have not understood. >> in 2012, covering both conventions, what other things that struck me on the republican side of it is the enormous number of hispanic elected officials who were on the podium . on the democratic side, even though they had very few hispanics in the audience. they were attending the convention, which is a very marked contrast. thats, the perception hispanics and african-americans are predominately more thatratic, whether or not has resulted in deliverables to those communities, i think there are a lot of hispanics who are upset the current administration has not done more with the current immigration issue. likewise you could make a are aent about if you strong christian, you're more

likely to be republican. have they delivered on the issues important to that community? >> we have had jewish members and legislature, but i have an jewish someone of the faith they could never win a statewide race in florida and 2014. comments relating to racial matters. a latino man nor woman running or a redundantly latino area a black person or a white person in similar circumstances. racialments relating to matters ever acceptable? will we ever eliminate that? acceptable is another one of those words.

will there be conversations or thoughts direct did towards race? decide whether they are acceptable but accept them as a reality? a reality that we will either confront somewhere between references to liberty city as being the home of every person of color in miami-dade county, for example. what does that bring into your mind? there are people who mean well.

they do not appreciate. just like i made a reference to a connotation of a very clever statement made earlier to make a point that was so far away from what i said. the fact is that there is relevance in both of those things and that is the tragedy of innuendo. >> when you look at the issue on the debate of gay marriage today and see how that is one issue society, the united states has moved so dramatically in just a decade, would you perhaps say that there is enormous progress being made to be more inclusive, a greater

acceptance? difference is not necessarily something to be feared but just a fact. if you don't want to embrace it, it's nothing you have to run away from either. >> precisely. the fact that human relationships that have existed from the beginning of time are now acknowledges human relationships without good, bad, connotations are allowing for its happened because it became a part of the conversation. we will not allow race to be a part of the conversation because we are too sensitive yet with what our organizers call the anrd rail which means untouchable conversation especially anybody in public life. the pointt gotten to

where we can candidly talk about the celebration of differences that contribute. include green peppers, cucumbers, and tomatoes. what we cannot do is once we identified this as a salad we forget about the valuable components that constitute this new, unified entity with all of its units and components working in harmony to create something that is fact or he to the consumer. to being whatck is american? we go back to the immigration debate in the history of the african-american which is not the same as the caribbean orrican in south florida even the experience of the puerto ricans. in the immigration debate, there's a conversation that if -- citizenship is not

included then you are making a second class city sent and you could say puerto ricans who are american citizens by birth cannot vote for president if you live on the island but if you live in the corridor or, you certainly can. discrimination or people who want to try to raise themselves by saying, "at least i'm not like them" occurs within racial and ethnic groups. , there has been political tension between the historic african american community and the haitian community. the ugly word that was invented by german jews about the russian jews coming to new york city. within the hispanic groups, the cuban community was not exactly tension. and there was

as half cuban, half puerto rican, neither community were sure we were going to fit in. there are differences within communities. sometimes they play outside those communities. it is not just black versus white. there are some of these within ethnic and racial groups that have political consequences in the innuendo there is probably even more difficult to figure out. as we wrap this up, just a brief one minute statement from each of you, a final thought, just a quick minute. it's getting better. in no way is this society perfect, but it's getting better. we got to work to continue to improve it. george, do you think you can

make it a little positive before you leave? >> no. [laughter] here's the difficulty. once again, all i wish to do is make a contribution to a truth that all of us must face and not being negative at all. i'm not failing to acknowledge progress at all. the fact is everything that we've done is good must be accelerated and the only way that we can accelerate it is to have a conversation about the things that are deepest in our hearts, our greatest fears and challenges, and our common purpose. no one wants to go first. nobody wants to say that we are interdependent and we need each other. thatrather say something connotes that we are not in this together.

are bearers and there are writers. must acknowledge that each of us has both a role and value to contribute to the society to the people in dubuque, iowa, are praying that we demonstrate today. eu, afteri apologize these two great speakers that this is what you get for sitting in the back of the class. >> i have great hope in the "millennials." signsare buildings with that said no blacks, no puerto ricans, no dogs. this current generation, i have a 20-year-old and a 12-year-old. maybe in urban areas like ours where they grew up with diversity, particularly public

education, kids like mine who are puerto rican, cuban, jewish, russian -- what are they? they embrace diversity and ways. they don't tolerate it. they are race at. tolerance is a horrible word. i tolerate pain. we use that term a lot. that has probably been a right word to use. diversity, maybe. i think newer generations embrace it. it's all they know. that's why a lot of young people coming back to south florida because they like it. i'm hopeful. >> everybody, thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

tonight on c-span's american history our focus is on native americans. we start off with the battle of the big horn. then a tour of a new mexico pueblo. then 9,000 pick to graphs and visit a spanish mission in

florida. tonight at 8:00 p eastern. >> the united nation's security council held a meeting. this meeting includes speeches by the russian and ukrainian ambassadors to the u.n. up first we'll hear from u.s. ambassador to the united nation's. this conflict. russia is not listening. we said it when russia

flagrantly violated law. we said it after the shocking downing of malaysian airlines flight 17 which took the lives of innocent men women children and infants from 11 countries and we say it today as russia's soldiers, tanks, air defense and artillery support and fight ongside separatist as they open a new front in a crisis manufactured in and fueled by russia. but russia is not listening. instead of listening, instead of heeding the demands of the international community and order at every step russia has come before this council to say everything except the truth. it has manipulated, it has bfiss kated p, it has outright lied. so we have learned to measure by

actions not words. on august 26, just this tuesday, after meeting with ukrainian president in belarus, president putin spoke of the need to "end blood shed as soon as possible. " yet, the same day satellite imagery show russian combat units southeast in eastern ukraine. that same day, ukraine detained regular russian army personnel from the ninth brigade. in response russia claimed the soldiers had wandered into ukrainian territory by mistake. this supposedly in a time of conflict along one of the most carefully watched borders in the world. the day after those talks, russia fired rockets from inside russia at ukrainian positions. and then attacked two columns of

russia armored vehicles and tanks. positioned on the outskirts of that town as we speak. russia's force along the border is the largest it has been since it began redeploying forces there in late may and includes significant numbers of combat aircraft and helicopters. russian unmanned aircraft routinely cross into ukrainian air space. other deployments into ukrainian territory include advanced artillery not found in the ukrainian inventory. these have she would positions outside -- shelled territory. one of the leaders that russia has armed and backed said openly that three or four thousand russian soldiers have joined their cause. he was quick to clarify that

