during the dustbowl era. he saw this vast difference between the haves and the have-nots and became their spokesman through his music. >> woody recorded very few songs of his own. we have 46 songs in his own voice. that is what makes the recordings that he did make so significant. woody guthrie: ♪ this land is your land this land is my land ♪ >> what's all of our programs on c-span2 and american history tv on c-span3. the potomac institute for policy studies is holding a discussion at the national press club on the terrorist that for 2015

panel -- 42015. at panelists discussing last year for lessons. they will discuss future threats and best practices for the future in combating terrorism. this is live on c-span.

>> [indiscernible]

>> again, we are live this afternoon at the national press club where the potomac institute is set to host a discussion on the global efforts to combat terrorism. the panelists are current and former ambassadors. while we wait for this, we will show you the latest in negotiations with iran on a nuclear deal. this is from this morning's "washington journal." host: how close are we to a breakthrough and what needs to be negotiated in the final hours? guest: sure.

they were going to shift the agreement from russia. it was a nice symbolic step, if nothing else, for the u.s. and others. look, this deal is going outside of iran. it will increase the breakout time being able to make a nuclear weapon. it cannot be described as a dealbreaker it self. sanctions have been the big sticking point. >> can i have your attention? i am the ceo of the potomac institute and it is my distinct honor to welcome you today to the 17th annual seminar on international operation in combat on terrorism. the potomac has been privileged

to be an organization in the washington, d.c. area focused on science and technology and how it is affecting our society and security around the world. in particular the institute since its inception has been interested in and engaging in the study i how terrorism has been used as a form of warfare or social disobedience, if you will by many around the world for, in fact, centuries, and how we can find ways to more effectively deal with this scourge through cooperation of governments. today i welcome you all to the discussion on terrorism. we have with us i think one of the most enlightened and engaged

and scholarly groups you can imagine on this topic that represent not just the countries affected by businesses, but those who have had to do with this for quite some time. we have -- the potomac institute is focused on the study for terrorism studies, headed up by professor joan alexander. -- professor jonah alexander. we offer several publications on all aspects of terrorism globally as well as domestically. our most recent publications and we have averaged one per month for the last 40 years, are in february our extended annual review of terrorists's in north africa and their impacts on people in that part of the world, and a review of europe's

political situation and how it has affected the use of terror by the franchise for whatever means them a causing civil disobedience in that part of the world. the potomac institute produces at least one document per month all year long and averages one r two books per year. we are very proud that we host several seminars. we welcome your review on our website. we will be glad to provide you with summaries of all of that work and of course you are always guided to those events as they take place. we hope that today is not just enlightening, but it's an opportunity for you to engage because of dealing with this issue on a very personal and professional level around the world. at this point in time, 17 years

into the potomac institute gathering to discuss world terrorism and re-stabilizing our society -- it is time to recognize the world is in one of the most unstable positions it has been in a very, very long time due to the use of terror, terror techniques and the governments and societies we look to to protect us. many people in the world are, in fact, terrorized as they have not been before. as we have developed the techniques in dealing with terror, those who use terror against us have grown their capabilities to terrorize us. this calls for all of us to not

just study it to find more effective ways for dealing with it and a limiting the impact of terror on our societies but we hope that you will take the time today not just to hear what the panel has to say, but also engage with them for dealing with this issue as effectively as we can for ourselves and for our children. with that, i would like to turn the panel over to the professor, who most of you would know i would hope. if there is anyone in the world who studies terrorism and does not know about professor alexander -- he has over 100 book studying terrorism and the effects of terrorism, all issues affect the and surrounding terrorism for than 40 years and he is, we consider, one of the greatest assets the human race has on this subject.

it is my privilege to introduce him today. professor. [applause] professor alexander: thank you very much, mike, for your introduction proceeds -- particularly stressing the nature of the terrorist threat. what i would like to do is to chart a few i think, academic requirements. first of all to introduce the distinguished panel. first, to my left, you're right the professor, the ambassador, a diplomat and a scholar at the u.s. department of states who

works on threat reduction programs. i would also introduce a little bit later on. so, she will be the first speaker. next is dr. abdel aziz, the political ambassador from the republic of egypt. he is going to speak immediately after ambassador jenkins, and then we are very pleased to have our guest from the embassy of libya. she will present the views related to libya.

we are waiting for the ambassador --husain haqqani, a former ambassador from pakistan to the u.s. he is currently the director of the institute of south and central asia. he will arrive with us very shortly. and next is ambassador -- former u.s. ambassador to the united arab emirates and syria and then governor james gilmore is on his way, and he -- he is there? [laughter] well, you are quicker than my eyes mr. gomer. you are very, very welcome. we appreciate that you came all the way from richmond here.

