of it. but let me ask you, do the statements from, for example presidential al-sisi -- president al-sisi in egypt which i found surprising but welcome, a welcome statement when he spoke to the religious community there or establishing sunni imams in the middle east who have denounced isil or

islamic extremism more broadly, do they moderate or, you know counter the nature of the grievances and the threat from jihadists in the region, or are these steps having the reverse effect of reinforcing the jihadist ideology and grievance narrative? can you comment on that? >> i think it's a fantastic question, thank you. i think that the issue with statements like those by generallal sissy is he doesn't --al sis i is he doesn't have the standing to release those because when he's putting ten of thousands of political dissidents in jail it's difficult for him to say, oh you must be moderate, and you must participate in the political system. it gets back exactly to the conversation we were having a moment ago about the need to understand that if you want to have leaders who are capable of making -- leaders in the middle east who are capable of making

the kinds of statements that you and i would very much like to see, they need to have the standing from which to do so. the saudis have been in a very difficult position on this, the egyptians have been in a very difficult position, and so the tradition alleyeders of the arab world are not in a strong position right now to make the kinds of moves for moderation and against extremism that we need to see. >> so real quickly, this was, this shift in the strengthening of this ideology started well before 9/11. nerve just brought it to the fore -- 9/11 just brought it to the fore. it just showed how dedicated and how long term their vision is of what it is that they believe. and i believe that president al-sisi's remarks back in the late december/january time frame, he was talking to the egyptian people as much as he was talking to the arab world. and we should not lose sight of

that. so despite the challenges that egypt faces internally to try to get back to a sense of stability and security we need leaders like that, frankly more of 'em around the arab world that are willing to step up and say the kinds of things that he said that took a lot of courage. but he also knows he also knows that he has to change inside of their own system just in egypt alone to be able to get the people to sort of come back around to be more moderate. and they're dealing with some very -- they're dealing with al-qaeda and they're dealing with elements of a radical version of the muslim brotherhood in that country. so i was very heartened when i heard president al-sisi come out and make those remarks. >> yep. so are there things that we can focus on in our strategy to help encourage that kind of moderation? but let me ask you also given that there are certain actors in the region such as uae and

jordan among others who appear to be supporting u.s. interests, how should the united states support and organize these partners in the region to serve as potentially moderating influences within the greater middle east? >> thank you congressman. so i think one thing we can do can, we know that the u.s. government is gun shy to talk about what is moderate islam and what should islam be and other leaders in the muslim world don't always have the credibility to talk about moderating us lam and have that, actually -- islam and have that actually, carry authority. one thing leaders can do is try to collectively decrease the social legitimacy of violence. it's lowering that threshold that sparks sort of revulsion against terrorist organizes so that they step over that line more quickly. and this is something that i think we can do collectively. >> let me add one other comment and that has to do with the rule of law. i think that's probably a

strategic advantage this country has. not so much democracy but the idea of rule of law. so people are governed by norms and behaviors that are acceptable internationally. and i think that that's a problem in this part of the world right now. >> thank you all a. i yield back. >> as you all know, they've called votes. i think we'll have time probably to get two more folks in. mr. cook? >> thank you, mr. chairman. general flynn, first of all, i notice you went to university of rhode island. first land grant university in the country established by abraham lincoln, actually, blushed that law. >> i know. but my daughter went there and my son-in-law. i just want to know why the out-of-state tuition is so high. [laughter] >> i defer to my colleague. >> going back to dr. hecht's question about the airfield which is in the news right now and everything else. and i think a lot of us are

wondering whether this is a symbolic thing in terms of a targeting in terms of mortars and indirect fire weapons because of fact that there's marines there, a chance to embarrass marines as you know. fallujah, i think, was a major major political propaganda victory for them because of the number of soldiers, sailors and marines that were killed in that city. and i'm trying to see if you had a take on whether psychologically that would be a huge victory if, you know, they had tremendous casualties or what have you. and that's the number one press story, i think always. can you comment on that? and secondly, i want you to address our lack of human intelligence. i know you talked about feedback and prisoners but thank you. >> yeah. so the fact that this tactical

action by isis is going on right now in, essentially the village or town of baghdadi is a strategic victory for them. it's definitely a strategic information victory for them. and they're very close into al assad. i've been there a number of times, we operated out of there very effectively. if i were those marines in there, i would, you know, be looking to make sure that we are absolutely within -- that we have the rules of engagement very clearly understood to be able to deal with anything that happens against those perimeters of that particular base. what i would love to see, i would love to see an unleashing of some iraqi force with the support of our u.s. marines to go after and retake that little village. because that would be doable. and it would be something that the iraqis could actually do with the support of our u.s.

marine forces that are in al assad. in terms of human we lack the kind of human intelligence that we need, that we used to have actually pretty, you know, we developed it over time, but we don't have that kind of level that we need today. and interrogations is actually a part of that. >> since i've still got two minutes, i just wanted -- you talked about the plans and everything like that, used to be a plans officer 100 years ago. and we're talking about the budget and everything else. one of my big targets is the tempo of ops compared with -- it's just out of control. you know you've got to do this this, this and this. we used to have a vault with all the op plans in it and everything else. i'm wondering are we out of control? we have a brigade for this, we have a squadron for this. we just don't have enough military forces to go around for all the commitments and if you could briefly comment on that. >> right. we do not. we do not have -- if you look at

the menu that the national security strategy currently is in terms of the layout of threats around the world and particularly this problem we're face right now our military is so stretched thin and frankly underresourced and not trained to the level that we would expect them to be, that the american public would expect them to be at. and the sequestration, and you all know this, is going -- is just choking the readiness of the united states military. we need to decide what kind of military do we want to have given the threats that we face. and right now it's grown it's gotten too small, and if we continue down this path it's going to get even smaller. and that's that's a danger to you our national security. so -- >> thank you for your service. i yield back. >> mr. scott. finish. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. i'll try to be brief. general lynch, i want to go to one of the statements that you made about the fact that terrorism is ebbing and flowing

we shouldn't pay too much attention to it, that's just going to happen the way the middle east is, if you will. i'd like to have of this submitted for the prodder and wonder if you've seen this. this is the intelligence assessment from 2004 to 2014. in 2004 we were dealing with 21 total terrorist groups in 18 total countries and today we're dealing with 41 terrorist groups in 24 countries. certainly respect your opinion and agree with it on many things but i would suggest that's more than an ebb and flow, that is a significant growth in an ideology that's dangerous total -- to the world. what would you assess the population of the islamic extremists or terrorists, whatever we want to call them, in iraq to be? the total number of them? >> thank you congressman. i want to clarify. when i was talking about ebb and flow, i was talking about civil

war dynamics, not terrorism. i was talking about the battle -- the fighting on the ground in syria specifically. is i'm sorry about that confusion. >> and for the record, you know, the u.s. working to undermine assad and move him out i've read some of your statements on -- i personally hi the u.s -- think the u.s. made a mistake. and when we undermine those leaders in those countries, we end up creating a vacuum that allows these extremist groups to expand. i've read some of your statements there. but the total number for iraq if you would. >> right. i just wanted to clarify that pause the ebb and flow was really about the civil wars and the question of whether we should have gone after assad is a question for another day. if you go country by country, you get wildly different estimates. for example there's an islamic state affiliate supposedly in algeria which might have 20 people in it. >> if i can, but, look -- >> so in iraq what i would say is -- that was your specific question. >> yes, sir. >> you might have something