they were on vacation. but a russian soldier who chooses to fight in ukraine on his summer break is still a russian soldier and the armored vehicle he drives there is not his personal car. meanwhile, in russia families are holding funerals for their loved ones who have been killed in the fighting in ukraine. they're demanding answers for how they were killed. journalists who try to cover these funerals are threatened by armed men. yet still according to russian government the soldiers were never there. they were never in crimea, either, until russia announced that those soldiers who were never there had annesmed crimea. the last 48 hours fit into a well-established pattern. each step has paved the way for the one that followed. and in in spite of all these action ukraine has politically

sought a solution to this crisis, a path to deescalation. despite this pattern, the president showed up in mincic to meet with president putin. who was still unwilling to acknowledge the most basic facts we all know -- that russia has armed, equipped, and now joined illegal separatists fighting in ukraine. serious negotiations are urgently needed but russia has to stop lying and has to stop fueling this conflict. the mask is coming off. in these acts these recent acts we see russia's actions for what they were, a deliberate action to support and fight alongside the separatists in another sovereign country. now, russia has claimed that ukraine is not interested in a ceasefire but let's be clear, we have every interest in the ceasefire as long as it is a real one but russian separatists have no i want rest in observing

a cease fire but use the time to rearm and wait for additional soldiers and supplies to flow across the border from russia. in the face of these alarming actions the most important question for us now is not what we should say to russia. the most important question is what we should do to make russia listen. the united states has throughout this crisis and in close coordination the eu and the g-7 exerted targeted effective pressure so this message is heard, so that russia begins to deescalate rather than escalate so that the reasonable peace plan put forward is adopted and implemented. and in the face of russia's continued aggression and blatant disregard for u.n. charter, we will continue to work closely with our g-7 and european partners to ratchet up the consequences on russia. now, i understand that there are real costs felt by citizens of countries when their government take these actions. it has cost for businesses the

trade with russia and sale to russian markets from small scale farmers to big factories. those costs are considerable and nobody should take them lightly. but let's be clear. if unchecked, the damage that russia's blatant disregard for the international border poses is much, much greater. these rules and principles that have taken generations to build with unparalleled investment countless lives have been lost to establish and defend these principles and every single one of us has a stake in defending them. a threat to the order, the international order, is a threat to all of our peace and security. these are the rules that russia is flouting when it illegally seizes territory and arms and fights alongside illegal groups in neighboring countries. ukraine is one of roughly a dozen countries that share a border with russia. let me close with a couple questions. how can we tell those countries

that border russia that their peace and sovereignty is guaranteed if we do not make our message heard on ukraine? why should they believe it will be different if tomorrow president putin decides to start supporting armed separatists and allowing soldiers on vacation to fight in their countries? and just as important, what message are we sending to other countries with similarly alarming ambitions around the world when we let russia violate these rules without sufficient consequences? in the face of this threat, the cost of inaction is unacceptable. thank you. >> i thank the representive for the statement. i go to the give the floor to the representative for the ussian federation. >> in the southeast of the ukraine is a direct consequence of the reckless policy of kiev which is conducting war against

its own people. the support and under the influence of a number of states that kiev authorities have tor peedoed all political agreements. the geneva declaration of 17 april and the berlin declaration of 2nd of july not to mention the agreement of 21 february by the current authorities who were in former opposition. they cast aside this agreement which opened real opportunity for civilized solution to the crisis. now, the so-called peace plan proposed by the president unilaterally was only a step in further escalation because the ruce was predicated by capitulation of service and this against the back drop with representatives of the region. where is the dialogue promised by kiev or decentralization of authority or special status for the russian lauge?

the only thing we're seeing is a fight against dissent where political parties are banned and the media who doesn't toe the line is banned. the president has often made peace sound peaceful statements. just yesterday this was his comment on the outcome of the high level meeting in mincic. the main goal is peace. we derequire a decisive action. he also spoke of some kind of new urgent peace plan. where is this plan? or is this another maneuver to distract attention while in fact trying to solve this situation by force? we hope that the kiev authorities will not lose the positive opportunities of the meeting. we think that the ukrainian armed forces in fact have trampled on standards of humanitarian law and they have been shelling.

they're using artillery, munitions with phosphorus and other weapons in the area of the so-called ant terrorist operations there are 4 million people living, sitting in basement for weeks without water, electricity, food or any kind of medicine. the overall number of those killed is over 2,000 and their number is increasing. the number of displaced people including refugees from ukraine to russia is already over 814,000 people. on the media you hear about the terrible losses of the ukrainian army. this is confirmed by the mass protests. hundreds of ukrainian soldiers for different reasons find themselves in the trenchway of russia. we care for them and we send them back to ukraine. we expect the same kind of

attitude of the kiev authorities towards russian air borne troops. at the same time it is said that they were stopped while they would their documents and their weapons were not armed. this doesn't look like an armed group taking part in conflict. everyone knows there are volunteers. no one is hiding that. we would like to see similar transparnes shown by other countries. for example, maybe our american colleagues can tell us about what the tens of american advisers here in the building of the ukrainian security council are doing or how many so-called mercenaries from so-called enterprises are waging war thousands of kilometers away from their land. where did the forces get the latest weapons? the american ambassador said what kind of message can we send

to russia's neighbors? well, i would suggest that we send a message to washington. stop interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states. stop trying to undermine a regime that you don't like. restrain your geopolitical ambitions. we're not -- not only russian neighbors but many other countries around the world would breathe a sign of relief. stop taking advantage of the topic of the malaysian airliner. until now only russia has made a significant contribution to investigating this tragedy. all the others we hear hints speculations and we don't get information. for example, why haven't the ukrainian authorities provided records of their air traffic controllers conversation? still some reason we don't know why. recently in spite of significant

resistance of certain members of the security council, the first russian humanitarian convoy was delivered under the auspices of the international red cross. today we are preparing for seppeding of a second convoy an agreement on this was confimpled today in telephone call between he prime minister and of the ukraine. we have to remember that the council is not there to disseminate guesswork or speculation or spread accusations but to find solutions to crisis. today we accept following the following i'm asking the secretary to disseminate the english text which i will read in russian. the members of the security council express their serious concern about the deteriorating situation in the southeast of the ukraine and call an

immediate and unconditional ceasefire. members of the security council called on inclusive political dialogue based on the geneva declaration and the joint berlin declaration. in this context they noted the role of the group and the strongly urged on the immediate resumption of the contact group. members of the security council called on the international community to step up their efforts in order to provide assistance to the population of the regions of ukraine. and text. statement of the press by security council. we suggest voting on this statement now today at this table. thank you very much. >> i thank the representative of the russian federation for his statement. i shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the united

