numbers further up for the generations ahead. that there.ieve mitch daniels, purdue university president and former governor of indiana. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: that's all the time we have this morning. be sure to tune in for another edition of "washington journal" tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] ♪

>> and a live picture from outside the white house this morning where the president is expected to speak before flying to new york for the u.n. general assembly meeting. military officials say the u.s. launched eight airstrikes. the military also used air power against al qaeda-affiliated group that had imminent attacks plotted against the u.s.. the associated press is reporting that the u.s. and five arab nations attacked in nighttime raids using land and sea-based u.s. aircraft, as well as tomahawk cruise missiles launched from navy ships in the red sea and the northern persian gulf. washingtonorts that informed bashar al-assad's thernment hours before american-led coalition counter the extremist-health strongholds.

again, with four president obama to make remarks on those airstrikes against isis this morning. wait for the president, we want to let you know that this morning we will take you to the bipartisan policy center look at a new threat assessment report being released by that group. it is offered by terror expert peter bergen. while we wait for the president, this morning we spoke with jay solomon of "the wall street journal" as he talked about the push forinistration's an anti-isis resolution in the u.n.. day. it is a busy the president will be headed to the general assembly.

what can we expect from him on the topic? >> he is --guest: he is given a and sharing a special session of the un security council, looking at the flow of foreign fighters to support the islamic state. i think you will hear the president building on this idea of a united coalition against the islamic state, that this is not just a u.s. war. this is a threat to the entire region and europe, and that is why you have seen secretary of state john kerry and others put such a focus on building arab participation in the airstrikes which started in syria. saw three nations take part in the military action. three nations were involved in the airstrike. i think this is a diplomatic coup or victory for the white

house because there was fear that if you went in this alone, the u.s. would be seen as launching another war in the muslim world, another were on the arab world, and to have these key states participating was a big deal for the white house and i think you will hear the president build on this, build on the idea of the threat posed by isis and the need to cut off the funding of the organization and the foreign fighters. that will be the focus of the u.n. speech and his address at the security council. we have talked about this u.s. coalition, and we put up the list of the nations that partnered with the united states for the airstrikes -- there were no western countries involved. is that something you expect to change? guest: the french have been

attacks, sothe there has been western european involvement. germans, and the french have been involved in providing weapons were humanitarian aid through military drops and airdrops to the kurdish forces, to some of the iraqi people that have been targeted by islamic state. so, there is western or european involvement in the operation, the you are right, last night there were no other european fighter jets involved. the french have cited their fears that you could strengthen bashar al-assad. the french have been aggressive in trying to remove him from the syrian component has

been a little more tricky. it is still interesting that so many arab states were willing to take part in military operations against sunni muslims. which is the body of the islamic state. it is unclear if you might see more french, british, australian participation moving forward. that is a possibility. you'll see president obama and secretary kerry continuing to try to build and open up this to more countries. one of the key countries that wasn't involved is turkey. a nato member and his neighboring these countries. the turks are starting to feel more isolated for not being involved. they had nearly 50 other diplomats kidnapped by isis in the city of mosul. turkish officials had cited these hostages as a reason they were reluctant to be more heavily involved. maybe that will change now.

i think there is skepticism. i would look to turkey is another important of this emerging coalition. host: our guest is jay solomon, the foreign affairs correspondent at the "wall street journal." to join our conversations you can reach on the phones. host: i want to take a step back and talk about these meetings in a broader context. what are you looking forward to. guest: the rhythm of the speeches by the major world leaders really takes off. president obama speaks, the egyptian president speaks, a number of other key leaders -- i think what i am looking for is some of the stuff we have are

ready talked about, a sense of how this air war, this conflict with isis will be touched on, how it will be described. we have arab support and at least from some of the arab states, and how will the iranian president describe it, how will some of the countries that have been traditionally hostile toward the u.s. power regionally, some of the developing countries whether it is india, south africa or brazil. how will they describe it? and the russians will be very key because as the closest ally of the syrian president, have been pressing the u.s. to get a security council resolution in order to do airstrikes. they have been demanding that the u.s. coordinate any military operations with the syrian

regime. something the u.s. says it won't and hasn't done. though the syrian regime overnight put out a statement that they had been tipped off that the air campaign was going to start. i think as the speeches start to gain momentum come a i would listen to how this is being defined. the u.n. is often a voice for developing countries, third world countries and they are historically very hostile to u.s. military activities no matter where it was whether afghanistan or the first iraq war. i would look for that. outside of isis you'll see a lot of focus on climate change. the secretary has given speeches about that. efforts to combat the ebola virus in africa will be another major theme. this u.n. general assembly is particularly interesting.

many diplomats and world leaders think the world has not been this unstable since the late 1970's, with the isis threat, with russian president vladimir putin's push into the ukraine, talking about the ebola virus, and continued instability in afghanistan, concerns about china's -- china making territorial gains -- there are so many issues that are facing the global community at the same time. and how they will address them is going to be dominating the talks throughout the week. host: let's go to the phones. in birmingham alabama. caller: i'm calling because i am

so proud and thankful that obama is the president of united states. i am glad that he did not go it alone, for the republicans to -- "obama is going alone." that was very smart of him. and president obama, he has a lot of criticism but i love this [no audio] >> good morning, everybody. orders,ht, on my american forces began strikes syriat isil targets in and today the american people give thanks for the extraordinary services of our men and women in uniform,

including the pilots that flew these missions with the courtesy and professionalism that we have come to expect from the finest military the world is ever known . earlier i outlined our strategy to combat the threat posed by the terrorist group known as isil. i made clear that the united states would take action against sogets in iraq and syria these terrorists could not find safe haven anywhere and i also made clear america would act as part of a broad coalition and that is exactly what we have done. we were joined by saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, jordan, by frame, and -- bahrain, and qatar. america is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations on behalf of common security. the strength of the coalition makes it clear that this is not and all ofight alone the government of the middle east are rejecting isil, and

standing up for the peace and security that the people of the region and the world deserve. meanwhile, we will move forward with our plans supported bipartisan majorities in congress to ramp up our efforts to train and equip the syrian opposition who are the best counterweight to isil and the "american history tv -- the assad regime. 40 nations have pledged to help targets,ut terrorist train and equip iraqi and syrian opposition fighters that are going up against isil on the ground, to cut off isil's financing, to counter its hateful ideology, and to stop the flow of fighters into and out of the region. disrupttook strikes to plotting against the u.s. and allies. it must be clear to anyone who would plot against america and

try to do americans harm that we would not tolerate safe havens for terrorists that threaten our people. i've spoken to leaders in congress and i am pleased there is bipartisan support for the actions we are taking, and america is always stronger when we stand united. that unity sends a powerful message to the world that we will do it is necessary to defend our country. over the next couple of days i will have the opportunity to meet with the prime minister of iraq and friends and allies at the united nations to build support for the coalition confront in this serious threat to our peace and security. the overall effort will take time. there will be challenges ahead. we're going to do what is necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group for the security of the country, the region, and the entire world. thanks. god bless our troops. god bless america. >> vista president, are americans in danger living --

mr. president, are americans in danger living in the united states? >> president obama on last night's airstrikes in syria and iraq. house republicans leaders have released statements. buck mckeon says and house foreign affairs committee chair ed royce offers and we welcome your thoughts the a social media about the airstrikes. go to our facebook page at or you canm/c-span tweak us using the #c-spanchat.