along the lines of what would you say bill, you know maybe 5,000? dedicated isis or isil fighters combined with a whole set of local forces who have aligned -- >> let's use that number. i'm trying to move fast because i want to give my colleague the opportunity to ask her questions as well. how many fighting-age men are in that country? >> ooh good question. 17 million maybe? 15 million? >> let's -- okay. >> but those are kurd, sunnis and shiite. this far if you're talking only about sunni community -- >> here's my point and this is what i want to come back to you on general. if there are 5,000 islamic extremist terrorists, whatever we want to call them, inside a country that has five million fighting-age men, no be matter what battle we win if we get the rules of engagement right they've got -- if they are moderates, that's a 50,000 to 1

margin. and if 50,000 to 1 isn't enough of an advantage then what is? so this is where, this is why so many people in our part of the world identify this as islam. because, clearly 50,000 could overrun one if they wanted to. general flynn my question for you specifically, if we get the rules of engagement right -- which i certainly don't trust the president on -- but if we get the rules of engagement right, there's no doubt in my mind that we can win any battle over there. finish but if, but if they in iraq have a 50,000 to 1 margin versus the islamic terrorists and they can't control that, what good can we do? >> yeah. so i was asked a question back in 2002 when i was fors in afghanistan -- when i was first in afghanistan, and i was asked how many enemy are we facing in

afghanistan at that time 2002. this was the april/may time frame 2002 and i said we're looking at about 35,000. the next question was, okay, so if we kill or capture all 35,000, can we go home, do we win? my next part of that answer was no because there's another half a million on the other side of the border in this place called the fatah. so it's the same sort of analogy today. we can capture and kill all day long, but until we with deal with, you know, these others that are there these other millions or whatever that number is, we're going to be at this a long time. and that's why the military component of this makes us feel good when we do something we kill somebody, we get a leader, but it's all the others that are there, you know, ready to join this movement and fight against our value system. and that's just something that we're going to have to -- that's the wider strategy. >> and that's where with i think training and equipping and sporting our allies disturb supporting our allies becomes --

>> exactly. across the region. >> absolutely. >> ms. mcsally, i think we've got time for a couple questions if you'd like to go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. a lot of my questions have been answered. quick question about trends in africa. i was a part of the team at u.s. africa command running current operations there, and just your comments. we've talked a little bit about boko haram, but aqam and al-shabaab and the trends you're seeing with those organizations and, you know, plenty of ungoverned spaces that are potentially seeing foreign fighters flow in and out in the past when many people weren't paying attention. so any comments on the trends going on in the rest of those organizations on the african continent. >> well, i would -- i'll defer to bill on a lot of the details. the one thing i will talk about is libya and the effect that that's having. i think you are seeing the e emergence of what looks like an islamic state affiliate in libya. it's a completely ungoverned

space and it's now a zell war, total polarization, and that's having destabilizing effects on both and west. egyptians are worried about it tunisians are very worried about it so, basically the lesson is you get the collapse of the state, and it opens the space for these groups. so i'm very worried about libya for all kinds of reasons, but that's one of them. >> great thank. >> briefly because i know bill has something to offer on this as well, the negative is it is rapidly growing. okay? it's getting worse. particularly in those couple areas you just talked about. and the other part is, as marc just highlighted the brachdown of the nation-state -- >> right. >> -- or the order of the nation-state, if you will, in parts of that region. the positive is that there are countries that understand it and are trying to come to grips with it and that's more down in the, you know, there's a number of them, these seven, i think it's seven countries that are trying

to work against boko haram that have come together. there's some economies there particularly down in the central and southern part of africa that are good mod e els for the rest of africa. but the size of the population in the 15-30-year-old category of young men that have nothing better to do than to join these groups is probably the fastest growing population demographic on the planet today. >> exactly. great, thank you. and i yield back. i know we've got to go vote. thanks mr. chairman. thank you for your time. >> thank the gentlelady, and thank you all for being here. as many topics as we got to today, we didn't see -- i'm sorry, did you have something you wanted to add on that last point, mr. braniff in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. al-shabaab conducted twice as many attacks in the first nine months of 2014 as they did in all of 2013. boko haram will likely be the most or the second most lethal terrorist organization in 2014 when we finalize our data. although they're not the most

active in terms of number of attacks which means they're unfortunately, quite efficient in creating fatalities per attack. and, of course, we just saw their first attack in chad a day or so ago and continued attacks in cameroon. and there's another group in nigeria that's among the ten most active groups of 2014, a group associated with the fulan tribes. and so what we're seeing is increased levels of terrorist attacks and fatal the cities both in -- fatalities both in west africa and east africa associate with al-shabaab and a lot of fluidity in north africa. >> thank you. and i think it is helpful to have some objective measurements to gauge these things. they don't tell us the whole story, but they do enable us to compare trends. the other topic we didn't really get to today which i the we need to understand -- i think we need

to understand better is this competition among groups. you alluded to it. we didn't quite have a chance to get to it, but i think that is a very significant factor that we have not fully explored. we did get to a number of things begun. i apologize, we're getting cut short a little bit because of votes, but i appreciate each of you being here and assisting the committee, and with that the hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> president barack obama says the idea that a terrorist group like the islamic state represents islam the rehiggs is a, quote, falsehood that quote, all of us have a responsibility to refute. the president speaking today at the closing session of a white house summit on violent extremism with delegates from 65 countries. here's a portion of his comments.

>> these terrorists are desperate for legitimacy, and all of us have a respondent to refute -- a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like isil somehow represent islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative. at the same time we must acknowledge that groups like al-qaeda and isil are deliberately targeting their propaganda to muslim communities, particularly muslim youth. muslim communities including scholars and clerics therefore have a responsibility to push back not just on twisted interpretations of islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations, that america and the west are somehow at war with islam or seek to suppress muslims or that we are the cause of every ill in the middle east.

that narrative sometimes extends far beyond terror organizations. that narrative becomes the foundation upon which terrorists build their ideology and by which they try to justify their violence. and that hurts all of us including islam and especially muslims who are the ones most likely to be killed. obviously, there is a complicated history between the middle east, the west and none of us, i think, should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies. but the notion that the west is at war with islam is an ugly lie. and all of us regardless of our faith, have a respondent to reject it. -- have a responsibility to reject it.

at the same time former extremists have the opportunity to speak out speak the truth about terrorist groups, and often times they can be powerful messengers in debunking these terrorist ideologies. one said this wasn't what we came for to kill other muslims. those voices have to be amplified. and governments have a role to may. at minimum as a basic first step countries have a responsibility to cut off funding that fuels hatred and corrupts young minds and endangers us all. we need to do more to help lift up voices of tolerance and peace, especially online. ask that's why the -- and that's why the united states is joining, for example with the

uae to create a new digital communications hub to work with religious and civil society and community leaders to counter terrorist propaganda. within the u.s. government, our efforts will be led by our new coordinator or counterterrorism communications, and i'm ooh grateful to my envoy, rashad hussain, has agreed to serve in this new role. the united states will do more to help counter hateful ideologies, and today i urge your nations to join us in this urgent work. >> senate armed services committee chair john mccain immediately reacted to the president's comments today saying in a tweet quote: the notion that radical islam isn't at war with the west is an ugly lie. and senator bob corker's in the middle east this week. he tweeted out that he's traveled to kuwait iraq and turkey to express u.s. support and get a firsthand look at efforts to defeat isis.