and then to make closing remarks, german alfred gray, as you know the commandant of the united states marine corps and the chairman of the board of regents for the potomac institute. i think before we have the speakers deal with these issues -- first of all, i am delighted we have in the audience. many diplomats ambassadors and we appreciate very much c-span for inviting their audience to be part of this conversation in the united states and internationally.

additionally we arrived to express our assembly -- [indiscernible] as well as to send a message of solidarity and support for international cooperation in dealing with terrorism and, of course, this is our mission. to learn the lessons of the past and to try to anticipate future events and provide some hopefully best practices recommendations and strategies, particularly related to international cooperation in dealing with terrorism. now if i may, i would like to mention some of the key questions. if you look at history, the

historical record, if we go back 33 years ago, you may recall very vividly when the united nations placed on the general assembly agenda to build what they called measures to prevent terrorism and other forms of violence which endanger the safety of innocent lives or jeopardize fundamental freedom. 43 years ago this was the message and 43 years later we are still struggling with some key questions. one is, who are the terrorists? who are the perpetrators?

what are the root causes that motivate them? thirdly, what can we do about them? i think what is very interesting to mention at this particular point, as we speak, there is a coalition being formed to combat terrorism, which i believe is very similar to the concept of nato. in other words, from regional to global two security concerns and to provide that kind of support. as we speak, as some of us know, operation decisive storm is being actually mounted by the arab countries and some non-arab countries in order to deal with

the issue of yemen. this is an historic, i think move and certainly we are going to deal with that. now if i move on -- mike referred to it -- but let me mention very quickly. if you look at the statistics of the last year, we had some 11,000 incidents throughout the world. in other words incidents from 2013 and prior. within the first three months of this year, we see this population throughout the world all the way from libya and syria and pakistan nigeria, and so on and so forth. it seems to me this trend really continues. unfortunately 2015 will be

recorded as the bloodiest year yet since 9/11. mike mentioned one of our recent publications related to terrorism and -- we do have copies for those who might be interested. let me just mention we are covering a broad area. in general we have a record, and the record of last year, 2014, for example, there is an increase of 30% in north africa over 2013. if you look at 9/11, from 9/11

it really underscores the nature of the threats. today, we are going to discuss a few of the countries in the region. again, there are many terrorist groups involved. some are regional. some are foreign fighters and so forth. so i think we're going to deal with both the domestic situations, the internal situations, as well as the external support of violence in that particular region and elsewhere. i think what is really important for us is not only to identify the threats, but also to develop, as i indicated, best practices to deal with the

problem. some suggestions in our reports and again this is only one reason. mike mentioned also the report on europe. i might also mention the study we completed that is now in production on nato. it concerns itself with europe, such as the ukraine afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. at as i mentioned ambassador bonnie jenkins, she has a very large background. im not going to go into the bios of the speakers.

she deals in the global security area, weapons of mass destruction, and she obviously has a very rich background of community working with so many democracies and think tanks. i should ask ambassador jenkins to provide some context for the discussion today. thank you. would you like to come here or -- ambassador jenkins: no, i'm fine here. thank you for inviting me. thank you to the organizers. it is great to see everybody today. i know we have a distinguished panel, so i'm going to keep my comments reef. my work in the government really focuses on ways in which we can keep weapons of mass destruction

materials, and weapons out of the hands of nonstate actors. my perspective is it is very important to have international corporation. the problem of terrorism is on a global scale. it is important to work laterally, multilaterally with art knows. we have to foster ways in which we can develop programs to actually make clear we do not have opportunities for these nonstate actors to use chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological weapons. the u.n. has tools and initiatives to address this issue, whether there is a national organization or they are working with specific initiatives whether it is

working on the ground bilaterally with countries. there are a number of ways in which we have been focusing on addressing a very complex threat when you are trying to follow individuals around the world and we want access to pathogens, to nuclear materials. we can use that for harm. there are other things that i work in the state department in this arena. we have a summit which i'm sure some of you have heard of. this is an effort started in 2009. we announced that terrorism is one of the greatest threats the world faces. and we announced the would be a security summit to bring together leaders around the world for this issue, recognizing that in order to prevent terrorism, we had to

prevent the access to these materials. as you probably know there have been a number of securities. -- security summits. there was one in washington followed by the one in seoul, and will be another one in the current format in 2016 in united states, the place and time yet to be determined. we have 54 liters for national organizations included in that working to provide commitments communiqués, and other efforts to ensure that states working with us are doing what they can to secure nuclear materials. we have done this through national business. there have been a number of what we call gift baskets, which are commitments by countries, particularly in areas of security. there are communiqués.