live to the bipartisan center way new terror threat is being released. we joined us in progress. >> what caught my attention was the degree to which we had information about a specific the khorasansyria, group. for a layperson, what is the khorasan group, and how does it reflect a threat against the u.s. domestically and western targets overseas? >> thank you for the invitation to write this report. i wanted to acknowledge my co-writers, emily schneider, david, beverly, before i answer your question. so, the curse on -- the khorasan u.s. intelligence officials have been tracking a group of guys they described with long rolodexes and lengthy histories in terrorism for over a year -- people coming from the

tribal regions in pakistan to syria, who are, sort of, an older generation. world -- the word khorasan finish thishad to report some time ago, but of course khorasan is an ancient word for the word -- the area that is now afghanistan and iran . it is essentially al qaeda central moving into the syrian it is simply historical fact that isis, if you think about them as being al qaeda in iraq, has never attacked an american target outside of iraq since 2005 when they attack three american-owned hotels. so, in terms of the group that has a desire, ability, track record to attack the united

states, the khorasan group is that group, much more than isis. that could change. we have audiotape from one of the leaders inciting people to do loan wolf attacks within the last 24 hours. >> this is a concrete attack to the u.s. homeland or the aviation sector in a way that isis has not crossed that threshold. would that be a fair -- >> that would be true. it has been nine years since there was an attack launched on ,he three american-owned hotels and it was a failure because almost all of the victims were jordanians attending a wedding. they had to release almost like an apology. it was not a real apology. right,hat is exactly catherine petted this is the group that has the track record, and of course, there are indications that they have

linked up with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and they are sharing bomb-making expertise and that explains the strike. >> i want to bring marriott -- mary in. i have learned there is a bomb maker in yemen, a person that is an expert with nonmetallic explosives. underwear bombhe that failed in 2009 over detroit, and also these cargo printer cartridge bombs the following year. my panelists would agree that the u.s. intelligence community would agree -- believes that he has been persistent in trying to develop or evolve technology to circumvent new security that has been put in place. mary, the question to you is, some that we understand apprentices have been trained to go into syria, what is their intent? why syria?

is it to develop the bom further, find mules to carry the bombs -- in layman's terms, how would you explain that? the nature ofnd the threat that we are facing from this khorasan, and also s irri, which is involved with the khorasan group, we need to understand this is one of the few times we have watched different affiliates within the greater al qaeda network work with each other in order to carry out a specific kind of threat against the united states. so, we have other sorts of places we can look at and say they have been cooperating or coordinating with each other on local issues. so, there are all sorts of membersof shabbat around africa or even over in yemen helping out with the fights there, and you have pretty much all

over north africa coordinated with all sorts of different the firstt this is time we've seen a specific plot, a specific thread against the united states where two affiliates are coordinating with each other. >> it is very purposeful. >> this is not the only place we are seeing this. we have also had a threat from aqap together. this is unprecedented that we have these huge buildings of affiliates that call themselves that, or called by us affiliates . they call themselves branches. they are threatening to carry out attacks against the united states. in -- howto bring you do you make a distinction, if

there is a distinction, between a group like khorasan, which has members that i would call traditional al qaeda, or ties to the old guard of al qaeda, and the front in syria that is a shares the at least same goal as the united states and its allies, which is to topple the regime of bashir al-assad? a minority report compared to my colleagues and i am sure they will correct me. will jump in first, and then we will bring you in. >> we want will ok. >> no problem. group -- thesan name we have been told -- i do not know if that is what they call themselves or not, but it is part of an organization in syria that is a direct affiliate

in al qaeda for the past year or so. sarah was a part of the islamic state in iraq and it broke away is now answers to al qaeda. to -- in i have read the media, and a lot of us are getting up to speed in the group, it is part of the old guard. many were camped out in the ran, and we do not know a lot about them. private members had logistics in iran. it has been said many were under house arrest. i do not know if that is the case. he seemed to have more free and then we understood. there were often in

communication with al qaeda leadership. it seems like a lot of these members were the ones that went from khorasan or eastern air on over into -- iran over into syria and are coordinating with al qaeda. these are folks used to taking direct orders with al qaeda and carrying out its bidding. it is interesting to see, to your question, the united states government, in the few statements they have made about the khorasan, group --khorasan group have downplayed it that it front.dded inside of the nursa itself seems to be almost exclusively focused on toppling

assad regime did i do not know why the distinction is being made, but i only know that it is there. >> go ahead. >> i'm sorry. >> now. go ahead. >> there is a tight connection. tom corbett the fact thattom the facthere are -- >> that there are press reports that the airstrikes being carried out are not just against isis, but also against iran -- is telling.nk, this is a group used to taking direct orders from al qaeda central, and one could make the argument that they are al qaeda central members that have ,elocated themselves to syria and it is very troubling. it is also not the first time we have seen al qaeda central leadership in places other than afghanistan, pakistan, for instance, the arabian peninsula in yemen.

i think this is a problem of our definitions, really, between and nusra, and if they're working together, what is the distinction. >> peter, i want to bring you in -- what does this tell us about the reach or the influence of what remains of the al qaeda core? well,l, i mean, it -- >> i mean, it partly tells us the the american drone program was pretty effective. if you take the same documents tol refer to -- referred that show this ambitious elation it madet al qaeda and it clear that bin laden was concerned about the drone

program. to heavilyoving wooded areas where it is hard for drones to be effective. one of the themes of the report is al qaeda has sort of diffused, and that is certainly good news and a bad news story. al qaeda and its affiliates are more present in more countries. they were not present in syria until recently. 16 countries we find in this report compared to eight in 2008, but does diffusion, and this is a question for everyone on the panel, including you, is diffusion, of itself, an issue we should be concerned about? commonsense answer is yes, but when you think about it more carefully, at the time when al qaeda was the least of diffused in its history, it existed in

one country, afghanistan, and that is when it launched the 9/11 attacks. effusion does not necessarily mean a greater threat to the united states. many al qaeda affiliates are preoccupied with what is going on locally. ismary just said, if nusra basharcused on the al-assad regime, is that a problem for the united states? if khorasan is focused on the united states, which it is, that is a problem, but it is an interesting question. does the affiliate of more affiliates -- but does the existence or more periods cause but does theeat -- existence of more affiliates cause a greater threat to the u.s. homeland? >> i think peter has had on an excellent point because the issue becomes -- the al qaeda core to me, based on my research and reporting, is much more of a

movement or a set of ideas that can be adopted by regional groups who may not share the as annd goal as the u.s. enemy. your report points out how it has become more diffuse, but at what point does it be -- crossed the threshold and become a specific threat to the united states? -- based on the data and the open source reporting, it seems to cross the threshold when, as mary has pointed out, you see in syria how these groups from different regional organizations have made a decision at some level to work at -- work together with the focus being plots against the united states. so, for example, you could make the same argument that boko haram has identified itself with the al qaeda ideology, but at least on the reporting available

now has not taken it to the additional step to target the united states proper, the homeland, but we see this distinction now in syria, aqap, which isth become a driving engine of the organization now in terms of manpower and training. like, if you have the will, we have the people to help you execute it. that seems to be where, at least in my reporting, the two intersect, and this is one of the important elements of the report. to what extent does it no longer matter whether someone with an al qaeda core is specifically directing plots against the united states in a practical, step-by-step way, whereas if they are able to provide the inspiration for others to join forces and coordinate to reach

that end state, which i would argue seems to be where we are ways mores in some difficult for us to target because it does not just breast with a single individual. why don't you come on in? the authorization for use of military force is al qaeda-specific, and the phenomenon that you are describing is a lot of groups that are proliferating that are not really in the chain of them -- command, and you have a lot of overlapping phenomenon of hearing right now that make it very complex, much more complex than we have seen in the past. you still have an al qaeda central trying to carry out plots against the united states. this khorasan is an example of what they want to do. then you have affiliates that are locally focused, but some will take direction to go

is bothional, so aqap locally focused than willing to carry out attacks against the united states. then you have a splinter group that has broken away from al qaeda, has the ideology, but is much more locally focused unless thenke with a stick, and you have what i call god's , who fly the al qaeda flag, have the ideology, but do not take the direct command from al qaeda but are willing to share resources and personnel, and then you have a number of militias who do not have the al qaeda global jihad -- jihadgy, but ideology, but are nationally focused and willing to take in specific al qaeda members into their ranks. the u.s. policy community has to disentangle all of these. >> can i answer your question --

can i ask at question? >> of course, as long as it is not to me. >> it is clear that last night attack, khorasan group, it is well within the ambit -- the law is basically, essentially the group that attacked us on 9/11, will of which the khorasan is surely. diffused itself of al qaeda -- that is a little less clear. what is interesting is there were only u.s. strikes against khorasan, and then the five arab countries also engaged against isis. it seems to me that there has been some clever lawyering going on here, and mary was on the national security council. she knows the kind of lawyers that work in the white house and how clever they are, but is it really legitimate? there is no u.n. operate -- authorization. this is not an u.n. operation.

