number of local residents. i heard from them directly about a deep distrust that has taken hold between law-enforcement officials and members of that community. in meetings and listening sessions and as well as informal conversations people consistently expressed concerns stemming from specific alleged policing from general practices and from the lack of policety on the ferguson force. these anecdotal stories show the distrust in ferguson that has received a a good deal of attention. result of this history and oflowing extennive review documented allegations and other data we have determined there is cause for the justice department open an investigation to determine whether ferguson police officials have engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the united states law.itution or federal the investigation will be

carried out by a team by the special litigation section, same of the same dedicated professionals that have achieved historic results that have achieved historical policing from coast to coast. over the past five years the civil rights division has prosecuted over 300 individual officers for misconduct. orhave opened 20 pattern practice investigations into police departments across the country. that is more than twice as many as were opened in the previous five years and enforcing 14 agreements to reform law enforcement practices at agencies large and small. with these agreements we have seen dramatic decreases in acceptable uses of force him at witty in the delivery of police service, including port measures and most significantly increased confidence by communities in the law enforcement agencies. as a brother of a retired police officer, i know the overwhelming majority of our brave men and

jobs in uniform do their honorably. they do them with integrity and personal risk. the civil rights division's efforts are meant to ensure that officers inent every part of the united states live up to the same high professionalism. in ferguson, our investigation assess the police department use of force including deadly force. searches,alyze stops, and arrests. and it will examine the treatment of individuals at ferguson's city jail. in addition to other potentially policingatory techniques and tactics that have been brought to light. mayor, the with the city manager and the police chief in ferguson. welcomed this investigation and they have pledged their complete cooperation. this investigation will be on ducted both rigorously -- conducted both rigorously and in a timely manner so we can move ford as ex-pa dishousely as

restore trust is build understanding and foster cooperation between law enforcement and community members. at the same time, i want to make very clear that as this and as ition unfolds evolves, we will follow the they and the law wherever may lead. and if at any point we find reason to expand our inquiry to include additional police forces in neighboring jurisdictions, we do so.t hesitate to in fact, i can also announce beyond ourabove and investigation in ferguson, we are taking proactive steps to engage the st. louis county police department in when is known as a collaborative reform effort. this partnership is being led by the c.o.p.s. office working closely with the st. louis county officials to conduct a assessment.e the st. louis county police chief has voluntarily accepted processaborative reform and has also asked that the

afters. office conduct an action report on their response to recent demonstrations. and already with cooperation of louis county leaders we have identified priority area for intensive review and technical assistance, including racial searches, andps, frisking, the handling of mass demonstrations by police officials and law enforcement training both at the police academy and at the continuing professional level. st. louis county administers for officersrams throughout the area including members of the ferguson police department. sense to include the county police department as part toour comprehensive approach confronting the challenge challt we have seen in the region. clear, this is not a stop gap or a short-term solution. it is a long-term strategy founded on community policing, doughill provide a really tailed road map -- detailed road map to build trust, bolster

ensuresafety, accountability and to change the way that law enforcement leaders make decisions, implement policies, and forge community partnerships. thatur track record proves such efforts to reform policing practices can be tremendously successful. for example, in 2012, the the las office and vegas metropolitan police department completed an eight month review similar to the collaboration that we are launching today with the st. louis county police department. in las vegas review resulted 75 foundings and concrete recommendations regarding officer-involved shoots and other use of force issues. fully 95% of these recommendations have been adopted. agencies in two other jurisdictions are going through similar processes as we speak. and when i visited ferguson two weeks ago, i promised that the united states department of justice would continue to stand afterhe people there long

the national headlines had faded. today with our investigation into the ferguson police department and our reform efforts in st. louis county, we stepaking significant towards keeping that promise. as these efforts unfold, my will keep and i working with the people in ferguson to ensure that a fair, occurs, investigation to see that dialogue can be translated into concrete action facilitate lasting positive change that brings together public officials, civil leaders, and members of the public to bridge gaps and understanding. this won't always be easy but i know that together we can and we will meet this challenge. now before we move to questions, there have been court decisions announced today in two separate but very important cases on which i would like to briefly comment. first, we are pleased that the district court in new orleans the largest oil spill in the united states b.p.'s was caused by

gross negligence and willful misconduct. findings will ensure that the company is held fully accountable for its recklessness. case which was vigorousry pursued by the united states is marksk stellar legal team another significant step forward in the justice department continuing efforts to seek on behalf of the american people nor disaster and and weor this disaster are confident this will serve as a strong deterrent to anyone to sacrifice safety in the environment in the pursuit of profit. a districtohio, court has held that the plaintiffs challenging the state to its's changes in-person early voting rules likely will be able to prove are in facthanges unconstitutional. the justice department has filed interest in this case and today's outcome ouresents a milestone in effort to continue to protect voting rights even after the

deeply misguided decision in shelby county. i am pleased to note that and the judge's analysis rest on some of the same legal reasoning that the department's pending challenges to voting measures in texas as well as in under section 2 of the voting rights act. and as we move forward my and i will continue to do everything in our power to toressively defend access the ballot box and to ensure american can exercise his or her right to participate processemocratic unencumbered by unnecessary discourage, that discriminate or disenfranchise. would be more than happy to take your questions. pete? >> give us more on why you decided to launch the investigation? your own conversations you talk review of documented allegations. give us the universe of what into this?

>> we looked at a number of things in our initial and preliminary assessment of to open thist investigation. it included not only discussions had the attorney general with residents of ferguson two weebs ago but also other meeting -- weeks ago but other meetings that other justice department officials have had residents. we looked, of course, at public records and other pieces of information that are available make an assessment that this was, indeed, an appropriate anding for a pattern practice investigation. moreover, the civil rights that leaders inwith city ferguson yesterday and expressed a strong willingness to assist fact were extremely open to this investigation. we will have cooperation from residents. >> what public records are we talking about? >> any number of pieces of we looked athat which would have included demographics, and public records related to cases that may have

litigants,by private there are any number of different things we looked at. what. attorney general, about your visit struck you to the point where you felt comfortable to move forward with this investigation? what do youondly, say to supporters of the police that this investigation is and in fact unfair to the police department? say thati mean i would as molly said, the assistant said, theeneral decision to go ahead was based not only on what i heard while i was out there which was fairly compelling, and there was a andain continuity similarities in the kinds of things this i was hearing with stops, revenueic raising on the basis of traffic stops, traffic stops that certain parts of the area. that and inion to response to the earlier question there has been a review of

documentary evidence indicating that there are problems. i don't think there is any question that there is a basis begin a pattern of practice investigation. whohat with regard to those might be concerned that we are premature all we are saying that the point is that we are opening an orestigation to see whether not there are in fact problems. i think that the fact that we localledges of cooperation is an indication that there are issues felt even there at the local level indicating a need for us to work together to make the situation -- the situation better. i want to emphasize as i said in know,pared remarks, you the vast majority of the people people inthe american a law enforcement capacity in this country do to honorably, do well.te the vast majority of police so i think quite well. where we find problems it is

incumbent upon us to use federal law to make sure that in fact occurs. >> what predicated this? this is a thing where we read a lot of stuff. is no question there is justification for opening it. we talked tos like people and read some stuff. what specifically, there are cases that specifically predicated the opening of this? >> you seem dismissive when you we read a lot of stuff. that is kind of what we do. >> i know but you are saying to you but question for people who don't know what you read and don't know what you are looking at, what you seen thatave said yes, we to ope have to opes investigation? let molly get into more of the specifics. there are variety of documents materials contain in the public record that exists about the percentages of stops that that involve certain ethic groups and whether those are consistent with the numbers will make up the population. there are a whole variety of things that you all have

i think havehat given us a good factual basis to that we havee way announced. i don't think there is any -- toi think it is important note that these are just preliminary facts that we have gathered. the investigation really is starting today. and so we will now be doing a lot of our evidence gathering in cooperation with the ferguson police department and its city leaders which will include any number of ways to talk to people and gather evidence directly from the police department. it is, in teed, today is really the first step in the investigation. generalcould ask holder, what went into the pattern or open a investigation with the ferguson police department but not do the same with the county police? c.o.p.s. office has been advising the county police now do you see any potential for conflict workingorward with them

with the county police? thanks. >> so, over the last several received a lot of information from residents and other places that caused us to indeed, there was a potential pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing there and that in combination with the willingness of the local work with us caused us to open the pattern or practice. it is not to say, however, that we in the course of our investigation determine that there are facts that lead us to by or to thels near it county, we reserve the right to expand the pattern and practice investigation to other jurisdictions including the given, but at this point, that the county is training the ferguson police department we felt that the immediate technical assistance that comes from the collaborative reform officee c.o.p.s. provides would be an appropriate first step for the county and that.n speak to >> we have started the technical assistance actually a couple of weeks ago and really for us to

