i'm going to choose your question about egypt and certain countries like that. something started out as an anticorruption movement. certainly china and egypt do have one thing in common and expression on civil society. you need a little bit more than an initial revolution. you need an enabling environment. certain othershes countries, which of been more successful than others. -- you maded to add the link between corruption and growth -- i grew up in india and i would not adhere to the view

that corruption has hindered certain economies. i think anticorruption activities increases the momentum of growth. to look at certain countries which do not have an active democracy like china and other countries and to take a very skewed view of the last 4-5 months, where india has had a new prime minister and a new party come to power on the basis of an anticorruption message, you have already seen india increase to higher than it has been in the past years. on the corruption and growth. i think that is something that needs to be looked at. there was ae negative impact and you have outliers. i'm not sure we totally

understand the economic perspective on what are the drivers and the channels. i think there is more work being done in that respect. , they g 20 conference looked at those issues. we are currently working on key sectors. extractive industries. i think we need more work and that maybe to some unexpected results in some cases. element is other what timeframe are you looking at and what are the elements for the solution? example, where there was a social contract in went stateddenly capital increased, the social contract goes down and things explode.

i think there was one element we are confronted with. expectation management. when you have regime change and things like this come you have this expectation that everything will be perfect overnight. this is not going to happen. on the other hand, the downside of that is that if things do not go perfect immediately, everyone says let's give up, it is not worth it. it is important to put all of our resources on a time horizon, insisting and being able to deal with the surface and recognize what is not working and recognizing that that is important. it is the long agenda that is very important. >> i agree with a lot of what was said. i'm not going to try the cia question. i'm curious to see what my file looks like in the cia, quite frankly.

, thee growth issue ballgame is the important issue -- the long game is the important issue. short-term gains over at period of time can be explained by any number of economic factors. economics is not about corruption or no corruption. there's a lot that goes into that and development of markets. what is clear to everybody is that corruption is destabilizing. it is certainly destabilizing over the long-term. themore corruption happens, more it infiltrates an economy, the more destabilizing that is. etc, ass affect fdi well. i would say, let's wait and watch to some degree. the issue of the political uprisings and the big anticorruption uprisings and

whether that leads to a better situation, that is definitely going to be a country by country issue. you have a situation where the political uprisings, the people standing up and saying no more of this, it is a movement to push for change. then the question is is what happens after that and what sorts of political vacuums are created as a result of that? good, positive, strong people who can lead positively in that power vacuum, then you are going to end up with a more positive tone? if you don't, you will end up with a more negative result. very much andill people a favor standing up and saying, the corruption has got to stop, this has to stop in my society. markers, it sets a town -- tone, it sets the baseline for participation of people in

their government and what is happening to them on a daily basis. let's turn to questions coming in digitally from twitter and facebook to rid -- facebook. #stateofrights. i will try to keep up in real time. i will abuse my privilege and cherry pick once i find most interesting. ali in a question from bahrain. hascriminal justice system become corrupt, how can one come back corruption -- combat corruption? when the system is rigged or impartial -- not impartial, what is to be done? system thatn is a

is rigged against people who play by the rules. by definition. whenever you are fighting deeply entrenched corruption and a country, that is what you are facing. what is your recourse? for civile, you work society organizations. you organize your community to expose corruption through social media, through the press. you organize campaigns, forge alliances with other student do not agree with you on everything, but corruption has to go. we all recognize that it is easy for us to say those things and many societies, if you try to do those things i mentioned, you could be severely persecuted. that is where the international community also has a role to play, at the very least and making sure that we are not complicit in corruption in countries such as what i described.