it is a coalition of the willing , not a very large coalition, although it has a lot of arabs in it and also the french, which is unusual. so, i mean, how kosher is that, as a matter of international law? >> one of the things that i think will has pointed out is we have a problem with definitions here, right? what precisely are we dealing with when we say al qaeda, for instance? it has been my assumption all along, and it is backed up by public statements, that this fdministration follows they aom that defines al qaeda as that group of people that carried out 9/11. so, if it is typically limited to the 2000 of people that belong to al qaeda on 9/11, we have a serious problem of definitions.

if you do not redefine what you mean, you have no right to carry out strikes. now, there is a separate authority that you have to carry out attacks against imminent threats, and this could fall under that -- an imminent threat to the united states. but al qaeda itself is defined as this tiny little group and we have basically wiped out, and it leads to language like strategic defeat, and many around the world and say it look like we're not talking about strategic defeat and the definition needs to be dealt with. >> on that point, when you look and youhorasan group want to be creative in your interpretation of this original or foundational group of al qaeda, what you can see if there are connections. a lieutenant to bin laden is now p, which is been the organization that has trained these apprentices with nonmetallic explosives, and said these individuals off into serious to work with the khorasan group.

so, if you really want to pull the thread, you could make the argument that there is a connection. cousin,, like a third once are moved by marriage -- or however you want to look at it -- there still is that connection. this is someone -- correct me if i am wrong, his connections to al qaeda core predate 9/11, do they not, or is he post 9/11? >> yes. >> so, he predates, part of this affiliation with iran, and now is in syria. -- larger question when that that i think mary is tabling it is this larger question of distinctions, and we are putting ourselves into this vicious circle of trying to find the definition when we look at -- and peter, i want to bring you in -- when we look at the threat, as your report has

found, it is more diffuse, under this broad humala, but it has -- broaddown, umbrella, but does it have this top-down, fortune 500 leadership anymore? , thatare at war with isis has the force itself -- divorced itself from al qaeda. theeems to me what we did first strikes there were two arguments being made by the administration. one of which was the imminent ireat to our consulates in rbil, and both of those are legitimate. the president, under article two authorities as commander-in-chief -- imminent threat is a reasonable standard. -- andagree that isis the administration has said repeatedly, that there is no evidence that isis is planning

an attack on the united states, so you cannot use the imminent .hreat with isis so, what is the argument that has been used? mosit unstated that the a covers this? do any of you have thoughts, or catherine? >> i do not know, and i do not know why congress is not pressuring the administration more. >> i think they are shocked. when they come back from their recess, they will be saying well, wait a minute. >> i can imagine there is legal justification for this under the genocide justification, because we have seen about 150,000 kurds had acrossnhabitants the border into turkey fleeing for their lives, and i have to wonder if there has not been a

serious threat against that .roup in northern syria isis wants to control the borders because then they control the flow of foreign fighters in all sorts of resources, so i can imagine there is some sort of threat of their. people do not flee like this in the hundreds of thousands from their homes unless there is a serious threat. bit onnt to refocus a the direct threat to the homeland in light of what has happened overnight. do any of you anticipate that homeland security or the national terrorism center, the fbi, will put on a bulletin warning that there could be retaliation for the strikes? is that an issue that has to be considered or factored in when there is an action such as this, and if so, does isis really have that capability, and at what level? >> i do not think they have the capability by virtually -- by virtue of the spokesman coming

out with a lone wolf attack. will they develop the capability over time, probably so, particularly if they are getting wound in with anybody of the that aretions in aqap favorable, but i do not think they have the capability in the near-term to do everything -- anything in the american homeland. i would be more worried if i were a european company -- country. >> why's that a distinction with the geography -- just because they are closer, have more foreign fighters? >> exactly. there are thousands of europeans fighting inside of syria. it is much easier to get home undetected. we are lucky to have an ocean between them. >> i want to bring you in, peter -- when you look at the data, you see to me what is remarkably a low number of incidents so far of individuals who have traveled to syria and have come back to their home country and launched attacks there.

is that because we are at the beginning of the curve here, the beginning of the conflict? we do not know what the unintended consequences might be of our current actions there, or do you believe there is something at play in the psyche of these individuals that if they are going to carry out an attack they would prefer to do it in syria and iraq versus coming home to their home country? >> i think you're a bona fide three possibilities -- you have identified three possibilities, all of which are true. we have seen an american female killed in syria, and american female try to join isis, age 19. for many of these guys, it is a one-way ticket. there are people going to syria from countries to the west with no battlefield experience, and a small number of them are committing suicide. conduct a floridian suicide attack.

we have seen two americans died douglas mccain and his colleague his name is not been confirmed yet. this is a dangerous work. if you look at the numbers --led in the iraqi civil war in this year and so what, it is roughly 300,000, the same number it took 10 years in the iraqi civil war, which is about three or four times more dangerous and the afghan civil war. syria is 12 times more dangerous per capita than the afghan war is now, so it is a very dangerous place to be. so, people are going over there, and they are dying. they want to die -- the people going over there. that is one factor. the other factories we are aware of this problem. this is incredibly important -- al qaeda had a branch office in brooklyn on atlantic avenue in the early-19 90's, called the

services office, the same name bin laden -- it was known as a service office. so, which did not know that the returnees from the afghan war would be a problem. we are conscious of that now. i wrote a piece in "foreign affairs" in 2005 saying there would be a blowback from the iraq war because of foreign fighters going income and adjusted not happen. there is a difference with syria and iraq had there are more westerners -- and there are more westerners going. there are at least 2600 europeans, and it is a detailed account. there are 25 more times more brits that have gone to syria than americans, and only one dozen americans have joined isis . as will said, it is a matter of degree. you can drive from paris to damascus in a few hours -- well, not a few hours, but it is doable. we are all over this at a wet blanket right now as is the european government, because

everyone is concerned. i will add another point. what we are talking about -- it is an obvious 1 -- all of this happened on the obama administration's watch. you cannot assign -- there is no -- i think it is one of many reasons why the obama and administration is -- why the obama administration is very concerned about this. you cannot see the civil war happened under president george w. bush. so, there is a huge governmental effort. i think he only real way that isis can succeed is what will mentioned, which is encouraging a lone wolf attack by someone who thinks isis is great, not someone that has gone to syria, but like this yemeni guy that was arrested in rochester, new york. by the way, he was an informant. it was not a real plot, per se. degrees, -- it was to some degree driven by this informant.

that, if one of the avenues is to inspire people here in the united states who have not made the trip you syria and iraq, that brings me to the next important plank of this discussion, which is the use of social media. when i first wrote about this four years ago i talked about it as the lifeblood of the new , and myjihad information has been anecdotal, but pre-9/11, you had to have this, kind of, one-on-one contact, a mentoring thing to cross this threshold to violence, but it now seems if you're grown up with social media you are able to establish a much more intimate contact in a virtual way that allows you to cross that threshold. whether that means you make contact and it is enough to drive you to buy the ticket and get yourself to turkey, and then into syria, or to take action at home. oftenhassan, which is

held out as the ultimate case of homegrown terrorism, to me, is really an anomaly. he had internet contact, but major hassan was, if the memory serves me correctly, 39 at the time of the attack, and he also ssan and his mother's funeral, so he had a personal connection. if you look at the homegrown cases, almost everyone is under 30, and the majority are under 25, so there is something really going on here at a fundamental level in terms of how this message is able to reach people. so, peter, based on your thatvations, is this a way isis has been able to show that it is part of a new generation of g versus al qaeda core, which versus al qaeda core

