footsteps, and you've only got less than two minutes to answer. >> i think it's really important. i think we need to start early. we need to have exciting, engaged, knowledgeable teachers in our children's schools and then i think we have to help with mentoring career pathways and we have to make sure there are good jobs for women. at the fda, we have a very strong band of women in our science and leadership team, and i have been proud to be at the helm. >> ladies and gentlemen, could you join me in thanking dr. margaret amber. [ applause ]

i would also like to thank national press club staff including its journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the national press club, go to our website press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. you. next on c-span3, a session on combatting terrorism. and later the hutchins institute on emergency preparedness. this afternoon the atlanta council will host a discussion on new battery technology with georgetown university professor steve levine. he's the author of "the powerhouse, inside innovation to save the world." .

he'll talk about energy storage and what it could mean for the energy sector. we'll have that live on c-span at 12:20 p.m. eastern. later today we'll take you to the center of strategic and international studies where carly fiorina will discuss entrepreneur skps entrepreneurship in the developing world. live at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," vincent moscow. big data and how the sgovtgovernment is using t. >> the national security agency is building one of the world's largest cloud data centers in a secure mountain facility in utah. it's doing so because it's surveillance needs require that degree of storage and security.

the u.s. government's chief information officer three or four years ago ordered u.s. government agencies to move to the cloud and as a result even civilian agencies are turning to cloud services. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. the potomac institute for policy studies hosted a discussion recently on the terrorism threat outlook for 2015. former ambassadors military leaders and international relation scholars discuss past and future threats and best practices in combatting terrorism. this program runs just under two hours. ladies and gentlemen, if i

can have your attention. i'm michael swetnam. i'm ceo of the potomac institute of policy studies, and it's my distinct honor to welcome you today to the 17th annual seminar on international cooperation in combatting terrorism. the potomac institute has been privileged for almost two decades to be an organization in the washington d.c. area focused on the study of science, technology, and how it is affecting our society and our security around the world. in particular the institute from its inception has been interested in and engaging in the study of how terrorism has been used as a form of warfare or social disobedience, if you will, for many around the world for, in fact, centuries, and how today we might find ways of more effectively dealing with this

scourge in cooperation with governments, military forces and inductions. we have wulsith us today one of the most, i think, enlightened and engaged and scholarly groups that you could imagine on this topic that represent not just the countries that have been affected by terrorism but those that have worked together in the united states amongst themselves to deal with this issue for quite some time. we'd like to highlight for you that the work at the potomac institute on terrorism is focused at the international center for terrorism studies headed up by professor yona alexander. out of this organization comes many publications and studies, and we host several seminars every year on all aspects of

terrorism globally as well as domestically. our most recent publications and yona has averaged at least one per month for the last 40 years, in february our sixth annual review of terror ips incidents in north africa and the impacts of people in that part of the world, and the review of europe's political situation and how that is affecting the use of terror by those that feel disenfranchised or for whatever means are causing civil disobedience in that part of the world. as i said, the center for terrorism produces at least one document per month all year long and averages one or two books per year, and we're very proud that we host several seminars on all aspects of terrorism. we welcome your review of that on our website. we will be glad to provide you summaries of all of that work

and of course you're all invited to those events as they take place. we hope that today is not just enlightening but it's an opportunity for you to engage with those that have been involved in dealing with this issue on a very personal and professional level from all around the world. at this point in time 17 years into the potomac institute gathering with you every year to discuss the role of terrorism and destabilizing our society, it's unfortunate that we have to recognize that the world is one of the most -- in one of the most unstable positions it has been in a very very long time due to a large extent to the use of terror and terror tactics and techniques by various groups around the world against the governments and societies that we look to to protect us. there have been more incidents in the last year, year and a half, than there were quite some years before that, and many people in the world are, in

fact terrorized as they haven't been for many years before. as we've developed our techniques for dealing with terror, those who use terror against us have consequently unfortunately, modified and grown their capabilities to terrorize us. this calls for all of us to not just study it more but find more effective ways for dealing with it and limiting the impact of terror on our society. so we hope that you will take the time today not just to hear what the enlightened panel has to say but to also engage with them and to once again commit yourself, and all of us to dealing with this issue as effectively as we can for ourselves and for our children. with that i'd like to turn the program over to professor yona alexander who most of you know, i hope. if you don't, then you probably shouldn't be here, because there isn't anybody in the world of terrorism studies academically in the world that doesn't know about professor alexander.

he has published over 100 books. he has been studying terrorism and the effects of terrorism and all issues surrounding terrorism for more than 40 years. he is what we consider one of the greatest assets that the human race has on this aspect on this topic. we're privileged to have him here today. he will chair this program, introduce most of the speakers and it's my privilege to introduce to you today professor yona alexander. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, mike, for your introduction, particularly trying to stress the nature and the intensity of the terrorist threats and what can we do about this. what i would like to do is through this charge, a few academic requirements. first of all to introduce our

distinguished panel. first, to my left, to your right, is professor bonny. she's both a diplomat and a scholar at the u.s. department of state coordinator for threat reduction programs in the bureau of international security and proliferation. i would also introduce her a little bit later on so she would be the first figure. next is dr. abdul aziz political counselor of the embassy of the republic of egypt and the former embassy of syria is going to speak immediately after ambassador jenkins.