we need to make sure that they cannot park their money and our institutions without our law enforcement doing something. that is the least we can do. >> i would add that civil society internationally is something you can really lean on. it may be difficult to do anything as civil society in your own country, but if you have good evidence of x, y, or z happening, global witness, for example, might be able to do an investigation. transparency international. human rights watch. there is a real international community when it comes to these issues. that thelso add department of justice and the united states has a unit

specifically looking at stolen assets, in particular. if you have hard evidence of that, that is something the department of justice wants to hear about, if those assets are in the u.s. i would encourage people around the world to go that route if you have good evidence that there are assets in the u.s. >> i have to say i agree with all the remarks. issue of immunity against prosecution is really a big issue. yes, the international movement launched on monday a new campaign to an immunity around the world. that is called unmask the corrupt. and shellything to companies -- end shell companies and increase transparency on beneficial ownership. essentially to ask sellers

of luxury goods around the world to scrutinize who they are selling these to. the expensive cars and lamborghinis are not being sold to people with stolen money from their own country, to point that out. >> we will come out next week with a report. or six entries in the world that has a systematic approach to going after corruption to rid -- corruption. we need something broader. perfect, but it is for a five countries. that is a way to really spread the message. not after the fact. to pivot to another question,

this is from the netherlands. is the character of a person in , is this just a culture problem? i'm biased in my perspective. i'm curious about reflections. is this endemic to a place or not? to answer this question particularly because i grew up in a different country, though now i am a u.s. citizen. i grew up in india. culture in india has been used to justify many things. say that it is really an interpretation of culture in favor of people who stand to benefit from it. culture can be changed.

you see that in countries were other issues not related. corruption and issues around corruption, it can be changed. it takes time, but it can happen. i don't buy that it is solely a cultural thing. >> i would agree with that. i would ask the question, is that really working for you? i think the answer is probably no. i think it is probably not working for most people in your country. while it may be cultural, it may not be a cultural issue you want to continue. ask a question, is that really working for you? >> let me combine a couple of questions.

what a view of democracy of civil rights and labor can help fight corruption? another one was asking about the state of play. nerds on thesere issues, it is a wonky way of understanding who is behind shell companies. it is trying to unmask actual ownership of companies and corporations. they twin, combined questions. what are you doing about these issues and what are the prospects, and european capitals or in washington, to making additional progress around very thorny issues of beneficial ownership and shell companies? we talk about petty administrative corruption. what happens when you have political capture here in the

u.s. that makes it very difficult legislatively to solve these problems. no easy ones. but feel free to dive in. of the u.s. piece government, our primary job is to document, expose, thwart, explain the problem, explain the connections between this problem and every other problem we face in our foreign policy, which is not hard to do. to help lead the policy discussion about what we should do about it. we also fund civil society organizations around folks who make fighting corruption their mission in communities. most of the response that will really matter and make a difference from the u.s. government fall within the cliché of whole of government approach.

we really need treasury, state, justice, white house, everybody to be working together with a whole variety of enforcement tools that we have. in terms of legislation, we have told the congress that we very strongly support legislation that will make it much harder for shell companies to exist in u.s. jurisdiction. there are several proposals out there. we want to be very pragmatic. has thesomething that greatest chance of attracting bipartisan support in the congress. the hill friends on that this is the most important piece of human rights legislation that they can vote on right now. >> there is momentum on the issue of beneficial ownership, transference he. -- transferency. the anti-money-laundering rules that would essentially mean that

european countries have to capture beneficial ownership and make them available to a central authority. it has to go back to parliament and there has to be discussions. haveal european countries taken moves along those lines. the u.k. has announced that they would have a public register of beneficial ownership. it is time for the u.s. to reassume their leadership position. there is legislation pending in the house and senate. this is a matter of great importance, not just to people who work in difficult countries, that corrupt leaders cannot park their money and shell companies with great ease. >> i have been working on this issue for 15 years. only in the last three years have i seen political momentum.

it is a complicated issue. this is a good sign. the fact that the g 20 is also looking at it is a good sign. it is not just about the bloc countries. the fact that we are not seeing it in an offshore center. we are seeing onshore centers all this goes in the right direction. temptation to think that there is only one solution. are different solutions and we need to push for every country to focus on how they're going to make it, what is going to be the outcome, rather than one-size-fits-all. we need to see action.