? war,etnam was the first tv and social media gave us the illusion that we understood what was happening in syria. you know, conventional journalism was not really happening except for some exceptions. it was very dangerous to get in, and we, the media, which we are a part of, were overreliance on -- overreliance on in social media. of course, social media is very partisan and incomplete. so, from a journalistic point of view, it has been a crutch that we over-relied on, and from the isis point of view, of course, was released with this 55-minute tape. boring.

it was a 55 minute lecture, ecstatic camera shot. it could not -- a static camera shot. it could not be worse tv. look at isis -- it is very good tv. that is why the cable news network, where we were, are showing a lot of their material. i think cnn has made a decision, a very good one, to not air this appalling lecture by the british hostage. [indiscernible] >> good. that is great of fox, because we need to exercise some restraint here because we do not want to inadvertently be giving them a platform. certainly, their social media is very aggressive. >> my feelings exactly the same just knows that isis how to do this. it might be that, first of all, they appeal to a younger generation that is, sort of,

immersed in social media. the second thing that is going on in here is that al qaeda central, or the al qaeda leadership has a vision of themselves as the doers, not the speakers. -- the name given to him is the wise man, and he has this vision of himself as maybe not the most charismatic guy, but he is the smartest guy in the room. so, the formation of this al qaeda in the indian subcontinent is an interesting example of this. it is very poorly done. but, immediately, a group claiming to be elected to them carried out an assault in a pakistani port and managed to get it out to sea or something because they had to be stopped by the pakistani navy. al qaeda been put out a

statement, a very boring statement that was full of all kinds of platitudes claiming credit for this, and saying this is the first of what they hope will be many attacks. i agree they do not know how to do this anymore. they used to be on the cutting 1990's, cassette tapes, videos, things like that, but today they really have fallen behind, but that has not stopped them from being effective. >> i want to follow that --affected in one way? affective --effective in what way? -- i am making an assumption here, but being able to insert people they had historical relationships with within groups that have the capability to a pack the united states. i'm thinking about al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the group that is now in syria with the khorasan. unifyingqaeda calls a the ranks, and is their vision for how to co-opt other groups

-- >> al qaeda calls a unifying the ranks, and it is their vision for how to co-opt the groups. these groups that once had local grievances, local objectives, had no reasons to be attacking countries with whom they do not have some sort of personal beef, let alone the united states. --, since the united states since the 1990's, al qaeda has spent a lot of times figure how to make appeals to other groups. talk about the envoys that went off to algeria in the 1990's. it is interesting for the later spc, whicht of g became an al qaeda affiliate in the late-2000. when you talk about india -- al qaeda in the indian subcontinent, you have groups with local dentist, but somehow they have been talked into joining groups with al qaeda and their more regional, sort of, vision.

>> it seems like it has been almost a decade we have been talking about al-shabaab in somalia, and many of them are american citizens, but the young men from minneapolis, st. paul, traveling al-shabaab,joining but we have not seen the reverse come here. we saw, to me, it seemed, and i do not know if peter would agree, but it seemed to take a long time to reach a point where they launched the westgate mall attack, which is clearly a western target. people have been talking privately about mall attacks in this country ever since 9/11. there does seem to be this disconnect. >> it is the nearest analog what we have going on in syria. for a lot of the kids -- whether the figure is 40 or 30, it was a one-way ticket.

or fourhad three american suicide attackers from minneapolis. some of them just got killed in the war. it was also a very dangerous war. some of them were arrested in african countries or western countries as they try to come back, and none of them have conducted or even try to conduct any type of terrorist attack in the united states. a number of them are still missing. they may be dead, we assume. there was a lot of concern, if you go back to 2007, about this court will -- cohort, and nothing happened. it is not a precise analog, because the differences they were overwhelmingly somali americans i went to somalia for nationalist reasons and then hooked up with al-shabaab. people in syria are from every ethnic group and it is much more religious, sectarian battle, but the fact is nothing happened, and three and a half years into the syrian war, we have only had one attack in the west which is

on may 24 the jewish museum in brussels that killed four people , so the war can go on for a long time. we will certainly see another attack in the west somewhat, but we have only seen one attack so far. so, i think that goes to the fact that every government is extremely -- the belgians, the french, the british -- they are very concerned about this, and they cannot follow everyone because there are too many, they are trying their best to get a handle on this process -- problem. >> i want to open it up for questions. if you have a question, raise your hand, identify yourself, and as my old euros and professional -- my old journalism professor used to say, eight words or less, bottom line up front. all right, it in the back that. -- there. [laughter] >> i am a retired officer and spent 11 years in afghanistan. mike with question here is --

mike witt question here is comments on lebanon -- my quick question here is comments on lebanon. nobody seems to be talking about that. onel did an article hezbollah, which i thought was interesting. >> lebanon, yeah. there is a strong contingent of militants inside of lebanon that have made some noise for many years, but there are not a lot of them, and a number of them, particularly down south, has been co-opted by the government. there were fears early on that a lot of this contingent was going to be activated by the war in syria, and in fact, the whole society was going to go down the tubes. that is still a worry, and the longer the war goes on, the longer that were increases, but

i have been really surprised that lebanon's resiliency, actually, whether you attribute that to actors we do not like lid onzbollah keeping a things, or the sunnis now wanting to ignite another civil impressive toen me that they have managed to stay out even though iran and --nusra and the united states have tried to kick the hornets nest and drag lebanon into the war, but so far so good. >> just to comment on the hezbollah drone attack over the weekend, it was reported by an iranian news agency that hezbollah deployed a drone on the a nusra base iraqi interior borders, and there is footage, although i'm not sure if it is legitimate or not, of the attack, and i think it is interesting. if it is true, it is the first time a nonstate has use in arms drone income that successfully

-- and armed the drone successfully, and it raises questions because it is not the end of this, it is the beginning. if you are a western country with a relatively sophisticated airsoft, air drawn -- sophisticated air force system, drone attacks are not a problem, however if you are some kind of western target somewhere around the world in a country without those things, and a militant organization acquires an armed drone, we are in a whole different scenario. a number of organizations have used sophisticated surveillance drones. isis use one last month. footage of that is available. it is a basic they surveyed with a drone. the libyan opposition use one against gadhafi which they acquired for $100,000 from a

canadian company, and hezbollah and hamas have been using them. arming a drone is much harder. it is not like buying something from amazon and adding a machine gun. it is pretty complicated. there is no way hezbollah would have been able to do this themselves, i do not think. iran, russia, and china all have armed drones and have not used them in combat so far, so that sort of speaks for itself. >> let's take a minute to drill down on the drone issue because that you'd ministry in has held up -- the administration has held up drone attacks in yemen and somalia as for how they would approach the issue in a rack, before the is -- in iraq before the airstrikes in syria. i would like everyone to give me their assessment as to the efficacy of drones, and if one of the lessons of the last decade is that it has to be coupled with a significant force on the ground. >> it depends on what your goal

is. if your goal is to degrade an insurgent organization or a terrorist group, drones can be very useful with the caveat that, of course, there is a government that you have to partner with. places a lot of political pressure on the government because it is not popular with the people, but still, it is a useful tool integrating those organizations. >> degrading and containing, but that is not the objective in a rack, correct -- in iraq, correct? and the president has said not degrade, but destroyed, and that goes far beyond anything he has achieved with the same framework in yemen and somalia. >> mary? agree, and airstrikes are an important tool, and i do not believe anyone believes they should begin rid of -- they

inuld be gotten rid of, but most of these countries we are done with insurgency, and in other words we cannot kill our way out of this problem. it requires much more than that, and i just do not think that the american people, or this administration are willing to do what is probably necessary in order to absolutely deal with it , unless we have some sort of terrible disaster. otherwise, i think the american people are convinced that it is a problem over there and therefore we do not need to deal with it. >> you alluded to something i would like to underscore further, which is that we have had supremacy with drones now for a decade. the technology has improved here and we are now seeing other groups start to use the drones. we have used them in a way where -- mules are very moved