kingdom. i thank mr. feltman for his briefing. the united kingdom is deeply alarmed by the intervention in eastern ukraine over the past 24 hours. formed units of the russian federation are now directly engaged in fighting inside ukraine against the armed forces of ukraine. these units consist of well over 1,000 regular russian troops equipped with armored vehicles, artillery and air defense systems. this is a clear violation of the territory by the russian federation. it is a clear breach of international law and a contra vention of the charter of the united nations. russian denials of this reality fit into the pattern of their dishonest approach from the very beginning of this crisis. we all remember that russia denied that it had any military personnel in the ground right up until its illegal annexation

with military force. russia has denied providing support to the separatists. in fact russia has been transferring significant quantities of advanced weapons including tanks, carriers, and artillery to separate groups for several months. as of today the arsenal includes up to 100 main battle tanks, 80 armored personnel carriers, 100 man pads, 500 anti-tank weapons and over 100 artillery pieces. almost all of these have been directly supplied by russia since the conflict started. in the past three weeks, this support has increased significantly. no doubt in response to ukraine's success in liberating territory from the separatists. on 7 august 50 vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, and bm-21 grant multiple rocket launchers

crossed from russia into ukraine . on 15 august, a convoy of 23 armored personnel carriers crossed close to the humanitarian convoy was awaiting customs clearance. the following day a further convoy of 84 military vehicles crossed the border. the evidence is overwhelming. and plenty of it comes from the russian military itself. on the 13 july, armored vehicles flying russian flags were photographed by a russian serviman crossing the border. on the 31 of july, a russian soldier posted photographs of himself with military hardware inside ukraine. his photographs included images of himself inside an sa-11 missile launch system, the very same weapon that appears to have been used to shoot down mh 17.

russia has also denied it has shelled ukrainian territory. over 5 days between 14 and 19 of august, armed forces were fired upon from positions inside russian territory on at least 21 separate occasions with weapons systems ranging from heavy mort tars to rockets. now we see irrefutureable evidence of regular russian forces operating inside ukraine. russia has hs dethroid small groups operating under the command of the main intelligence direct rat in support of the separatists. these forces have been responsible for coordinating attacks and facilitating communications equipment transfers and personnel. their presence is clear from their communications. over a single 24-hour period from the 29 to 30 of july alone, there were 45 separate instances of russian secure military radio

transmissions originating from inside ukraine combrn territory. today nato has released satellite imagery taken on 21 and 23 of august of russian self-propelled art tillry units inside ukraine in the vicinity. of onday, 10 paratroopers the 98 air borne division were captured near the village 20 kilometers inside ukrainian territory. we have satellite imagery confirming the deployment of russian armored vehicles supported by artillery close to this location. today another russian soldier serving with the ninth motor rifle brigade was captured. it is simply not credible for russia and its proxies to keep claiming that these serving

meshes of the russian armed forces are in ukraine by accident or on holiday. nor is it credible for russia to continue claiming to the whole world including to the russian people that russian soldiers are not present on ukrainian territory. the increasing number of russian casualties and soldiers gives the lie to that. russia can no longer contend that it is not a direct party. indeed this would no longer exist without direct russian military involvement in support of the separatists. president putin has said that russia is willing to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. these words have little value against this clear pattern of escalating russian military involvement in eastern ukraine. violating international law and the u.n. charter in such a brazen manner is not compatible with russian's responsibilities of the permanent member of the

security council. we again call on raugs to immediately withdraw from ukraine, spop its flow of weapons to the separatists and instead help to secure a political solution to this crisis. i now resume my function as president of the council and i give the floor to the representative of ukraine. >> thank you mr. president. you would like to thank today. it is half a year ago on february february that this first looked up the aggression of the the aggression started through military occupation and annexation of a huge part of ukraine's sovereign territory. then it went on by waging a hybrid war against ukraine through sponsoring terrorism, supplying arms to the illegal

armed groups in the east of our state. as well as intensive artillery shelling from the russian territory and regular violation f ukrainian air space. it was followed by downing the terrorist groups by terrorist groups russian-supplied surface to air missile system of a civilian aircraft killing all 298 passengers and crew on board. the next red line was the illegal crossing by so-called humanitarian convoy dispatched by russia without authorization and in violation of international agreements and procedures. russia has been placing troops along the border. as of now over 45,000 military,

1,360 armored ttled vehicles, 390 military systems, 192 military aircraft and 137 helicopters are deployed in the vicinity to our border. now the situation has been dramatically changing. russia has launched direct military invasion of the military of ukraine by its regular armed forces. last night two military convoys crossed the ukraine state border and moved into the direction of the village with seven tanks, one bmp 2, a truck with a town and also to with five tanks, two trucks with soldiers. after shelling on the positions of ukrainian forces from the

territory of russia, and from troopstrict, the russian seized the town. more than 10,000 civilians have been held hostages by russian invaders. he citizens of ukraine are exerted psychological pressure. threats of violence are here. mr. president, on august 24, 2014, two battalion tactical groups of air borne forces of crossedian armed forces the state border of ukraine 500 meters from the ukrainian state border. reportedly all russian military equipment was was without license plates, some vehicles

were painted with two white stripes like ukrainian vehicles. the troops were russian army combat uniform with no insignia. urrently the combat units have occupied several villages. they are constructing fortified strongholds. n august 25, ukrainian armed of es in the ten soldiers forcesiment of the armed of the russian federation, all the identities were revealed. we have serious doubts that the russian troops fully armed could way.lost their

we possess numerous evidence including photo video and now detained russian soldiers as well as russian armored vehicles with documentation proving they belong to military forces which leaves absolutely no doubt about the invasion into ukraine. mr. president, we see the russian federation fully responsible for everyday death toll among civilians and military as well as for the breakdown. we demand the russian federation to immediately recall all these troops from the ukrainian territory to save lives of ue crapeions and russians. we demand raugs to establish effective control over the border under the control of the sc which would exclude the legal supplies.

we demand russia to release all ukrainians who are held hostage. we have been open to all diplomatic initiatives and have participated in every negotiation. the president of ukraine over his peace plan for the deescalation which russia deliberatively undermines. while demonstrating the full readiness with peaceful negotiations, the president made it clear that sovereignty and territory integrity of ukraine as well as the operations of the ukrainian people are not negotiated. in view of the open aggression, ukraine reserves its rights to act in accordance with article 51 of the u.n. charter which empowers every member state with the inherent right of individual or collective defense if an

armed attack occurs against a member of the united nations. we call upon the international community to provide effective assist ps to ukraine to resist russian aggression. will the international community keep witnessing silently as the fundamental principles of the law are grossly disrespected, entire world has been challenged and the actual world order has been destroyed. or will it finally speak with one voice and act? the choice is not tactical. the choice is fundamental. the world is challenged by a nuclear might ignoring universal principles and craving an absolute power. how many more red lines are to be crossed before this is addressed? we call upon this council to fulfill its charter responsibility and take the urgent measures to stop the aggression against a sovereign u.n. member state.

i thank you for your attention. >> i thank the representative of ukraine for his statement. e event.