collaborative reform process is a form of technical assistance so we will build on that. in initialial consultations. talked about the next steps and how to engage in community police. the collaborative reform process will allow us to do in depth and organizational and identify devins and come deficiencies.n the county is voluntarily going because theye provide training for most if not all of the agencies in st. louis county. effort will not only benefit st. louis county other 50son and the plus cities inside the counties. the technical assistance we provide as part of the agreement with the st. louis county mischief will make it open -- makes it open to the highway patrol and the troopers a well. this is about advancing community policing and constitutional policing through assistance in a manner manner that does have an objective independent assessment so we

know exactly what we are doing with it. >> how concerned are you that in regards to the timing of this it couldtion that influence they grand jurors looking at evidence in the michael brown shooting? today theannouncing beginning of an investigation and one should not draw a connection between what we are today and the -- the matter that the grand jury is in process of considering. in addition to the fact that we independent investigation going on into the shooting. i think that these are separate matters. juriesd with grand myself as a prosecutor. and i know that grand juries have the capacity to keep separate those things that should -- that should be a part of their considerations. and i'm confident this will not have an impact on the grand jury process. >> can i ask since we are talking about the civil rights rightsn and civil investigation about an investigation into another shooting a racial incident there

youa big announcement that made years ago about the investigation into the trayvon shooting. have you ever finishd that civil rights investigation? are you ever going to finish that? >> that is ongoing. in anticipation of that i asked, i was asked -- give me, you know, as best we can where do we stand. is ongoing. there are active steps we are still in the process of taking. are witnesses who we want to speak to as a result of some recent developments. is -- that matter is still underway. general -- >> when you opened the patternsry inquiry for and practices, when did you open that? what date did that happen? the ferguson police chief seems think you are investigating as well their hiring practices. i don't see that anywhere if your statement. you looking at hiring practices? >> so, today is the day that we to opening the investigation the ferguson police department. >> right, the preliminary that begin? did

>> that was part of intake the last several weeks. wasn't any particular day that it started. the pattern and practice will four particular area. one is the use of force. excessive use of force. be theond is going to stops, searches and arrests. we are also going to be looking which thener in detainees in thereat jail and discriminatory policing general. >> so hiring is not part of that? initial butof the we reserve the right to expand if we find there are potential issue there's. that be aldn't logical thing given the complaints in the community with community that is 2/3 black there are only two police polices black on the force? >> those don't in and of itself discriminatory policing. it is one of the factors we will consider if we need to expand

investigation. >> talk about the general timeline measures? what can you tell us about the investigation into the chicago police department? there are some different civil investigations into police departments, what can can you tell us about that one and involved police shooting? so the f.b.i. is involved, civil us up toan you bring date when is going on in chicago? do not have the -- to my understanding we do not have an open investigation into the police department. >> the civil rights division. what about any other the departmenty justice? >> we do not have any open investigations into the chicago police department as far as we can tell. do you see anything in response to the shooting, sir, that would that part of necessary for

civil rights investigation? i know there is going to be the c.o.p.s. office review in terms of training and whatnot. is there anything that would any of the police response to the protests a and whatnot into the pattern and practice investigation? sore that not on the table -- sore that not -- or is that not the table? >> it will concentrate on the but areas that i outlined we will examine all of the facts that we find including response to the protests. although i think it is important to note that the county c.o.p.s. will provide an after action review of the demonstrations and the response to demonstrations which on.can comment [ overlapping speakers ] >> one clare flying point. the training about aspects. we will look at beginning to end. responses. talking to officers, community members.

leaders. a little more comprehensive than the training aspect and along the way if we see something that needs to be referred we work closely with the components and the justice we will pass the information forward as necessary. this was at the request of the police chief. >> we will take the next question from the a.p. >> one thing just to make clear in my remarks, you know, we are -- we will let the facts and law take us where it is appropriate. response to the question maybe pete raised about the question of diversity, if we to believe that part of the issues out there is a lack ofd any diversity on the police force that is something clearly that makell look at and recommendations with regard to. this is something that we have done in other jurisdictions and not be something that is off the table in our examination in ferguson. >> thank you. >> more questions. the next one is going to be from

eric. thank you. >> how long is there sort of an average length. imagine these are lengthy investigations, that that will span a couple of years into the resolution?efore a and generally is the consent decree generally sort of the desired end result into the investigation or are there other outcomes? the timing can vary depending on the level of cooperation with jurisdiction. historically, they have taken months not weeks. months.s longer than but there is no set deadline and standard time period. it really does depend a lot on the level of cooperation that we locals and this this case at the outset -- and expressedse they have a willingness to be ex-preemly cooperative. is one remedyee but there be achieved are any number of remedies available at the end of an investigation.

you.ank >> dispatch next. >> general holder, as you know, there was some discussion about to timing of you visit ferguson and the efficacy of the visit. do you think you would have department would have arrived this quickly to this decision without that visit? an interesting question. i mean i think there is the trip -- i think was invaluable from my own perspective to have obtained in a very personal way a sense of what the situation was there. interacting with residents of ferguson, by speaking to the investigators who were involved in the ongoing investigation. that certainly at least for me, you know, sharpened my on sense of what was going there and the potential need for that which we are announcing today. i think that visit certainly weluenced the decision that made today and are announcing today. >> thank you.

question. >> in your discussions with residents around ferguson i'm sure one thing you heard there a lot of different jurisdictions around the area. walk a couple of blocks from where michael brown was shot and you are in bellwood. a lot of different jurisdictions. as likelynk it outcome we will end up with investigations into other in the area?s >> i'm not sure i would say likely. but i think there is a certain i certain we will being to an examination in some form or with -- or fashion with regard to the other police forces. certainly is part of what c.o.p.s. will be doing. whether or not the pattern of practice thing expands into the have jurisdictions we will to say. there is no question that i think in some fashion we will be looking at with and what those other police departments are doing. question. sense --t make >> i'm sorry? >> to you think the way it is set up makes sense having so

many muni municipalities or ultimately the potential for a larger police force under one shoaled? what thel have to see examination uncovers and what kinds was recommendations we will make. the interest give that those people on the local questions i woulded those are assume they are asking themselves as well. >> mr. attorney general, we had killing of another journalist this week. we are one week out from the anniversary. with all of the activity in syria, foreign fighters, questions about al-qaeda, yemen bomb makers, how would you assess the current threat environment leading up to 9/11? >> we are not in possession of any specific credible information that would evidence to the homeland. but we are also cognizant of the

exists in thet middle east now. andats that have been made that our allies, for instance, in the u.k. are teaing with. with. dealing and we are very sensitive to that and to the extent that we find anything we will take the action.ate but we are not in possession, at least that the point, of any threats to thele homeland. >> one more question. right-hand. >> you mentioned policing rights. do you have an indication of how many americans could be denied the right to vote come the mid term elections because of the chings across america? because of the changes across america? quantify. hard to but in light of the forecast that one of the i guess pry -- of the i guessne primary reason for the new voting restrictions to be put in is the notion of voter fraud given the fact there is really no i think credible that we are dealing with that kind of problem, the question really becomes why put

measures in place? we are not opposed to all kinds voter identification and that is -- you know, the notion that think people can walk up and vote, no. it is a question of making sure voting identification provisions that are in place discriminate, don't doibit peoples a ability to that which is most fundamental to this country. it is hard to quantify exactly the numbers are, but i think we have certainly shown through cases that we have won against texas, here in the district for instance before the shelby decision, that these kinds of measures have a negative impact ability of certain communities to cast ballots. you.l right, thank >> mr. attorney general, the the former virginia

mcdonald trial is he has been found guilty of multiple counts. any reaction, comment, anything share with us? >> i only heard about the fact that there was a verdict as we in. coming i only found out it was a guilty verdict on the basis of what you have said. case that i thought was well tried by the people in the of virginia and a case that was appropriately brought. that is all i would say. >> last question. last question. regards to isis there is a lot of concern about americans going over there to join the fight in syria and iraq. how confident are you that the u.s. knows the identity of the americans who have made it over there and those who have come u.s.?o the >> our f.b.i. uses a variety of techniques to determine who is here and interested in going to east, syria, iraq, other places. we also take -- use a variety of techniques working with the intelligence community and allies to identify people who

there. our best estimate now is that there are 12,000 foreign fighters there, about a thousand europeans, maybe as many as 100 americans or so. that we have a good handle on who is there and a potentiallyon who might want to go there. we have brought a number of prosecutions and have a number ongoing investigations into that regard. everything that we can to ensure that anybody who isiltent on supporting either from the homeland or 20 toiver go to the -- or to go the middle east and potentially come back and do harm to our country is monitored and held accountable and is prevented from doggish. doing so. >> what is being done regarding the two journalists that were executed by isis? can you give us a sense of what the u.s. government response is that is underway? is it f.b.i.? thanf.b.i.?der

what can be done given the chaotic situation over there to find the folks and bring them to justice? >> there is an ongoing fbi investigation that had begun when these journalists were hostages. that has been transformed. those investigations have been transformed into homicide investigations. we are working with the intelligence community and the united states. we are working with our allies to try to determine who these individuals were, who we saw on those tapes. i'm confident that we are going to be able to make identifications in that regard. inple who were involved those instances and presently engaged in holding americans were citizens of our allied nations are going to be held accountable. i want to be very clear. i speak as a member of the national security team, not strictly as the attorney general.