oot. se.re not at war with, per in yemen, you -- we used it to target an american citizen. backw does that maybe come on us now that the technology has made it more available to other nations or groups? >> i think we are in a situation which is not completely dis-analogies, if that word exists, on the technology and nuclear weapons. that are rules of the game might constrain our use or anybody else's use. but it is in our interest to create or think about some international framework to govern. that would be very much in our collective interest. cyberboth in drones and were we have had overwhelming arm to drones and

on defensive cyberattacks. evaporating in both areas. it is quite easy to imagine the isnese saying, hey, there this group of separatists in northern afghanistan who we are going to take out because they are terrorists by our status to it we are not at war with afghanistan, but the rules of the americans. you can only imagine. the list can go on. it is time to have a discussion about npr and maybe the international framework we have created is the right one, but we have to be comfortable with the iranians and chinese saying that that is the framework we are going to use to it similarly, --erattacks, the stock grant there was an attack that was an act of war. in which therent is an international agreement about these issues? right now, we are subjected to

by the chinese it when chuck hagel went there some months go to china, he tried to explain what the red lines are to the chinese. i do not think there was much recognition to that, but we need to have discussions about these issues. we need to think about how to right, this on the is unpopular as an idea because it would seem to constrain american power. on the left, it is unpopular because it would seem to endorse additional forms of warfare. the point is, we are where we are. it is not completely new, but it is different, and we should be having a discussion collectively about what it is in this new world that we think the rules of the road should be. >> ok, next question right here, please.

>> is anybody looking for mr. iri?here -- mr. zawah if so, the fact that we have not found him, does that show how inapt our counterterrorism campaign is? >> in short, yes. i do not think that the counterterrorism campaign has been inept. the best person to show that is osama bin laden. link the memos were written about how concerned he was about most of his contemporaries and al qaeda being dead. and he was urging one of his qatar,t sons to move to one of the richest and safest countries in the world. counterterrorism campaign has inflicted tremendous damage on al qaeda, whether in the peninsula or central. if you look in the number people being killed in leadership by

drone attacks, in the report, almost no of the top leadership is p are just a few guys that are still alive. going to what was said about this attack in karachi, it is interesting. it is basically the launch attack al qaeda and the indian continent. it happened in pakistan which is where al qaeda is located. al qaeda today, because of our counterterrorism campaign, is effective in only one country, al qaeda central, and it is pakistan. the limits of their ability is to do a failed attempt on a karachi naval target or kidnap an american aid worker in his early 70's. that is the limit of their capability. it is not very impressive. hasdirt terrorism campaign hurt al qaeda. -- our counterterrorism campaign has hurt al qaeda.

mean the global movement or the network of networks is over. but if somebody had said -- if we had this conversation in 2002 and anybody in this panel asserted only 25 americans would be killed by jihad he terrorists in the united states within the next 12 to 13 years, you would have said that person is crazy. well, that is where we are today because our offensive content has been very good and our defense of capabilities have been extremely good. >> i mean, we have had some good look, too. a bomb failed because the device was degraded -- >> the lesson of that is do not wear a bomb and your underpants for three weeks because it is not going to work. [laughter] >> i agree that our counterterrorism has been fantastic. i have nothing but the highest praise for it. but counterterrorism, again, is just one tool to deal with these

guys. when dealing with an insurgency, counterterrorism only goes so far. what we have done is we have set the objective that we believe al qaeda is fighting for. we claim al qaeda is all about attacking the united states, not just because they said that, but because they demonstrate they want to attack the united states. in fact, that is not their real objective. that is the means to a greater evening which is creating the like isis.just they have been doing everything possible in order to drive us out of their countries so they will have a free hand to be able to do whatever they want to in places like pakistan, syria, , wherever they have managed to set themselves up. the distinction between local and global is one that we have created -- >> not for them. >> no.there is a local group in

mali, and we have captured documents of al qaeda in which they are sending out what they call directives to a local group saying, do not talk about having a global or some sort of other kind of agenda, jihadist agenda. talk about having a local agenda, because that is what we want you to focus on right now. so we understood it to just have a local agenda, but they have been told to hide your agenda so you can be more effective. >> next question right over here. client from the world organization for research development education. i want to pick up on the theme you just touched on. it seems that this administration and the one before it had a clear preference for the capture and kill counterterrorism strategies. yes, 13 years later, the threat

of violent extremism still exists. i was wondering if you could share in terms of your recommendations for how the u.s. in leverage its soft power developing a soft counterinsurgency in places like iraq and syria. in this difficult threat environment, how do you recommend we go about identifying some local partners we can be engaging to implement some of these programs? >> right, i firmly support soft power, especially counter radicalization efforts. what i will say next, you should not take this as a integration of the efforts because i firmly support them. one of my first interests as working on precisely this issue. but at the same time, when dealing with sort of genocidal groups or groups that have these grandiose visions that they are

willing to actually attempt to implement on the ground and kill tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, in an attempt to do this, soft power can only take you so far. it can undercut support and recruitment, but it will not deal with the threat on the ground in places like iraq and syria. >> i have an observation. i think the u.s. has a basic problem when it comes to these issues, because we are very good about overthrowing -- we can overthrow anybody we want, but we will not do what is actually required, so there is no constituency for what mary is suggesting and the united states. john mccain and lindsey graham are not advocating large-scale ground troops which would be completely required to eradicate this large-scale. is the mostn war

unpopular war in american history, and by the way, that went pretty well. we had almost an ideological problem which is we can go in and overthrow the regime, but we will not sustain that sort of centuries-long occupation, as the british or the french did. we just will not. so we're kind of caught -- we can do this quick fix, but in the long-term, it is not likely to work out well. it may work ok, and it certainly probably works pretty well, but it will not defeat an insurgency of the kind that we saw -- we did not defeat the insurgency in iraq it turned out, and we were there for 10 years. there is no public appetite for what is required and maybe that is a good thing. it is sadly a very american thing. >> and we have to be pretty modest about what we can achieve with counter radicalization. it can help at the margins, but what we have seen during the

arab spring, the political instability and authoritarianism can drive radicalization and ring people into a conflict that may be willing to sit it out in more peaceful times. we have a very limited capability to shore up a lot of these governments that are going to have to go through this transition in order to reach a greater level of stability that will fundamentally undercut support for this. and that is years, years in the making, and we have a small part to play in it. nodding my head on the one hand of what you are saying, the american people probably do not want, and for very good reasons, not to engage in this, and we also have these kind of hopes that maybe some capable partners on the ground will be able to deal with it as so many of them did during the 1990's with threats that were very terrible. at the same time, i do not

believe it is a sort of 100-year effort, nor do i think that everything that was done in iraq was completely in vain. but what i do think is once you have engaged in a civil war where your neighbors have been killing each other, you need to have a third-party present for probably a generation to act as a guarantor to people's security and safety at otherwise, you cannot trust people who yesterday were picking up guns to shoot at you. the example of bosnia or you have the same kind of civil war and the same kind of low appetite on the part of the u.s. to engage roots on the ground, but with capable partners and a small force, not an overwhelming one, we were able to make a big difference. but we still know that there are boots on the ground in former yugoslavia and are necessary there, otherwise you do not guarantee people's security safety and people will hedge their bets and start arming up again to protect themselves, as

we saw in iraq was the only guarantor of their peace walked away. >> its take that one further step with afghanistan. it is one of the lessons we learned with our decision to completely get out of iraq, two-fold, we lost the eyes and ears of the military that provided the intelligence component. we became largely reliant on the iraqis. secondly, this is coupled with the campaign which has amounted to a targeted killing campaign. there has not been intelligence gathered from interrogations in the same way in the last five years as was under the previous administration with all of the issues they are associated with. so to afghanistan -- >> i think afghanistan is a slightly different problem because you have not been dealing with a civil war. so you do not have that on top of and and urgent.