>> thank you very >> thank you very much, mike, for the introduction. i would like to welcome the panelists as well as the audience and those who collaborated with us over the years in the diplomatic community in washington and internationally. indicated, we are going and we have aisis very distinguished panel with rich backgrounds and experience. details togo into introduce them, but first, we have professor ruth wedgwood. right here to my left, not

-- tically, but at any rate >> i am, actually. >> she is a professor of international diplomacy at johns hopkins university and the president of the international association and she has worked with different administrations over the years. zaideman, a former legal attaché in the middle east. domestically and internationally. we will get the perspective from him. marks, whoassador ed is next to wayne. he served for many years at the state department and dealt with terrorism issues all over the world. , whohen we have dan raviv

is known to many of us for many years from the news. he was in the middle east and europe. i have a copy of his book, which we will show later on. he published a number of books on intelligence. and then, of course, we have our mentioned which mike he collaborated with for decades. last, but not least, the great american, general al gray. do withould like to your permission, i want to remind all of us, including myself, that we should turn off this little gadget.

i do not see any music now. and we want to thank c-span for bringing the proceedings and the debate to a wider audience because a civil society can and should play a role in the debate. so i have a few minutes for some slides. sharon? the technical expert, right here. ok. state, the name going back to 1999. we should not be surprised. we simply did not follow through what happened on the ground. again, we are dealing with one of the most vicious groups in

history the -- in history. they clearly represent a threat , and controlling the .ast territory that we know luckily, they think locally and they aim to not only take over the middle east and establish territory there, but also the balkans, spain, and africa as well. we will come back to it. andike indicated, al qaeda now, i think we mark the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attack last month -- next month, in the

next week or so. and we talk about al qaeda, we have to talk about many of their affiliates. the point i am making is there is no way that you can discuss isis in isolation. some of the other groups still exist and represent a major threat to many societies. country in that particular region has an al qaeda affiliate. for example, going all the way from the atlantic to the red sea , in kenya, for example, somalia , and so on. attacks onned the the anniversary of the embassies. i want to mention the anniversary of the attack in

mole, the takeover of the -- of the mall. terrorized an entire city and country. we have to be concerned in that region. and there is a new york times report which is really not up to date at the time, the u.s. marine base in beirut. insistedime, reagan that the united states would play a role. we have to look at what hezbollah might do in the coming weeks and months. for example, some groups from al over abouter -- took

200 yards from the israeli border. they might have been the second charge. -- tranche. hamas, goingse, all the way back. are seeingce that we now in gaza in terms of killing, executing those that were accused of collaboration. bodies in the streets of gaza. then the major threat in africa, but also with aspirations globally. i think we should also pay intentions ofhe the group and the goal to

establish national, regional, and global territories. secondly, all the way from primitive to smart power. today, there was a great article dealingashington post with the so-called american fighters. i do not know if you had a chance to see it, but it was something about americans. it is not known that these are americans. every particular country in the west is involved and there is more concerned in europe. controlling these territories, the financial support, the capability to also thends, and quality of their training,

acquiring of weapons, oppressing of women, children, minorities, and so on -- and finally, we have to pay very close attention to war crimes and crimes against humanity. words, domestic law is still relevant to this issue. ago, atssor, many years columbia university, was trying to advance the concept of international civilization. in my view, i think we have to be concerned about the culture of life and the culture of death. and isis and the other terrorist both theological as well , they represent the philosophy of that. ultimately, we can discuss two issues today.

intensity ofre and the threat of isis and some other affiliate groups. secondly, what can society do about it in order to reduce the risks and bring it under manageable levels? , i think theand president and his national security team our meeting in order to decide what options are available to the united states and their friends and allies in like-minded nations. to deal with the issue of syria and iran. but we have the short-term concern and i submit that we have to look to the long-term. with this, i would like to toite professor wedgwood

begin the discussion. would you kindly come up here? >> thank you for having me. i guess the shorter people in the room get to speak first. that is the rule of deference is. -- deferences. we are physically small, but it is a pleasure to be back here. i am, by training, a lawyer. a federal prosecutor for quite a while. i actually did the remnants of the weather underground and now teach at johns hopkins. it is a wonderful school facing a tough economy. i am equally ignorant about the actual ideology of isis. one of the great surprises is how little we know about it. i was warned by a christian

friend of mine who was from syria that the balance in syria was so delicate. assad was one of the few people who could probably keep the country mended together, as much as not like him or his tactics or his vicious ways of killing civilians. when syria fell apart, i had a warning given to me by this christian syrian about how difficult it was to manage the debris left by the agreement and how it did not match the ethnography of tribes or their economic mistakes or any logical affiliations. once again, like 9/11, we are caught flat-footed. idea what waso up. in iraq, we did not know who was who. we are extraordinarily deficient in our mapping of the

ideological currents of radical islam. it is something that is hard to remedy given our general views of not recruiting people. a thorough vetting to know family members abroad. , if you want a big take away, it is an obvious point, but it is the most important. this is not the moment to be drawing down american military capabilities. one else going to do it but us. the brits are relatively modest in their capabilities. i think now is the time. if i was president obama, i would announce funding proposals for the department of defense. i would not be shutting down systems or drawing down the armed forces at these act moment -- at this exact moment. i do not think of failure to leave a residual force in iraq has much to do with it the

cousin it was going to be a small force at best, but it is a signal. washing our hands of the region. one of my great worries from the last 30 years is what i call maligned multilateralism. the good guys who do it or do not do it, it is the bad guys. you can have cooperative with radical groups with conjoined operational objectives. the morphing of names is interesting if you are trying to pinpoint how to get them in the -- but ultimately, the current of the violence and radicalism that have been sweeping the region will not be unveiled by tab on any particular organization. mother whoi-french

raised me on memories of charles martel and eastern european the turkso remember at the gate it -- at the gate. jewish europelim, and the rest of the muslim world is one that has been in contest for a while. it is not, in a sense, a new issue. clearly, the law enforcement is not sufficient. because i doblows not believe in torture but i do believe that you cannot beat this purely by military means as you have to use actions that do not turn upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. you will never have that. capturing people and putting them in trial in the islamic district of new york will not be a sufficient way of addressing this.