we will take those steps that we can, but we will use all american power that we can to hold people accountable. that means using the resources from the department of defense, as well as the department of justice. >> since you are here talking to us journalist, i want to ask you james rising. he said you don't want a journalist to going to jail as long as you are attorney general. why not drop it? too muchant to comment on what is a pending case, but i will say i think that case was appropriately charged. it is a case that we intend to see through to the end, and we will deal with the issue that you have raised in an appropriate way. and consistent with what i've said on a number of occasions.

>> if we could go back to ferguson for a second -- we've had the trayvon martin shooting and this incident and shoot -- and ferguson. as you look over your tenure and the state of policing in the united states, give us your sense of what you think about race and policing in this country. where do we need to go? that there is the need for -- i've said this 2009, talking about the need for a conversation in this country about race. i think there is still that need. and you need to go beyond that. we need to come up with concrete ways in which we are going to move this country forward and deal with these issues, understanding that there are communities who feel discriminated against. there are bases for that sense of alienation.

we have to come up with concrete ways in which we are going to deal with that. law enforcement is just a part of the larger society. there are flashpoints that, every now and again that i think point of problems that we have to deal with, but i want to make clear that the vast majority of people who are in law enforcement, the vast majority of police departments do their job in a way that we would expect, but to the extent that there are problems, we as a society need to have the guts to say, we are going to identify this as a problem. in our a deficiency country, and we are going to make it better. that is what makes this country exceptional, the fact that we recognize issues, deal with them, and move this country closer to the ideals that founded america in the first place. >> thank you. coming up next on c-span, a news conference with the

secretary-general of nato and the president of ukraine. after that, former counterterrorism officials discuss threats to the united states. that is followed by a hearing on childhood obesity and school lunches. on the next "washington classl," we will look at in america. liveington journal" starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on friday, a look at the political and humanitarian implications of the israeli-palestinian conflict, hosted by the middle east institution and the foundation for middle east peace. >> here are some highlights from this coming weekend. friday, live at 10:00 eastern, the nebraska supreme court will hear oral humans on the keystone

xl pipeline. saturday on "the communicators," former commissioners michael cobb and robert mcdowell. with 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span. debates between incumbent democrat senator kay hagan and her republican opponent tom tillis. then jerry brown and republican nominee neil kashkari. 8:00, an author shares his -- his opinion on international law and how little impact it has on behavior powerful nations. mike gonzalez on how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote at 10:00 p.m. eastern. sunday at noon, a three-hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights mary frances berry. friday night on american history talkuthors and historians about the burning of washington during the war of 1812.

the building of the hoover dam, and sunday night at 8:00, the university of gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. find or television schedule at c-span.org, and let us know what you think. call us. send us a tweet, or you can e-mail us. join c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. on friday, c-span's american history to her features the westward expansion, including the lewis and clark expedition from st. louis to the pacific. here is a look. a lot of times in hollywood movies we see them circling the wagons with the indians coming to attack. very rarely if ever did that happen. along the few trails way that had anything to do with the indians to read the indians

helped the pioneers more than hurt them. the dangers came first of all with disease, which probably killed about 10% of the people who went west, mostly cholera, and also things like drowning and accidental death by gunshot, being run over by a wagon happened to a lot of kids who were climbing on the wagon and fell off, and the wheels would roll over them. side to a real groom's this mass migration. really unprecedented mass migration when we are talking about over 300,000 people during the time in question who kind of packed up everything and literally went west. >> on friday, our american history to her on westward expansion. we will explore the st. louis --

the lewis and clark expedition, the creation of the first transcontinental railroad, and the so-called black okies who migrated to california in the 1930's. that starts at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. natoe secretary-general of and the president of ukraine petro poroshenko spoke to reporters thursday about the situation in ukraine. this is 20 minutes. >> good evening. we've just had an important meeting about the grave crisis in ukraine. russia is not fighting against ukraine in ukraine. russian troops and russian tanks are attacking the ukrainian , and while talking about peace, russia has not made one single step to make peace

possible. instead of the escalating the crisis, russia has only deepened it. ukraine hasening in serious implications for the security and stability of the whole euro atlantic area. we stand united in our support of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. we strongly condemn russia's repeated violations of international law. russia must stop its aggressive actions against ukraine, withdraw its thousands of troops from ukraine and the border regions, and stop supporting the separatists in ukraine. reverse itsussia to

illegal and illegitimate, self-declared annexation of , which we do not and will not recognize. this is the first time since the end of world war ii that one european country has tried to grab another's territory by force. europe must not turn away from the rule of law to the rule of .he strongest this is vital for peace and security in the world. importants been an and distinctive nato partner for many years. we highly value ukraine's contributions our operations and the nato response force. nato.e has stood by

in these difficult times, nato stands by ukraine. our support is concrete and tangible. we have established a comprehensive and tailored package so ukraine can better provide for its own security. defense,ocus on cyber logistics, and command, control, and communications. we will also help with rehabilitation for troops injured in the conflict. we will provide advice to help ,kraine with defense reforms and allies will assist ukraine with around 15 million euros through nato, and in addition to that, we have heard several announcements of bilateral assistance financially and in

other ways. at independent, sovereign, and stable ukraine firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law is key to euro atlantic security . that is nato's goal, and i know that that is your goal, mr. president. >> thank you very much indeed. ladies and gentlemen, i'm really glad to let you know that we have opened a very substantial an summit at the nato today. felt such strong support from all of the leaders of the countries, the heads of the governments, the representatives of the major minute -- member states. it is definitely a landmark in the 20-year history

between ukraine and nato. this partnership has been an essential factor for the international and regional security and stability. haveecurity and stability been undermined by russian aggression, and every single head of state and head of the stressed the importance of unity and solidarity in ukraine, with ukraine that nato should demonstrate today. , nato haseginning been standing by ukraine, supporting it to the maximum extent possible. this was reaffirmed today by of member states today. andre also grateful to nato

individual alliances for the practical help and assistance provided to ukraine in the recent months. for therian assistance civilian population affected, advisory support, which has already worked for ukraine, medical treatment of the injured ukrainian servicemen, etc. at the meeting, many allies declared additional practical to bet to ukraine provided on a bilateral basis, including commitments to new defense funds, and also, which is very important, to rehabilitate the injured ukrainian servicemen. bilateral military technical cooperation on nonlethal and medical items. a friend in need is a friend indeed. there was a very strong demonstration of solidarity with

ukraine. a completely new security situation created by this aggression calls for our joint action to counter the emergent security challenges, including the shadow warfare. we had a friend exchange of views on current and future nato-ukraine relations in the security environment. operationalat our the focus on achieving full interoperability between ukraine and nato and developing joint military,es and defense, and security sectors. we will strengthen our intensive cooperation with nato in the defense and security sector through the development and capacity building programs focusing on reform of ukrainian armed forces and other security structures. of second important element

the news nato-ukraine cooperation framework is ukraine's partition -- in the partnership interoperability initiative. this will allow us to maintain a cooperatively between the ukrainian and nato forces, achieved through the participation of our national , joint military exercises, and so forth. last but not least, the element of our new framework, a further deepening of the nato-ukraine partnership -- we consider this partnership to be an integral part of the ukraine-european integration caused. with the implementing of wide-ranging eu-related reform, ofaine will pursue the goal

nato-ukraine cooperation, along with other tools and mechanisms. such an approach will create necessary synergy between ukraine, european integration,.and europe . --we'll start with [indiscernible] >> i have a question for both high representatives. for the ukrainian president, what is your vision for members?s and nato for the secretary-general, how can nato help ukraine to become a member? if you are looking for any the moston with nato, significant part of this reform dedicated not only to the security sector but to the

economy, rule of law, anticorruption, and others. i think this is a key important factor for ukraine to demonstrate the great achievement. that the war said in the east of the country is not an excuse for not providing reform and the country. that is why next week we will present the program of reform, which was developed and strong cooperation with the european union and nato. i think the new parliamentary elections will help us a lot to accelerate the reform process. the ukrainian people will decide when and how it happens. >> let me pick up on that. it is exactly for the ukrainian , and the decide

ukrainian political leadership to decide, how to develop its future relationship with nato. whatever decision, it is of to improve ource ability to work and operate together. this includes -- this is exactly the reason why we are focusing theeforming and modernizing ukrainian armed forces, development of the security nator, raise standards to levels, and that will be a focal point within the nato-ukraine commission and the national program and the trust funds we have decided to establish. >> my question to the secretary-general -- what do you think of excluding the military option?