we are more dealing with a pure it surgeons the. -- a pure insurgency. written a book that was in which afghanistan was described as the perfect insurgent territory, almost impossible to control. there are many differences here. with the lever -- level of effort we put into a counterinsurgency, it was rather small compared to what we did in effective.s i do not see it as comparable. the only way it is comparable is the intelligence problem and this problem of losing visibility on a threats if we walk away. but what would be necessary to carry out a successful counterinsurgency, which has been done numerous times despite the fact people call it the graveyard of empires, local actors have managed to invade that territory and control it for hundreds of years.

including the persians, people we call indiaat today, so on and so forth. the level of effort is something we have no appetite for. politics ofomestic a not domestic american politics, domestic hauntings in iraq, afghanistan. the reason why we do not have forces inside iraq to prevent the rebirth of al qaeda in iraq is because the iraqi parliament did not want it. they wanted to keep a force there. we urged them to let them keep it there, and it was politically unpalatable to resolve the same kind of respect against the american effort to keep forces in afghanistan with karzai just because we want to stabilize the country and think it is the best thing for the country. the domestic politics of those countries often do not allow us to remain there as the keeper of the peace.

and there is messy politics in our own country which makes these long-term occupations absolutely unpalatable. >> i agree with that reading. there was difficulty with the sofa and a lot of back and forth and problems getting a form of sofa signed it on the other hand, we now have about 1000 boots on the ground without sofa . so we have actually figured out how to do it. >> so there is not a catch, right? [laughter] >> a status of forces agreement, right? >> karzai was in a minority of one and we can be somalia or we can be south korea. agreeing with mary, we are so the current tour -- south korea is one of the dust was one of the poorest countries at the evening of the korean war and is now one of the sixth in the world.

we have a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan the , which means, correct me if i am wrong, there -- the fact president obama said we will be moving all troops out of afghanistan by the evening of 2016, president clinton or does president hillary clinton or jeb bush or whoever it is can say, look, i do not think this is a good idea. can you imagine the cost to the democratic party if there was an attack in the united states that was remotely traceable to pakistan or afghanistan? what if it was a republican president? for any president. the point is that we are not bound by -- this is just the situation now. we already have an agreement in

place that will allow us to have a long-term presence in afghanistan well past 2016. >> i agree. one of the misconceptions i think americans, in general, have about afghanistan is we're doing with this intractable problem that is centuries long, but afghanistan was actually be developed partner when you look back in the 1950's and 1960's and even 1970's. it was the one pakistan was afraid of because they were doing so well. they had a well-developed economy and had international trade. they were on a path towards development. it has been since 1979 with the disasters invasion by the soviet union and the civil war that again slightly before then that we really developed the afghanistan we know today. there is a past we can look at where there were decades of a

really developing country that had a future. >> to another question. well, that leaves it to me. whatnow, all of this said, do you think the wildcards are, and how does that impact what a future attack will look like? does a future attack still look like some kind of law that is on board an aircraft? does it look like the boston marathon bombing? peter? >> one wildcard is egypt. makes mubarak looks like a nice guy. regime has killed thousands of people domestically . what is happening in egypt is what ayman al-zawahiri has always said what happened.

, it is against islam to engage in politics and it will not work. the army nullified a popular vote. the muslim brotherhood made tons of mistakes, but they were the elected government. so ayman al-zawahiri's analysis is there is no point in engaging in electoral politics if you are islamist. the reason it is significant as we are seeing in sinai and other places in each of these kind of jihadi groups. as you know, jihadi groups in the 1990's had a small civil war were 1200 people died. you can easily imagine that starting again to the muslim brotherhood is a very large organization that has essentially been criminalized in the country of their origin.

egypt has fallen off the front page for the obvious reasons, but i think that that is a big wildcard, what goes on there. >> i have two dressers of his sponsors. expectthat we might threats from al qaeda and the other are the sorts of threats we might expect from isis. i do believe that lone wolf attacks are the most likely think we will see from isis because they probably, in the u.s., at least, lack capacity to carry out attacks. on the other hand, over the has four month or so, a very large have beenisis cells picked up in other countries and not just australia. some thing like 62 members of an isis cell were picked up in saudi arabia and a bunch picked up and cause of oh, morocco, and malaysia. so it is not quite true, i think, that we just have to

worry about lone wolf attacks. what we might not see though, and it sounds really funny, is the kind of restraint we have seen before from al qaeda. and what i mean is al qaeda has a commitment of spectacular attacks. to make up after the disappointment of 9/11 and i do not mean that in a disrespectful way. but in a sense that if they do something lesser than 9/11, everybody will say, wow, look how weak you have become. but isis does not have anything to look up to. so i think they are farmer likely to do something like a group of shooters at a mall than what we will see from al qaeda. and that kind of thing does not take much planning. my concern from isis is that. al qaeda, i am worried about the guys they have gotten or are

attending to get in syria and what has been said about the threat they pose to the united states and others. --arently, undetectable arms bombs, that is a huge vulnerability and maybe we will not see that one coming. >> all right, so, the crazy one, the true wildcard would be if the islamist state actually pushed into saudi arabia. i sort of see islamic state like a party balloon. you squeeze it on one evening and syria goes into iraq. you squeeze in iraq in a goes to syria. where does it go? let's say it goes down south into saudi arabia, that would be incredibly destabilizing to the political system and saudi. saudi probably has the military system and firepower with our but it push them back,

is not completely outlandish. amongis a big fall islamic state for folders for an invasion and saudi arabia. there is an did vision of the islamic state. a big heart of that vision has gone from early islamic prophecies after the establishment of the caliphate or the muslim saviors going to battlend the final against the infidels. that kind of invasion combined with the 1979 takeover of the mosque area in mecca, which was fueled by an thick group, with the threat of suit -- with the threat of saddam hussein's invasion in the early 1990's, both of which were destabilizing to the saudi political system appeared that would throw world energy markets into turmoil as a consequence.

quite i say that is unlikely. >> come on. >> it is important. look, the saudi air force was part of this. the last time the saudi's was part of this coalition with in the first gulf war. it has been a long time. senior saudi clerics have issued fatwas against isis. they have done criminalization and arrested 52 people within or so.t week this if you existential problem, just as returning saudi fighters from the iraq war was. saudi's, when they came out of their own security, really got on top of it quickly. >> time for one or two final questions. >> hello, i will not say the agency i am working for since i

am here on a personal day. >> [inaudible] >> [laughs] what is the likelihood of i.s. are one of these groups using nuclear material to carry out one of these attacks? >> great questions. >> i believe a terrorist group deploying nuclear weapons is zero. iran has had a nuclear system for decades and unlimited supplies. fors very, very hard countries to acquire nuclear weapons. so the idea that a terrorist group could acquire nuclear weapons i think is highly improbable. one of the takeaways of this 247rt -- you look at the terrorist cases in the u.s., not one of them involved chemical or biological, forget about nuclear. terrorists basically want to shoot people and lola car bombs -- and blow up car bombs, things

that are easy to do. they're exposed to include anthrax experimentations which were amateur appeared they never even acquired weaponize anthrax. so i cannot think of a case where -- if there was a terrorist group in this country weaponploys some kind of like this, it would be a right wing extremist group we have seen groups like this, kind of net cases, trying to acquire biological weapons, but for some reason, jihadi terrorist have not been that interested in this. they did deploy chlorine in iraq during 2007. but this is the case of the dog that did not bark. >> the only thing i would add is that i think there are at least some data points which say to me that we certainly have

that -- they certainly have that aspiration. correct me if i am wrong, the foreign policy has very strong reporting based on a laptop computer they were able to obtain, i believe third pre-syrian -- free syrian army from an isis fighter, which discussed at length as they went through the files their interest and intent to try and use biological weapons. to me, that is a very important data point, because i am not sure what our visibility is in that area. but it tells me there is the aspiration he kissed purported owner of that laptop was because the purported owner of that laptop was someone who reportedly had training and education. there was a group calling for some sort of swap with the sort of poster woman for wmd. to me, these data points suggest that they certainly have the