we need to make sure we are not losing the momentum. let's get to the detail. there are good signs. we need to stay focused and make sure that they are changing on the ground everywhere. you are creating new holes in the system. >> i do quite a lot of work on this issue. aboutimportant to think this issue as knowing who you are doing business with. being able to figure out who you are doing business with. that is important from the banking standpoint. it is important from the patient -- procurement standpoint. who the government is actually contracting with. making sure they are not debarred folks, etc.

making sure you're not doing business with a political official that is hiding behind a shell company. taking the then appropriate measures. doing that business is not necessarily illegal. it is how you do that business. businessmany, any who is trying to do business and that who their suppliers might vet who their suppliers might be. you are you actually doing business with. that is what it comes down to. that is why most of the civil society organizations are putting for -- pushing for public registries. it is not just about the government knowing this information. it is everybody being able to figure out who they are doing business with. companies operate worldwide. having one person in one country

figure out who is behind one country in another country who they do business with is critical. -- company in another country to the do business with is critical. europe is definitely advanced. the european parliament passed amendments saying that they thought the public registries of beneficial ownership of press and companies was critical. the european council of ministers has indicated that they would be more favorable for private registries held by governments only for government use. that will have to get worked out in the process. that is continuing. in the u.s., we have had legislation pending for several years, seven years, in the house and the senate, and we cannot get it to move. is thethose reasons secretaries of state in the u.s. have been opposed to that legislation for years and years. quite frankly, it is a compromise bill. civil society would like it to

be stronger. i would point that out. we had some problems with what we're seeing as the proposals we're expecting to see from the u.s. government. we are concerned that we are only going to talk about one person that would be a contact person, as to the actual beneficial owners. that is really a big issue with the proposal we are seeing on the table that has been messaged by the government now. there are other concerns. that information would be held by the irs, specifically. they are really looking at this as a tax issue, not a general issue of import, of understanding who owns and controls companies, for everybody. it is a real mindset issue that i would like the government in the u.s. 200 and, to understand understand, the variety of issues.

ownership is not finding out who legally owns the company. it is finding out who controls the company, who benefits from the company. that may not be true ownership. that is really crucial to point out. fors not just pushing knowing beneficial ownership, we are pushing for a bunch of things. to find out who the customers are, to verify the information, to know who you are doing business with. let's pivot to a different part of the world. south of nigeria asks a question. we had the big u.s.-africa summit in august.

most african leaders lack courage and willpower to fight corruption and will not make way to those who want to and can. how can we help support those who want to initiate change? how political can we get as external actors or not? another easy question for everybody to dig into. how do we support the individuals who we think are willing to champion these difficult agendas? [laughter] a i think it is always mistake to try to pick political winners, whatever the issue may be. we should stand up for principles, not personalities. that is a good operating principle for u.s. foreign-policy. we have been talking about the principles that we should be standing up for. in terms of standing up for people, it should be civil society and a free press and the institutions that are at the

heart of this fight. there are specific cases. thatyou have a(: government has a strong anticorruption watchdog and that anticorruption watchdog is pushed aside or persecuted for what they are doing, then i think the u.s. government and others should rally. we should not say this is the candidate for public office that we think will do the job. that would probably tarnish that person. these movements have to be indigenous, they have to come from within the society, they have to be supported by objective, non-political campaigns that try their best to treat everybody equally. >> anyone else? other than just to say that civil society does not generally

try to give people a platform to be heard to the extent that we can. we usually try to give a platform for people who are standing in line with the values and beliefs we are trying to perpetuate. have a few more minutes for a couple more questions. #stateofrights. if you want to throw a couple questions into the twitter-verse. given the nature of corruption, what message -- methods exist for accurately measuring it? the management adage, if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. >> right. >> am curious for an analyst perspective on that. what are better or worse ways? >> we do a lot of measurement.

what frankly, you don't need a measurement to know that a problem exists. you just need to live in that problem. you can tell when there has been a decrease in corruption you can feel it. you are living it. we are focusing a huge amount in all areas of policy on data. as a graduate of the university of chicago, one of the most economically focused universities in the world, on the first day of my economics , my professorgo said, let me be very clear, there is a 60% margin of error in all of economics. that is because there are assumptions that have to be built and in order for you to come up with some sort of model.