[indiscernible] it's not a ukrainian crisis. it is russian aggression. how can russian forces be put back into russia? how can this be resolved without a military option, without supplying military equipment for ukraine? speaking, i don't think anyone would like war or to resolve this issue. we do believe that the best way would be to find a political solution and to facilitate such a political solution. that thebelieve international community must

respond to terminally if russia ine to intervene further ukraine. response are deeper, broader, tougher economic sanctions that would definitely hurt in the russian economy and isolate russia further. >> a question for the ukrainian president. [speaking foreign language] are we talking nonlethal weapons, high precision weapons, legal assets? are there any agreements to that effect, and can you specify what ,ou said about 15 million euros which is supposed to come to

ukraine, and what it is going to be spent on? first of all, i would like to thank all of the countries that participated in today's meeting for their very strong support and help, including the for the trustort funds, which primarily will deal with important areas of ukraine's security. this is about improvement of logistics, improvement of command and control systems, the improvement of communications, and cyber defense. there are individual countries who undertook coordination and -- france and other countries made their commitments to support us financially. apart from that, each country

spoke about the results of their bilateral consultations in the way of assisting ukraine. this primarily is related to military and technical cooperation, both in the area of lethal and nonlethal weapons, including high precision weapons. individual countries. some countries undertook to supply medical equipment and meditation. as you can see, this cooperation on the bilateral level with individual allies is extremely broad. i like to emphasize once again ,hat in the final resolution there will be words about encouraging bilateral cooperation, including in the military and technical field.

>> first a question for president poroshenko about the minsk talks -- how do you see for a bilateral cease-fire, and why are you entering this process now? don't you fear this will lead to a frozen conflict? if i could ask the secretary-general to assessed mr. putin's peace initiative, is a genuine or a smokescreen? >> look, ukraine is fighting for peace. ofaine was not the initiater war. ukraine was the object of aggression. best to to do our immediately stop the aggression, immediately stop the fire. why? it is ukrainians who pay the highest price every single day,

losing the lives of their soldiers, innocent civilians, and me as president of ukraine, i've done my best to stop the war. while i have careful optimism minskmorrow's meeting in -- before hand, it was the statement of the russian , and it was in , the statement of the statement of the so-called leaders of the separatist movement in donetsk that they are ready for a cease-fire. to have theportant

help of the osce and immediately release the hostages, which have been illegally kept by the terrorists, and pull the situation under control on the ukrainian-russian border and withdraw the russian troops. i think this is a very tough a veryge before important political negotiation. take into account the question of ukrainian sovereignty, ukrainian territorial integrity, and ukrainian independence. it is not a question for negotiation. if recent statements from president putin represent a genuine effort to find a political solution, i would welcome it. that is exactly what we need, a

constructive political process. counts is what is actually happening on the ground . it remains to be seen what it is. i have to say that previously we have seen similar statements and initiatives, and they have actually just then a smokescreen for continued russian destabilization of the situation in ukraine. experience, we have to be cautious in our assessment, but again let me say that if we are witnessing genuine efforts to find a political solution, i would welcome it. >> thank you very much. >> on the next "washington journal," we will take a look at class in america, three hours of

calls and tweets and facebook comments. "washington journal" live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up on friday, a discussion about the relationship between the u.s. and russia hosted by george washington university's institute for european, russian, and eurasian studies. that starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> with congress returning monday, here is a message from congress from one of our student can winners. >> the nsa, what does it do? orwas hard to answer this it edward snowden leaked thousands of detailed classified documents to the public. these documents showed full extent of the nsa surveillance on americans. >> the nsa is doing both data

collection of americans e-mails. it is not limited in scope to terrorists, to people who they have probable cause to believe that are committing some type of crime. it is able collection of americans e-mails. >> the nsa is very controversial, and the only way to resolve the conflict is of confrères -- if congress puts this is the number one issue in 20 42. >> join us next wednesday. former counterterrorism officials from the bush and obama administrations outlined terrorist threats to the united states, including isis. the event was hosted by the mccain institute for international studies. it's about an hour and 10 minutes. >> my name is kurt volker. i'm the executive director of the mccain institute. welcome to the next in our series of foreign-policy debates

that really try to look at the critical issues that our country needs to face and decide about. critical issues that our country needs to face and decide about. the mccain institute was founded in 2012 to honor senator mccain, misses and the mccain, and the mccain family going back generations and the history of service they have provided to our nation. the history is simple. it's to prevent -- promote the next generation of herbster in leadership. -- the next generation of character in leadership. we want to interview to a culture of debate about the critical choices our country faces. that is what -- why we launched this debate series. make it scrupulously nonpartisan, but highly informative. give equal and fair time to various points of view, and we hope that like you, make your own decisions about what we need to do as a country. activates have covered topics such as should we intervene in

serious? is it time to invade russia once again? should we get out of afghanistan? what do we do about room policy policy?drone you can find all of these on our website or our youtube channel. i encourage you to take a look at them. the next one is october 23 about china and whether we are sacrificing human rights in the pursuit of other interests. tonight's debate is being covered by c-span. it is our third collaboration with them. we are very pleased with that. the topic of tonight's debate is global war on terrorism. given what we've seen with isis taking over part of iraq and , with the horrible beheadings of two american ,itizens in the past two weeks is it time for us to double down? should we be taking the war to terrorist again? is it time to renew the global war on terrorism? havebate that topic, we people of unparalleled experience and knowledge in that area, former deputy national security advisor or

counterterrorism is our moderator. awill say more about him in second. but also, former security advisor and acting director of and the deputy director for counterterrorism at the cia. sets a very well informed of debaters. i hope we get a lot out of this tonight. we want the audience not only to listen, but also to take art. there will be an opportunity for questions. think about what questions you would like to put to a panel such as this. at this point, let me turn to introduce our moderator, juan zarate. he was a particularly good friend. we served together in the national security council when .e was a deputy -- the deputy prior to that, he had set up the task force to go after terrorist financing. he is now doing many things, including working with cbs as a commentator.

i will turn it over to him to introduce our debaters. over to you. thank you. [applause] >> ambassador volker, thank you very much. it's an honor to be here and i appreciate the opportunity to serve as moderator for this panel. good evening to all of you. as kurt mentioned, we are being covered on c-span. we have to be conscious of our audience abroad. we will be getting questions from the twitter audience. this will be an act of debate, both here and on line. let me say first that there could not be a more timely debate or discussion. the question of what to do about the terrorist threat, as kurt described, is front and center in our national debate. a better panele to have that debate. these are individuals with unprecedented experience over the course of many administrations.

and so we are set for a lively and important debate. we will allow for as much distinction as possible. they are owing to be ready to debate, as a -- they are going to be ready to debate, as opposed to coming to grand central conclusions together. but first, let me open up the debate and i will and how we will move forward with the format. we have seen a more dangerous and complicated terrorism environment. the march of isis, now proclaimed as the islamic state, establishing a safe haven in the ,eart of the middle east foreign fighters and seen before in the history of modern terrorism, thousands of foreign fighters flowing to the region. in metastasized al qaeda movement in nigeria in the form of boko haram all the way to the indian subcontinent, a movement that has developed new techniques to raise funds globally -- locally and draw

global funding. and they have used the media in innovative ways. and an ideology that is inspiring both in the fight and in western societies. the question now before us, as is see in our program, whether it is time to double down. what is our strategy, given this new complicated and more dangerous environment? what does that mean you are the administration has talked about degrading and destroying the islamic state. what does that mean in terms of national power? what does doubling down mean in the kermit -- the current context? and with the potential for quagmire in places like syria, and other places around the russian crises, whether and ukraine, or tension in the south china sea. let me describe the panel collectively. you have their bios in front of you. i will give a thumb description of each in just a second. let me describe them

collectively. collectively, they are quite a remarkable group. they have all served at the seniormost levels of the government. they have set in the sickroom, if not sharing meetings in the sickroom that advised cabinets and secretaries. and presidents. and they have all served in different administrations at different times in our counterterrorism campaign. they now all sit on the outside, so in some ways hopefully this loosens their tongues of it, makes them freer to debate. but they also serve as key voices in the media. these are remarkable panelists. the panelists in teams. we have arranged them to and to with mike morel and fran townsend advocating for the idea of doubling down. and the other two arguing against. let me introduce mike very briefly.