conversationdinner with a very eminent former prosecutor in new york city and asked him what he thought about putting 9/11 people on trial. he said, do you know what that would mean? the district attorney's office tries 50,000 cases a year with four or five witnesses each. those four or five people could not get to a court. , very restrictive rules on what you can present in court. quite apart from the possible intimidation of juries. mannerthis as a criminal -- obviously, the israeli-palestinian peace process is a footnote. it is not going to drive the region and its success. i was on the harvard campus during the troubles.

they said, were you one of the diaper babies? i said no. but it was true that there was a move that was very hard to quell . even liberals were slightly seduced by the complaints. it will be athink generation before this mood of violence for its own sake, violence as sport, will be quelled down. one would like to have economic development in the region to give young men something to do. one would not like to be in bed with repressive military regimes like the egyptians. on the other hand, there are very few levers with which we can work at the present time. i do not have anything happy or useful to say. [laughter] is do note away reduce the american military

capabilities. do not do this. because it does not stay home. it flies on airplanes and comes here. if we do not help our friends and allies in the middle east to tamp this down, it will be here. it will be here anyway because of the great problem that many countries face. with relatively free immigration, the shortage of manpower after world war ii for the welcoming of many people from the middle eastern region, and most of them were wonderful .eople, into european countries nonetheless, there are huge populations of young men in england and france and germany -- theewhere who will studentm the old bad

days. always move left. itjohad, it -- to jihad, will be hard for young people to resist this. i will give you one example from my prosecuting days. veryermans were always diffident about law enforcement methods. wiretaps exist for a good reason. undercover operations exist for a good reason. in keeping europe lever of all -- in keeping europe liberal, they would have to consider things like this to get inside these radicalized groups and

make sure that they are monitored, if not shut down. i wish we were not having this meeting and we were only worrying about the economy and , but onel labor chain does not choose one's time or issues. thank you for having me. [laughter] [applause] >> my name is wayne zaideman. i was overseas in the middle east. i was the fbi representative in foreign countries. lebanon, syria, jordan, the

palestinian authority, and israel. very different times. for about 17 years, i was a special agent in the fbi covering counterterrorism and intelligence in the middle east. i spent time in headquarters as a supervisor, assistant section chief. with that background, i would like to say that i agree with professorwegwood. --with professor wedgwood. not thercement is solution. i found it disturbing when i heard president obama say after the beheading of james foley that he is going to make sure that they identify the perpetrator and bring the andetrator to justice locate him and bring him to justice. this is reminiscent of the old days, the pre-9/11 days of the

, a, where the slogan was crime occurs, a terrorism event, and then the whole unit, in the case of osama bin laden, analysts, supervisors, managers, all working for years on developing evidence, presenting prosecutive summary reports to the u.s. attorney, and then, courtthat, bringing it to and they may or may not ever find the people. if they do, they bring them to the u.s. district court. evidence anduate then you have to worry about the , thereat, besides that is the problem of sources and methods. so let's say the fbi is working

with the cia, military intelligence, nsa, other agencies. a lot of the information is provided for intelligence purposes only. they do not want to and up testifying in court. they do not want to destroy sources on the ground. so they do not want to give you evidence. on the flipside, the u.s. attorneys and the grand jury's want to maintain the secrecy of their evidence. so it provided one of the biggest problems of information sharing. so i am hoping that we do not go back. because after 9/11, there was a huge culture change within the fbi and intelligence investigations. no longer is the primary desire somebody, find them, and convict them in a court of law. it was strictly to disrupt and

terrorism before it happens, to be proactive, to prevent terrorist actions from occurring in the united states. it werethe examples of kenya, tanzania, the east african bombings, the uss cole. these were all treated as criminal investigations. it was a dismal failure. it should remain a war on terrorism. i say war on terrorism because it is not law enforcement. we have to identify our enemies and remember who our friends are. we have to return to the terms terrorism and islamic extremism. after obama came into the office, that was

stricken from the vocabulary of the fbi and other u.s. government agencies. no more terrorism, it is man-made disasters. extremismlamic because it is not politically correct. the enemy is not islam. it is not all muslims. that is understood. but the enemy is islamic extremism. years, the have seen that most terrorist instances have been conducted by islamic extremists. so we have to understand that. bay, gitmo, that was something of that, when obama took office, he made a pledge that he would immediately close down gitmo. that policy was doomed to dismal failure because they are not criminals, they are enemy

combatants. it would be a grave mistake to bring the detainees to the u.s. and put them on civilian trial. that was seen when they made if you attempt to do it. -- a few attempts to do it. they are acquitted and they are free. now have terrorist threats in new york and chicago, los angeles, wherever. gitmo ise reasons for that their home countries do not want them back. that were terrorists started off in the war in afghanistan against the soviets and they went through the bosnian-serbian war and all of the various al qaeda manifestations. their own countries do not want them back. that is the problem that we have with isis and these other groups. have british passports, u.s. passports, canadian

passports. do we want them back? if they all came back here after fighting in syria or iraq, lebanon, wherever they are fighting, we have a big problem. now we have a military with reduced resources. we have got to keep track of lots of people. so it is a big problem. as i mentioned, the other intelligence agencies are reluctant to cooperate if they are not sure the evidence will be used in a way they wanted to be used. it is no less relevant for foreign cooperation. withlegal attaché, i met intelligence agencies, security agencies, police agencies from those countries. cases, they cooperate with us because it is

reciprocal. we help them, they help us. , it is not for law enforcement purposes. it is for intelligence purposes only. --they have a right to limit if they are giving us information, they can limit how it is being used. again, it does not lend itself well to law-enforcement purposes. rendition, another activity that has been widely condemned by some circles within the administration. to transportused captured terrorist subjects from one country to another for detention, arrest, and interrogation. they will be afforded the protection in the country detaining and interrogating them. in other words, they are not subject to u.s. laws. they are subject to egyptian laws, jordanian laws, etc.

so the information that they obtained in those host countries and then provided to u.s. intelligence or law enforcement personnel. think about it this way. if we insist on not letting those home countries deal with it their way and bring them to the united states, now they are immediately subject to u.s. law, to means you get miranda ,arnings, you get an attorney you ensure that they will keep their mouth shut immediately. you are not going to potentially save lives as a result of getting information that could possibly save american lives and other lives. basically, we let them do the interviews. we do not do it. we can provide them with questions and things we are looking for. hopefully they will then provide it to us. it would be a mistake to do away with renditions.