and then we are very pleased to have mrs. wafa bogogeej from the embassy of libya, and she will prevent the views related to libya. we are waiting for the ambassador ambassador, former ambassador of pakistan to the u.s. who will be with us very shortly and next is ambassador theodore ketoff, former u.s. ambassador to the emirate in syria. and then the governor james

ginmore is on his way and able to speak. is there? well, you're quicker than my eyes, but at any rate you're very very welcome. we appreciate that you came all the way from richmond here. and he is going to speak and then, of course, to make some closing remarks, general alfred gray. as you know the 29th united states marine corps and the chair of the board of regents of the potomac institute. i think that before we have the speakers deal with the issues a few footnotes. first of all, i'm delighted that we have in the audience many diplomats, ambassadors or

representatives, academics and so forth. we appreciate very much c-span and other media representatives for bringing our discussion to a wider audience in the united states and internationally. traditionally, academically we like to express our sympathy with the families of the victims of terrorism throughout the world, as well as to send a message of solidarity and support for international cooperation in living with terrorism, and of course this is our mission. first to learn the lessons of the past and to try to anticipate future trends and provide some, hopefully best

practices recommendations for counter-terrorism strategies particularly related to international cooperation in living with terrorism. now, if i may i would like to mention some key questions, because if we look at the history, the historical record, the historical lessons if we go back 43 years ago i recall very vividly when the united nations placed on the general assembly agenda to deal with a specific item which they called measures to prevent terrorism and other forms of violence which endanger or take innocent lives or

jeopardize jeopardize freedoms. 43 years ago this was the message, and 43 years later we're still struggling with some key questions that i hope that perhaps we can clarify today. one is, who are the terrorists? who are the perpetrators? two, what are some of the causes that motivates them? and thirdly, what can we do about it? i think what's very interesting to mention at this particular point, that as we speak, there is a coalition being formed to combat terrorism, which i believe is very similar to the concept of nato. in other words from original to global or interregional security

concerns and to provide that kind of support. as we speak as all of us know, an operation called operation de decisive storm is actually being mounted by the arab countries and some non-arab countries in order to live with the issue of yemen. this is historic, and certainly we're going to deal with that. now, if i move on to the record mike referred to it but let me mention very quickly. one, if you look at the data, the statistics of last year, we had some 11000 incidents throughout the world. in other words it is an increase from prior years up to that in general. literally the first three months

of this year we see the escalation throughout the world all the way from egypt and libya and syria and pakistan, nigeria and so on and so forth. it seems to me if this strength continues, unfortunately, 2015 will be recorded as the bloodiest year yet since 9/11. mike mentioned one of our recent publications related to terrorism in north africa and the impacts regionally and globally. we do have copies for those that might be interested. let me just mention that we're covering a broad area all the way from elk security, for example, the ebola crisis, and i think in general we have to look

at the record. and the record of last year, 2014 for example there is an increase of 30% in north africa over 2013. again, if you would look at 9/11, from 9/11, you look at that particular vision which really underscores the nature of the threats, there is an increase of 800th percent and so on. so they were going to discuss several of the countries in the region. again, there are many terrorist groups involved in this. some are regional, some or foreign fighters and so forth. so i think we're going to go both with the domestic situation, the internal situation as well as thetj'lñ external support of violence in

that particular region and elsewhere. i think what is really important for us is not only to identify that threats but also to develop, as i indicated before some best practices to deal with the problem. we do have some suggestions in our report. you can look at this, and again, this is only one region, and mike mentioned also the report on europe, and particularly, i would also like to mention the study that we completed that is non-production on nato, living with issues in europe such as the ukraine afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. it gives me great pleasure to introduce the first speaker

today. as i mentioned, am boss dore bonnie jakings. she has a very rich background. i'm not going to go into details or the bios over the speakers. i will only mention that she covers a great deal, i think, of areas all the way from the global security agenda to weapons of mass destruction, and i would is a at the very rich background working with many universities skpm she published extensively. i ask ms. jenkins to provide some context for the discussion today. thank you. >> i think i'm going to stay here if that's okay. thanks to -- thank you for

inviting me and to the organizers, and it's great to see everyone out here today. i know we have distinguished panel here, so i'm going to try to keep my comments brief. my work in the government really focuses on ways in which we can keep weapons of mass destruction materials and weapons out of the hands of non-state actors. so my perspective in terms of international cooperation in combatting terrorism is that it's very important to have international cooperation. the only way we can really address the problems of terrorism is to work together on a global scale, to work bilaterally, multilaterally with partners. and the work that i do really does foser that effort. it fos terz ways in which we can develop programs to actually make sure we do not have

opportunities for non-state actors to. the u.s. has really developed a number of tools and initiatives to address this issue. whether they are through international organizations, working with international organizations, whether it's working through certain initiatives. whether it's working on the ground bilaterally with countries. stlr a number of ways in which we have focused on while you're trying to follow individuals around the world who may actually want to get access to pre curse orz, legal material so they could release it for harm. there is a number of things i work on at state department in this arena s. one is, i've worked since 2009 on a nuclear activities summit. which i'm sure some of you have

heard of. it's an effort that started in 2009 by president obama in his first speech where he announced anti terrorists is the worst thing that he faces. he mentioned we'll bring in security experts to deal with this issue recognizing that in order to prevent nuclear terrorism, you want to prevent the access of nuclear security issues, there was one in 2010 here in washington followed by the 2012 summit and. there will be a final of the format to be placed at a time to be determined. >> these nuk leerl summit that we had worked four to 16 ready

to provide communication. we've done this through a number of national. which is actually areas of security. and in 2010 we had something called a work plan which was about a six-page document that outlined activities countries could do to secure nuclear material. so through this process of the nuclear treaty summits we have been providing ways in which we can consolidate, get the material, get rid of excess nuclear where we can work together and incorporate. we need the eu and the u.n. to

get together to prevent terrorism in the future. there are a number of setups, and you will be hearing a lot about the upcoming summit in a couple months. there is growing recognition that we need to work not only in governments. there is a picture of working with non-government individuals. and security we're talking about all the others exist around the groeb so make sure we prevent nuclear terrorism. sdplz no that i won't have is a b7 b7. ken had asked then g8 campus of canada. and the main focus of this as

the title entails, which is a global partnership against spread of weapons and materials of mass in drukz. that was so wmd did not get in the way of state non-run actors. it was set up in 2002. ooits already to be about a -- we now have members, and it has expanded in 2011 to look at all areas of the dfe. we spent over $23 billion in the first few years in the global partnership. now the global partnership is looking at all areas of chemical biological nuclear

and chemical weapons to prevent those from getting into the hands of non-state actors. >> now it is some of the that i have been included. the reasonable securing a transport of nuclear materials, radioactive security prevention of illicit nuclear trafficking material management verification and compliance and work on ex-board controls. in the area of biosecurity, there is work in securing an account for biological path generals deliberating reinforcing biological nonproliferation jumts and the safe and secure conduct in

biological services or what we call call. they had completed the products remaining off of kizna products, assisting in being, and prepared to participate in the discussion of newly. the local partnership sp. ukraine has been one of the members of the partnership, and sfarlt. we have bep reading and working with ukraine and trying to address some of their cbrn threats they have right now in a security arena. as we look at 2014 which is one of the questions in this panel, 2014 was an interesting year for the global partnership. as i mentioned, the global partnership is now a g-7 entity.

