o secretary tom ridge as the department was being stood up, in the early 2000's. he served in office at the white house, called the office of homeland security, which is a small shop. and grew into, as we her earlier, $40 billion enterprise which is the department of homeland security today. before the wows frank was involved with the center for strategic and international studies. and literally i could go on and on about frank's background and resume. but let me now introduce our next speaker frank cilluffo. frank? [applause] >> thank you joe, for that overly kind introduction. if i were to introduce myself it would be a bumper sticker frank cilluffo he who displays varying delays of ignorance in

lots of subjects. so universal the environment we're facing today plays to one of my strengths, to my a.d.d., since if you were to close your eyes, have a map in front of you, point to anyplace, anyplace on the map and all likelihood you're going to fall into a bulls eye of a crisis that we are facing right now. and i'm going to spare the obligatory lawyer joke. i can tell you one thing, i normally like lawyers behind me to be in front of all of you is a little threatening. but i also have the greatest respect and appreciation for what the american bar association does, for what joe does, for what one of my good colleagues jim turner and all of you collectively do to advance our national security and improve our homeland security. you've done great work over the years, and i mope that you continue to do this great work because our country needs it.

what i thought i'd do quickly is, again, if you were to close your eyes to point to anywhere on the map, whether it's the ukraine, crimea, whether it's pyong-yang, north korea, whether it's what's unfolding so tragically in syria and iraq, whether it's the broader, where you see vast, vast territory under the control of islamists and foreign terrorist organizations. whether it's the e body will outbreak in africa, whether it's cyber fleets. the reality is a lot is unfouledding and it feels like it's unfolding quicker faster, and more dangerously than ever before. i don't if you've had an tub to read general flynn's outgoing interview, but it is well worth taking five to 15 minutes to

read some of his views. he was the head of the defense intelligence agencies, and the take away, i ask you to read it, but was simply that it's certainly the most dangerous team in his lifetime in terms of an era in terms of threats and comparative exraps to world war ii where you had some of the most evil manifestationings of what humanity has seen. it is worth looking at, but i think that accelerating all of this is the speed and the connection of technology. whether it's social media, if you start seeing just how effective social media has been for our adversaries to radicalize and recruit individuals, just look in syria just look in iraq. you've got a surge a surge you've got 13,000 foreign fighters joining the ranks of jihaddist organizationings in the region. these are big numbers.

and obviously when you're talking about foreign fighters, at least three thousand of which are westerners, that adds a whole new level of concern to our homelands and to this changing threat environment. these are individuals are familiar with hair countries they know our culture, they know the target, they know everybody about is. so and it some point many of these people return, so that's something that perhaps we don't feel the full effect of what it means right now. but two, tree, four, five years from now, i any you're going to see it manifest in very new and dangerous sorts of ways. but if you were to look at the threat environment right now and if you were to try to understand the terrorism environment, it really does come in various shapes, sizes and forms. ranging from al qaeda senior leadership is still in business how effective are nay, have they been eclipsed by isis in iraq.

i think that's the wrong set of questions, because i any what you're starting to see is a con flyings of -- a conflation. they're sort of open source model where they're working with, between and among one another. you're seeing a con flyings of conflict zones. you can't fully straight the -- from what you're seeing unfold in syria and iraq. you're starting to see vits who are being talent intoeded by the adversary, who be turned around and sent back home. because of their passports their familiarity. because of their recognition of the region. and we did a major study in 2007 maybe 2008, i can remember exactly, but looking at some of the foreign fighter trend and trajectories, and at that time

we started looking at this because of one particular days. does anyone here heb the case of a naturalized american to went to afghanistan his intent was to fight alongside taliban. hi was intercepted by al qaeda turned around and you said you have much greater val to tagger the united states. and he was behind the plot a very sinister plot to basically suicide bomb side bombings on the new york subway. this was the time i think our country was blinking really red. and unfortunately he got further along with any of us in would feel comfortable with. in part because we didn't have some of the sing wrongization and integration. the plot materialize in denver, made it to new york, had an