aspiration, and i am not working in the ic to know whether there toother data which points confirm that aspiration or whether they have made more concrete steps down that road. >> i find myself in agreement with both of you that it seems highly unlikely that they will be able to, al qaeda, would be able to create their own nuclear weapons. but at the same time, they do and have aspiration had it apparently since the 1990's -- i remember reading the trial transcripts from the 1998 attacks in which there was this to get nuclear weapons parity with said they wanted nuclear weapons because they assumed the response of the u.s. to an attack on the homeland would be a nuclear strike, and they wanted to have

enough of a deterrent. that shows how they misread the u.s. also, i have seen sort of senior leaders say that we would love to have nuclear weapons. so i think the intent is absolutely there. whether they have the capacity and capability -- it has never theydone before, but then, have done a lot of things that have never been done before. that is one. two, what about the always present pakistani nuclear weapons? given the fact that a group of guys, including some officers in the pakistani navy, took over the ship and tried to do an shipk on an american with it, i am not putting it be on the realm of possibilities that there is some percentage that the pakistani military might no longer have the best interest of pakistan in their minds. that, i think we're

going to wrap it up. thank you very much to my fellow panelist, peter bergen, mary hab william mccants. thank you to the bipartisan policy center. thank it to the audience. quick thank you to the moderator and fantastic panelist. thank you for making this event possible. i want to congratulate peter and his fantastic team, david, emily, billy, and jim for writing this wonderful report. next year hopefully the threat will be a little bit less. let's all hope for that. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> as this event closes, you can see it again in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. the u.s. launched eight airstrikes for such a discrepancy imminent attack plotting against the u.s. and western interests. the pentagon tweeted pictures this morning from the uss george aircraft carrier launched fighter jets. u.s. navy released videos for guided missile cruiser which

handled the tomahawk and land attack missiles. here is a look at that launch from the ship. [blasts]

[missiles firing] [sirens blaring] >> both of those ships were part of the carrier strike group for maritime security operations in the u.s. fleet, part of last night's air strikes against isis

in syria. a tweet of a picture of some of the damage from the airstrikes last night, saying that this is the first time the f-22 with used in a combat role. you can see the damage to the building on the right, kind of a before and after in the picture. here is reaction today from members of congress, from house speaker john boehner, god speed -- know what you think about it. the conversation is underway on our ace but age at facebook.com/cspan.

william says -- let's be honest, world war iii is beginning, and history will remember it. and another 1 -- the face the conversation will continue throughout the day. you can send us your thoughts on twitter with #cspanchat president obama is in new york city today for a number of meetings spirit we will have live coverage of his address at the climate change summit at 12:50 eastern. in the annual meeting of the clinton global initiative. president obama's remarks will focus on public-private partnerships worldwide. c-span2 will have live coverage at 2:00 eastern today. later, sylvia burwell update as on the new health care law,

giving a speech at the brookings institution, starting at 1:30 eastern. c-span campaign 2014 debate coverage continues thursday night and 9:00. nebraska' second congressional district debate. sunday, the iowa u.s. senate debate. thann campaign 2014, more 100 debates for the control of congress. now, last night's today between pennsylvania's candidates for governor, incumbent republican tom corbett and his democratic challenger tom wolf, their first debate that took place in hershey, pennsylvania. the race is listed as lean democrat. this is about 45 minutes. ♪ >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

good me -- good evening. i would like to welcome you to hershey for the first of three debates between the two gubernatorial candidates. the election is six weeks from tomorrow to please welcome the two candidates. tom corbett, the republican incumbent governor. [applause] >> welcome, governor. we also have the challenger from york county, former revenue secretary tom wolf. [applause] how are you, tom? welcome, mr. wolf. tonight, we look to foster a conversation where the candidates talk to us and not at us and to each other, for that matter. a couple ground rules -- they

will each have a one-minute open and a two have a minute close but we will alternate directing questions. if you are the person who gets question, you have two minutes, and the other person will have one minute for rebuttal. the candidates are not seen the questions in advance. they have been chosen time he and representatives from the chamber. this is a chamber audience, so many of the questions, if not all, will be of interest to the business community. without further ado, as arranged by a coin flip among the camps, tom corbett will have the first have the lastill close. governor corbett, the floor is yours. >> thank you. good evening, everyone. good evening, everyone. there we go. thank you to the chamber for inviting me here. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today on this stage and to talk with tom about the future of pennsylvania.

isles onto thank the voters who have given me the opportunity to serve not only as governor but as attorney general across pennsylvania. i want to tell you, i really, really appreciate that opportunity. i have to tell you, i believe in pennsylvania. today had the opportunity to go up to the northeast and ask you each, as dennis asked you, to think about the two troopers, the one who was killed and the one in the hospital. to also think about the men and women who were out there today searching, all these law enforcement officers searching for these individuals who killed our troopers here in pennsylvania. that is part of being governor. but what is really part of being -- rnor, >> we will hear from you more. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. >> ok, one minute, the floor is >> thank you.p

thank you, dennis, for moderating this. thank you to everyone in the chamber for sponsoring. first, i am an unconventional candidate, i understand. i do not look like candidates you have seen before. these are unconventional times for commonwealth. as a citizen and democracy, this is what we're supposed to do. i want to see a change. i think we can do a better job when it comes to education. a better jobn do as a business person and a member of this chamber board. i think we can do a better job of building a stronger economy in pennsylvania. i think we need a fresh start. that is why i am running. i love the state in thing we can do better. thank you very much. [applause] >> ok. ,eel free to walk the stage guys, and i will feel free to change tablets if i need to move the conversation along with the first question to mr. wolf,

topic is education. , ands been a hot topic polls suggest it is one of the hottest topics for pennsylvanians. for several years and for setral months you have had governor corbett slashed a billion dollars for education. governor corbett says he's been in money on public education than any governor in history. where is the discrepancy here? what is going on? >> my point is that we have actually seen real cutbacks in education. under this administration, we can talk about whatever we want in terms of statistics. i am a graduate of m.i.t., so that would be fine with me. but just look at what we see all around us, at least in my area. educators have been laid off, 27,000 educators lost their jobs. class sizes have increased. property taxes and gone through the roof. in my area, we have services that have been cut.

parents are even having to pay money, fees, so their children can participate in extracurricular sports. we can talk about statistics, but education has been cut. we are not doing a good job following through on the promise we made to do -- to deliver an efficient public education system. we need to do that but we can do a better job. i know you cannot throw money at any problem and expect a good outcome. in my business, i needed good employees, employees who had the skills. i needed to make sure my business was successful. this is an important public good for all. it is not just because constitutional issue, but it is a practical, economic problems are when he to do everything we can to make sure our education system is working fully in every .art >> a one-minute rebuttal, mr.

corbett. agree, we need to do better. we should always be looking to do better. we need to present a better pennsylvania than what i my successor four years from now and he or she should be doing the same thing. the question is funding. that the cut to education occurred in the administration before me. andmr. wolf's supporters teachers unions have spent millions of dollars putting out the lie that i did not. even now, the newspapers has admitted that we did not. education is such a big part of the spirit we have already begun the reform by two steps.

first step, a better teacher evaluation system, better than the old satisfactory or unsatisfactory. as a result, we have a better education and better report on administrators. with thee able to, profile we have created for schools in pennsylvania, be able to tell whether those schools are performing and how they are performing. once you have metrics, you can determine how you need to spend the money. that is what we are doing. >> governor, the follow-up is for you. ever isstate money than going to school districts, why is it over the last several years that school districts have cut programs, cut people, are raised property taxes are a combination of all three? >> very good question. the answer is very simple. first off, putting federal stimulus money into their budget , into operating budgets. of pensions. cost you will hear me talk a great deal about the cost of pensions.

that has driven up the cost of property taxes across pennsylvania. 153 school districts in pennsylvania have asked to be tompted from the requirement have a referendum to increase their property taxes. and the cost of health care. it will get much worse. many of you in this room are dealing with the cost of health care, with obamacare. that will cause this to go up even higher. you know, mr. wolf uses the 27,000 educators. that is a false number. those are not all teachers. as a people that worked in the system and were part of the administration, not all teachers. that is not the point. the point is, how much are we going to spend, but more important, how are we going to invest? because it has to be an investment, not just how much we spent. >> mr. wolf? [applause] >> well, again, the proof is in

.he pudding we have to do a good job providing education. this is not an elective. if we want a strong economy and strong communities and strong families, we have to make sure our schools are working properly. it is not enough to say that this did not work or that is not working the way i wanted it to. we have to figure out how to make this work. it is an obligation as a community. i care about the education of children as much as i care about the education my daughters have in public cooled in northeastern new york county. that is how public education works. that is why it is a shared responsibility. childrenakes sure our get a good education. i need to make sure that we follow through and deliver on the promise of a good education. we need accountability and all the other things the governor talked about. in the evening, we need a system that delivers on the promise of a good education.