mike was the former acting director of the cia after a long, storied career in the agency. he served as a national security consultant, and also with me at cbs news as an advisor and talking head, if you will. townsend.ke is fran full disclosure, a former boss of mine. former assistant to the president, president bush. for homeland security and counterterrorism. in numerous capacities, and you can see in her bio the multiple roles that she has played. but in particular, the vice president at mcandrews and forbes holding, and also a commentator at cnn. dan benjamin.s ambassador benjamin was the former ambassador at large for counterterrorism in the obama administration at the state department. he now serves as the director of the john sloan dickey center for

international understanding at dartmouth. and next to dan is philip mudd. well-known to many of you who watch cnn, especially recently, a commentator there. former deputy director of the cia counterterrorism center shortly after 9/11. these are all individuals who have been in the battlefield, so to speak. they've been in policy and operational positions and can speak to not just the theoretic, but the practical almonds of this debate. let me say briefly how we will conduct this debate. we will have five minute openings from each side, and then three minute rebuttals from each side. we will then open it up to questions and answers. i will start with a few questions, but then we will open it up to you, the audience, and those who will submit questions via twitter. what we will do at the end is ask each side to give us some cogent points and policy recommendations based on their opinions.

part of the reason that i think the mccain institute in these is in these debates is not only to inform the public, but to engage the public. one of the things i want to challenge you all is to think long and hard about your views on this and to think about how this debate is shaping and perhaps affecting the way you think about these questions i will ask a couple of questions at the end of the audience. i would like to start first if we turn it over to the panelists , to ask a broad and general question. how many of you in the audience think we are losing the war on terror? ok, keep this in mind, because at the end, what i will ask you is whether or not this debate has materially informed your opinion. and whether or not your opinion has changed as a result of the debate. i would be interested to see the results. with that, let's begin. fran, let's start with you.

isis,isil of facts, -- we will call it the islamic state so we are not stepping all over the name. they have seized more geography than any other terrorist in history. they control a crescent from aleppo to baghdad. they control the border between what was iraq and syria. they have shut off the border between syria and turkey largely. they have seized weapons from inside iraq from the iraqi got -- iraqi army. they have seized finances. they have beheaded two americans. cap the single most sophisticated media campaign that the u.s. government has ever tried to combat across two administrations and multiple parties. no administration has been able to effectively counter their media campaign. the beheadings that you saw were not an accident. they were carefully

orchestrated. they had a british individual who was a clear english speaker. the orange jumpsuit of the victims was reminiscent of gitmo. clearly, these were edited videos. you see the knife go to the victim's throat. it fades to black, and then you see the aftermath of the beheading. they intentionally do not show the bloody, protracted process of the beheading. the islamic state is tracking its own numbers. it had been tracking its own numbers since 2011. the united states government to would do well to do the same. to give you a couple of data points, in quarter one of 2011, they had committed for executions by their own count, and in q1 of 2014, just 399 -- it was 399. it had more than quadrupled. cyberattacks -- sniper attacks, in 2014 at 270. ied attacks are on the rise. impolite explosive devices require more skill, more

financing, and more access -- improvised explosive devices require more skill, more toancing, and more access supplies. the end topped 1800 by of 2014. that does not account for the increase in the amount of cash they have access to from the whichf modal --mosul, happen at the end of q1, and before there were krugman of 6000 fighters of july, 2014. suicide missions remain popular by the group. although the use of suicide else is down. the use of suicide car bombs is up. fatalities are up. 2013 is the deadliest year in iraq since 2008 with 8800 people killed. merelyamic state is not a terrorist group. it is any regular army using terrorist tactics.

the document of atrocities in could kidnappings, beheadings, crucifixions, torture, slavery, rape, and summary mass executions, including 500 iraqi soldiers at a military base in june when it was seized. now we come to foreign fighters. , bothngle greatest threat to the united states, to the region, and to the government of iraq and what remains of the government in syria. the surge came in foreign fighters after they declared a caliphate the summer. anywhereates range from 10,000 up to 30,000, depending on who you listen to. there are at least 700 french foreign fighters, 500 rates, and as we know, the number of americans, while unclear, has been reported in somewhere of the neighborhood of 100. many of those foreign fighters will die in the battlefield. just yesterday, british investigators reported that they

believe possibly have have returned to the united kingdom. that is a problem. it is a problem to track them. it is part of what makes so critically important identifying the individual in the videotape, not just because you want to capture and punish the individual who is responsible for the beheadings of the two americans, but because you want to be able to backtrack through the network, the pipeline that got him there, the pipeline that recruited him in the united kingdom, presuming that is where he's from, and the network of associates that he leaves behind. >> frankly got about 30 seconds. fran, you've got about 30 seconds. >> is it time to double down? i would say it is passed down. we have a lobbyist on wednesday to gather too much momentum. is doubling down enough? i would say no. we are not doing enough now to say that doubling down would be sufficient. we need a comprehensive approach that would adequately and adequately andis immediately resource. winning clear objectives, and

the means a coalition that u.s. must lead. >> i will take a prerogative of the moderator to give you a minute or so, mike. me define what double down means to me. it can mean a lot of different things. thating down means to me wherever al qaeda poses a threat to united states today, or is likely to throw -- to pose a threat to united states, we need to put as much pressure on them as possible. what history has shown in this entire fight is that when you put pressure on them, you can degrade them. you can disrupt plotting and reduce the chances they will be successful. when you take that pressure off, history has been very clear that rebuild, and, they a gain capabilities to attack us. we are under threat today from al qaeda in pakistan, al qaeda in yemen, and isis. and there are places in the world that if we don't watch, we will face a 9/11 style threat again. double down, absolutely.

>> dan, let's start with you. >> thanks to the mccain institute and giving me an opportunity to speak with our three old end -- old friends and very, very distinguished colleagues. i want to pull a fast one on the organizers by saying, despite the title of this debate, i don't think there's any discussion about whether or not we should double down. the events of the last few months has been horrifying. the real question is, how do we double down? and to answer that we have to determine what kind of threat we face that will determine what kind of response. we need some precision here. it is clear, as fran demonstrated, that the islamic state is a group of unparalleled brutality as well as surprisingly capable insurgent group. it is clearly a major regional threat.

it has also created an enormous safe haven in syria and iraq and attracted numerous foreign fighters, which give it key assets for plotting terrorist acts abroad. while they hay want to carry out attacks in the west, to date, it has not carried out or even attempted a covert terrorist organization outside its theater. indeed, i think we have to ask a question, is it focused on us? i would submit that right now its focus is not principally on us. despite the appalling executions of the last two weeks, they are consumed by their efforts to ar apart iraq in a sectarian conflict. and to quote the direct i don't have -- director of nctc from his speech yesterday, at this point in time we have no credible information that isil is planning to attack the united states he added, in our view, any threat -- this is from the

sympathizers and foreign fighters, any threat to the u.s. homeland is likely to be limited in scope and scale. we as a nation have made some costly mistakes in the past in places like vietnam and iraq by making hasty and falseage cease of the threat we face and we really should not do so again. so while i support limited air strikes along the current line, i think the doubles down we need is in the form of intensive engagement, including thru financial and military incentives with regional partners who are the most immediately threatened by isis and above all we must stay the course and push the iraqis to get past the divisions in baghdad and take the fight to isis. i think we do face a long-term threat in isis, the desire to kill westerners. i believe we'll see a campaign in the region to destroy its

leadership. but we should not own this struggle. it belongs to iraqis and their neighbors and a precipitous effort now with a broad air campaign or even ground forces would both fail and relieve these countries of their responsibility to get their act together and that's something we cannot allow to occur. >> i sat at the threat table at the f.b.i. and c.i.a. for almost 10 years. in the spring of 2002 into the wint over 2003 and beyond, the defining characteristic was the unknown. what will al qaeda do tomorrow? in particular thinking about everything from a major catastrophic attack and w.m.d., in particular, anthrax. we have learned a lot since then, since we were defined by not knowing what the al qaeda adversary was. we watched them move into places like pakistan and watched them recruit american citizens from places like somalia. in each of those cases, in each of those three major countries