we'll likely get a review from thend -- the tennessee republican when he gets back. state department spokeswoman jon sake will be replacing obama's -- jen sack by where she'll be replacing jennifer palmieri who's leaving to join hillary rodham clinton's likely presidential campaign. she helped craft the president's message during the first term, and by the way, the state department briefing getting underway momentarily on c-span.org. between while form -- meanwhile, former officials will be having a discussion on countering terrorism including groups like isis afternoon. bob schieffer of cbs news will moderate the conversation, and we'll have live coverage at 5:30 eastern. and that three-day counterterrorism conference with delegates from around the world wraps up at 5:45 eastern when national security adviser susan rice provides the closing remarks on building global partnerships against terrorist

groups such as eye a sis. she'll be -- isis. she'll be introduced by the attorney general eric holder and that's live on c-span. the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we've partnered with time warner cable for a visit to greensboro, north carolina. >> and after months and months of cleaning the house charles halpern -- who had been given that task -- was making one more walk-through. and in the attic, he looked over, and he saw an envelope with kind of a green seal on it and walked over. he noticed the date was an 1832 document. he removed a single nail from a panel in an upstairs attic room and discovered a trunk and books and portraited stuffed up under eaves, and this was this treasure of dolley madison's things. we've had this story available

to the public displaying different items from time to time, but trying to include her life story from her birth in gilford county to her death in 1849. some of the items that we currently have on display, are card i'vely calling card case -- ivory calling card case that has a card enclosed with dolley's signature as well as that of her niece, anna. some small cut glass more fume bottles and a pair of silk slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arch of her foot. and the two dresses are the reproductions of a silk, peach silk gown that she wore early in life and a red velvet gown which has inagreeinged both that it's -- intrigued both that it's lasted and there's now a legend that also accompanies this

dress. >> watch all of our events from groans borrow -- greensboro saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 ice booktv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> up next a discussion on governance and leadership in the world from the united states to europe to asia. it's part of a conference hosted by the rand corporation called set politics aside. speakers include author francis fukuyama and former fdic banking regulator sheila bair. this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> well, hello and welcome back. i'm michael rich, i'm president and ceo of the rand corporation. the focus of the last session of course, was the middle east foreign policy more generally there also. the middle east, of course, is a

region several hundred million people hardly any democracies in that region. in fact authoritarian states, teetering states vanishing states an increasing amount of ungoverned territories. in this hour we're going to shift our focus to places that on the surface seem stable, secure, even prosperous, but the question is are they? and will they be up to the challenges of the new century? it's an appropriate time, of course, to take a up questions like this. it's the 25th anniversary i think, this month or this week of the opening of the berlin wall. this year, 25th anniversary of the proit'ses the democracy protests in tiananmen square. in fact, 1989 there was a wave of democratic transitions beginning in eastern europe obviously, latin america asia

even africa. liberal democracy and free market capitalism seem to have prevailed in that great battle of ideologies over various forms of totalitarianism that at least one of our panelists has written about. in fact, that was frank fukuyama to my left. he wrote an essay here at rand in fact right across the hall from me entitled "have we reached the end of history." ultimately a very famous book. the original rand paper, which i still have has a question mark at the end. [laughter] it was the end of history and i noticed that over time as it went from paper to article to book, the question mark was dropped. [laughter] we may ask him about that. but i read that frank recently said that the year 2014 feels different than 1989, and how true that is. russia, of course, now has become an electoral

authoritarian regime. it seeks to take back territory that it lost when the soviet union dissolved. china has an economy that rivals ours but remains authoritarian. the transition to democracy or the transition of the path to democracy in many countries has proven now anything but smooth or straight. in the united states, we've, of course, experienced a prolonged recession, gridlock no end in sight to that, declining confidence in our public officials and our public institutions. and in europe we see an incomplete union which nicholas has written about succession movements -- secession movements and economic stagnation. so, hence, the need for fresh approaches to governance and leadership, and that's the theme for this session. and i think we've got almost a perfect panel to address this. let me introduce them briefly. frank fukuyama, rand trustee,

three or four-time alumnus, i can't remember, of the research staff here. he's the author of many rand reports and best-selling books including the two-volume set on political order and political decay that we're going to get into today. second volume of this set has just been published. sheila bair is to frank's left, also a rand trustee. sheila chaired the systemic risk council and because -- and was chairman of the fdic from 2006 through 2011, critical time. she's the author of "bull by the horns: fighting to save main street from wall street and wall street from itself," but she has another book coming out. it'll come out this next spring. that will explain the financial crisis and its implications for young adults. and its titles is "the bullies of wall street: this is how greedty adults messed up our -- greedy adults messed up our economy." [laughter] i told she'll that she's -- sheila she's made it easy for

reviewers with that title. [laughter] nicholas berggruen is next, philanthropist founder of the berggruen institute on governance, and he's launched several government reform products including these three; the 21st century council focused on global governance options, g20-type structures the council for the future of europe and, importantly for residents of california, the think long committee for california. he's co-author of a book with nathan gardells. and then simon sinek is to my far left. simon's an anthropologist who advises leaders in business, government the nonprofit sector on issues related to leadership, and you'll see how i think there's a very close tie-in to the subjects we're going to discuss. he does work with rand as well as one of our adjunct researchers. he's contributing to our research on leadership issues

for the american military. author of several bestsellers and a frequent speaker here at rand. so frank has done a lot of research probably more research and analysis on the causes of political decay, more thinking about the problems plaguing modern liberal democratses than just -- democracies than just about anybody i know. nicholas' book contains some of the most intriguing ideas for fixing the breaks in democracies, taking ideas -- as the title suggests -- from east to west and he's putting some of them to the test here in california. few people have thought more about the shortcomings of financial institutions than sheila, and in the end i think it all boils down to the competence and leadership qualities of the individuals in the institutions that we have, and nobody better than simon on the quality of leadership and leaders. so let me start with frank. frank, you have gone a long way back in history, collected

experiences from around the globe, many continents. what does an effective, modern state, a liberal democracy need to endure? and you list the ingredients -- can you list the ingredients, and what is causing the decay in those institutions that we're seeing? >> well, thank you, michael. so this is a really important issue because the difference between 25 years ago when i wrote that original article and now is that back then i think most people around the world would have looked to the united states as the model of an effective democracy. and i think very few people would say that. i mean, new democracies are not saying yes, we want to replicate everything that's going on in washington with the shutdown and, you know refusing to pay back your previous debts and this sort of thing. so it's an important thick for global poll -- thing for global politics. so in my view, a modern political order has to have three things. it's got to have a state which is about power and the ability

to use power to enforce laws and provide services protect the community, but it's also got to constrain power, it's got to have a rule of law which basically sets rules for the powerful. if it doesn't set the rules for the president and the prime minister and the king, it's really not the rule of law. and then finally, there has to be democratic accountability which makes sure that the government acts in the interest of the whole community and not just the ruling elite. and i think americans have a problem in perceiving the world because, in a sense, the american system is built around the instruments of constraint, around law and democracy. that's what we think of when we think about our political system. we don't think about the state part of it very much. but as my mentor, samuel huntington said: before you can constrain power, you have to have an effective administration. and that ooh's, i think -- that's i think where we've got a big problem. so my tight know sis of our