[applause] >> mr. wolf, next question for you. i know you do not want to talk statistics. the fact is, over $10 billion of the over $29 billion state budget for education is between 30% and 40%, all with property taxes, that is 27 delay dollars spent on public education in this state. state budget is $29 billion to education, $27 billion. you say it is not enough. how much is enough? what is your number? what accountability would you like to offer so we are not just shoveling money? what we are getting for the money we are spending. >> that is a great question. [applause] that was not a plus for me but a plus for the question, right? [laughter] as i said, we cannot throw money at any problem and hope to get it out.

i understand. i also understand that we have to have accountability and have to know how we are doing good right now, we are not producing feel we canst of us employee. we are not doing a good enough job all across the state. in some places we are doing a wonderful job and in some places not a good job it we need to make sure that we have people with the skills relevant to a 21st-century economy. how much money does that take? i do not know. it is not enough to say we're going to spend more or less it we need to say that we need to have a public education system that delivers on the promise and delivers on the skills and talents we need to make this economy grow. that is something we expect our government to do. we cannot hide behind false statistics that we are spending too much to we have to embrace the idea that it is a responsibility we have. we cannot say ideologically we are predisposed to this solution

or that solution. we have to sit down and look at this practically and say how are we going to make sure we have an educated workforce and educated citizenry here in pennsylvania and we have to have leadership that will follow through and invest whatever it takes to invest and make sure we get what we need. >> i am glad you point at me when you say leadership. give me the numbers. it is $27 billion now. what do you think the number should be? >> that is a good question. i think the $27 billion number is a wonderful number. some of that comes from the federal government. state.mes from the too much comes from local taxes. one of the things we need to do is figure out how to reduce the local property tax burden for funding public education. i think that would eliminate some of the conflicts we have. how much is it, i do not know. can we redeploy that? we might be able to redeploy that and reset our priorities.

one of the ways when i had to do something to improve my company , i would go first to my employees. i did not demonize them. i did not say let's get experts from out of town who will tell us how to do this. we have to come up with a reasonable solution. i do not know $27 billion is enough. if i were doing this, i would sit down with the educators and say, let's make sure we're delivering fully on this promise. >> governor corbett, rebuttal. >> we are not that far apart. we agree we have to make it better. but we are not hearing any answers as to how we get there. we have started that process. [applause] thank you. the number one question is what is fair? what is a fair funding formula? and as you know, we have recently passed legislation to create a fair funding formula commission. members of the legislature are involved because what is fair

in one school district is that is fair to the people and out -- in mt. pocono. how much is the education of an individual child worth? we have never had that discussion. we in the process of doing that. that is how we decide how much is enough. we could spend a lot of money. $27 billion is a lot of money. part of the idea is to -- to determine is it being well spent invested wisely? when i come back, i will talk to about the school profiles and how we are using that to help us determine where it is being used wisely. >> i got a question for you. let's come back to that. everyone's ears will perk up. >> nobody cares about taxes here. >> you took a no tax pledge but you're not going to take this this time, what do you say to conservative critics?

no tax pledge? >> what i said is two things. one, everyone knows my record. we kept taxes down and we did not raise taxes. but we know where mr. wolf is going to go because if you start adding up all his taxes what we , know is that everybody above $60,000 will be taxed more. frankly, and we are trying to glean this from his report. how much will be the people down below? have a sales tax increase, everybody pays that. if you have an energy tax increase, electricity tax increase, everybody pays that. i am committed to working keeping government efficient. you know, when i ran four years ago, i said i would run on three principles. fiscal discipline, limited government, and free enterprise. i can say to the people of

pennsylvania i have kept that promise. [applause] what you and your companies have done. i believe tom probably did in his companies. we made tough decisions. we were almost $29 million in spending in my first year but it was spending including federal one-time stimulus money. we had to go down the first time the budget went down in 40 years . we reduced the size of the competent people working for state government to its lowest levels in 15 years. why? because we did not have the money. i had promised we were not going to tax the taxpayers because i believe in my job as governor. it is to be the steward of your money. i mean everybody. from the person working at a job making millions of dollars to the people who are working and

working in $5,000, $20,000 jobs. i believe that i have that responsibility to all of them, and i am going to keep that promise. >> paying just a second, the no tax pledge, you have not taken that -- >> i think my record speaks for itself. we have had discussions -- >> is that a yes or a no? >> that is my answer. >> ok. [laughter] >> he tries to do this to me all the time. it helped me keep everybody focused. many people in the legislature agreed with me on that. it helped them keep the focus. because we had to look at the option of saying we need to tax the taxpayers more and spend more of their money. >> so what do you say to conservative critics that say

the transportation bill and the drillers was a breaking of that because they were tax increases? >> the transportation bill was a removal of a false cap and we are getting rid of the tax at the pump that was static. we are seeing revenue come up. at the same time, how many are you buying gas cheaper today? cents a gallon cheaper. it was the responsibility of governor to the public safety of the people of pennsylvania where children get on school buses every day and 1.5 million people get on transit and travel our roads and highways. it is a public duty for us to make those roads better. >> mr. wolf, would you like to rebut the tax pledge conversation? you have a minute. >> no. but i would like to rebut what we see all around us. and that is for whatever reason, , things aren't working.

i built the business. i went back to my business in 2009. it was flat on its back and i turned it around, and i had metrics and ways looking at whether i was doing a good job and i did. i had to make end meet and i had to make that company successful. that's what we have to do here in pennsylvania. and you can measure success in a lot of different ways, but i look at our job creation rate. we used to be at the top of the charts and now at the bottom of the charts. i see a euro of economic analysis that says we are being beaten by west virginia, ohio, new jersey, in terms of economic growth. our property taxes have actually gone up. we aren't doing as well as we should do. and i think we need to look at that and say, this is what we need from our state government, to set the table for robust economic growth. i'm a fan of the private sector. i come out of the private sector. i built a business, actually twice.

but i also know that while the private sector is going to drive this process, we need a government partner that will set the table to make sure the se private sector entities work optimally. that's what we need to do and that's what we haven't done and that's what i will do as a governor. can you lay out for us your tax plan basically, it has been reported and if this is incorrect, please correct me you want to 5%, personal income tax on higher wage owners. that's incorrect? let's lay out your tax plan. do you believe most people of pennsylvania pay enough on personal income tax? >> here's where the 5% rate comes from. this is a misconception. the a.p. reporter asked me to give him an example of how my

plan would work, because a traditional progressive income tax would be unconstitutional in pennsylvania. so we need a flat tax. i was giving him an example of how this would work. i said, peter, this is an example. this is not what i'm proposing. but what i'm talking about, what i'm talking about is a tax system that is fair. having been secretary of revenue, having been a business owner twice, i understand what a state government has to do to make sure we are setting the table for private sector growth. we cannot overtax or create tax burdens that are unfair to anybody, families, individuals or businesses. if i'm elected, i will do my best to make sure our tax system is fair. a fairer tax system, one that is actually good. >> when you say fair, do you believe most people of pennsylvania pay enough income tax or does that need to be increased in some ways because people are looking at the