hats year during the brush of a court was, but it was decided. however, fortunately ferm remember >> jeremy: we've been having meetings again as a result of that. there's been a lot of work, as i said in syria. it was all partners that were involved in the skukz of nuclear weapons. they all play a significant role in the destruction of chemical weapons in syria. as i said we've been working with ukraine on some of their issues. and looking beyond there will continue to be work on cbi security issues in ukraine and

the vai le. something getting a lot of attention is the global security house agenda. for those of you who don't know what this is, this is an effort9p that started out lats year as a trying to reduce that stress like ebola. this started sometime last year, so it was prior to the attention that ebola received. but the focus of the global house skaurt agenda is allows had 4 companies working on this effort. it's a security expert. it's also a human health and animal health expert. it includes law enthe forcement. in the united states you have

students not able to work on reduction programs are now involved because we're looking at a. which means that brings in a lot of different department if the united stat. 44 countries are now involved in this effort to try to reduce there are many actions that these 44 countries will becoming on the remember. when i talked about the nuclear summit when it was focused on the general area, those just combating that we're engaged in in trying to ensure weapons maersk sdrekt did not get in the. the global security agenda, i

can go into detail on any of those in a question and answer period, but with so many distinguished guests on the panel, i think i'll stop now and turn it over to our next speaker. thank you. [ applause ] thank you very much. our next speaker is abdul aziz. formerly he was a chair in the embassy in egypt between 2012 and 2014. so he obviously has a great deal of experience and knowledge. also elsewhere in the region and i would like to mention that also he worked at the united nations regarding a project of

african peacekeeping operations and he has a phd in international relations from cinque university. >> let me start by thanking the organizer for organizing this particular event. and, fblg, special thanks to the professor who i know has put a lot of effort for this event to take place. i think the best way to discuss the issue of international cooperation to combat terrorism is to try to start with a global image of terrorism today. starting from africa, by all means, i think boko haram, the terrorist organization in nigeria is now rooted deeply into the nigerian society

compared to four or five years ago. not only this, boko haram has gone through important transformation process. it started out as a nigerian transformation and now it's organizations working very tekt actively in other societies like bin yann. i very much recommend that you read this excellent report. professor, you are mentioned about terrorism in africa in 2014. it shows clearly their figures and numbers here that happen the terrorism is a growing threat. if we move to asia, there is a

rebirth of al qaeda and taliban in both of beganafghanistan and pakistan. a report shows that these two nations are adopting more efficient approaches to recruit more young people in both countries. if we move to the middle east, we have isis which is controlling large areas in iraq, including the second most important city muslim. and they are as well in syria. they are active in countries like libya, like egypt. i was trying to gather some info

about that recently and in the last 30 months, 16 organizations showed their support to isis, and 16 organizations are working in 16 different countries. some of them are a majority of muslims, and some others were non-muslim majority like india. if we move to europe, recently the eu preparedness said there are 4,000 fighters european fighters fighting alongside isil in more isil. 25 of them are already back home. they are back home with better knowledge, better skills and better networking. if they want to use this knowledge and skill as a network in conducting more terrorist

organizations in any european society. i once asked a u.s. security expert is it the same with your country? and he said no. fortunately, we don't have thousands of americans fighting alongside isis. we have a couple hundred only, but this doesn't mean that we are safe because it takes only 10 to have another 9/11. the point i'm trying to make here is that we are facing a global challenge, not a decline declining one. and this is, i think the first lesson we should know about our enemy. the second lesson is we are facing a transnational threat, so no country can face or combat this threat on its own. we need to bait regional as well as international coalitions in order to fight this threat

effectively. the third lesson is that we need to have our objectives as clear as possible. are we aiming to degrade these terrorist organizations contain them or eliminate them? depending on our objective, we will be able to define the ways and means we're going to adopt in order to find terrorists. a fourth lesson i think is time. time is of crucial importance. professor alexander mentioned that i was in charge of affairs in syria for more than two years. this month the siryrians are celebrating the fourth anniversary of their evolution. let me remind you that in march 2011 when this evolution

started, there was not a single terrorist group, not a single one, because the community was hesitant to support such a revolution. now we have isis we have boko haram, we have over 10 organizations in syria. i hope we, the international community, are not making this mistake again in libya. that's why in egypt i would urge the security council to adopt a resolution to enable the libyan government to combat terrorism. finally two days ago they adopted a resolution in this regard. i hopewell have the courage and the will the political will, to implement these two resolutions.

the final lesson, i think, is the military tool to combat terrorism is of course, very important. but it's not enough. the need to revisit the islamic thought and develop a counternarrative for the idealogy of terrorist organizations, in order to ensure the younger societies know this is the core of islam and it's sort of in order to

listen to these terrorists' narrative and to come back to create one distribute it int(b.ooc@.>[cdcw-e,[ books and go distribute it in schools and mosquesfá ;mánnpwñyxçp and local communities in order to make sure that the interpretation of islam is there. following the finance is crucial to make sure terrorist organizations are not controlling our refineries&ñ or border crossings, they are not getting grants. they are not even collecting taxes or receiving financial support. socioeconomic development is also important. recent studies have shown that it's much easier for terrorist organizations to recruit young

people who are jobless. for example, egypt is recruiting so now you have powers inside development, and we need to make sure we are creating jobs hand in hand with fighting terrorist groups in sinai. finally, stabilization and human assistance is also equally important. tomorrow we have a very important meeting for international donors in order to raise funds to support syrian refugees displaced. we have 16 million people suffering only with the city and nationality. if we had it rack is the yemenis, the picture wouldn't be