situation, it's a collision of several things. >> can i just interject for a second frank because i want to ask nicholas whether his definition of intelligent governance is close to those three ingredients that frank just listed. >> frank is probably the greatest thinker, one of the greatest thinkers living today in terms of understanding governance and governments. so whatever he says, he's right. [laughter] >> all right, i'll go on. >> but to address one of the key issues here of government, as frank says, it's power. but government is really there at the end of day to serve the public. it really has a function. this function is one of maybe

control, direction but also service. and the issue that at least we see at the institute is that the service part at least in democracies and very much in the has become too politicized. so you have to be able to sort of separate the political side, where do we want to go morally, ideologically, but also a the government service the bureaucracy needs to be there really to make things function make sure that, you know people have tons, that they're safe that there's, you know a future for every one of the individuals, and that has to be depoliticized. and i think the issue we have in the u.s. and a lot of other places -- and that's why a reform is so difficult in democracies, is that it's become much too politicized. >> okay, let me now -- with that basis, let me return to frank and let you complete your

diagnosis, because maybe you now agree with nicholas. [laughter] >> no, i think that's a different way of saying, i think, what i was saying. you actually have to have a competent executive and administration. and i think the problem we're in right now is that -- so everybody's aware of polarization. right now the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat. that's something that's been or measured very cleary by political scientists -- clearly by political scientists. of that's just a fact of life. there's also a huge group of growth of interest groups, well organized, well funded. supreme court has now said money is a form of free speech and so money in politics makes much, much more difference than it used to. now, these by themselves would not be a problem but for the institutional structure of our country. founding fathers were interested in maximizing liberty. they're intensely suspicious of strong centralized power, so they created a very complex system of checks and balances in

which different parts of the government checked other parts of the government. but unfortunately when you bring in this together with polarization and with powerful interest groups, it leads to what i've labeled a vetocracy where it is extremely easy for well organized, small minorities to block things that are in a broader public interest. that's why we've got this absurd tax code that goes to thousands of page, it's basically a collection of special privileges. i would say that's kind of a pipe fascia case for decay. >> well, it's a good lead-in actually to a question i wanted to ask sheila because one of the changes that's to occurred is that the economic and financial institutions that government is also responsible for governing regulating overseeing are now much larger much more complex,

much more international. and, la, how in your -- sheila, how in your experience does that sort of trend complicate the governance challenge for modern democracies? >> well, it complicates it a lot. and i think a lot of the cynicism and disillusionment we're seeing now and the lack of trust, i thought edwomen rogers spoke about eloquently i think a lot of it stems from the the breakdown of the regulatory system which led to the crisis and the baleouts which ensued that held people responsible for the mess to begin with. so i think it did create a lot of cynicism and lost faith in government. but i think we can get that back but we're not doing a very good job right now. again, getting back to edmund rogers' remarks earlier today which i think to be an effective public servant, that's why we're calling servants. we do serve the public. and agencies like the nsa or the

fdic or whatever should not be about political purpose or advancement. they should provide a service. he had a very clear understanding of what his agency did; it was to protect the u.s. public against foreign threats and gather intelligence to that end. i'm happy for him to look at telephone records. i know that a person like that and people who work for a perp like that will know exactly what to do and not to do with that kind of information. but we don't have that kind of strong sense of public purpose i think, with a lot of the the leaders of the government agencies that we have now. or if they do, they don't publicly articulate it. they need to talk to the public and explain to them what they're doing and why they're doing it. ..

so frank and nicholas have outlined in different ways by think in sort of quite common ground the ingredients for an effective set of institutions. simon, what are the ingredients for an effective leader of an institution of the sort they have been talking about? >> first and foremost, leadership is nothing to do with rank. authority comes with rank. there are many people sit at the highest levels of an organization who have authority but they are not leaders. they tell us because they have

authority over us we wouldn't follow the. and built on the people who sit at low levels of organizations that have no authority to give me the choice. this is the leadership is. is the choice to look after those around you. as you can more authority of the opportunity to look after more people. this is where we trust in our leaders is we as social animals responding to the environment we're in, take the people, put them in a bad apartment, they're capable of bad things. the trust in our leaders is the belief it's the human intuition as social animals that our leaders have our interests in mind. which is why we would devote to them all for our blood, sweat and tears and willingly and probably help build their vision. when we have the belief that the other own interests in mind around that they would sacrifice our lives to protect their insurance which is even worse then we keep our walls up and keep a safe distance. the reason we don't trust

politicians because the we may agree with the words that come out of their mouths, we know they don't believe all the words that come out of their mouths. so keep a safe distance but it goes to the very primal reaction which is can i falsely but i do trust this person will watch for danger? can i turn my back and trust this person will not stand me? if there's any doubt then trust the case and self-interest prevails. >> nicolas, you've thought a lot about what we might do to change our system here in the united states. can you tell us a bit about the path we should least consider going down to fix some of these problems? >> well, i mean, it's a complex problem and you can't, not a simple recipe. i go back to what i said before. i apologize for that but sort of, part of what kirwan institute is service and that

should be depoliticized. at the same time citizens have to approve of their government so there should -- they should have the last word. there should be some separation or some difference between serving citizens and giving the power and the responsibility to serve the people who may be we like. tenacity some difference. and to your point of leadership the question is somebody may look good and be a good leader and be popular, but may not be the best administrator. we have to be able to make that difference. and government has to come on one side be able to attract people who are willing to lead and inspire and on the other hand, there has to be an organization that is capable asked to be able to attract people for that. i would say what is interesting

is, i'd love to get feelers beyond this, is government in the u.s. and his government and a lot of western countries able to really attract the best people? isn't prestigious, rewarding, exciting to be in government so does government affect the best people? i was loosing before in countries that are less rich than this one, he is saying, governments have to pay more to get better people. i think in this country maybe that's also true but there has to be prestige. that has to be recognition that comes with serving government. and that i think that has been lost and so you get the best people. if you don't get the best people you're not going to get the best service. >> very true. it is a problem that feeds into so because of people get relentlessly bashed in the

press, the want to go into that, or is it becomes more dysfunctional. the want to go into government if you can't get things done? or even worse, getting good people and you people want his government, to curry favor. that's not what you want. i think it's a real problem. and i think again you want to attract people are committed to serving the public interest defined by cars, elected officials, protecting and sure depositors, whether it's national security, whether it's fair collection of the tax code you need to identify with the public purpose and i want that job for that reason and not for other reasons. again i think it's important your comment also about public service, especially the political heads not only being good administrative. that is a real issue as well. better management and better

business skills. i think there's been a slow recognition of that. if we can't, you can of people who know how to defend their agency, execute operationally their agency in a way that is professional if you need to get up to explain to people what you are doing and why you're doing it. that's help with staff morale, helps you attract people. red an incredibly good people at ftse because people submitted to the crisis. i don't think anyone had good crisis of folks identify with the service we are providing and wanted to be a part of that. you need to have common statute is only thing you can compete with. especially financial services you can never compete on a compensation basis. i did want people looking for multimillion salaries working out the ftse because that's fun, go make money -- fdic. that's not what you want to drive the folks that you -- you

want them paid fairly and hopefully its highest interest comecomply to join and why they won't do a good job for you. >> i was going to make a comment and frank may disagree with me but when 25 years ago when the wall fell in berlin and after, you know as you see the end of history and other important papers and books, who would have, 25 years ago, which he predicted that today you would have more countries that have become hocrisy is a supposed two democracies? >> that's not true. >> i mean come in terms of the large companies -- countries becoming more say russia turkey, india have --