those assumptions can be really significant in some cases. we need to be careful about just relying on the numbers and using only numbers to back up what we are saying. i wanted to throw that out there. >> i come from a math background. [laughter] , i thought it was not important to measure. i think it is going to be extremely difficult and we should be extremely careful with numbers. we don't know. there is magnitude, but we don't know. what is very important is to measure the policy. we are looking at the right things. what is the impact of one policy against another. that is a huge challenge in enforcement. you have cases that are less important than others.

of the impact of policy, the understanding of the risk, that is very important. it is good to argue. at least we're are trying to push the envelope. the impact of policy is very important. any --success to recover every dollar? or are we claiming that the international community has recovered 50%? i don't know. >> very quickly on that discussion of whether you need to measure corruption. a professor likened corruption to a blackhole.

you can tell that corruption exists by how everything else around it behaves. you can feel corruption if you are living in society. you can feel it by how everybody around you acts. i just wanted to throw that out. >> a quick follow-up. the state department human rights reports had a powerful, galvanizing effect on the broader movement. do you think there is a need for a corruption set of country reports? would that help people like you instead of government to better or worse? would it hurt? well, when you were sworn in as a system secretary for democracy and human rights you have to sign a blood of -- any otherpose

reporting. i'm not sure i come down on it. i'm not sure where i come down on it. i think it would be harder than the task we already have, to expose abuses of human rights by governments around the world. that is just my feeling. if that job can be done extremely well by an organization like transparency international or other institutions that can do it is absolute objectivity and then can turn to us to do our real job, law enforcement cross the board, then i think that is a very good division. >> i'm just looking at the clock. let me do one more question and then we will pivot.

i have been heavily indoctrinated. that is a fair point. let's get one final virtual question. thoughts or questions from folks here. a new 1, 2, 3 row quick starting from the back. we do have a mic. let's take the three questions in succession and try to answer them in one fell swoop. >> i will be quick. i wanted to know if you could the rolettle bit about of anticorruption commissions run by states in global indices. inform onenot they another or are operating on different tracks?

anybody else -- >> anybody else fast enough to -- to the mike -- mic.dash to the hang on one sec. a quick passing of the mike. >> there has been a lot of discussion about how corruption starts at the top. there are some that believe that grand corruption in particular should be considered an international crime. right now we only have the icc that is able to indict heads of state. a good idea to create an international corruption court to deal with the top levels of corruption? >> and upfront here. done to get more of this on the internet so that people can see what is happening ? how deals are put together? how much each party is putting

in and what their criteria are? >> let's go down the line. not to abuse tom's proximity to me. >> i take your question, the one about the international court to try leaders of corruption. this is an issue which is being discussed right now a lot. there was an op-ed in "the washington post." it brought out this debate again. transparency international has not come out with an official position. we are looking at this issue. impunity is such an issue. we are working with so many different environments across the world. we are in discussions. we are looking at this issue. we have been looking at this

issue for some time. there are practical challenges to do with sovereignty, to do with whether you could get countries to sign up to this, whether what good it would do if countries that india or china or other countries don't sign up, what would it mean? these are complicated issues, but we're looking into this, this year'shat theme is unmasked the corrupt. >> on the anticorruption commissions, there is a debate on this. the evidence is pretty mixed on anther the creation of anticorruption commission bears expected truths. it depends on the country context. it creates a lot of issues in terms of integration into the ecosystem. carefulwe need to be

about the solution to anticorruption. we need to look at the local context and the integrity of the existing institution, etc. making sure that there are authorities in charge. court, thernational bank has no views on that. on corruption, there is a huge enforcement gap. you have the anti-bribery convention. existingst look at the instrument, the enforcement gap is very significant. let's first choose what we ask and really make sure that all of the tools that are available are first used as far as they can. maybe then we discover a remaining gap to issues. there is always the foundation to create something new rather than use first what we have and really understand. if you look at anticorruption