so gloomy. i think i will stop here. we can get back to these points during the q & a. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. we're moving down to mrs. bogogeez. not only is she a foreign policy expert but also an engineerjered -- engineer in human rights and hopefully will be able to combat confusion in islam at this time. >> thank you very much. let me first thank the positivetomac

institute for organizing this event. thank you, professor yonah alexander. ladies and gentlemen honored guests, it's my pleasure to make a presentation about libya and what's going on and our vision for counter inging the wave of terrorism that we've been hit by lately. each day, as the future of libya is being discussed by various parties in morocco the fear for my country's soul and democracy continues to be waged in the streets in different towns. we in the world cannot wait for the formation of a new unity government before we act in a strong united front against this

truck that is hitting my things. as i stand before you here, young men are being recruited into joining extremist groups and shipped across borders to come and create havoc in my country. right now, and as i am speaking to you men in my country are dying while trying alongside our military troops with many support and resources to fight back the new people that are trying to steal away our dreams, our values our culture, our history and our wealth. ladies and gentlemen, as i'm talking before you here weapons are being delivered tonbi] terrorist groups. funds have been providedjfq across borders to buy them more

weapons3 .xçfa+3g 11zw to fight our youngj2o=mc democracy andqenoñtuflht uor3ç to fight, toévoiua÷÷ym messages about our peaceful toilet and tradition. to fight the same human rights in the international conventions and charters, that we are all in this room signatory to. to reduce the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to good living and to good education, and the right to be free from oppression submission and correlation. today, as we look on what's going on in the world, we realize terrorism knows no religion and does not restrict themselves to borders. terrorism is the same anywhere and committed by the same persons across the globe.

however, they do exist in communities and societies where they have a bigger risk to thrive and do harm. citizens have been deprived of am empowerment of women and yut is economically. we know today the importance and impact of reforming the global economic systems so that all people have sk toes to +u bystanders recalls and is paramount to each core of human

values. tolerance respects human rights and to one another. the deprivation and lack of political will to inform to enforce social justice is one of the most important reasons for making countries fall into the web of terrorism many and radical movements. the excise tax carried by terrorists at home. the confusion of libyan activists, military personnel. it only supports reports of terrorism and libya we fear. libya is a gateway to africa, europe and the middle east we

feel that a global task force needs to work on a proposal to produce an international charter that deals with radical movements and terrorism. those have to change in order to control this pillage of weapons and funds into the hands of terrorists. nations have to support their support to support. neighbors who come and go and of mutual interest is at risk. we need to work together to enforce older and keep our world safe and stable place for the future general rigss to live in. it's our responsibility as pardon policymakers and the possibility of the weak come and

goes and to put together a charter that regulates the flow of arms, drugs, money countries which are weakened by it. and ngos, and communities alone, is not enough. it's hardly fair. in libya, we committed to work with the world leaders, and policymakers, to end corruption and make sure human rights are not violated. we are committed and persistent in the pursuit of an economic stability. in our country that will lead to better living standards to our people, and that will not impact negatively on the region and the globe. esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, you are all aware today that libya, among others nations is fighting a vicious

war against terrorism and radical thinking groups. this is not a threat to libya alone. i emphasize that. and i say it again and again. and it's not a threat to its people and future prosperity and progress alone. but to the whole region. and to the neighboring european economies and the economy of european countries that rely on our oil and gas and on africa, and this will impact negatively on the strategic interests of the united states of america. we invite and will support strongly all research work and civil work to further shed light on the precursors of terrorism in order to find the best ways to contain it. and fight it. ladies and gentlemen, we have a difficult fight to endure that requires putting all of the

resources and efforts to make the outcome a winning one for the sake of humanity and history. the history of the world is filled with agonizing encounters. let us try to change this history forever. our children, your children, the world's children deserve that much of an effort. thank you. >> thank you very much for your insights. we will come back to the discussion to raise some related questions. we're going to move on to our next weeker. we are honored to have ambassador husain haqqani. as many of you know was the ambassador of pakistan to the u.s. from 2008 to 2011.

and he's currently a senior fellow and director of south asia central asia program at the institute. at the same time she's also director of the center of international relations and professor practice in international relations at boston university. in addition to his very distinguished diplomatic and academic work he's very well known as a journalist, written extensively on international affairs throughout the world. mr. ambassador? >> thank you very much. it's such a pleasure to be here in such distinguished company. i will keep my remarks relatively short. terrorism we all realize is an international problem, and it needs an international solution. post-9/11 there appeared to be

a global consensus and at that point almost every nation in the world said that it agreed with the notion that no grievance and no injustice in the global system justified terrorism. yet almost 14 years later we find that terrorism is not only alive and well, but thriving in many parts of the world. what, exactly, has happened in these almost 14 years? many of you might recall donald rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, writing a memo on october the 16th, 2003, in which he acknowledged a long hard slog in afghanistan and iraq. he said that america with its might, will prevail in both countries where it had gone to war after 9/11. but that it would be a long, hard slog. in that memo he posed an

interesting question to his staff. and the question was, quote, are we capturing killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting training and deploying against us? we can all now with hindsight, answer the question that no in fact, i'm one of those who would argue that the very notion that you could capture, kill and deter terrorists purely by military means was an erroneous notion. the very fact that two wars started and resulted in major american involvement caused the situation in which instead of building a true global alliance against terrorism as a concept what ended up happening was the unleashing of constructive

instability in a manner in which the construction has yet to come and the instability has all man nested itself all over, especially, the greater middle east. the weakness has been that america, which was supposed to be the global leader in this effort went from one extreme to another. one administration was primarily depend -- depended primarily on military means. the other actually wants to completely back away from using american power against global terrorism in any significant way. especially in the greater middle east. global terrorist ideologies continue to flourish. terrorist financing has been curbed, to a large extent. but the terrorists are ahead in terms of being able to innovate how to move money. and the most important thing is that the global order now has