>> military dictatorship back then. >> but in terms of governance they have become you could say almost a little bit less democratic versus not. >> i do disagree. i mean there are about 35 electoral democracies in 1970 and depend on how you defined it its like 110-114 right now. there's been a huge increase in the number of democracies. >> maybe i'm wrong, but maybe 10 years or so. there's been a shift -- >> there's been regression. >> i'm sorry but i've met over the last let's say 10 years. >> in fairness he did say you might disagree with him last night. >> -- [laughter] >> sort. the point osha and mandate is the reason why think some of getting more traction is maybe they are perceived by their citizens right or wrong, to be more effective. and the citizens of some of

these countries, including china or so have seen their government in some ways perform. the issue we have in democracy is that our governments are seen to be maybe less able to perform and to change. that's really my point. so my point is not so much about a system. i'm not saying that system is better or not. i'm saying there's a perception by letting by a government that is more effective, citizens at the end of going to be better served, and that makes -- >> i'm looking for a point of entry to start changing the situation. so what i've heard so far is that we have a set of public institutions that are not professional confident, service oriented, that one problem is that the human capital in these institutions isn't as strong and

appropriately motivated as it should be at all levels as simon pointed out. one reason for that is the polarization in congress which has led to gridlock over complexity of regulations and so on. and yet congress is elected by the very citizens that should be the consumers of the services. i was in scotland this summer around, just before the referendum. there was very little publicity about campaign publicity, no billboards hardly any bumper stickers or signs. the turnout in that election, 84.5%. in 2012 when president obama was reelected, the turnout here was 58% of the electorate. we had a race for mayor of los angeles, second largest city in the united states, last year 16% of the registered voter turnout. how do we fix that problem?

>> well, is that australia where -- you get fined if you don't vote. >> a modest fine. >> what it does is it says it's your civic duty, you know? i think there's something to be said can i get a kick out of our politicians who think they're given a mandate when they get a percentage of the percent. isn't a mandate these people didn't vote? [laughter] i think the thing that fascinates me is why the polarization right? it's not yes we are polarized. i had conversation with a member. i congratulated her for the 9% approval rating and ask her what do you think the reason is? and she says it's the system. and i said, you do realize you are the system? so i think one of the things that fascinates me is why the polarization and if you think

about what makes functional organizations functional, it goes back to trust relationships. just good old-fashioned human relationships. some damage was done when newt gingrich implement some of the policies of the contract with america. one of the things he said was leave washington and go back to your district. there was a time that when you want a state and national office come in federal office you move your whole family to washington. you sat in the bleachers with your opposition at night and watched your kids play ball. and tip o'neill famously, they would bash reagan famously did on the phone and chat like old friends at me. what starts started happen now, politicians spend so little time in washington, they don't buy apartments, they don't move their families. they don't we know each other. it's just that simple. >> but there's a prior reason why that has happened which has to do with money. >> absolutely. and there's a cost for the money you make right? the breakdown in relationships they don't know with pashtun how

can you work with some you just don't know? and as you know, it's much worse than the polarization of democrat and republican. democrats and republicans -- they don't know each other. middlebrook together. lacking good old-fashioned relationships, of course self-interest prevails and then we hunkered down an elephant or two and everything becomes short term and our interest rather than long-term what we can do together. not into we can fix the quality of relationships within the parties i think we'll ever see a change in the polarization. >> of course wind with less polarization some people were not happy with that. used to hear there's not a dime of difference between the two parties. so how do you fix the eroding social relationships among people who are supposed to work together and compromise while still having some creative tension and competition of ideas? >> while i mean it was functional right?

they would debate 80% and close doors and come to to agreement. now the debate winner% on the floor for the theater. there's a great irony in congressman criticizing thank us for being short term interested with their only invest in their own short-term gains as well. i, for one do not believe that congress is the root of all the problems in america. i believe that congress is a reflection of america. and i think we're the ones who are polarized and the ones are mistrusting and we're the ones have no sense of direction, and we're the ones who are quicker to disagree then listen. >> frank? >> that's under some debate. my colleague at stanford has a lot of data showing actually the american public is a lot less polarizing than the political class, particularly in congress. so that suggest there's actually

an institution -- >> our media viewing habits would not agree with that. >> no. there's a lot of data other than just who watches "fox and friends." but it is a debate. so you're right there probably is more polarization, but i think if you're going to fix if you've got to go to institutional goals. there are a lot of institutional rules that are promoting it. popular primaries, they were supposed to increase participation and increased polarization because the only people, if you want a low turnout election, go to a party primary. the only people that show up are activists. that's a someone like richard lubar, who was a great senator could get defeated by tea party candidate who then goes on to lose the main race. i think actually c-span in the chamber could have a constructive effect because that's has killed the liberation liberation.

senators and guardsmen do not talk to each other to talk to active audiences out there in tv land. >> i would agree with that. i don't know what's causing the effect. they are not being held because they can't get reelected with only 60% of the. they don't care. they don't have to deliver. there's not a broader populace that is holding them accountable. you are absolutely right, the personal relationships were a lot better than. they are not there but i think one feeds on the other. i think gerrymandering is a problem in the house but i think the senate, maybe i am biased and i think you get a little legislative process because they have a longer, appeal to the entire state. the primaries or caucuses are the worst of the worst in terms of having a very narrow group of activists who decided to party candidate is. i like runoffs.

i like getting the top two and having them go to the final vote in the general election as opposed to having tightly controlled primaries which lead to the phenomenon where you can get elected with a very very small percentage of the voters actually feeling good about you. i think we need better personal relationships. we also need electoral reform of gerrymandering to gerrymandering has got to go. the district seem to be drawn that is impartial. >> i will call on nicklas in the second but let me throw something out and maybe he can address this. we started the day with a discussion of innovation at the city level. as we've been focused in this discussion at the federal level here in the united states come at least implicitly so i guess the question i would have is whether or not the local level is the place to start. i know that nicolas you've written about devolution as having some advantages for performing certain functions. you have a view about that

whether or not we will expect to see the pushback against polarization may be come from the bottom up rather than at the congressional or residential politics leveled? >> i was going to make a point a little bit on the prior discussion, but it's exactly the same point which is on you know big issues issues for everyone, if they are debated in public in front of c-span, you know, you are not trying to compromise. you are trying to win votes. that's damaging. we created a committee, a task force for california 14 republicans and democrats, very prominent. it was a strong experience but also ideological views who were not in office at the time.