overseas component, so it was caming for the holes in our seems, basically looking for the wholes. so we went out and started doing some analysis on this, and the simple take away was foreign fighters are nothing new. if you go back to afghanistan the first afghanistan fight against the soviets, you'll see that there were a number of westerners fighting a long side theirest while threats in that region. the difference is the numbers are actually growing in terms of scale. the feed speed is quicker, the demographic changing and many of them are coming back to the west. so when you look at even the al qaeda threat, think everyone would have liked to have said ding donning the rich is dead, let's go home and worry about all of the challenges that are facing our country our economic situation. and everything else we all

struggle with on a daily base i. the reality is the threat was not dead and i think part of that is getting to the recognition and understanding that it's not about networks aown or organizationings alone. it's about the ideology. to par phrase bill clinton he said it's the economy stupid. in this case it's the ideology, stupid. and it's propelling these organizationings and it's quicker, faster, and resonates with a percentage of people around the world that i think should warrant a lot concern. so we need to continue to push the nfl militarily, tackity cloudy. but we need to also recognize that until we address the underpinnings of the threat, we're going to have tactics massacre rating as strategy. so we have to collect to that point to be able to expose their narrative.

not acting is an action, and unfortunately that vacuum is being hilled by our adversaries today. then when you start looking into africa, why africa, why the fatah. why the mcgrab. these are vacuums that are being filled with i our adversaries. they are afforded the time, and the ability to maneuver, train and plot attacks. so i think one of the challenging vexing issues we've all tried to address in recent years is take drones, i'll bring it up. probably not a good topic in front of a bunch of lawyers. but at the end of the day i would rear our enemies look over their shoulders than giving them more time to plot execute maneuver recruit and engage in terrorist activity. is it the pan asee a, absolutely

not. but is it an important instrument yes, it is. but it has to be combined with other instruments that quite honestly we're not all that comfortable as a country or as a world addressing. and i think that's something we need to worry about. isis, i mean if you looked at the tragic tragic news in recent days in terms of the beheading of an american, this is part of their narrative. their narrative is to department trait that we are vulnerable, we should an trade and that will taken continue to engage in this sort of activity. i would advice no one to watch that video. because in a way we're giving them the oxygen they look for that they speak for to be able to full till those objectived. that said, we also can't ignore these particular issues. and i hate to sea it, but i

think you're going to see more incidents along these lines. it's actually very reflective in recent history of what zarkawi was doing, he was terrorist number one in iraq, he ran am kead acin iraq. and he actually crossed the line, some would say by bombing a jordannian welding where he killed a number of the wedding goers as well as their family members, obviously. what he ended up seeing what is basically a push back that he crossed the line, he was behind a lot of beheadings and grew some videos, and ultimately it doesn't resonate and sell in the way he was looking for. it did for a small person, but not overall. it even got to the point where al qaeda's leader was sending notes to him, suggesting that, hey, this is too violent, we're never going to be able to win

the so-called hearts and minds that they were trying to in their obscure and twisted kind of way do. so i'm not sure this has staying power but i think that's almost your relevant. because the sickle is so fast, we're looking for small numbers to engage in activity quickly. if you're to believe what you see out of recent reporting out of the u.k., you've got 500brits fighting a long side isis and other torgs grifts and iraq and syria. you've got 900 french according to their security services. you've got up to approximately 100 americans fighting a long side these individuals, so these are big numbers. and the thing you have to realize is terrorism business day definition a small numbers business. we can't afford small incidents.

so i think that's something we need to be thinking about especially in terms of threats our homeland. so even the foreign fighter issue aside, if you look at isis it's morably the most well funded terrorist organization in history. they've robbed banks, think have a fields. someone is buying this, which i think should be the next question, i hoe that's why we start squeezing some of that. and they've got this sense of momentum and most importantly they have -- at some point they're going to be turning the cannons away from the media z the immediacy. as we can ramp up our activity, and that's where i do important air strikes. because i don't see better alternatives. the most frightening thing for me was i do think there was a

time where a threat level this dropped. right now, and i think we got walled into a false sense of complacency for a while. now if you look at the threat level, it does mimic the pre9/11 environment. that's not to suggest that we have more capabilities but in terms of intent and in terms of numbers, we've got to take it incredibly seriously. in terms of the actual counterterrorism state craft tools we need to bring to bear to me it really is about addressing some of the narratives. there are some great programs that people arm aware of at state department, the cscc and some of these other entities, are actually forward leaning in materials of pushing back, even using humor to defeat the resonance of the adversaries' message. but we need to do a whole lot