the former cia director michael hayter -- michael hayden said they have been conducted to get terrorist intelligence on those still at large. he said that in 2007. what about the targets? we are talking about ice is now. -- isis now. we have to understand that islamic extremists are basically of one mind. whether it is isis, isil, ,ezbollah, hamas, bo boko haram al qaeda, whatever you are dealing with, they all view the world as being in the abode of islam. mean there has to be a continuous jihad interrupted trucesorary truce is --

until the world is made up of countries ruled by islamic law where the people inside convert to islam or they are required to submit to islamic law. besides isis, no part of it can be negotiated away by any leader. to do so would be heresy and the leader would be labeled an infidel. or worse yet, a polytheist or pagan. it is no surprise that they have no desire to negotiate with israel. it also shows how christians and , they were traditionally called people with a book. they were allowed certain protections within islam countries. if islamic extremists rename

them as pagans, all bets are off and they can be subject to anything they want them to be subject to, including beheading. islamic extremists have no desire to submit casualties. groups,to be, left-wing they wanted to play to the media and try to reduce civilian chaldees -- casualties in order to retain sympathy. islamic extremists, their theence is not international community. god. audience is and they portend to know what god wants. therefore, terrorism becomes a sacred act. there was always a reluctance to

shut down islamic front groups. they were called islamic charities. even though the fbi and other groups knew that they were supporting the terrorist groups. it was believed that they would not pass the smell test. in other words, if you see in the new york times or the washington post that we shut down all of the charities and the poor children and women and orphans are not getting their money -- so no action was taken. even though the moneys were not used to buy bread and cheese. they were used to build bombs and missiles. the one notable exception with the holy land foundation, there was a prosecution. but there are many other different groups in the united states that you see on the news frequently. unfortunately, there are a lot of elements of the government that use groups as consultants or partners against terrorism.

it is really misguided. it will never succeed. remember who are friends are and who our enemies are. things that the obama administration did that puzzled they invited the egypt,brotherhood into tunisia. they decided that this was going peace. partner for somehow, that was going to be successful. another example is when gaddafi was overthrown. after he had dismantled his nuclear program. does this make any sense to anybody? iraq,bush went into gaddafi said, i change my mind. kauai with the west.

here are the keys to my nuclear site. i am totally dismantling it. then we go back and take over the regime and kill him. now we are talking about iran and saying, dismantle your nuclear weapons. what kind of lesson does that give to iran? they would probably say, you know, up yours. but what i see is, in the confirmation hearings of secretary of defense hagel, he made what the news media said was a slip up. he said the policy is containment and he was handed a note by one of the aids. then he said it was not containment. they are going to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. now it becomes obvious that he was telling the truth but he was not supposed to at that time, because that is apparently the policy. dismantling, you are

and giveu can contain them another six months. is that ourlt friends, like egypt, jordan, israel, tend to become our adversaries. islamic stream is groups and groupslike -- extremist and groups like the muslim , we embrace -- they do not believe in contemporary nationstates. boundaries are against the muslim caliphate. must be regained by jihad. they must submit to muslim rule. here we have the muslim

brotherhood saying what isis is saying, or i so. -- or isil. we have to examine our policies and get back on the right that,g and understand number one, we must continue to treat terrorism as an intelligence investigation. we must identify the enemy and eliminate them as a threat for the u.s. and our allies. our real our life and make good use of them in the coalition. israel, parts of saudi arabia. i say that because they have their factions of supporters and factions who do not support us. finally, we must follow the money trail and material support of terrorism. thank you. [applause] >> the chairs are tight here. all right.

good afternoon. i am a standard issue american professional diplomat. or rather, a retired one. therefore, i will address this question from my professional does everybody else who deals with the subject. to look ati will try it from the perspective of international politics, international historic trends and the role of diplomacy. the last 10 or 12 years, we have ignored these questions at our cost.

the president of the international system was begun by the pizza was failure, which was so ingrained -- the piece of west failure -- the peace of westphalia. it is usually get bigger -- de riguer for diplomats and writers. the system began in the 17th century and was so it's -- so accepted that it became the basic argument for the 20th century to the disappearing colonial regimes in the middle east. they were quite consciously ,eplaced by nationstates although of varying colors. nationalist, leftists, authoritarian, and once in a while, even democratic. the united nations from the

original 15, to the record 190 today. everybody wants to be a nation. consensual economic system does not operate with any cost to perfection. it has been challenged several times in the past. napoleon in his revolutionary mode and most recently with the soviet union, which attempted to replace the nationstate system with a burgeoning theory of economic class. however, while it is still the universal system in the world, it is being challenged on several fronts. regions,all, in some by sheer incompetence and social political pressures. particularly in the middle east, which is apparently in a state of disintegration. reoccur, ericicts

persian, turkish persian, modern-traditional, democratic-authoritarian, national-tribal, rich-four -- rich-poor. i am struck by the observation that the three most obviously competent nationstates in the reason -- in the region, iran, turkey, and israel, are not arabic. the most dramatic challenge to the west billion system -- the west point in system -- the westphalian system is the islamic caliphate. the original islamic caliphate preceded it by several centuries. differentdamentally because it claimed global

universality on the basis of religion. deniedamic caliphate legitimacy of governments to every other system of governance. vision, thet islamic caliphate spread over much of what we now call the middle east and what we now call europe. in 1853.by vienna by the time the last -- of the last siege of vienna, the caliphate had lost its purely islamic religious character. it had morphed into a more traditional empire, a more political military power -organized empire. and itsman empire caliphate identity died,

disappeared in 1922, to be replaced, surprised, by a consciously-national nationstate. and french and english-created protector regimes elsewhere in the nation. as the 20th century moved on, these european colonial protector regimes were replaced by westphalian nationstates. too many in the area, this was an alien framework which, to this day, still competes with religious and tribal identities. at the same time this was happening, the counterrevolution of islamic governance was being reborn. intrinsic in the teachings of the jihadists was a call for the return of islamic governance and the islamic caliphate. while this claim was recognized by many, this aspect of the

challenge ignored the more immediate threat to violence on a local level. violence exercised by various groups and so on, jihadists. arising from various local backgrounds. turkey, syria, iraqi, and so on. but the caliphate is more fundamental fights for local power. is clear about its exclusionary caliphate projects. the ambition has been clear to the governments in the area as well as outliers like the united states. and we are an ally. -- an outlier. obviously, something is missing or wrong in the political orders in the region. wrong so that the islamiconaries, the

governance model practiced by isis, is somehow able to attract growing numbers. causes comes to the tongue easily, but is never less pertinent. national leaders in the area must somehow identify and deal with these root causes as matters of urgent recess the. -- urgent necessity. the ice's promise is to return them to a dominant position in the area. in history, the caliphate marked a. sunnimarked a period of dominance and is being touted as the proper form of government for all real muslims. however, this challenge also has a very immediate tactical aspect. violence on the streets

chaos,hing anarchy and attracting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. that part of it must be. with today, somehow, someway. requires muslim nations to see isis as the threat it really is to them. this has been a problem up to iraq, most, including have been mired in religious divisions of their own nature. many have had their own relations with extremists of one sort or another. isis has financing from a number of people, donors in kuwait. saudi arabia furnishing weapons, not worried about where they are going. weapons flowing across borders. i recently came across an e-mail which rather sarcastically but

accurately describe the situation. "are you line was, confused by what is going on in the middle east?" " we support the iraqi government in the fight against isis. we do not like isis. isis is supported by saudi arabia, who we do like. we do not like assad in syria. we support the fight against him. but isis is also fighting against him. we do not like iran. but iran supports the fight against isis. so some of our friends support our enemies. some enemies are now our friends. and some of our enemies are now fighting against our other enemies, who we want to lose. but we do not want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win. defeated, theyre could be replaced with people we like even less. it is quite simple, really. you you understand now?"