and bribery, it has taken years before some of this -- these countries begin to do enforcement actions. an international court may be a way for them to say, none of our business anymore, the court will do without. at the end the day, that would be a major downside in terms of global, collective action. >> i will go with something provocative. when we talk about an international criminal court, for me it is a much bigger issue. it is the fact that we have a world where money has no borders. it can be transferred from one country to another at the blink eye with not a lot of controls on it, etc. and yet we have a legal structure in the world that is entirely divided by sovereign nations and sovereignty rules that. the law enforcement cannot follow the money in the semi

that that money is actually moving. this is not to say that globalization is bad. it is to say that we have not figured out a way to catch up with globalization, when it comes to enforcing our laws around the world. that is something we need to do a lot more thinking about in general. i would say that. on the getting this stuff out on the internet, the deals, obviously some deals are never going to be out on the internet. that makes sense. there were certainly much bigger movement now to get different contracts, government contracts out in the public domain so that people can look at those. they can see whether or not there is scope for private deals and are fairmade deals being had, etc.

is there evidence that a corrupt deal might have been made? you will find in many of those government contracts very clear sovereign immunity clauses in those contracts, something else to watch out for. there is a little movement to try to push for that to happen. that is happening in some countries. the philippines are looking at that very seriously. columbia has been doing a lot of work in that area. look for that if you are doing google searches and things to get involved with. >> an exciting development is a new movement called the over contracting movement. if you want to talk to folks that are really expert on this whole movement about government contracts come of this is a good place to come. final thoughts, mr. secretary? >> i think we do have the tools

act on thesms to flow of corruptly acquired funds through the international system. any law enforcement investigation in the rule of law society is slow. the united states is still the nerve center of the international banking system. if you are conduct in a transaction that begins in , you are not necessarily bypassing the united states. we do have extraordinary capacity and i think responsibility to be at the nerve center of an international campaign against corruption. to do it right, you need a solid factual basis. you need good intelligence. that is not always easy. we are a rule of law society. we cannot simply act on a hunch that such and such a leader is corrupt because it is obviously

the case. we have to have evidence, we have to go about it in the right way. what we do have that evidence and where we do have the will, i think we do have the capacity, even without some sort of multinational, international court, which would, even if we did agree was a good idea and we decided to move in that direction, would take years and years to get to the point where it was functioning. whereas, we do have tools right now that we could make more of if we chose to do so. on for a longgo time. but it will not. think is a much to everyone here for coming. let me offer a few quick remarks in terms of where this conversation goes from here. we are lucky to have more questions. there will be a conversation online. don't forget #stateofrights where we can collectively continue to grapple with these questions. will beo from today archived and transfers will be

available in multiple languages on human rights.gov in the coming days. who came today, thank you very much for coming over. it is great to see such a great turnout. we should end with a round of applause. thank you. why do we end with applause and then continue online? thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on the next washington journal, we will take a look at class in america. three hours of viewer calls and tweets. washington journal, live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. u.s.-russia relations discussed at the university -- george washington university. >> here are some highlights from this coming weekend. today, the nebraska supreme court will hear an oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. communicators, former fcc commissioners.

watch the latest debates on c-span with campaign 2014 coming up. 's debate. then jerrytonight on c-span 2, . sunday at noon on in-depth, a three-hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair on civil rights. eastern, authors and historians talk about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. saturday on real america, the building of the hoover dam. 8:00, theht at anniversary of gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon.

find our schedule it c-span.org. you can e-mail us, call us, like us on facebook among follow us on twitter. tonight, the american history tour features westward expansion. including the lewis and clark expedition. here is a look. a lot of times in the hollywood movies, we see them circling the wagons and the indians come and attack. very rarely, if ever, did that happen. there were very few deaths along the trail that had anything to do with the indians. helped the actually pioneers more than herding them. the dangers came in disease, which killed about 10% of the people who went west. mostly cholera.