more. mali is one safe haven that warrant great concern for a lot of folks. i think the french deserve a lot of credit, for i never thought i'd say vive la france. but even in a counterterrorism standpoint they were able to prelively get in front of what was going to be a much greater threat in terms of immediacy. but that too doesn't last forever. so the question is how do we start addressing these issues. this is one of the most gruesome organizationings, one of the most brutal, bar bearing organizations around. i, you want to turn off the tv, you want to stop reading your twitter feed, you want to stop reading the newspapers, because it really is a through some organization. and you've got people being

killed on a regular basis. you've seen really vicious i.d. campaigns in the region, you're seeing swaths of girls and now boys being kidnapped for what, for trying to be humans, for trying to study, be part of society. so i'm not sure how we best get our arms around, that but we need to build up the capacities at some of these countries. boots on ground should be the last option we ever had in some of these places. lightfoot frints, yes. heavy footprints not so much. in somalia there's been good news there, but i'm not sure, i think stum of that is already beginning to fade. and here you also have a very

vicious terrorist organization that can easily make inroads from a u.s. perspective it's perhaps the community that has been least integrated into the united states, that's why you saw so many americans traveling to shabab much some found their way to yemen to fight alongside al qaeda. but we're not out of the woods there yet either. then aqap is still a very, they've had u.s. in its cross hairs for a very long time, and up nell what we've seen unfold in iraq would have been the most dangerous foreign trif organization from a u.s. homeland perspective. so i hate to say it, but we've got a lot to worry about over seas. then what you're starting to he with what's old is new and what's new is old. russia is back.

dust off all your papers, but we do need to start fabling about what all of that means and their use of proxies, if you start seeing again in the 80's when i first started some of these issues in the 90's we were worried about state sponsored terrorism. it's back. whether it's iran facilitating and supporting hamas or hezbollah, and of course some of the more autonomous organizations. whether it's russia in terms of what you're seeing providing some veneer of plausible deniant, using their proxies which is not knew. those thaw they attacked there through cyber means, but why russia is of greater concern they got nukes lots of them.

those can be gape changer types of incidents. s with brutal and gruesome as terrorism is when you're dealing with a nuclear threat, that can be a game changer very quickly. obviously you've got bio defense issues, i think that perhaps is if i were to look at it from an instrument ality perspective. at least the area we have done the least amount of work that we ought to do more whether it's natural outbreaks and disease like oa body la or whether it's -- ebola, or whether it's foreign terrorists engaging in biological warfare agents, these are the gifts that keep giving. these could be tipping point types of threats we need to be cognizant of. and then of course we still have a home grown threat.

that comes in various striems and forms but i think that here we're going to be so focused on many of these folks traveling jeff seas, so you're going to have some that don travel overseas that will stay off anyone's radar screens screens that are still going to be significant threats. long winded way of saying we ain't out of the woods. but i do think there is some potential for optimism here. a lot of this is coming at a time where i think americans trust in government is at all-time lows. so i think we've got to figure out how we can engage in these instrument alitys and try to maintain that right balance because we don't ever want to tip it too far in one direction much but at the same time we need to acknowledge and not wish threats away. in terms of cyber which is gobbling up most of my time these days, i think we're at a very early stage in recognizing some of the threat and what it

means. cyber, we're not going to defeat cyber. we're going to have to get to the point where we understand how our adversaries use cyber to achieve their objectives. whether it's what we're seeing on the counterradicallization side in terms of recruitment, or whether it's more computer network exploit, i.e. espionage or computer network attack, i.e. using cyber as a weapon to attack our systems. when i see the read the media here, i am less depressed because i don't think they understand it yet. right now i call it kids soccer, everyone is chasing that shiny toy, that ball. we're not seeing the spreading out of the field yet. if you'd were to read a newspaper you couldn't delineate the difference between a web hack, which is graffiti in cyberspace and more so first indicated computer attacking. so we have have to get a little

more clarity. in terms of what we're most concerned about. you can't mirror image our adversaries. at the top of the list would be the russias, the chinas, the united states. some much our allies. but by and large their intent, unless escalating in a military sort of situation, is not to take down an attack systems unless their threatened. something happens in the gulf, maybe that will trigger something out of china something happens in a nato country, maybe that will force the russians to turn to computer network attack. by by and large it's exploit. they're in business of tallying secrets, which matters. it matters. those are our jobs, that's our en novation that keeps america going forward. and it is vulnerable and it's

being stolen at humid, huge amounts like that. if you're in the chinese mind, what would defer you from not engaging in this? why not use the money saved toward marking products. if you look at the post snowden discussion all this moral equivalency discussion oh, i'm shocked there's gambling going on in the casino. but we're not engaging in that to support apple for ab mi or ford or any american company. the din is there you have naflt assets and resources being engaged and used to benefit companies. that's an unfair playing field. and that's not a playing field anyone should want to play on, because then it gets to very core of who we are as a society.