all of that has to stop. there are signs that is happening in recent days. the challenge is being recognized around the circuit of chancery street -- of chanceries. the sunni-shia, persian-arab, and other spats are being re-evacuated and alliances are being reconsidered. the saudi's have made significant contributions to you and antiterrorism programs. un antiterrorism programs. the turkish policy has been evolving. and there is a lot of highly-public public agonizing going on in washington. anybody notice the washington post the last week or so?

so the threat must be met at several levels immediately as well as overtime. defeating or substantially frustrating isis will require a broad coalition of nations to address the military threat and political and religious issues. this will require some sort of grand strategy. thisirst step in creating strategy is identifying its authors and participants. a coalition of the willing is required. actually, a coalition of the threatened. but that phrase lacks a certain enthusiasm. it must be based on the muslim countries in the region. such a grand strategy must be multilateral and as much political as military. in fact, even more so. if every military activity is supposed to be the attention of politics and not for its own sake, this is the situation and we must not let

tactics eclipse strategy. the long-term strategy marshaling allies and addressing the region's political dysfunction is required and the operative word is long-term. need to organize such grand alliance is a matter of priority all around the world. this task is very difficult and only because it requires a serious reconsideration of many previous and existing policies and practices. including for the united states. we must consider questions not only of what, how much, and how soon, but with whom. we can only imagine the amount of scrambling that must be going on in offices. staffs screening for information and answers. for information and answers.

on,while, as this is going the response to the immediate challenge is being determined by the key policy question that lies just below the surface of everything we are talking about and everyone concerned. when does the enemy of my enemy become my ally? and at what cost? thank you. [applause] >> thank you. really brilliant from edward marks. i am dan raviv. historianrnalist and who has not been a diplomat or a soldier but has watched all of this unfold. a lot of people wonder if it is just sort of history repeats itself and the same things keep happening and we do not learn lessons. i do not really feel that way.

part of what is fascinating about news and history is that it is new. there is something new. the isis movement really deserves a major concern. ,t grew out of things especially in iraq, that we did not pay enough attention to. that we sort of new or not resolved and that muslims would be angry and they would find alliances. organization that shows many aspects of being an army. so that is isis. the biggest concern, if you are a democratic nation, is protecting your own people. that is how we come back to one of the biggest issues here at the potomac institute and that is terrorism and what might happen in our own country, in the united states, and in our ally nations. and there really is a danger. i do not want to repeat the obvious that has been in the news. isis has western citizens with western passports.

france, come back to italy, and even the united states and commit terrorism here. it is a real danger. keeption number one is to citizens safe, this merits major public attention. who it comes to americans have apparently joined islamic radical movements in syria and maybe in iraq -- after all, to isis, the border does not exist. who havee have two gotten media attention. there was the death of the man improbably named douglas macarthur. in minneapolis, he apparently became a convert to islam and thought it was cool to hang out with somalis, many of whom had become radicalized. he thought it would make sense to go to syria and join the battle.

was confirmed killed in some battle in syria this past weekend. the state department had to answer questions about it. the u.s. government confirmed and tried to offer consular services to the extent possible. we are fascinated by what turned this guy, but he is not unique. there have been others. another who got publicity a few months ago blew himself up in syria. he was a young man from florida who was born as an american muslim. perhaps you have seen his angry fact, at leastin one of the islamic front organizations in syria decided to make a big hero of him. he is a martyr to them, after all. so we have his angry speech, the lashing out. so he is going to attack this country and that country.

so we will turn to israel and fight for palestine. we are after you next, israel, and all of that. is assigned to drive a truck and push a button and blow himself up, apparently killing some soldiers. i am not going to be little or magnify these acts, but i will point out that at least those two examples and to others that u.s. government sources say they have heard of, one in syria and one in iraq a total of 4 at , happened over there. does that mean i can relax? they do not have plans to use foreign passports to reinject themselves into society and blow themselves up in a shopping mall? again, we have discussed that. it does not have to be 9/11. it does not have to be some brilliant, complicated attack. it does not have to be for buses and two trains in london.

it could be something relatively small on the world scale. in the united states especially, that would shake things up incredibly. the main job of a western them a credit government is to keep its own people safe. also, for the sake of keeping society safe, so the stock market does not crash 800 points when there is an act of terrorism in the united states. so the economy is important. lives are important. stopping bloodshed is important. how do you do that? wet sending troops to where have had troops before? clearly not. you have got to have a mix. if isis is new, and to me, it is new, ignoring borders and being multinational and having these high ambitions and having westerners as volunteers and i am sure some of them would be willing to kill themselves, they are new. we need a new game and a complex one and one that does not just involve the military. if it involves the military, please not 80,000 troops.

something more clever, special operators, folks whose missions .re not acknowledged of course, it has got to involve our intelligence agencies and of course, dare i say thanks to edward snowden? is it ok to say that? we have learned the capabilities of the electronic intelligence and they are formidable. we can listen and monitor and watch, unless your enemy, of course, is totally refusing to use electronic media and not using the internet or mobile phones. well, that does not seem to be true. at the very least, this growing enemy loves issuing propaganda videos and messages and beheadings. ,here is something to trace something for intelligence agencies to work on in order to locate people, to identify people. it is not an impossible task. this is not an episode of "homeland" on tv.

it will not be solved in one hour or even 13 episodes. it requires patient work, but there is a lot to do. a lot to come to grips with an things that we can use. we need to monitor isis. it can be challenging. to the extent we can, we need to penetrate isis. use your own imagination here. if they welcome western volunteers, it is not going to impossible to penetrate isis, is it? use your imagination. people who are good at counterintelligence do. it will require a mammoth amount of patience. if you do have an agent inside because you turned somebody or made -- or managed to inject , it does not mean you use them right away. it is a long-term activity. all of this could be going on. how do you make isis break up for surrender?