also things like drowning and accidental deaths by gunshot. wagon.un over by a that happened to a lot of kids. they would climb off the wagon and the wheels would roll over them. there was a grim side to this mass migration. we are talking about over 300,000 people during the period in question who packed up everything and literally one west. our american history tour on westward expansion. we will explore the lewis and clark exhibition -- expedition. and the creation of the first transcontinental railroad and black okies. that'll starts at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

former counterterrorism officials from the bush and outlineministrations terrorist threats to the united states, including isis. the event was hosted by the mccain institute for international studies. it is about one hour and 10 minutes. is kurt volker. i'm the executive director of the mccain institute. 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. 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. i don't see the kindness coming out of isis. pray for forgiveness for everybody on earth which includes non-muslims. 42:5. if allah wanted all the world tore muslims he would have made it such. you cannot compel mankind against their will to convert. why can't we have these verses plastered on the twitter feeds or whenever they come up with -- like you can address the ideology, 9% of muslims are

people and these guys have been isusing our religion and i don't understand why we can't get the funding. the verses. if you're harsh hearted, people will leave you, don't be severe. >> we need you and people like you. we need you and people like you in the united states government, right, to be able to lead that kind of a campaign. you're exactly right. i don't disagree with what you're saying. it's not just an issue of funding. it's an issue of people and expertise and attracting those people. >> isn't part of of the problem that the u.s. government isn't equipped or constitutionally able to advocate anything in terms of religion. >> i think there are plenty of people who know the koran. but a number of years of hard experience have shown that the united states is a secular nation and should not be telling muslim what is is true islam and

what is not. that's a losing marketing campaign. we can say a lot of things about what is basic human dignity and what is deeply immoral like killing large numbers of people or killing in particular large numbers of muslims but it's really, to follow up on what mike said, it's really for muslim countries to discuss what true islam is. we're not in position to take that mission on. >> just keep in mind that the u.s. government actually created the first special represent toiv muslim communities, to address muslim communities. not from a religious standpoint but community basis. last question and i apologize that this has to be the last one. let's go with this lady in the iddle, please. >> kind of going off the first question, which he was talking about nation and government building, you say a result of

the aggressive tactics is destroying the infrastructure then water, the electricity, the economy of these nations which in the past as in iraq has shown that this creates resurgence of these terrorist organizations. is aggressive pressure on these nations the best thing or should they tackle that infrastructure and rebuild it instead? >> mike, fran, is it one of the challenges here the fact that if you double down, you use more military assets, you're destroying insfra structure that is going to be important. >> there's no question, i will tell you, having been intimately involved in it in iraq about the time, effort, and attention we spent rebuilding infrastructure, electricity in particular, you mentioned water, i'm glad you did. i will tell you, i think 10 years from now, our successors will be talking about water as a

national security issue. whether it's scarcity, whether it's the lack of water, people will fight over water. we've seen it, islamic state is using water as leverage against populations, not just the mosul dam in iraq but also in syria. i think this is going to be growing problem. we did try to address, i can speak specifically to iraq. but that must be part of a phase four operation and we were struggling with it when i was in the white house. >> ok. unfortunately we don't have time for more questions. we're going to move to the final section of the debate which is the policy recommendations and conclusions from each side that ask each side, you have three minutes to lay out your policy recommendations. mike and fran, we'll turn to you first. >> i think you have to build capacity in all the frontline states against al qaeda. and you have to extend the resources to do that. you then have to encourage those

states to use that capacity to deal with extremists inside their border. one of the things that happened with the arab spring is it reduced the willingness of some states to deal with extremists in their border. egypt is a great example of that you should mor see. then you have to encourage our artners, and i'm a big supporter of what the emirate did in lib ark we need to worry about libya more than we have been. but we need to encourage our partners to do more. what the ethiopians and others did in somalia was an important thing. we need to support that action. then we need to do whatever action we need to do on top of all that to keep the pressure on the terrorists. >> look, what mike is saying is critically important. i do think you need an international coalition. i think more than encourage partners, we've got to be clear

about what our expectations are and what our needs are. what they -- they are in a ewe -- what they are uniquely in position to do that we are not. we have to be crystal clear. that's why it's so important, goals and objectives clearly stated by the president about what it is we seek to achieve and private, bilateral conversations with our partners in the region about what we need them to do to achieve that. there's tremendous capability in the region, both with intelligence, military assets, as you've heard, and so we need to be clear with our partners about what our expectations are and then we need to be sure that when we talk about this, the things that we are going to do, that we're going to take on that we fund them and that execution is impeccable. >> dan, your recommendation as to what to do or not to do? >> you know, 5% of our nation's life has been spent in this campaign. and we're 13 years into it.