two challenges. one, states that continue to harbor and sponsor terrorists, and two failing state ss -- or are being hijacked by terrorists in an increasing number. technology, such as the internet, are being used by jihadi extremists all over the world for recruitment purposes without a counterstrategy in place. above all, while the people involved in terrorism got identified by osama bin laden, who everyone knew was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, while they have been identified and sought, and brought to justice, there is no global method to be able to prevent -- take preventive steps to make sure

that those who are emerging as the terrorist leaders of the future can actually be identified and stopped before they organize. isis for example took many people by surprise. if somebody had actually been studying and understanding and analyzing the geology that was taking place in the crucible of syria and iraq, people could have actually identified that a new organization was emerging. so in a way the war against terrorism that has been fought has actually been against the terrorists that attacked us yesterday, and has not yet been moved in terms of stopping the terrorists who will emerge tomorrow, and the day after. the accountability of state sponsors of terrorism have been far from complete. in fact too many compromises have been made. and the result is that there are many states that have got away with sponsoring terrorist groups, and making distinctions between terrorist groups. terrorist "a" is my ally because

he attacks my neighbors. but terrorist "b" is my enemy because he attacks, for example in the united states and therefore i will go after some of these people, arrest them, and send them to guantanamo bay. so this haphazard approach to global terrorism has resulted actually in increasing global terrorism rather than diminishing it. now there's a positive side to it, too. if you are in american, you feel comfortable that there has not been an attack on the scale of 9/11 on american soil since 9/11 and that is a positive. but the downside to it is that the terrorists continue to multiply in other parts of the $] gbcf3oku7:b time before they nímh wg>ñiaqúd- their act together to be able to mount the kind of attack here that thm2"qr" before. because after all, remember i as a young journalist covered the war against the soviets. many of these terrorists who later on became part of al qaeda used to slit the throats of soviet soldiers.

most of us didn't think much of it. after all they were going after the enemy. no one at that time did an analysis of what motivates them to be so shall we say inhuman in the treatment of the enemy. many of the methods that were used later on in other parts of ç the world were developed d actually in afghanistan. ok>2vii]"n4!=ó[ this included many of our 6

the terrorists had a,s:

those scenes of ideological )qwikñç (b conflicts are alsoejqqw4j conflicts+n that are relevant to all of us.v8 what is the way forward? q.3 qf0+ hemming and hawing o5cwn.!q causes terrorism%é0ññc wf[f'çzé1os/)oñ b4%9%q%=9ze xh destroyed. ãpá,q" and militaries don't have to be moved completely do this. but, states that)x2p÷ have been

sponsors÷a]z terrorism and+1;é that continue to%(ç partially sponsor +@oju)ás hould not be let off the hook for the partial good they a lot of the allies of the united states that are partly 7k sponsors of terrorist acts "n97 2 should not be>ww allowed tok$$ñ go rv(pr(t&ho scot-free simply because they are allied in some other0' functions and in some other actions. ÷1#?-ññwv global terrorist ideologies need;g to be identifzr ç anda&t conce .0rthis ideological debate is going to involve primarily muslimsgs) su no &zcway.;n3y.d81ñ no way that the muslims of the world areóz

do not represent a violent lp ideology. vxj÷ çq)uáh#igure it out. uki-fhnñv55m lastly i think that we and giling states that are beingj 00/wa=ìc hijacked by nonstate actors need support in building the stadeó but again that is not going to be easy.ñwr@çd$ ó5wñ have made by intervening over avz and iraq. there has to be a middle ground between sending large numbers of troops for long periods of time and not doing anything.

just as people are waking up to the threat of cyberwar fare, i think they should also wake up to the threat of cyber recruitment. because jihadis do use the internet far more effectively. i have always wondered that the country that was able to come up with the recipe for sweetened fizzy water and make it into an international drink purely through marketing why is it so unable to market the idea of opposition to extremism and terrorism in the muslim world? a question that requires, dr. alexander, a conference in its own right. thank you all very much. [ applause ] ambassador haqqani i wanted to mention since you dealt with radicalization of religion, of

course many countries, the academic would your book on pakistan between the musk and the military is a important, i think, contribution to our understanding and of course your work now with the institute on the journal the current trends in islamic ideology is very important, as well. i would like to move on to our next speaker ambassador theater kattouf. as i mentioned earlier, he was formerly the ambassador of the united states, the united arab emirates and syria, but he also served with great distinction in kuwait and baghdad and sanaa, and riyadh, as well. and he received many, many awards for his many contributions. also ack democratbly he served

as a fellow at princeton university dealing with some of these issues. ambassador kattouf. >> thank you professor alexander, for the opportunity today to speak with such distinguished company. on current efforts to combat terrorism. terrorism is not an abstraction. to those of us who spent our careers in the u.s. foreign service. and i spent my entire career either working in or working on the middle east. and so it's a area that's very familiar to me. some of us have unfortunately experienced terrorist attacks firsthand. all of us have lost friends and coworkers to this scourge. though many of us share similar tragic experiences we not surprisingly, come to different

conclusions about what is to be done. most area specialists encounter terrorism expert ss believe that the u.s. government's approach must be nuanced and multifaceted. that is, it needs to involve not only the military but the state department, usaid, homeland security intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, soc power and public awareness, and i could go on, but you get the idea. the principle debate seems however, to opten -- or too often in my opinion focus on how large the american military response should be to terrorist threats. we -- i think seem to exaggerate sometimes what a military response can do.