in that part of the world, you want to humiliate them. you want them to look like losers. you want things to go wrong. you want the local communities, the sunni muslims and various them,ities to reject which would be an important part of the solution if it could happen. the sunni nations reject them. show somenations backbone. part of the political solution is a better government in iraq. .t is meaningful sunni muslims, the minority in iraq, felt left out of things and embittered. they weren't either going to join the islamic state or at least support the islamic state or look the other way or offer hiding places or money or food or travel routes. it makes a difference when the local population turns against them. al qaeda in iraq started to dry

up and diminished when the sunnis in that part of iraq turned against them. there wasn't anything to be .ained if you can get sunnis to turn against them, it makes a difference. part of the solution is better government in iraq. how about in syria? sure, that would be nice. syria has had a civil war for 3.5 years. it is like a big black hole. we know that terrorists will fill that kind of vacuum. costs toare so many the syrian civil war. not the least of rich -- not the least of which, almost 200,000 people who have died. just think about that for a moment. many of them have died awful deaths that would make unbelievable stories in the world media. if we could get there and we could show them and we could show suffering children and families, etc. of course, we have done some of that.

we have done some of the refugee stories from turkey and jordan and other neighboring countries. it has not changed much. the background has not changed. who are the rebels in syria? are there still groups that we could support? i will share with you some of the knowledge israel has acquired. with my co-author, we write about israel. a lot of people think israel is so but about -- is good at intel. they mj understood -- ust understand isis. they should have known about al qaeda. of 8 millionountry people. think about where it is. byis surrounded by by at -- enemies.

the weapons. it became lucky. obama issued a redline challenge.

they brokered a deal in which syria gave up chemical weapons. they can still use chlorine gas and other things not classified officially as weapons. they are terrible and brutal. the syrian civil war led to serious not having chemical weapons. ub. it makes the regime more tolerable from an israeli point of view. as for the alternative, there is a phrase going around they are at the fence. israel holds most of the golan heights. rebels have taken an area known

by. -- someone who might be the free syrian army. the israelis watched this. they are at the fence. the response has been, in secret. try to make contact with everybody. try to be as friendly as we can. -- you heard about the hospital northern israel? which is a good part of publicity? they are treating wounded people from the syrian civil war? is that an intelligence bonanza opportunity to interview people and send them back in. treat only your favorite people. treat some of the people, the family members, may be some of the people from the major organizations.

the israelis do not have the answer. they cannot unlock the mystery we have been talking about, how to protect the u.s.. or the eiffel tower. they cannot do that. they are mostly concerned about their own neck of the woods. look at the mixture. monitoring, trying to penetrate. making friends wherever possible. playing one side against the other. it is something that they are concerned about, job number one. protecting people at home. something the u.s. and its allies have to do. . thank you. [applause]

>> i wonder if you have the same experience. you learn so much. congressman moran has his job cut out. you should remain confident. sometimes americans are -- keep our obama, we morale high. we have to be intelligent about the threat. in spite of a learned, diverse

panel, we don't know much about isis. there are roots. tourism, which is one of -- terrprorism is different than having a caliphate. we know very little about the geographic scope of isis. we have to learn more about them. be.concerned should we i wouldn't be complacent. third, the issue ruth and the others talked about. i'm a law professor. enforcement in and of itself is not the answer.

are a public international lawyer as ruth and i are, there is an issue of where the response fits in. both in iraq and syria. we have been asking about the government, putting them down. hopefully that will be better as the weeks go on your ready in syria, much trickier. my's enemy-- my ene might be our friend, but we may not admit assad is our friend. we should have high morale. confidence in ourselves. we have to beat them. i think we will. i think a program like this largeus a sense of how and amorphous and complicated this is a so many other things are today. thank you very much.

we have time to open a discussion. state your name. ask a question. then we will try to open discussion. raise your hands. -- pat murphyst first. >> i am editing a book on nato. excuse me. now i forgot what i was going to say. one of the main things is the president has to have an idea what he wants to accomplish.

>> he needs an ambulance. call an ambulance. >> i am ok. >> i'm having an anxiety attack. >> you are among friends. >> sorry about that. one of the points i think should be stressed is the president should at some point tell the american public what it is he wants to do regarding isis.

so he is clear in his own mind what he is trying to accomplish. set a goal. should after the mission. not before. ago, i can number when we were going to stay in vietnam. i thought johnson should tell the american public what they want to accomplish. so he will know himself. he never did. i'm not sure what our real goals were in vietnam to this day. the same applies with regard to isis. especially when the president has said, this is a long-term project. some of you pointed out that the -- i pointed out there are two triangles going on in syria. assad, andeen us,

the enemies of saud. -- assad. bomb on a group of people opposed to assad, are we hitting the free syrian army or isis? complexities.any the friend of my friend is becoming my enemy. these are things that should be thought about. >> thank you. >> ok, in the back. can you get the mic over there? thank you. i'm charles, an international advisor for the association of

moroccan jews. thank you for the panel. spokenng that was not actuallyngly, isis -- a member of the community has been demonstrating with isis's flag. it has been going on for a few years and has not been mentioned. france the europeans, germany england, is a center of recruitment for isis. what is happening in belgium is under the radar. it has been very big. respond?nt to >> can i make a comment?

i will tag onto your comment to comment to other issues that were mentioned by the panel earlier. a lot aboutw isis. just like we didn't know much about al qaeda before 9/11. if you choose my language, that is crap you read -- crap. we knew a lot about osama bin laden before 9/11. we identified all their leadership, their ideology, and their goals. are you had to do was read what he had been saying and writing. u.s.. going to attack the the same is true with isis. we know their ideology. read what they have written. listen to what they have said. america be streets of will run with blood. we know what their ideology is. this is not an unknown threat. this is well understood.

i wanted to put the concept out there that we don't know -- we do know who they are. we know what they stand for. we know the nature of the threat. if you personally do not know, go educate yourself. the threat is well understood. >> yes. blamed, they are often blamed for being caught unaware. it is not true. they have been warning the menstruation about isis -- warning the administration about isis. ok. >> my name is greg childers. thanks to all of you for your comments. when i had a note to

myself -- dr. wedgewood talked about tamping down isis to quote a manageable level. returning toout the war on terror. law-enforcement issue. it is also a military issue. i found it fascinating that a diplomat was the first to use the word defeat. followed by a journalist who said that beat. i will quote that is meaning defeat. the question is, without going if youe administration, were the president, what would you say i'm following up on what pat murphy