and the conversation about doubling down now has transitioned to encourage partners and build capacity which sounds like a pair of 10's. that's not doubling down. we have matured to understand that there are other instruments to use. everybody here pays taxes, everybody has kids or in my days no kids but 10 nieces and nephews. we want to be exceptional in other areas and there's only a certain number of things the president and this country can do. we are not exceptional. middle of the pack in science and math among kids. not terrific with infant mortality. not terrific with life expectancy. what do we expect in this american experiment, that is, give our kids an education and be healthy. we can't perform exceptionally in the fundamentals of this country and we want to double down on a campaign when we've already realized in multiple circumstances that a targeted approach succeeds in blunting threat. i've got a three-letter word for you and that is, why?

thanks. >> dan. >> i agree with everything that's been said. >> the diplomat in the room. >> but i would add to that, and i think you probably have gotten the message that we're not all that far apart on a lot of these points. i think the most important thing right now is to calm down and take a deep breath. isis is not burning down an american city in the next 48 hours as some of the discourse in washington and on the airwaves has suggested. i strongly believe that we can handle this. i do believe that if not handled, it would be a dangerous threat over the long term. and i think that it's time for us to continue the work that i think has been going on for four years, which is trying to get the counterterrorism element in our foreign policy right. because we're going through a pretty healthish summer. ukraine, that's a -- a pretty

hellish summer. ukraine, that's a big issue. and there's another issue that isn't on the front pages quite as much, and that is china. that's a growing big issue. they're saying very aggressive things about taiwan right now. before we think about sending the first division back into iraq, i think we really need to take a very deep breath and think about how we match our means and our resources to our goals and what our priorities are. one -- you know, one foreign fighter coming to the u.s. and going crazy with a gun is not going to bring the country down. we have to defend against it. we have to do the best we can. but we need to start thinking again about what our grand strategy looks like and how we deal with the various challenges we face. >> wonderful. as i said, i'm going to turn to you and ask two questions. the first is did you learn

something today that -- that has affected your opinion in some way. raise your hand. wonderful. did your opinion change as a result of this debate? raise your hand. interesting. interesting. regardless of that -- [laughter] >> at a minimum, you've been informed. and at a minimum, perhaps entertained. and i want to thank again ambassador volcker, the mccain institute, arizona state university for hosting this. i thank you for attending. follow the mccain institute in its many debates and >> and today on c-span, a discussion about the relationship between the u.s. and russia, hosted by george washington university's institute for european, russia, nd eurasian study.

coming up live today on c-span, "washington journal." then, the nebraska supreme court hears oral argument in a dispute over the keystone xl pipeline. and a discussion about the sraeli-palestinian conflict. >> here's some highlights for this coming weekend. today, live on c-span, the nebraska supreme court will hear oral arguments on the keystone xl pipeline. former f.c.c. commissioners with 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debate on c-span. sunday at noon, hay again and tillis. and from the california governor's race, brown and republican nominee.

tonight, at 8:00 on c-span2, john yu shares his opinion on international law and what little effect it has on the behavior of powerful nations on "afterwords." and how republicans can make gains for hispanic vote at 10:00 eastern. and on in-depth, our conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the u.s. commission on u.s. rights. tonight at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, historians and authors talk about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. saturday, the building of the hoover dam and sunday night at 8:00 the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. find our television schedule and let us know what you think about he programs you're watching. or you can e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us

on twitter. >> coming up next. your calls, tweets and comments on class in america. ♪ about a week ago, we received an e-mail from robert in new york. he wrote -- several days ago, c-span devoted an entire three-hour c-span journal on the topic of race in america. i am requesting you host a three-hour program to the topic of class in america. i watch every day and several times of year you have guests to discuss the issue of race and racism. you very rarely hosted guest to discuss