assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, general daved petraeus and myself have visited in recent months to determine how we can confront the threat of al qaeda. the result has been the most forceful actions and aggressive response that we have seen in many years. those actions, it's important to emphasize, began before the december 25 plot and have continuedr since. we recognize that al qaeda has taken advantage of insecurity in various region of yemen wh has been worsened by internal conflicts. we also know that they are grappling with serious poverty, it's the poorest country in the arab world. the lack of resource inhibts good governance and the security of effectively service s. to have any chance of success, the united states policy must be conceived in a strategic terms and time lines. that's why the administration has adopted a two-prong strategy for yemen.

helping the government confront the immediate security concern of al qaeda, and mitigating the very serious political economic and goffnans issues that the country faces over the long term. not only are we working to consfribt the space in which al qaeda can operate by building up the country's capacity to deal with the security threats within its bo borders, we're also working to develop capacity to deliver basic services and economic growth. the departments of state and defense are providing training and assistance to their counter terrorism forces and programs are facing the underlying condition that is make yes, ma'am nis vulnerable to recruitment. in this manner we're helping the yemeni government to create a more predictable future for its people. obviously, for those of you who know yemen this will not be an easy task. it's a long-term undertaking but a critical one. and if we do our job right over time we will help reduce the

appeal of extremism and weaken the attraction of the al qaeda narrative. job over time we will help reduce the appeal of extremism and weaken the attraction of the al-qaeda narrative. now let me turn to the mag rab. now, let me turn to another priority region for our counterterrorism efforts. to a certain extent which is a good news story. al-qaeda and the islamic magram has failed to meet the objectiv objectives. the group has been unable to conduct major sophisticated attacks since the summer of 2008. this is due in large measure to pressure from algerian forces. furthermore, aqim is in chronic

financial trouble particularly in algeria and unable to reach hits recruiting goals. and whether it would establish itself in europe and carry out attacks there. this is a possibility that we always need to be on guard about. but that said we viewed the near term likelihood of expansion of operations is less likely than just a few years ago. this is in large measure to the -- due to the pressure that the group has been under in algeria and the strong counterterrorism efforts by france. in the saw hill, however, the picture is different. aqim maintains two separate groups of fighters in northern mali and it has recently increased attacks and kidnappings including against western targets. in the last two years, aqim and the saw hill stepped up the pace kidnapping austrian tourists, canadian diplomats in niger. a british hostage was murdered by aqium and as it turns to

kidnapping for ransom to raise funds we are urging our partners around the world to adopt a no concessions policy towards hostage takers so we can diminish this alternative and absolutely critical funding stream. the countries in the saw hill remain determined in their opposition to aqim despite the capacity. and we have the trans-sahara counterterrorism partnership. this is a multiagency effort to help our partners in the region build the capacity they need to defeat terrorist organizations and facilitation networks. we're also working closely with other key international partners to ensure that their efforts in the region are well targeted, well coordinated, and effective. our quiet but solid support for their counterterrorism efforts has emboldened our partners in the region to stand up to extremism. we know an effective counterterrorism strategy has to

go beyond efforts to stop the harm it the u.s. and its citizens and its allies and its interest. as president obama put it, a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. we've looked now at key regions. i'd like to turn back to some key principles. to combat terrorism successfully we have to isolate extremists from the people they pretend to serve. often they do this themselves. the indiscrimanting target has alienated populations and for support of the group's political program. it's outraged clerics and former allies who in many cases who have spoken publicly against terrorism. of course, we can't count on al-qaeda to put itself out of business. so we're focusing our efforts on undermining the group's narrative and preventing the radicalization of vulnerable or alienated individuals. in the government we call these efforts countering violent extremism. and one of the first things i

did in taking office was create a unit in our bureau to identify drivers of extremism and develop programs to counteract them. we're hard at working developing a better understanding of the dynamics of communities in which extremism has taken root. every one of these at-risk communities possesses unique political, economic and social factors that help contribute to the radicalization process. and for this reason we know that a one size fits all program has limited appeal. instead, programs need to be tailored to fit the characteristics of the audience. and for that reason we're employing microstrategies customized for specific communities and even neighborhoods so that they have a better chance of succeeding. we're realistic about what the u.s. government can achieve on its own in this realm. and in marginalizing of proponents of violent extremism at the local level. while the united states is sometimes going to take the lead, often it's a better place to play a supporting role or none at automatic. -- at all.