who mesh is as a country. to me that's a marketplace issue that needs to an dressed. and i am somewhat optimistic we can get to some of those solutions. take the russias and chinas, are they engaging in computer attack for military pups, absolutely. are they going to continue to look to physical cyber, the been of things, i can't sprite what's physical and cyber any more, but who are the countries we need to be most worry about from an immediate perspective. that's iran. that's north korea. they can't engage physically, they can try through cyber means. and they are attempting and they're doing the equivalent of intelligence preparations on the battle field and eve than a company like city or goldman sax or bank of america. they weren't built to defend

against nation states or national capabilities, but that's the bats feel we're in today. ain't operate what's the government and what's the private sector, so that's if i were to tell you who him a most concerned from an atan stack point it would probably be the governor of iran, through proxies such assigner hez bow low or some of his other proxies. the russians are doing this every day. and it i dop know who is behind the key bore at the time. we're getting better at tribute but by no means 100%. finally you're starting to see criminal enterprises. criminal candidates. these are largely russia shan speaking -- urasian criminal enterprises.

looks just at the target, that's what you're seeing. if you think that's the only thing that's going on right now, i makes it a board room, it puts some ownership in executives to address the issue, but here the ones who got caught k. if you think they're alone, think again. and the reality is that this is have been handinged or to be hacked and those that aren't aware that haif been hacked so to me when you're starting to look at some of the corporate priorities and some of the business challenges and executives signers at the top of the list list going forward. from a national security standpoint, yes, from a foreign counter intelligence cyber is very high, but you need to be concerned that will engage in

attacks. >> we need to use more clarify and decision. are there going to be the equivalent of cyber drive-day shootings, absolutely. are they going to cause harm, yes. but it's not the same as a foreign nation engaging in an attack. i'm still more worried about kin itic attackings, bus that fumes their recruiting. that has visuals. but are they going to engage in cyber, absolutely. if i were to half to take worse case sceb are whys it's the convergees of -- that's what we need to be worrying about going forward. all that said and done, i really don't mean i think it was, i know it was yog i berra who said the future ain't what it used to

be. and my version is since the end of the cold war, the threat forecasting has made astroll look respectable. i don't have a crystal ball. what i can tell you though the best pay to predict anything, to s is to shape it. and i feel like we're in react mode, we're tired the. we're reacting the crises. everywhere. we need to be in the business of shaping the environment, and yes, i'm a proud american to our national interest. and then do so in a way that's collectively beneficial for society. i'll leave it at that. i spoke way too long, i want to engage in questions, but thank you. [applause]

>> when you were talking about france having citizens and great britain having citizen as long with ours fighting isis and the french going into mali, i'd like your opinion on can we ext on our western allies like great britain and france, at all, to come in and help us? because my big concern is there's a lab grab going on. >> it's a great question. i will tell you that when it comes to the five eyes community, us, u.k., canada, new seal lab and toss trail yeah, there's in sun right light. but whether it has the capacity is another question. i do think that they have a lot of kind ability in there, up with much our closest allies, and if they have something are they will provide it. quite honestly the brits are probablyup set with the likes. in terms of the french, that's a

complex, because as happy as i was in terms of what we saw in mali, and by the way there was less than 20% support at the time of sphrench engagement. so he went against the polls of his own country. that said they are still sell stuff for the russians. who is buying this oil, that should be the question we ned to be asking because once you dry up some of their funding well, obviously you minimize their ability to project power and deploy forces in the same kind of way we're seeing right now. so when you start looking at our allies on counterterrorism