so, this afternoon i want to focus on what the balance should be between our military response, and the many other tools and policies available to the united states. let me clearly state that my 42 years of involvement with u.s. policies in the region have made me a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences. even president george w. bush once famously said in a presidential debate with al gore that u.s. foreign policy needed to show greater humility. yet after two inconclusive wars that lasted for a decade or more, iran is arguably left as the dominant power in iraq and the taliban is poised to make a comeback in afghanistan. many of the principle architects and proponents of these wars mock the obama administration for missed opportunities to

intervene more forcefully in syria, and for not having left a residual force indefinitely in iraq. indeed even some former senior members of the current obama administration state much of the same thing. some weeks ago i was watching one of the sunday talk shows and heard former secretary of defense leon panetta assert that matters might have turned out differently in syria if only the president had extended more and earlier military aid to opposition fighters there and carried through with his threat to hit assad's forces after he crossed our self-declared red line concerning the use of chemical weapons. let me add that secretary panetta has given great service for decades to our country and i have admired him for long from afar. moreover, some of my own colleagues who i deeply respect share his opinions.

but the question to me is this, which syrian opposition forces should we have more forcefully backed? the opposition in syria was splintered into literally hundreds of small groups that lack a central command. the muslim brotherhood initially dominated the syrian national council. even prior to the emergence of the nusra front in isis, there were other islamist groups in the field, including the taliban like afrar al sham that one of my colleagues earlier mentioned. was our goal ever to replace a corrupt, bloody bathist military regime with a barbaric and tal rant and bloody islamist regime? how does that serve u.s. interests? by the way, we had many years to train iraqi armed forces under relatively ideal conditions. how well has that turned out? why have iranian influenced shia

militias been spearheading offensive actions in tikrit and elsewhere against isis? why did the iraqi armed forces come apart so rapidly when isis attacked mosul leaving their u.s.-supplied weapons behind? those who want to argue the counterfactuals need to explain why this time it would have been different. my take away from focusing on the middle east north africa region for many years is that these countries are not ours to win or to lose. the peoples of the middle east have developed cultures and value systems that are not largely consonant with our own and we have to recognize and respect the differences. they have yet to decide clearly what role islam will play in their constitutional governance. who is sovereign, god or the people? the u.s. and the west can encourage those whose values such as fleurism, tolerance, and

inclusion are closer to our own but it is not for us to impose those values on them at the point of a gun. it is sheer hubris to expect that every society will achieve our level of social and political development overnight. indeed, many of them don't want to. we ourselves are always going to be struggling to create a more perfect union. the neoconservatives and their supporters who never believed in social engineering at home thought nothing of going halfway around the world to spread wilsonian democracy and values. if we want to put our money where our mouths are, why are we not doing more to support tunisia, which is doing all the right things? it seems to me that all of the intensity is about what is going wrong in the region. here is tunisia which could be perhaps the greatest rebuke ever to the islamist fanatics, and the bloody dictators of the

region, and yet, you hardly read about the country. except, of course when there's a terrorist attack as occurred at the bardo museum. so, what is to be done? first, we need to quit exaggerating the threat that terrorism poses to the homeland. the 24/7 news channels have to fight for ratings, so every lone wolf operation in europe or the u.s. becomes an existential threat to western civilization. our police forces have become so militarized that it was thought necessary to virtually shut down the entire city of boston and its suburbs to catch or kill the tsarnaev brothers. copenhagen and paris have experienced similar phenomenon. yet right after 9/11, the washington suburbs were terrorized by nonideological assassins who chose their victims at random. many other senseless mass killings have subsequently

occurred with alarming regularity, such as the horrible tragedy at the elementary school in newtown, connecticut. and at a movie theater in aurora, colorado. each year tens of thousands of americans die from influenza and are killed in auto accidents. yet it is death at the hands of terrorists that haunt our thoughts and our dreams. the terrorists could hardly hope for more. that is exactly what they want. that they want a disproportionate u.s. military response. another u.s. president famous for a failed prolonged war was linden johnson. when running against barry goldwater in 1964, he stated that we shouldn't be asking american boys to do what asian boys should be doing for themselves. pun fortunately, just like president george w. bush he overreached, rather than

following his own good advice. the struggle occurring in the middle east and north africa is existential but it's not existential for us and not even for our western allies. it is the governments and the peoples of the entire region who are most threatened. groups pledging allegiance to isis, as was said, are existing in 16 countries. so after two major wars, the cancer has metastasized. the u.s. needs to calibrate the help it offers to the indigenous forces that are willing to confront isis militarily and otherwise. there are many groups and states that deserve our help. but we have to keep in mind that there are also groups that those groups and states often don't share our exact interests. and in many cases we should not lend ourselves to advancing, for instance, hateful sectarian

agendas or get involved in the middle of a sunni/shia struggle. that is not for us as ambassador haqqani eloquently pointed out. we should be willing, however when we find those willing to fight this scourge, to be provide military equipment, intel sharing logistical support, training including for special operations and in some cases, air support, and as we saw recently in yemen, search and rescue. but i think we have to ask ourselves how would it have been received in the 17th century if the turkish sultan in istanbul had sent the janicearies to sort the the war in europe between catholics and protestants. this conflict was so bloody it may have wiped out one quarter to one third of the population of central europe. most of them civilians in the

area where it was fought. before the war was concluded by the tretpy of westphalia which set up our current nation-state system. so i'm just saying. thank you. [ applause ] >> i have the privilege of introducing a very special guest this year. this is our 17th annual review of international terrorism cooperation, and we've invited and have with us today governor jim gilmore the 68th governor of virginia, close friend to the potomac institute, and supporter for a long time. he's been a little bit of everything, from an arm irofficer to a prosecutor to an elected attorney general on many corporate boards. the air force academy board. so on and so on. most importantly, however he's ban pointed to many congressional and presidential boards overseeing topics as

diverse as his history. but even most importantly, something known as the gilmore commission, which in 1999 was pulled together to assess the united states' ability to deal with terrorism. the gilmore commission existed not just throughout '99, 2000, but well past 2001. with that, the gilmore commission was the venue, if you will, for the first line of advice strategy on how to deal a brand-new global war on terrorism. governor gilmore was the author of this nation's strategy for dealing with terrorism throughout the early 2000s. and he coined, i believe, he's one who should be credited with coining the term international cooperation on terrorism for the good of the united states. it's with great privilege that i introduce to you governor jim gilmore. >> my -- [ applause ] >> michael thank you very much. i'm struck by the story that the