which are on the front page and cnn every day, each of those cases have fallen off the front pages. what are the responses? in no case did we have a significant -- did we have significant u.s. forces on the ground. group. , we had a we had a coalition in africa, and we had will agented u.s. intelligence component with overhead assistance that helped go after a small sliver of the organization responsible for threats to the united states. we went from we don't know the adversary to we know the adversary. and in the circumstances where we knew the adversary, we decided not doubling down was necessary and history has shown us that we were able to contain the adversary with that approach. so my question to you is,

indonesia, philippines, yemen, somalia, every day, every year, we have a new threat and now we have another one. why are we going to change? the past has shown success, why don't we aplay the same instruments of power in the future? thank you. >> mike, you and fran three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you. dan, i think, made the really important point here which is, what's the threat? what's the threat? and we've got to be careful that we don't just talk about isis. this is a much bigger problem than isis. i would tell you that matt olson, who i admire greatly, his comment about there's no credible information that isis is about to hit us, let me tell you something, there was no credible information on september 10, 2001, that alchi was going to hit us. the threat is can what fran said it was, them directing a canadian citizen or western

citizen to come here and dect a small scale attack that could happen tomorrow, with or without credible information. a.q. in yemen could bring down an airliner in the united states tomorrow, they have that capability, with or without information. i agree with dan completely that we have to figure out this e-- the best way to put pressure on each of these groups. i afree with phil. it's going to be different in each case. we have to keep the pressure on. >> i would only add to what mike has said. we've heard the story about no credible threat from this administration regarding al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and then we had the underwear bomber because he acted outside of the region directly against the united states. we heard it again later, and we had the computer cartridge case which we wouldn't -- we the united states, the united states government, couldn't find when we got the lead information from the saudis service until they gave us the bill of lading. so don't tell me to find comfort

in the fact that there's no direct and credible threat. i'd also say it's not right to say that the islamic state has not acted outside they've theater if you define the theater as where they have -- where they holder to of syria and iraq. they plotted in lebanon, that was disrupted. they've been plotting in saudi arabia where they arrested some five or six dozen individuals. i would simply say with al qaeda. years before they launched the 9/11 attack, had threatened us and we regarded them as not capable of acting against us in the united states and we were wrong. so i take little comfort in that. >> you know, i think we need a definition of terms that is insurgency vs. terrorism. i've watched this stuff for 25 years. we've had groups that control territory, that want to take over the local police station or .ff the government in mogadishu

think of al qaeda. these are groups that are not focused on the united states. there are slivers of groups that do. we've used instruments of power that do not include doubling down. i mentioned yemen and somalia. how often have you heard of yemen and somalia last year. my point is you can talk to me about i.e.d.'s, sniper, the control of geography, weapons. to my mind these are characteristics of insurgent groups. they're not the characteristics of the slivers of organizations that i witnessed to threaten america. we do not need instruments of power of people going against baghdadism worry about people going against new york and the instruments of power we used were not doubling down but let's take out a scalpel, use partners like the pakistanis and yemenis, use coalitions that support you and when you need to use u.s. intelligence and scalpel strikes to take out the leadership.

and by the way, it worked. >> dan? >> just a few points. mike, you and i are going to disagree about credible warning between 9/11. at least in the administration i served in, we thought that nairobi and sar esa lamb were car ng of a strategic -- llam were warning of a strategic plan. one thing about these groups there's an amazing welcome of confidence in the improvements we have made since 9/11. we are much better and intelligence, much better at training and assisting other countries, we are much bet for the tracking travelers. someone may get through. and someone may act up in the united states. there's going to be violence in our future but the fact is, these are low level threats. it's the high end threat we have to worry about. i agree with mike. we have to keep the pressure on

al qaeda groups everywhere. it's how we keep the pressure on. if we put u.s. forces on the field, we're giving them a target, giving them a rayway to radicalize more, giving them a way to recruit more. we can work through partners around the world to achieve the kind of success that phil was describing. >> we'll start the q&a session. i'm going to poke and prod, make them a little uncomfortable, which is good. fran and mike, let me ask you this question. point has been raised, these are groups that in many cases, whether it's isis or al shabab that appear to be more like local insurgencies, more focused on their local tactics and survival. more regional strategies. these aren't groups that in the first instance are necessarily focused on the u.s. system of why in some ways provoke them, provide them targets by again having an aggressive, all-out war on terror effort?

>> ignoring them is not a strategy. a great military leader once said hope is not a strategy. being quiet and hope they go away is not going to work. they've beheaded two americans. mike rightly argued in my view that those are direct terror attacks against the united states. when i talk about national power, let me use the islamic state as an example. you can use he call -- local partners and i believe we've got to use our partnerships in foreign intelligence services and local militias. but you have to do more than that. the free syrian army, we have not done enough to train and equip them. we've talked about it but from everyone in the region, we haven't done it. if you want to use that, don't want to use actual military force and i think it's right, you want to be surgical about -- phil goes back to the use of american military power, but you've got to step up, man up, and do what you say you're going

to do in terms of equipment. >> the only thing i would add is there are two al qaeda groups in syria, al nusra and isis. both of them have said, both of them have made very clear that the united states of america will be a target when they set intool a safe haven. both have been clear about that. one of the things you learn in foreign policy over time is that your adversary tells you what they're going to do. lane did it, al nusra and isis are doing it. >> what about the point that embedded in the d.n.a. of these groups is in some ways a global focus on the u.s. and that you can't necessarily predict at what point or what part of that group will actually set their sights on new york or detroit or san francisco? and so how do you address that, given the nature of these groups? >> thank you for supporting my position, we can conclude the conversation, phil agrees with me.

let's be clear here. the original architects of 9/11 clued us in. and people do tell you what they're going to do. the original architects not only told us but murder thousands of people. there's broader application in afghanistan but not pakistan. where was the core that threatens, across the board. foreign partners, money, intelligence and the application of u.a.v. technology to take out the leadership. let's take out other places that not only talked about us but acted against us. i mentioned earlier in yemen. you're right. came after us with the underwear bomber, came after us in cargo aircraft. somalia, didn't come after us directly, recruted kids from minneapolis, minnesota, i remember hearing the store roffs families and moms when i was at the f.b.i. talking about that. in each of those cases, i agree the adversary not only clued us

in but acted on their clues and we contained the adversary without doubling down. >> dan? >> well, i agree. in fact i said it's in their d.n.a., they're going to want to try to attack us. because it's critical for their credibility. it's critical for their reputation. and it helps with their recruiting. but i really do believe we have ample capabilities and with the right political will and the right diplomat exand military intelligence engagement that we can deal with that and prevent that from happening. s that group that really has not shown it has the necessary skills. i do worry down the line that qad and urge with a acquire skills that would make us concerned. but so far this group has shown little interest in that area of attack, by area, i mean the mideast in which they operate. i think we do have the wherewithal to do this. if we do things like have a

broad air campaign now. first of all, they're very good at learning about how to deal with air, we saw that in iraq when we were there. we couldn't destroy isis back then. we will first of all lose our sunni friends in the region if we do it in syria because they won't understand why we're taking away an enemy of that side. so i think we have to be careful when we think about the application of force. and finally, what we want to do is have the iraqis come together and deal with this threat and if they don't, we have another set of problems. we have to deal with two different or three different entities as partners in the region. but to have us being the leading point of the spear on this one would be a big mistake. >> dan, to your point about the future threat, what the islam exstate become os motivates srningt that an argument for doing something about the group now before the an opportunity to motivate a broader movement or

coalesce its infrastructure and foreign fighters with other al qaeda elements? isn't that an argument for acting now versus waiting for that moment? >> i don't think it's clear that any of the tools we have at our disposal would actually really diminish the threat right now. we don't have the intelligence right now to detap ate -- decapitate its leadership which is an essential step. if we had it, i would endorse it. what's more is, i think that it's simply not a foregone conclusion that they're coming after us very soon. and so if anything, i think we want to play out the dynamic by which they alienate everyone in their neighborhood. they have no state support. they have no unlimited resources. change the currency in iraq and you've got nothing in the bank. there are things that we can do and it's not clear to me that we have to once again be in the position where the united states is bombing muslims and giving the global muslim community

reason to question about what it is we're really interested in. >> so one more question off what dan said, isn't the intent here intelligence? we may have strategic intelligence and warning but we don't have enough tactical granularity to understand what may be happening. so in some ways, this is theoretical wetch don't know what's happening in sir yasm we don't know if they're sending foreign fight wers british or belgian passports on planes in the u.s. so is it worth the risk to wait? >> i hate to kiss you but you really hit something. the media has gone beyond the question of what to we know about the adversary to the question of, shouldn't the president act now? let me cut to the case. you mention questioneds about the intelligence picture. to my mind when you see two americans murdered, that's one of the significant questions. we had an american suicide bomber from florida. but the broader question, looking at 500 plus brits there, maybe 100-plus americans, i think that's an underestimate.