we had a series of meetings, i think 12 meetings, over about a year to discuss and come up with the proposals on very deep issues like tax reform. republicans and democrats who had ideologically let's say very different views were able, after difficult discussions, but still constructive discussions, they were able to come up with i think very thoughtful bipartisan proposals. that was done frankly, in a place like this you know, a rand environment. behind closed doors. not to like anything but to be able to deliberate openly. depoliticize important issues by people as a public frank respect them both sides and to be able to give that space to political passes -- class on both sides is look at what is lacking. and to go to your question about cities being able to potentially

be more effective than states or countries, i agree. why? simply providing water or providing clean streets shouldn't be political. and it's just, again, a service. so that makes mayors and sort of local officials potentially more effective. >> let me turn to the audience for questions for anyone of the four panelists. i to the microphones are coming around and people can signaled if they have a question. >> start here on the left. >> this question is for nicolas berggruen. last night we talked about

interstellar and the opportunities for governance on a new frontier. and this morning we heard from admiral rogers regarding cyberspace and some of the challenges associated with governance of cyberspace here on our planet, but internationally. i am curious if you given any thought to a virgin frontier of governance which might be something like the interstellar governance or governance of cyberspace on a grand international scale, and how that might take shape or form contrasted to your comments about the state of california that there is no easy recipe? >> i'm not sure that there will be easy recipe is for cyberspace. i mean, in truth what's happened, i think it's a good thing but the consequences are enormous. for cyberspace has become incredibly relevant. i mean the same way as 50 years

ago a nuclear weapon, let's say nuclear power became incredibly important, for good or for bad create image but you can also create weapons. the same thing with cyber. the cyberspace is a fantastic opportunity to share and communicate information. at the same time we are going to be in a position where we need to understand between nations what are we allowed ourselves to be or not to do between, let's say, civilized countries, and our countries going to spy on each other? our countries going to do economic espionage? up to what level? what should be countries permit or not? and if you'd are going to

cooperate and establish limits i think is going to be incredibly important and we just are starting this kind of global negotiation. but i think that it's going to make friends and enemies, and could really create, i mean exacerbate tensions if we don't deal with it especially china and the u.s. >> i just had a question. in full disclosure, i work with nicolas berggruen. i just had a question about -- >> a spot in the audience. >> the role of globalization but it seems like a lot of our focus is on national governments and their incompetence but they are offering a very different context in which they won they were great. it was a much simpler world. national governments were in control of the destiny in a way that today they are not. so how much of the incompetence we are seeing is not about improving relationship with

tweeting our regulation but more about the fact that we're operate in a context where they cannot solve the problems they face because they truly are global problems and so they will just continue to look incompetent in the face of the? >> sheila, you want to take the first crack at the? >> i think that's a fair point but if you think there are things that should be getting done that just are not getting done. i think that needs to be some accountability. this idea, we heard mr. and the crisis the 100 year flood nobody could have seen it coming. that just wasn't sure i think now you write the challenges of government are great because of globalization, because of the sheer complexity of are interrelated economies. there are still things that can should happen. should have a civil find tax code. it's horribly unfair. we should not be allowing banks to borrow $20 or $25 for every 1 dollar of common equity that they fund with about she. that's crazy.

there are obvious things that need to get done that are not getting done. so i guess i hate to sound hard-nosed i don't want to let people off by saying, oh it's just hard. it is hard, i know that. but we need leadership. that's why they are elected. that's why they are appointed its i think there needs to be some recognition. they have jobs to do and they are to do and our clerk thinks they can and should be getting done that aren't condemning people need to take responsibility for the. >> i think if you look at the deepest cause of the financial crisis and the way it was the result of global forces it was the accumulation of these very large surpluses. china was the biggest but they were in a lot of different countries. in a certain sense the fed was blamed for running to loosen monetary policy but the fed couldn't control the ultimate flow of funds into the u.s. housing market because there's so much liquidity sloshing around in the world. that's an area where g20 eight minute this was a big problem. they haven't gained anything to

deal with that kind of issue. i'm really just not at all confident that that's going to happen. >> it is worse, if anything. if they were going to open up there were some regulatory approaches but we were letting banks take on more leverage instead of trying to constrain. no mortgage lending centers. it could've turned what was a crisis, they could have been a downturn. it could've been a difficult thought versus a near catastrophe. i think global dynamics makes it harder but there still some things that can and should be done. just to give up throw up our hands and say, it's too hard, i just don't buy into that. >> sheila, isn't the reason we can do something simple like raise capital requirements on banks just a result of the fact that the bank lobby is too damn a powerful? >> welcome it is. people talk about too big to fail. there's a problem with just being today. i think there's been some real

progress providing staffing regulation -- predatory regimes that can let these institutions fail without exposing taxpayer to a lot of the work needs to get done because it is the politically powerful. a lot of the end users, consumers of financial services are fearful of speaking up because of the market power. even if we saw too big to fail there still this problem of too big and how it makes our financial system unstable, definitely. >> i'm with the granted middle east board. i have two questions, one for frank and one for simon. frank, last time we met in your office you said something very eloquently that i remember something to the effect that instability in weak states starting from north africa to middle east and then asia will be a threat to nation states, democracy. so my question for you is the stagnation in our political system and other countries like

us which are generally seen as stable and a beacon of democracy, what will that do to the whole concept of nation states? and quickly, simon i had to teach at usc, he said something that leaders are like a beauty. you know when you see it. so my question for you is in your research do you believe it is something that people are born with? can it be adopted? can it be taught? >> in answer to question i would actually echoes something that nicolas said earlier which is that i think one of the problems in the world right now is when someone like xi jinping or putin gets up and they say, look at us, we are on the move, or we can make decisions and so forth. in the point washington or to

brussels and they say and look at these democracies that are really gridlocked. i think in the long run i do not believe that this is the right argument because i think that they've got a lot especially russia, china as well, they've got a lot of problems with sustainability of the china model and so forth. i think there are resources democracies, but particularly the united states has had in the past that have come into play slowly but over time. but there's no question, there's just no question that in the short run this has been very damaging in terms of perceptions of the relative strength of authoritarian systems versus democratic systems in the world and that's what i think what happened in our country really does make a big difference for global politics. >> i can meld the two questions together.

there's a difference between rallying people and leading people. and time is the thing that distinguishes them. we see what we call leaders and you throw going in there, you can throw hitler in there if you want able to offer people something that comes together and it seems to be leadership but for the fact it just doesn't last. there's the fine not quality to the person or the short term solution they offer to the much bigger problem, usually blaming somebody else. leadership has infinite quality where one of the things that testing which is our democracy from, you know i know what the airship is a fantastic from compared the problem is secession. for however people want to complain whichever president is in power was a remarkable is its a peaceful transfer of power. time will distinguish it is rowling, who is leading. to answer the second question, leadership is a skill like any

other. because of the experiences they have when their kids when they're raised have natural capacity for that like some kids are great at basketball, and some work very, very hard to become good leaders. but it's a skill like any other the requires tremendous amounts of practice. the problem is we don't teach the skill very effectively. when you're a junior in your job we teach how to do your job. you get lots of training how to do your job and use the computer systems. if you're really good at doing the job we will promote you into a position where you're now responsible for other people who do the job you used to you but we don't teach you how to do that. because you're good at doing the job we just assume you're good at leading others and this is why we get managers. because you are better at the job than 10. we can't help but want to meddle. we are good leaders, the transition they make and we don't teach it. one dancing is inside our campus we need to teach the transition where you're no longer responsible for the job no

longer responsible for the results. you are now responsible for the people who are responsible for the result of that transition like becoming a parent is hard. it takes a lot of practice and is learned over the course of time to which is why we were able to experience so they can practice leadership as we promote them up the ranks. >> i was just going to say on the issue of confidence in democracies i mean people here probably are frustrated a little bit, how good is the the u.s. at progressing and all that. look at europe. they are all wonderful democracies, and the european union was constructed with the idea well, we should have a free trade area, and be peaceful after two terrible wars. but when you look at europe it is not able to progress at all.

it's not able to come together because of some of the big issues like economic development, economic coordination, foreign policy. having huge difficulties. and that at the end of the day even though they're all democratic environments, is really going to undermine more and more that confidence in the democratic system. that really is a shame. in some ways, democracies are the worst enemies but -- by not being able to come together and to make in this case europe function properly. you have in some cases, i mean you see it now. have nationalistic parties in europe that really didn't exist in a big way a number of years ago. it's really a symptom and it makes it even harder for europe to come together. that's really, i mean that's the danger.