ambassador told about the terrorist who rented the truck and went off and blew it up and then went back for the deposit. at least he was a capitalist. i guess i am your politician here today. i'm the one that was invited to participate with these distinguished professionals who have spoken to you here today. i think that i was invited as michael suggested, because i chaired the national commission and advisory panel on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction on behalf of the united states. that commission was established in 1999. we served until 2003. five years of work that can be found on the rand corporation web page under gilmore commission. i was also, after the three years that the statutorily was expected to work the governor of virginia at the time of the 9/11 attack. as everyone knows, two states were directly attacked that day,

new york and virginia, because the pentagon is in virginia. i actually ended up being for a while a war governor and had to do the things necessary to protect the commonwealth and work on behalf of the people of the state. the german air crash comes to mind. the terrible, terrible thing we just saw. struck over the weekend that the 150 victims who were on that airplane were actually still victims of 9/11. because all of those processes in that airplane cockpit had been put into place to prevent terrorists from getting into the cockpit. little did they know that it was going to be reversed on them because of this type of mental illness or whatever motive that we will ultimately discover. those people died because we are engaged today in the global challenges that we're facing because of the tactics that are being used. we've seen it in copenhagen. where the effort there was to

try to enforce a certain approach towards the muslim faith. likewise in paris where a certain effort was being made to enforce a certain approach to the muslim faith. which was to not be critical or not challenging in any way. boek boko haram which has tried to legitimate kidnapping rape slavery. isis, which is probably the worst example of all where we are seeing beheadings people thrown off buildings, people being trapped in cages and burned alive before our very eyes on the modern accoutrements of western civilization through video. these are crimes. these are crimes against not just -- these are crimes against humanity. and it has to be said as such and it couldn't be said in the most strongest way. terrorism, ladies and gentlemen, is a tactic. it is a vehicle. it is a methodology conducted by people. so we have to constantly be

asking ourselves, what do these people want to achieve by the use of these kinds of tactics? i would suggest to you that what they're trying to do is to destabilize the modern world. they're trying to undo the modern world. they're trying to change the status quo, which has been in place at least since the end of world war ii. we are seeing the legitimization of attacks on civilians, saying that civilians are in fact combatants in the global war that we are seeing, so civilians are not safe. states that set up security systems are not legitimate because they cannot protect the civilians which can be attacked at any point in time. that is the point that the enemy is trying to make. they are attacking the economy. bin laden said that the goal was to attack the western economies to bring down the western economies through the investment of small terrorist attacks and then requiring the nation-states to respond, very extensively,

and we have now seen a few hundred thousand dollars spent in 9/11 and hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars spent in response, a pretty good return in investment by the bad guys. we have recently seen the consistent attacks on tourists in various parts of the middle east in why? in order to discourage tourism. so in fact the economies of the target countries can inevitably be weaned away from the tourist opportunities that are there. as chairman of the gilmore commission, we worked for five years, and we concluded that the only type of approach in response to this everywhere in the united states and across the world was in fact a decentralized response, building of police, fire, rescue and emergency services, building up security systems in other countries, and they will be building up their military, and it will have to be a decentralized response, just as the attack is decentralized across the world today.

there are some things, of course, that could be very bad. for example the attempt to fight this, these kinds of decentralized attacks through the rise of police states or preemptive war. several of the panelists here have been somewhat critical of the bush doctrine of preemptive, and unilateral strikes, and so am i. but nonetheless i would suggest to you, as has been suggested on this panel, there is a need for a new united states foreign policy in the face of this challenge. what has been alluded to on the panel already is there's a line of thought, i just wrote a whole book on the subject in the past week published by the cato institute that said that the danger is really not all that bad and we can probably begin to pull back in such a way. and i believe that in fact reflects much of the united states foreign policy today. on the other hand, the panel has been, and i think justifiably critical of the neocons.

who have a tendency to get out there, use military first impose nation building, in places where it sim 34ri will not work. and is not wanted. and i believe that there is a middle ground that should be offered that uses all the advantages of ourselves and our allies with our economic diplomacy, military and above all cultural strengths in order to achieve a specific goal and a specific mission. well, what is that? i think it's time to ask ourselves what we're trying to do here. one thing i believe we're trying to do is to preserve, as was alluded to on the panel, the peace that was failure. the creation of nation states that was created the whole structure set up as far back as 1648 with the peace of west stay yeah that says you have nation-states in order to promote certain values and certain values of individual people within those states. today that is directly under attack, by the russians, who right now are making it very

clear that borders no longer matter in western europe, and that if they desire, the ukraine or maybe even the baltics, it's all in play, but also, much more in line with our panel here today, the issue of these radical jihadists, who not only want to undermine specific countries, they want to undermine all countries. they want to see in fact the elimination of countries and borders and the creation of a caliphate. that is in fact what isis proclaims that it wishes to do. what is the purpose of the nation-state if it isn't security of our people? but it can't be just security of our people. nation-states, and particularly the united states, has an obligation to assert its values. and what are these values that are worthy of putting forward across the world that begins to allow us to win the war of ideas? because we are in a conflict not merely of car bombs and military weapons and news rooms but also

in the minds of people, as has been alluded to here today. what are those values? democracy. the free enterprise system, which i would recommend the united states, by the way. the rule of law. the freedom of religion and tolerance of religion. the advancement of women. at least these values should capture the minds of people, no matter where they are worldwide. and i think, as the former governor of virginia, one of my predecessors in the office of governor of virginia, a man by the name of thomas jefferson who before he was governor of virginia wrote the declaration of independence. i remind you of those words. all men are created equal. they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. these are not just american values. when he wrote them, they became universal. human values and remain the ideas that america and their

allies must put forward today in order to win the war of ideas. and that must be the mission for all of us. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, governor. i think we would like to develop a discussion with the audience. and then the speakers will have another chance to respond. would you please, raise your hand, those who are interested, and please come to the mic. sharon, will you please --

in particular, for example, the failure to hold a conference in helsinki, one of your favorite cities, i'm sure. on the weapons of mass destruction free zone. as or tained by the 2010 npt review conference. thank you. >> weapons of mass destruction -- [ inaudible ] >> thank you, sir.