with the people who might have good documents to come back and hurt us. we're striking in iraq, the channel is not iraq, it's syria. so we cut to the chase. do we have, forget about whether the president's delay, whether he's on a gol cough -- golf course, do we have the intelligence pick tchoifer command and control of the adversary that's responsible for foreign fighters so that we can conduct a fairly surgical operation without putting men and women from the united states at great risk? i don't know the answer to that but i agree with dan. if we have that picture, my question today would be why aren't we going, because they've already killed americans. but that's a surgical operation like the operations i mentioned before, like the operations that have eviscerated the al qaeda leadership when we face the bigger threat in places like the tribal areas of pakistan. >> fran, you can address this of course, but let me ask this question. why get ahead of the curve and have the groups focus on the

must ways they may not. secondly and maybe this is worth a follow-on, do we return the other changing our policies by rushing to focus so heavily on the counterterrorism mission, a common critique of the counterterrorism community, that it dominates the foreign policy. so the first question is, do we run the risk of getting ahofede the curve or focus on the u.s. secondly are we beginning to distort policy that matters for u.s. interests long-term? i'm going to let zsh >> i'm going to let fran answer those questions but i'm going to come back to something my colleagues said. they both just said that if we have the intelligence, let's double down. they both said, they both just said if we have the intelligence, we should go after and decapitate the group. that's what i mean by putting pressure on the group. that's how i define cubble down. they both just joined in fran's

and my position. >> i guess i don't have to talk then. >> by the way, did you guys coordinate the purple? i just noticed that. >> let me say this. i do -- you guys have no risk of getting ahead of the curve. you're so far behind the cush you can't see the front of that line. let's not even worry about getting ahead of the curve. these people have taken such a swath of territory while we sat back and watched them, and then beheaded two americans, you're playing catch-up at this point. what you need to do is shift the momentum. you're looking to disrupt them. and the president rightly said, you have to disrupt them, degrate them on the path to destroying and defeating them. that's right. but at the moment you've got to disrupt them first. you're not getting ahead of the curve. i will say this, what we know help when we provide the to our local partners we can be

successful. i take issue with what dan said about al qaeda in iraq. we did degrade them. we really did degrate them. they went to ground they resurged and now they've become the islamic state. but we were very effective against them. and recently, the president, working, providing arms and equipment and intelligence, retook the mosul dam. we can work with local partners without having to be a solely american responsibility and be successful. >> can we hold on a minute here? >> i would like my questions answered. >> not anymore. >> i just want to make a point, right that in putting pressure on these groups, you have to put all the tools on the table. you can't take one of the tool office the table and say you're not going to use it. you've got to put all the tools on the table an each situation, you've got to decide which of

those tools are most effective. in some cases it's going to be just our partners behind the scene. in other cases it's going to be u.s. military forces acting in some way. >> hold on a minute here. we're 35 minutes in and you're wiggling off the hook on this. >> no kidding. >> when we talk about doubling down, i suspect if we said doubling down the majority of this audience would say, we double down in iraq and afghanistan because we committed u.s. forces. we have a group here advocating doubling down without clarifying what that -- whether that means what we think it means. drones fine. international partnerships, fine. i would say do not put men and women from this country in those country we was already doubles down on. ky not get an answer. is that what the answer is? >> does doubling down also mean considering some of the things that were done post-9/11 to understand better the nature of the threat? to include longer term detention of detainees? after the head of the islamic

state was in u.s. custody and was released, to we need to think about long-term detention and other plcies that have proven so controversial post-9/11? is that what doubling down means? >> i don't think so. i don't think. so but let me answer phil's question. >> i'm coming back to you, dan. >> i would answer phil's question by asking having you think about this. one of the places in the world where we are at risk of seeing another 9/11 style capability is, unfortunately, in afghanistan. when u.s. forces leave afghanistan if that were to happen, it's probably going to happen, then what -- the best case outcome, best case outcome is that the taliban is going to have safe haven in the south and east. and when that happens, the remaining al qaeda in pakistan is going to come back across that border and find safe haven with the taliban in afghanistan. if the united states is unwilling or unable to do

anything about it, they're going to resurge or rere-group or come at us again. so the question to phil is, wouldn't you leave u.s. forces on the ground in afghanistan, special forces to go after al qaeda to avoid that rebuilding f that threat? >> by the way, doubling down is taking out 90% of the u.s. forces so we can have a group that's surgical. >> i'm in with that. that's not doubling down. >> i'm with him. >> the white house has said, the withdrawal from afghanistan, on the timeline we are, is not going to be conditions based. the president has decided it's fame-based. there are very specific timelines. those people are coming out regardless of the nightmare scenario that mike posits. if that's happening, those people are still coming out. are we still ok with that? i don't think so. we shouldn't be. because we will face that threat.

when you ask about, what does doubling down mean? >> to me it means you need special operations forces, trainers and advisors, in-country working with partners. whether it's the free syrian army or the iraqi army you need some presence. you need intelligence capabilities to help direct and target them. is that a huge military forces? no. should it be u.s. forces aloan? no. i think you need a large international coalition that includes ashe allies that are closest arab allies that are closest to this threat. >> i said that before. ruining the whole thing. >> now we've hogged this a little bit. let's open this up to the audience. as you think about your questions, please raise your hand a microphone will come to you. i plead with you skrk a question, this isn't a commentary period, but ask a question and we'll have one or the other side answer.

while you do that and collect your thoughts, i'll ask a question posed by swune via twitter. this is in the legal domain so i'll use it as a way of asking another question. -- and my aeda state piggyback question is, given about the way we have begun to talk about constrain or constrained our use of lethal force are we ham strung in our ability to use those stoll tooles, tools on the table against the islamic state? dan? >> well, i'm not a lawyer. but it would seem to me that you could say there was an ideological lineage that got us from a.q. 1.0 to the islamic state and i'm frankly quite sure that there are plenty of lawyers in the white house and state department who can come up with an argument that we don't need a new aumf for this i'm sure there

are plenty of lawyers outside who will feel differently. i don't think we should -- that this is the issue to get hung up on because the real question is the policy and the lawyers will find a way to accommodate the policy. i hate to say. >> let's have some questions his gentleman. please identify yourself and ask. >> my name is ahmed sullivan, i'm a consultant and a u.s. citizen. what i have heard from the panel is that they want to rely on local forces like the iraqi army but what we have seen is that the -- that they relinquish their arms that were given by the u.s. and ran and were caught and destroyed. in order to again train those -- this army and equip it and -- that will take time. and during that time, what is

going to happen to the isis? they are going to grow stronger. they have more money. they will have more men. and so on and so forth. >> your question, please. reallyuestion is, are we think that not doubling down will solve the problem? that's one thing, the second thing is that i have noticed because i lived in this area for a long time that we open a can of worms and then we don't have the plan b to do after that. you create the powerview vacuum and then you leave. that's what's happening in libya and egypt is at the same time fighting the islamists in this area. what should we do also in libya to count they are kind of new wave of islamist jew jihaddist. >> let me take your two questions and pose them to each side. phil take the question of,

relying on nornse ground but they've melted away in iraq, how can we fight a group if you don't have reliable forces on the ground? >> couple answers. they haven't melted away. this -- when i do cnn commentary, i'm going to throw fran under the bus because we both do it together. the fact is when you look at the history of these kinds of organizations, it takes a while for local populations to get a back bone. that isn't a couple of months. i think the question over time is, modest afterly case of u.s. force and as we've seen in places like somalia and yemen, when the villagers start to say, i have enough of this, security is nice, but i'm going to take up arm taos. i think it's time and understand, they made some early successes but i don't think that will define the future. i think we ought to be patient and say, we can help them. we can help them by bombing

around the mosul dam. but we ought not to be saying that our definition of this problem is defined by a few isis successes over the past few months in iraq. i don't think that's the future. >> fran, what about the second question which is a little bit of a pottery barn rule. by going in so aggressive, do we have a plan b? what happens in sir ark for example, if we double down there? >> so you are quite right. we are, across two administrations, an absolute fail on what we call phase 4 operations, coming in behind with a civil military partnership where there's a handover and this is now a euphemism that everybody hates, nation build, but by the way that's what you've got to do. e didn't adequately plan for that in iraq. this a administration didn't plan for it in libya. we've seen the results of that. there are institutions inside the government that are in a nascent state, we began to build the civilian operations in the