it ensures that no country can successfully combat al-qaeda on its own. so partnering with others especially at the local level is critical. these officials are likely with partnering with foreign government officials is likely to have an understanding of radicals in their area and who is best placed to counter it. letting partner nations lead is often your to our long-term success. we also know that credible local voices have to take the lead in their own communities. they're the ones best placed to convey counter narratives capable of discrediting violent extremism. the u.s. government is working to identify reliable partners and amplify legitimate voices. the u.s. can help empower these local actors through programmic efforts or by simply providing them with space, physical or electronic to challenge extremist views. nontraditional actors such as ngos, foundations,

public/private partnerships, private businesses are some of the most cable and credible partners in local communities. the u.s. government and partner nations are also seeking to develop greater understanding of the linkages between diaspora communities and ancestral homelands. through family and business networks, events that affect one community often have an impact on the other. so with the aid of these credible messengers the united states is trying to make the use of terrorist violence taboo and to trump the radical narrative and we hope to offer something more hopeful. president obama's effort to create partnerships with muslim communities on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect as he discussed in his speeches in ancara and cairo presents an opportunity to promote a more positive story than the negative one of al-qaeda. while clearly we have not figured it all out and as the december 25th airline plot made clear, significant gaps remain and we are likely to have setbacks in the future.

the contemporary terrorist threat was not made overnight. nor will it disappear overnight. we still have a lot to learn and there are a myriad areas we can improve. but i think we've come a long way over the last 15 months. we're making significant progress on the big picture strategic issues especially when it comes to cve countering violent extremism. and i'm pleased to say that within the senior political leadership, there's a broad shared understanding of the vital need to get this right. in closing, let me also say that we have more and more to work with. and this is a source of great hope, it seems to me. we see an ever greater desire on the part of ordinary people around the world to be rid of radicals who undermine everything that these individuals seek to achieve. i saw that clearly in pakistan two weeks ago where i met not only with officials but with an alliance of clerics whose

followers number in the tens of thousands who are looking for support as they try to make their message of nonviolence heard. i metals with an enormously talented cambridge-trained lawyer whose created an institution to strengthen the rule of law in his own country. and also with a woman professor who turned her ngo for providing care to women and children in the fatah into a truly formidable oppositional force to taliban extremism. these are the kinds of developments that are at the heart of rolling back militancy and we are determined to do what we can working with them, with other governments and with the international community to ensure that they succeed. i want to thank you very much for coming today. and i look forward to your questions. [applause] ..

whether they're able to sort of maintain kind of chain of command that could lead to kind of higher probability of an attack on the homeland or our allies and just as a related question. any update on the bin laden hunt and -- or is that trail cold? has it boon made kind of a higher priority again in the obama administration? a higher priority again in the obama administration? >> well, it's certainly high priority in, i don't really have any news that i can share here and now on that one. in terms of the capabilities of al qaeda, i think that director panetta in his various statements has captured quite well. the group really is, certainly its senior leadership is under the worst pressure it has

experienced in quite a long time. certainly since the 2001-2002 period. however, this is an enormously capable and innovative opponent that is always looking for new ways to achieve its ends. i don't think that we should write off their ability to direct complicated logistically challenging operations that could strike u.s. interests abroad or at home and, i think the other thing to note is that the threat in some ways, as i noted about al qaeda of the arabian peninsula is a bit more distributed than it was before and a lot of these groups are capable, a lot of these groups, al qaeda in arabian peninsula certainly and other groups aspirationally are able to conceive of operations themselves and are of, you know, tapping their way

forward to carry them out. again, i think that we are doing better attack call counterterrorism than we have ever done before but i think it is a die ma'amming and evolving situation and i would note one new complexity we face is we've seen significant uptick in domestic radicalization which obviously will complicate matters significantly. we have seen, you know, half pakistani, half american, using chicago as a facilitation point for operations in india, denmark and elsewhere. we have seen five young men from virginia turn up in pakistan on their way to the fatah. we continue to see a trickle of individuals, somalian ancestry heading to east africa. so while i think that we are doing well, you know, the nature of the threat is