>> we have two questions your to your right. >> i think if she can be a great teacher, and so this might be a question primarily for frank and sheila but the last time i believe we've had this kind of partisan gridlock may well been the pace of reconstruction after the civil war. yet at the same time probably the greatest economic growth we've ever seen with the rise of rail and steel and oil. and what lessons might we expect from those experiences in the latter part of the 19th century that might help us today both politically and economically? >> as a facet in question because you're right. if you look in terms of partisanship, it really can peek in the 1880s and 1890s. basically the country couldn't decide whether it wanted to remain kind of an agrarian jeffersonian country or sort of a modern industrial urban one. and that's what i guess you have to temper your pessimism about

this country, you know, at the moment because i think in the 1890s no one saw a solution to this. then all of a sudden you had this realignment election in 1886 that brought brought mckinley to par, then you have great leadership in the form of theodore roosevelt and the whole progressive era. and the country made up its mind it's okay we are a modern and daschle country as they build the right institutions and fixed a lot of things. i would say that, i guess the only thing to keep in mind is that history doesn't always repeat itself. [laughter] so in theory democracy should be self-correcting in this fashion but you need three things. so you need kind of grassroots mobilization were people are angry and upset and want things to change. you need good leadership simon says. and you need an id. you have to have the concept. it can be a really bad idea. hitler had an idea, so you don't want the wrong kind of idea to join something more like let's

say roosevelt rather than hitler. those three things have to come together i think to really fix the problem. >> it's an important thing to highlight, this idea the sense of vision, a future we can build. this is what is one of the great things about the american experiment which is the declaration of independence which is we declared why we want a country. all men are created equal. this was proposed that when we're at our best that is overturned offer. compare that to the arab spring and what happened in egypt. everybody knew what they were against, which was mubarak out. but nobody said what they were for. and so okay mubarak al, now what? that was one of the distinction factors between america and through the egyptian which we didn't you say england out. it started with a vision of where we wanted to go and then you go look at the declaration of independence, then the rest

of it is and he is what england is preventing all of this from happening. cane out. so i think there's a lot to be said for the idea of where we can go which sort of really lacking and i think a lot of companies come democracies. >> i think leadership can make a difference. maybe we need to hit rock bottom. things get so bad that people do get fed up and are willing to give support for someone with a strong mandate. i would love to have a teddy roosevelt on the political rice and these days. a strong sense of purpose process of public purpose willing to betray some class to break up some unsavory business practices, that helped the country and help the economy more broadly. so i think having a can of leadership today would be good your that's not to say is not going to be difficult and challenging, it is, but people will -- a way forward and i think even if it makes some

tough decisions in the short term, people can see where we're going and why we are going there. i think they will support him or her. >> whatever we struggle, our great leaders always hearken back to this is the gettysburg address or roosevelt gettysburg address or roosevelt's for freedom speeches. they basically are reinforcement of the founding fathers. they always go back to the founding vision to take us forward. >> in thinking about how dysfunctional political landscape and how we teach the next generation to be good citizens, what would you say if you are on the curriculum committee would be the right methodology or the right messaging for civic classes k-12? [laughter] >> mandatory service. >> i would say you should first just teach the civics class. the content is not that complicated but somehow we've

lost this sense that citizenship is something that actually has to be cultivated. it doesn't come to people naturally, but it's a duty for all of us have. we've got three couple of generations where we think if we have lots and lots of rights but no duties. i don't think you inculcate a sense of duty unless you actually actively teach it. so i would really start there. >> a question here on the panels left. >> i'm on a rant icg or. this question is for some. maybe this violates i hope it doesn't violate the tenets of setting politics aside to establish teddy roosevelt was a leader. simon who do you think of our president or other prominent politicians in the last 50 to 60 years would qualify as a leader under the test you particulate? >> if we're going to talk current history, i've got nothing last night.

>> i've got nothing. a leader with you agree or disagree, they seem to exist on a level above the opposition. they stand for some and going to compare the first and niger of reagan and kennedy's, they both use the term peace on with. they both are crazy idealist but regardless of methodology and that's the difference between the democrat and republican is how we get to the american ideal. just go back a few years whether it's margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, they stood for something. they were leaders. they exist on level above their own position. i've got nothing of a politician now who seems to exist on the level above their own position seems to stand for something. and more importantly would actually risk their own career for that thing. the election is everything. and i love watching elections. i believe in this and this is the most important thing. they lose and then they don't do

that. did you ever believe it in the first place? i think a good leader that we can look to now i have two good examples. i think pope francis is great. he stands as something any stance something on the level above his job as pope your which is awesome. hethese likely attractive to non-catholics, too. and i think lady gaga is really good. [laughter] she's consistent. her message is positive. it's about inclusion. she helps people boost their self-confidence. she meets all the rules. >> i think feeling that wasn't the answer that brad expected, but good nevertheless. [laughter] any others? well, you know, it's interesting that the panel actually ended up in a different place than i expected it to. [laughter] and i don't just mean i don't just mean lady gaga.

because frank's book to some extent nicklauses the book, to some extent sheila the last book focus on institutions and processes that those institutions are responsible for. but in the end i think we all came down to the qualities of the individuals that both select the people in those institutions and to work in those institutions. some pretty interesting circuit that we have travel. our next conversation, and the final conversation of the program is actually going to begin at 7:00. michelman will be back with people from snapchat. but between now and then we will have the reception back outside and our bookstore will be open as well. and i guess we have books from everybody here for sale. that you very much, simon, nicolas, sheila and frank.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> new defense secretary ashton carter met today with senior leaders at the pentagon, the defense department tweeted out of this picture of the meeting. he called sequestration quote dangerous and told employees that if the department wants to make the case for more money they need to prove it. here's a portion of his comments today. >> can't talk about defense without mentioning is our budget, resource chunk of sequestration and so forth.

and that is unsafe. it's a dangerous. it's wasteful. it's unwise. and you will see me doing everything they can, for everything is secretary of defense can do to try to bring our country together and get us out of the wilderness of sequester. we don't belong there. that's not what our people deserve. that's not what this institution deserves. it's not worth the problems and opportunities that i was describing require and deserve and we've got to get out of that. that said, that's just part of the future that we need to embrace. if we are going to convincingly make the case to our people that

they need to spend more on their defense, which i believe they do we need to come at the same time, show them that we know we can do better at spending that money. and that we won't be able to do unless we are open and unless we are embracing the future. >> also today in washington former officials from the obama and george w. bush administrations had a discussion on countering violent extremism. bob schieffer will moderate the conversation this afternoon. live coverage at 5:30 p.m. each but it happens about the same time that the three-day white house counterterrorism conference with delegates from all over the world wraps up at