yes, we are having into the npt conference next month. and of course egypt is going to this conference, and i think all the other countries are going to this conference with a very constructive approach in order to make it a successful event. unfortunately if we go back to the last conference in 2010 we had a clear mandate to have a conference in 2011 to free the middle east from all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. unfortunately, this did not materialize. despite all the concessions made by arab countries. so obviously egypt, as well as other countries are going to the 2015 conference with the hope that we will have maybe a better mandate in order to have this conference held as soon as possible because we believe that freeing the middle east from all

weapons of mass destruction is a priority and a necessity. it has to do also not only with states, but also with nonstate actors referring to the efforts made by the state department which ambassador jenkins referred to. thank you. >> anyone else? >> okay. please. one second. >> i'm from the center of egyptian-american religions. my question to the ambassador is how would you advise the administration applying the latest law senator leahy's law, to have -- on egypt after the coup especially as we know that oppositions have local grievance in general, but because u.s. support the dictators, their

roles have become anti-american and do we know that dictators suppressed opposition soon will produce terrorists, and that's applied to the egyptian regime which killed -- and i can go on and on and i have evidence of that. thank you. >> you know, in foreign policy, in any state, but particularly i think in the united states, there is always great tension between our values on one hand and our vital national interests on the other. and as the governor pointed out, it's the first job of government to protect its citizens. the united states tried to back

democratic elections in egypt and it seems that everybody blamed us. i don't think he'd mind me saying it, because he says it very forthrightly but almost exactly a year ago i met with the -- i was honored to meet with the sheik, the head of the oldest maybe higher education institute in the world and a leading -- obviously a leading figure within sunni islam. and he was convinced that the united states had backed the muslim brotherhood and that it had been our intent all along to put the muslim brotherhood in power, and nothing i could have said to the contrary was going to change his mind. that's the view of many

egyptians who back the current government. and at the same time, those who back the brotherhood and other similar islamic organizations are convinced that the u.s. colluded in bringing them down. so as i was saying in my talks, i think the u.s. has to look out for our interests first and foremost. it doesn't mean that we don't still stand for democratic elections and human rights and pluralism and the like. but it still comes down to the peoples in the region having to decide what they want. and as i said, there there are some differences, including this idea of, is god sovereign? although i'm not convinced that god talks directly to anybody and tells them what it is he wants here on either. or is it the people or is it a small oligarchy? that they're sovereign.

i know that doesn't really answer what you hope maybe i would say but it's the best i can do. >> okay. in the back over there. the mic, here in the mic. >> i think the room agrees with me in thanking you for a spectacular panel today. i'm rear admiral sonny masso. one of the things that we addressed is we talked about three things. who are the terrorists? what are the root causes of their angst? and what we can do about it. and i think we did a great job talking about who they are and what we can do about it, but we never really spoke to root causes. ambassador's well-stated point about sunny-shia issues should be dealt with by muslims. what is your your sense on the counternarrative? i really ask the entire panel.

how do we define an entire narrative when we haven't discussed what the root causes are? what are your suggestions and should america stay out of the counternarrative as your point was well taken ambassador concerning shia-sunni issues. >> actually, i didn't just limit myself to shia-sunni issues, i think that muslims, whether they are american or otherwise, do have a role to play in defining islam. but if nonmuslims start taking upon themselves, as the president did, in saying these people who are attacking are not really muslim because. i mean, i don't think he has a degree that qualifies him to say that. so that was my observation. my observation was that the ideological divide within the muslim community has to be addressed by muslims. if the united states wants to help as ambassador kattouf said those with whom you have a

shared value or belief system that's absolutely something that you should do, and it is something that i would urge you to do, because it is useful. as far as the roots of angst are concerned, first of all, there's no single root of angst. there's many groups and each one has a different agenda. some started out as local groups, morphed into something else. some of them are ideologically motivated groups that basically want as governor gilmore pointed out, that basically want to roll back modernity through what they see as sub conventional military capabilities. i remember distinctly once seeing a demonstration in pakistan and some smart-aleck there had a poster which said a suicide bomber is a poor man's f-16. basically the argument he was making was we don't have the f-16s. we don't have modern technology the way you do. and so therefore to bring you down, we're going to use this unconventional, subconventional

capability. so therefore the root, the multiple roots, but then there is the ideological motivated groups which are basically trying to quote/unquote level the field in their opinion. and therefore it's in our interest. all of our interest, not to let them level the field in that particular manner. lastly as far as the counternarrative is concerned, actually the counternarrative exists. the problem is that the 24/7 media here and elsewhere essentially treats all stories in a certain manner. the counternarrative is not a story. the terrorist narrative is. so it actually gets amplified much more than the counternarrative does. within islamic thinking, there are many sensible people, religious school ares who have a very different view on things. for example, the shia-sunni divide goes back to the succession of the prophet mohammed.

people like me would say, well, the succession of the prophet mohammed is over, 14 centuries ago. anybody can have an opinion on it, but as far as my faith and practice is concerned, and my ability to do good deeds and abhor bad ones is concerned, what happened in history is not going to determine that. and so therefore my faith should be focused on a faith defining my action rather than fighting with somebody over what historic fact took place centuries ago. it's a bit like if the americans had a religious sect that still wanted to resolve the election which took place in 1871. remember, any american history buffs here? the disputed election after

president grant, 1866 or something, 1864. '68 he said. >> 1876. >> okay. whenever. so it was a disputed election. basically that's what -- huh? >> tilden and hayes. >> yes, president hayes won, of course. and i'm sure that there is somebody who argues it still. same goes for the shia-sunni divide. should ali have been the successor, was the succession correct? many of these issues are not relevant to modern life. the counternarrative is modern life. if the muslims of the world felt that they had an equal stake in modernity and that their future was what they were building rather than arguing over the past, and killing over the past, we would have a much better muslim world. >> may i add something? >> when i mentioned the socioeconomic aspect of terrorists, i -- the