always changing. >> thank you. let's open it up now for comments and, questions from the floor. if speakers could please identify themselves and wait for the microphone. we have the first question here in the front row with raymond tanter. >> hi. ray tanter, georgetown university. ambassador benjamin, thank you for your service to our country and our outstanding presentation. i wondered, you tended to use the word violent extremism, words like islamist never came out of your mouth during your speech. and some people think that the obama administration has turned its back and not taken the war on terrorism, if may use that term, as seriously as the result of the fact that you don't talk about role of islam. reminds me of when rob litak

led the way with term rogue state. rogue reg geem. madeleine albright said letgs@ goá"&@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ y&' is that the purpose? >> i get this question with every appearance. i think that the best way to put it is that the issues of what constitutes true islam and what does not are best answered among muslims and by muslims. and our concern is really with those who seek to use violence as a means to effect our policy and our actions in the world. i would argue that it's a sign of our seriousness that we

don't resort to that kind of language precisely because it has had such negative effects in the past when people have gotten themselves tangled up in issue of muslim doctrine. and i think that it is counter productive for american political officials, for officials of any kind to start hopinging forth in terms of terms about what religion says or doesn't. it has not yet gotten us anywhere in the past and i don't think it will get us anywhere in the future h anywhere in the past and i don't think it will get us anywhere in the future. doesn't mean i as scholar didn't write about it and doesn't mean lots of other people don't have legitimate work to do in that field but from a policy perspective it hasn't gotten us anywhere. >> gentleman in the front row. jasper. please identify yourself.

>> ambassador benjamin. india abroad. i believe during a recent visit to the region visit with india. since the mumbai attacks, u.s.-india counterterrorism cooperation has grown exponentially. after the there is concern in india because the u.s. is reluctant to talk about whether he would, india would have direct access to headly. they feel because of headly's scouting mumbai they should be afford the direct access, if not extradition which is now out of the door because of the plea bargain. there are all these conspiracy theories from commentators, et cetera that there is an intelligence component to headly, et cetera. will you and the counter terrorism bureau sort of urge direct access to the indians to headly? and in your remarks you also spoke about the fact one has to stop tacit support to groups like laskira, et cetera.

even people like bruce riedel and indians keep talking about the fact u.s. has double standards in terms of pakistan military and isi assistance to lashka they sort of conceived as opposed to other groups which are an internal ex-sy tensional threat to pakistan. if you address both of those. >> you're absolutely right. i was in india just last week and it is striking the continuity of the questioning i get on these issues. >> distinguish between kashmir and al qaeda components of the pakistan question? >> well, actually, rob, we're less and less able to distinguish precisely because many of kashmir ri groups have, first of all, some groups that have been called kashmirri like lat are punjab and are active in different parts of the country as well as in

afghanistan. and one of the trends that we have seen is an increasing, sort of stitching together of different groups. this is a great worry. we also see a rise in sort of freelancers. people who have the roots in one group, drifting to another, contracting with another. and it makes for, another one of the really challenging aspects of the changing counterterrorism scene. but let me get to the gentleman's question. it is true that i was asked this question very often in india. let me be quite categorical. there are very complex legal issues at stake here but what is not at stake is that the indian government is getting every bit of relevant information from headly that it requires. the issues of access are

really best handled by the department of justice, which handled the plea agreement and because of the legal nature of this, it's really not something that is appropriate for me to be lobbying one way or the other. and my concern is that as you said, the counterterrorism cooperation between our countries continues to deepen and i have to say this is one of the really positive stories in counterterrorism in the last few years. i don't think anyone would have believed we could have come as as far with india in terms of cooperation as we have you know, inadvertent but nonetheless important consequence of mumbai. a recognition that this is a shared threat. there was, as for the issue of a double-standard, i don't think we have one. we've made very clear exactly how we feel about groups like lashkari has

killed americans. it is designated foreign terrorist organization. i did not hesitate to speak about it in either in india or pakistan. let me tell you it's a threat we take very seriously as i suggested in my remarks. >> okay. stanley and woman in the back and gentleman here. gentleman with his hand up there for --. and then. >> stanley kovfer with the cato institute. president karzai just issued a statement, i'm sure you're familiar with it, condemning foreign interference and fraud in the election. this just comes a few days after the president's visit. so i'm wondering what this implies for our ability to cooperate in our common effort against violent extremism? >> i had a feeling that was going to come up. well, you know, we've had a