state department. the understand we've got to do that better. if you're going to go in, the pottery barn rule, shorthand for if you break it, you own it. you own it until you have something to come in behind it, indigenous. we have to do better at that but we've got -- we would have to invest in that. we have to be willing to spend money on that before we need it. >> i disagree with what dan said when he said the u.s. government has done a good job building capacity in these countries. i think the united states has done a lousy job at building capacity in these countries. and it is the number one need in all these countries facing al eda, from mauritania, eyipt, they need intelligence capacity, police capacity they need rule of law capacity and nobody is helping them do it right now. >> wait a second. so we have a lot of successes and phil enumerated them before,

where we had a very good capacity building process in iraq. what we had was a terrible political process where we let someone continue to run a government on a very sectarian principle that completely gutted the army, gutted the intelligence service and led to disaster. the capacity building was fine. >> the iraqi military wasn't ready to stand on its own when we left at 2011. it needed our help in terms of building what we needed. >> just as the afghan army needs our help right now. and you'll see the same failure there if you withdraw on a time base as opposed to a conditions base. >> another question this gentleman here in the yellow shirt. >> if i remember correctly all four of you guys advocated for a u.a.v. campaign in iraq and syria against the islamic state. it's easy to see how they could

provide a -- an vng. have we seen in yemen, pakistan and other places where we've embarked on these campaigns long-term degradation of these groups? does it differ from geography to geography? say we were to embark on a u.a.v. campaign against the islamic state, would we produce, say, a backlash from sunnis in iraq? and that would work to our detriment strategically? >> mike, what about that? >> taking the leadership off the battlefield is the single most important thing you can do to degrade a group. it's also the single most important thing you can do to disrupt plotting. why? because if you're a leader of those groups and you're worried about your personal security, then you don't have time to plan. that's what we saw in out asia. that's what we saw in yemen. that's why i think we need to do it. >> dan, do you have an opinion on this? >> i agree with mike.

i think that if you see this safe haven and this influx of foreign fighters as, you know, a gathering threat of these kinds of dimensions and i think that in this case, it would be the appropriate course. because it's an ungoverned area. we should not be taking predator shots in the middle of populated areas with functioning government. that would be the wrong thing to do. it would undermine an awful lot of what we stand for and would be counterproductive. in an ungoverned space like this, i think it would make a lot of sense. >> another question. >> yes this lady in the middle, please. if we can pass the mike down that would be great. >> good evening. my name is lashana and i'm a

grad student at johns hopkins. my question is about the military strategy in the counterterrorism arena. we seem to be using an aggressive military campaign against terrorist groups but it seems we fail to understand the existential struggle that encompasses global terror. terrorist groups are, it seems, more so about national identity and identity and using aggressive military campaigns in the form of drone attacks that do little to diminish the leadership struck all -- structure of terrorist groups as they show interesting resilience to the leaders. do you think we need to reassess our strategy and approach to the global fight on terror because the military campaign seems to do little to eradicate the ideology -- ideology and the issue of identity. >> fran, isn't that a problem here? you've got this ideology that's fueling these groups, that

animates these groups and if the u.s. doubles down, perhaps the problem gets -- gets worse. >> i think there are two separate things going on that i'd like to address. the drone campaign, as mike suggested, are incredibly effective when they target the leadership. it is easiest to do that in ungoverned spaces, as dan alluded to, but i will tell you, there was the running joke, many of us served, that if you were the number three in al qaeda, you had the single shortest life span, i can't tell you how many number threes i saw. you didn't care about number three, he was director of external operations. we kill lots of them and eventually the people who rose up to replace him were less experienced, less good and obsessed with their own personal security so they couldn't plot. it's an important tool in terms of disrupting a plot. i will say now, when -- the last part of your question, right, about what about the idea

snoling you have to have a broader strategy. that's why -- when i ended my sort of beginning spiel about having a comprehensive strategy, you need to be able to talk to people about human rights. the bad guys are horrible abusers of human rights. look right now in both pakistan and in the islamic state if you will. the refusal to allow polio vaccines -- vaccines and they're prohibiting the anti-malaria campaign. you've got to talk to the broader ideology and take them on about their own oppression and their own denial of rights to people they claim to speak and govern in the name of. we have not been very good about that. that must be part of the plan because you've got to take on their narrative and we've not been very effective at it. >> dan? >> this is a really important question that you've asked on the ideology. and the sad fact is that we are much, much better developed,

much better equipped for dealing with an imminent threat, an imminent plot and with dealing with already convinced and hardened jihaddists. we are not very good at countering the narrative, as fran said. we're getting better. we've made interesting advances, there's something called the counterterrorism communications which brings together all the government in one organization in the state department. but the problem is, it's impossible to expand this effort or to expand development-based efforts to counter extremism because quite frankly congress isn't interest in funding things that are somewhat experimental in their nature but which are absolutely vital. i wish i had a nickel for every general i see on cnn saying we've got to counterer the ideology but we can't get funding to do the kind of work that's essential. and that has to change. >> another question. >> hold on just a second here.

this is one of the most frustrating issues i have witnessed leaving government, this debate about u.a.v.'s. let me cut to the chase and make the unfortunate mistake of adding a few facts to the conversation. first, operationally, i disagree that the leadership of these organizations is resilient. i'm not focused on insurgents. i'm focusing on people who have the capabilities to orchestrate an operation against times square. they have to have time in the organization, experience conducting complex organizations and they have to have respect in the organization to get the resources to do this. they cannot, yemen, so maul ark pakistan, keep going back to key place, they cannot replace this leadership faster than we can kill them. that's in the a supposition, that's a fact. why is it a fact? first, you look at the pace with which we're eliminating that

leader -- that leadership. they cannot come up with another khalid sheikh mohammed. one who lived in the united states. second, i listened to them when they spoke to us. we had detainees. they hate drones. i like to listen to what the adversary doesn't like because that's generally what i like. number two and finally, on this issue of create manager terrorists, there are very few facts out there but there are some people who look at attitude in places in the northeast, islamic countries -- in the middle east, islamic countries, jordan, turkey, etc. pew research, one of the few places that does this, will tell you, the gap between what people in islamic countries thought on 9/11 about al qaeda and what they think today is remarkable. we talk about drones. it does not seem to me to have a significant impact on the attitudes of muslims who have

experienced al qaeda itacks. you know what they say? 9/11? they say al qaeda stood up to the united states. you know what they say today after hundreds of drone attacks? al qaeda offers no future and they put our heads on pikes, we don't like them. >> so let me add something about what dan said about the capability in the state department. you can fund that until the cows come home and that's not going to be enough. i mentioned, and when i spoke about isis having the most sophisticated media campaign, let me give you some facts. the day of the beheading of james foley, tweet that you're going on air. isis' media operation immediately targeted me and other journalists and flooded our twitter account with pictures of the beheaded body of james foley. as quick as you can block it they got other accounts in and around you to continue to do it. that was the same for -- that was sustained for 48 hours. the u.s. government does not

have the capability, in a strategic operational way to do that, not in state department, not in a.i.d., it doesn't exist. that's the kind of thing you need. you need that sort of flexible, targeted tactical capability to counter this narrative and they're better at this than we are right now. >> let me add another point about countering the narrative. it's hard for a whole bunch of reasons. number one it's not sexy, doesn't bring the money in, absolutely right. but it's also hard because the united states cannot do this on its own. in fact, we are only a small piece of the answer to this narrative problem. we need the local countries to take this on. we need local communities in these countries to take this on. we need the local clerks to -- clerics to take this on. it is a much, much bigger problem than the united states. >> mike is absolutely right. we've got a lot of countries in the fight now. but this whole thing has to be ramped up tremendously and

there's just not been a willingness to do that. > up front here. >> thank you. thanks, juan. dan, this is for you. given your previous post at state bringing together a range of our partners in the counterterrorism efforts, we saw the u.a.e. bomb sites in the libya. leaving the iraqi military aside, how do we bring to bear the saudis, jordanians and others in a realistic way? what are the prospects for that? >> well it won't be immediately. it will differ according to which one we're talking about. the saudis have been reluctant to develop serious military capabilities because they're acrude of -- afraud of a crombings up. the jordanians have excellent special operations capabilities and there will have to be discussion with them about putting those to use. hammarabis, i'm

not always a fan, but the fact you have those nations getting into the act that far from their region is remarkable and suggests there's real capacity out there to be used. >> another question, this young lady here. my apologies to this side, you're on my blind side. i'll come back to you. >> hi. my question is about counterering the ideology. as you all mentioned, last huge need for it but i attended congressional hearings and there's not a single person at the state department who knows the koran who knows the verses of the koran. all these different countries. i just wrote down a few, glanced at a koran and wrote down a few words that might be help nfl our messaging campaign, like 17:33, don't take life. allah is full of loving kindness.