issues, i actually think u.s. france has been a strong partnership. perfect, no much but the politics of it all doesn't areally the, really affect the relationships on the ground where it matters because we both have great sws to address these issues. but it was also a frecialg man that came back and shot up people at a jewish museum so i am very concerned, if you look at the numbers of brits that are filing overseas, even before isis, you saw a number of brits from southeast asia, joining up with al qaeda in the arabian pen inpla. the way the brits security folks would explain it was they knew that the authorities were onto them if they kept traveling to

pakistan, so they go there, they come back and have the same street credits to their audiences. so we got to make this stuff not cruel, it awful, people die. yet there's this cool factor that's triggering some of this in their twisted little world. so bottom line is with the brits, i have every bit of confidence what they can do they will bring to the fight. and they've actually been, other than russia i'd like to see them get stronger on some of the russian investment this their own country. but i think they've been a good partner, and in terms of countertism issues, am optimistic that our relationship with france is strong.

us do we know everyone who has gone overseas? did we mow the numbers until we tarted seeing some of them on the battlefield? probably not. >> thank you. >> thanks, frank for an excellent presentation. basically two questions. first has to do with the efficacy of counterterrorism measures, whether it's squeezing the reach donors in the gulf states for financing terrorism allegedly again, or the pre-eminence and the lack of adequate measures against that. that's one question. what's your take on the efficacy both in terms of the implementation and countertism personners. second a post nailt withdrawal in afghanistan, what kind of

threats do you see to our allies and the home. >> those are great questions. and i'm not making a political decision on whether or not we should have huge boots on ground. but there are measures short of that that can be take ebbing r en, must be taken and we can't take our eye off that ball. because that vacuum could be filled really fast. i also neglected to discuss when i mentioned the fatah region, you've got a number of organizations, these are the bads of the bads. and if there's one sense of optimism it's that they are looking a little bit over their shoulder. if they stop looking over their shoulder they're going r going

to be whying that time not to our best interest. and your first question was on the financial side. you know, you know this better than i do because i think you teach at some of the finance related issues. but it's not just countries, it is individuals and when we can get the precision to be able to address those matters they are effective. you do have individuals that are fueling some of this, and some of them in so alled allied countries. so i am concerned about some of that. but in the isis situation, they don't need that. that's what makes it that much more frightening. they don't have to appeal to anyone because they robbed the banks, i've got the oil. that's very different than what we've seen in the recent past.

in the past deck a of so-called long war'. we haven't had a very open ability to maneuver in daylight. organizationings. you have that there, it well financed on their own it's well armed, they took the technology, they took the weaponry of heavily armed, and you unfortunately they've got a whole lot of training experience based on their activities. so they're adaptive. we tend to think that they don't learn. the reality is they do learn and they become more resilient and adaptive based on recent history. so that's something we need to try to stay ahead of the curve. and i think that's all instruments.

>> coming up next, "q&a" with charles wranglrangel of new york. today, a look at the progress of them lamenting the affordable care act in seven southern states. participants include former federal reserve chair. live coverage begins at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," our guest is charlie rangel.

he talks about his 40 years in the house. mr. rangle recently won the democratic primary but has decided that, if he wins reelection in november, this will be his last term in congress. >> charlie rangel, back in 2007, you came out with a book, "and i haven't had a bad day since." have you had a bad day since 2007? >> not at all. i have been blessed. >> korea was the issue back years ago. >> it happened in korea. it was a nightmare that i went through. my decision on november 30, 1950 was surrounded by tens of thousands of chinese that came from nowhere, indictment of a whole military policy in korea we had 90% casualties.

people were captured, screaming -- rockets in the air, trumpets blowing, chinese on horses -- anything that you could just imagine that would scare the hell out of you. i got shot and i thought since we were trapped for three days and at night the chinese would tell us in english that if we didn't surrender they would tell us -- between that and people being frozen to death i told jesus, i told allah, "i used to be an altar boy, i know you are not listening but if you can hear my plea and get me out of this, you will have no problem with me."

when i truly realized how many of my friends and people that i had served with her couple of years and how many people died unnecessarily, it got to the point that i was spared -- i didn't come to jesus but i knew one thing, that i could never complain about anything ever. the one -- there are times -- i have managed to, in a way, whenever i got close to anything to complain about, would find some sound reason to say that i can't afford to go back on my word. a perfect example was my brother. my best friend, smarter, better looking. everyone loved him.