lot of experience with a lot of world leaders who said a lot of things at different times and we have managed to work through our differences and achieve a good outcome. and, you know, obviously it is a very challenging situation on the ground in afghanistan. there is no doubt that there are times when our partners feel their toe are being stepped on and there are times we're feeling we're being unnecessarily constrained. i will say that i was just there and, in my meeting with the minister of the interior, ministry of defense, intelligence and the like, i was not presented with any sense that we were unwelcome or that we were doing things that in any way undermined afghan interests. so, i think that across the wide range of the government, the enormous number of

people who we interact with every day, i think that the relationship is working pretty well and i think i'll just leave it at that. >> nicely done. woman in the back, with the blue. yeah. did you have a question? okay. good day sir. "fox news" service, russia. i actually not only have one question but two. my first one would be, as you probably know there are 40 people killed in recent suicide bomber attack in moscow subway. so what is your view of effective methods of preventing, containing and investigating such terrorist attacks as probably you might succeed seed with that? and, my second question is going to be more general. what is a state of cooperation between russia and the u.s. in the

counterterrorism field? thank you. >> let me take the second one first. we have very good cooperation between the u.s. government and the russian government. i'm, pleased to say i have a close relationship with my opposite number, the president's special representative for counterterrorism. i contacted him immediately after we got news of the moscow metro attacks. i think that my colleagues who work russia policy issues would agree that against the background of all the different issues that have been in flux over the last few years in our bilateral relationship, counter terrorism has been the constant in terms of the level of cooperation, atmospherics and the, the outcomes. and we're going to continue working on that as, for

example, the secretary of state and foreign minister lavrov were together up in canada at g8 meeting just a few days ago. i think we have a very good basis to work on. we have a shared interest, by the way, in expanding and further articulating the international organizations that deal with counterterrorism capacity building. for example, and i'm hopeful that we'll have more things to deliver in the near term. i'm reluctant to tell russians what they need to do to deal with their extremists. obviously caucuses remain as troubled area. i don't believe we have enough information on who carried these attacks out but, you know, in our experience, good, solid police work combined with good tell work, -- intelligence work, combined with effective prosecutions will make a big difference in terms of delegitimizing

terrorists and undermining the cause they stand for. so why don't i leave it at that. >> in the back. >> thanks. rtitv. just a quick follow-up. is there any particular cooperation and or intelligence sharing and or assistance between the u.s. and russian authorities on these terrorist attacks this week both in moscow. thank you. >> well we have certainly offered our assistance. i don't know that we've received a response. we do exchange, intelligence from time to time. but i'm certainly not in a, in a position to comment on current intelligence matters, nor should i. and, so, you know, you think we'll wait until a few more days of passes to see if there is anything we really want to discuss on that. >> gentleman here. yes.

>> burton grover from georgetown university. you give a very, kind of positive view of what our government is doing and how we assess the situation. what i would be interested in is, when you go home at night, getting ready to go to bed, what is it that you're most worried about that we're not doing, that we're not achieving, and the threat of low probability but very high impact terrorist attacks against us? >> there are lots of things that worry me at night. i'm someone who was, you know, on september 11th of 2001, holding a three-week old son when i got the call from cnn so i'm fully alive to the issues of scat strofk

terrorism. -- catastrophic terrorism. i think that, i don't want to say that there is nothing that falls into that category. we have incredibly complex infrastructure which we've seen can be used against us. we have an incredibly innovative opponent, or genuinely learning organization. and so it is often things we haven't figured out yet that, that ought to trouble us. i suppose that one, when i think about it, what worries me the most is that we are in a race in terms of keeping our technological edge against opponents who are making very good use of, newly available technologies, and that they always are enabled by the fact that the barriers to entry are

falling. so we do worry about wmd. we do worry about the fact every year it goes by there are tens of thousands of more people capable and adept at using tools of biotechnology. or who are very insightful in looking at the holes in our infrastructure. we saw exactly this kind of thing on december 25th where we saw essentially a new kind of explosive device being deployed. so, i guess my biggest concern that we're always on our edge there and, i would add one other, since we're always on point in terms of the technological aspect of this, i think the other thing that does concern me is what i was talking about when i was talking about countering violent extremism. the challenge of learning how to change minds and