5:45 p.m. eastern. national security advisor susan rice will provide the closing comments on building global partnership against terrorist groups. she'll be introduced by attorney general eric holder and that is live on c-span at 5:45 p.m. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of these senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> wal-mart announced it is raising the minimum wage it pays employees to $9 an hour. that is $1.25-the currently mandated minimum wage. the company will raise the hourly wage again to $10 an hour by next year.

the white house reacted to the increased by sending out his tweed, good to see wal-mart raising wages for about 500,000 employees. now it's time for congress to raise the wage. congress is on its presidents' day break this week and back next week. political scientist daniel disalvo has written a new book called transmit 11 -- "government against itself: public union power & its consequences" to gigabytes without an impact of public employee unions with university of washington labor studies director michael mccann. it's an event from january posted by town hall seattle. it is almost one hour. >> thank you so much for coming out. i've been looking forward to having read daniel's book and whether you agree with about a presents a really interesting argument that we'll get a chance to get into. our format this cd is going to be fairly simple. there will be 10 minutes first denier by the way that is daniel on the far side with the tide,

this is michael on your site. how many people are related to michael by the way? he has some relatives here. there will be 10 minutes from dana, the minister michael and the minister michael in five minutes each to sort respond to one another and then i'm going to take the moderator's prerogative to ask a few minutes of questions on my own rough and you'll have a chance to come to the microphone to ask your own question. this is being recorded by c-span and is being recorded by kuow and i anticipate it will probably be airing the entire discussion on kuow some evening in the near future and perhaps a shorter version of on the show i host, the record. wisconsin governor scott walker's recently been mentioned as sort of a second tier republican candidate for the presidency and he is well known for his animosity towards public employee unions. so although this is an issue that is not quite simmering at

the high national level, i will be choose to see whether that's something he brings to the campaign and if he catches fire as he might whether this becomes more of a national debate. we might be here talking about something said to be hearing a lot more of in the coming months and years. so to begin let's hear some opening statements from daniel. go ahead daniel. we have 10 minutes. it's dark out here. we the timekeeper and back we the timekeeper impact the against me to come down on the closer. we can't see very well. so go ahead daniel. >> well, thank you very much for that generous introduction and thank all of you for coming out tonight to listen to a debate about public sector unions, a subject that really and so scott walker's reform efforts in wisconsin had lied dormant, people were interested in. i also want to thank michael for agreeing to, and it's a real honor for me to be up here with

such a distinguished scholar, a long and distinguished record. so let me get right into my book. i think i'll have to be a bit more polemical tonight because this is a debate format that i think i am in the book, but that would be a little bit more fun. i think public sector unions have been really at the center of state and local governments and our politics since the great recession. obviously wisconsin really brought the issue to national and international attention, but in many states from indiana to michigan to rhode island to california to new york to illinois this is where the action has been in state and local governments. i think that going forward we're going to see public employee unions as being really getting a lot more attention in the press and in immediate and a lot more scrutiny than they had been prior to 2008.

so i think that prior to 2008 journalists didn't cover public employee unions very closely. scholars didn't either. i document a little in the book when it comes to labor historians, political scientists there just isn't much written looking at public employee unions. my book usually the first to try to take on this big fast and faceting subject and synthesize what we know offer new research and make some arguments and conclusions from that. and i think it's very interesting because the study of public employee unions is really fundamental to our political life because we are studying the state, we are really stepping the political activity of government owned employees. so what do we argue in the book? i started and i try to make a conceptual, i think a very important distinction between unions and the public and the

private sector. a lot of us, myself included came into this project thinking about unions as being sort of more older style and industrial or craft unions, guys in hard hats, steel toed boots who worked very difficult jobs on a daily basis and that was the romantic image many of us have but that's not really what the labor movement looks like today. about half of the labor movement in 2009 for a little while, a majority of all union members were public employees, many of them are relatively affluent with masters degrees or college degrees. so this distinction, public and private, i argue has, can be made in a number of different ways, why these two entities are different. first is history. public employee unions have a very different historical trajectory. private unions are governed by

national law passed primarily in the 1930s and supplemented at a point. public sector units are governed by state law and local ordinances, past really in the '60s and 1970s. so was private sector unions have declined, public sector unions have remained very stable or constant. so their histories are different. their sources of law are driven. i also argue that the way they operate and the policy of x. are different. which uses a public sector unions get what i called two bytes of the apple. that is, they can when things directly for their members first through collective bargaining, and that failing all through politics. that is to participate in the political process, electioneering and lobbying in the way that the private sector counterparts can't. third, public employees unions are different in the sense that they can exercise influence on

both sides of the bargaining table in a way that private sector unions can't hope to do which is through the second byte of the apple, that is lobbying and electioneering, public employee unions can gain some influence with those who are acting as management in a way that private sector unions, whether that's machine is unions, here in seattle, has no say over who boeing's ceo or cfo is. that's not the same in the public sector. and forth, the big difference between the two that structured the insensitive behavior into the ways is the lack of market incentive. that is markets restructure the dynamic between private sector unions and management, and there's a lack of market forces and the public sector where the government is often the monopoly provider of many services. so then after i make this distinct i go in to try to document what is the power of public sector union.

so there i tried to get as much in google as much in google did and i can't share with you all the richness of it in 10 minutes, on how much public employee unions spend on campaigns, that is how much they give to candidatescome how much they spend on initiatives and referenda campaigns, what's their lobbying spending. then i look at some of their overall political advantages compared to both private sector unions and other interest group players that are trying to get their way into american politics. those differences include, the easier access to politicians they have much more easy to mobilize their membership for election campaigns and protests, rallies because they are public workers themselves their right at the foot of the state capital. third, that the much more steady and stable revenue stream through dues check off an agency shop legal provisions. we can explain what those are later if people are interested. and forth as i said up until the great recession they were really operating in a low

visibility policy environment without a lot of media or public scrutiny. so not only do they have a lot of political power and again just to get a couple of examples, for example, the california teachers association outspent the next three largest interest in the state combined in the first decade of the 21st century in donations to candidates and parties. in new york state, for example, the state democratic party is very honeycombed in with many of the public employee unions come in the state firefighters and teachers can even to the point of sharing its campaign office is basically office space shared with the united federation of teachers in lower manhattan. so that's what anyone i get up to the question of access. then i look at some of the incentive structures in collective bargaining in the public sector and i argue tend to favor the union position over

time, and this mainly has to do with the political incentives or management incentives in the public sector where politicians are operating with different time horizons than their union adversaries, and there's a lot of information asymmetry. the unions very much know what they want but politicians are always so clear what exactly is in the public interest. -- are not always so clear. i try to marshal a lot of empirical evidence to show basically the effect of allowing public employees to unionize and bargain collectively has increased the cost of government through increased pay increased benefits, for example, cities where firefighters are unionized pay on average about 9% more in salary and about 25% more in benefits than cities where firefighters are not unionized. ..

cases is cases they can't even duties that would be appropriate for their skills. third, i argue the effect of back loading and this is an interaction between the targeting and the defined pension systems is