2010, we have the work plan, which is about a's ex-page document outlining activities that countries can use for these materials. through this process, we have been providing ways in which we can consolidate nuclear material and really focus on ways we can work together internationally with international organizations to work together and prevent nuclear terrorism in the future. as i said, the summit being prepared for now among these countries -- you will be hearing a lot more in the next few months. there is the recognition we need to work, not only with government but entities as well , working closely with

nongovernmental associations and industry. only talk about international corporation, we talking about all of the entities that exist throughout the globe. another entity that exists something called the g-7 global initiative. this was started under the then gh chairmanship, and the main focus is the goal to prevent the distribution of weapons of mass destruction. it has been in existence, as i said since 2002, and it was actually set up to be a 10-year collection with the united states contributing $10 billion

matched by the $10 billion of other members. it has grown since 2002. and it extended in 2011 to include looking at all areas of r&d. for the first heat of years of the global partnership, the main focus was destroying russian nuclear submarines and russian chemical weapons. we spent over $22 billion in the first few years of the global partnership. that global partnership is looking at all of the areas areas of chemical, biological nuclear weapons to prevent them from getting into the hands of nonstate actors. as i said, now 28 members are part of this initiative. some of the activities that the partnership has been engaged include nuclear security, the physical protection of the materials, the securing and transport of nuclear materials

radioactive security, prevention of illicit nuclear trafficking verification compliance and work controls. in the area of vital security for biological pathogens presenting different biological attacks, strengthening disease prevention, with biological nonproliferation instruments with safe and secure responsible conduct in biological scientist -- sciences. chemical destruction the members have completed the projects remaining including activities in syria and libya assisting in newly prepared stockpiles. in addition last year they'd had

meetings focused on cpr security assistances in ukraine, they have been a member since 2003 and as a result of recent activities in ukraine we have been meeting and working with ukraine in trying to address some of their areas that they have now for us. as we look at 2014, which is one of the questions in this effort and in this panel, 14 was an interesting year for the partnership. it is a southern entity. as a result of the actions in ukraine it was decided they would no longer be part of the g-8, so it is now the g-7 global partnership. however, fortunately germany took over the chair at the summit last year and so we have

been having our meetings again as a result of that. a lot of work, as i said, on syria. members were involved in the distraction of chemical weapons, including the u.s., germany, norway, inland, sweden canada, with chemical weapons in syria working with ukraine on some of their issues. in looking beyond there will continue to be worked on security issues in ukraine and the bio security area we will continue to focus. one other area also getting attention, the global health security agenda. for those of you who do not know what this is, it was an effort launched last year in washington d.c. with a focus on

how do we reduce threats like ebola. this group was started in february of last year prior to the attention that ebola received, but the focus of the global health security agenda led by the white house is to assess these threats and now 44 countries are working on this effort. there is also human health and animal health efforts that include law enforcement and as a result they have acquired a number of departments working on reduction programs that are now involved as they look at infectious disease and how to fight infectious disease. it brings in a lot of different departments in the united states. we have been working on this effort with a number of countries to try to reduce

disease threat. there are a number of actions that these countries are looking at. similar in its focus. those are just some of the programs and just some of the things done to try to ensure what was done, going into detail during the question and answer time, with so many distinguished guests of the panel i think i will turn it over to our next speaker, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, very much.

our next guest formally in syria between 2012 and 2014. i would like to mention their work with the united nations and his phd in international relations. >> thank you very much. let me start by thinking for the organization in these regards.

i think that the best way to discuss the issue of international cooperation to combat terrorists is to try to start with the global image. i'll means, i think that boko from is no deeply rooted in nigerian society. not only this, boko homeroom has gone through an important transformation process. it started as a nigerian organization and worked very effectively in other societies

besides nigeria. as the professor just mentioned about terrorism in west africa it focuses particularly on the numbers here, terrorism is a growing threat in africa, talking about north africa. i think the reason the u.s. decided to keep more troops in afghanistan is that this is moved to north afghanistan and pakistan. they are attending to crude -- recruit more young people.

to the middle east we have the so-called islamic state for a rock and lebanon, controlling the second most important city. there are efforts in countries like libya and egypt. during the six months 31 different organizations were working in 16 different countries. as i mentioned, egypt and indonesia with majorities.

if we moved to europe, the coordinators found that there were 4000 european fighters fighting alongside isil. 25% out of them have already determined back home. they are back home with better knowledge, skills, and networking. if they want to use this knowledge and skills in network conducting more terrorist organizations in any european society. i once asked the un's security expert if it was the same in your country and he said -- no, fortunately we don't have thousands of americans fighting alongside isis, only a couple of hundred, but it only takes 10.

the point i am trying to make here is that we are facing a growing challenge, not a declining one. i think that this is the first lesson we should know about our enemy in this regard. the second lesson is that we are facing a transnational set up. we need to bring reason, as well as international coalitions to the fight for this threat effectively. the third lesson is that we need to have a productive country. are we any to negate or eliminate?

depending on our objective we will be able to find the ways and means to adopt to fight terrorists. time is of crucial importance. i was there for more than two years. this month and they are celebrating the fourth anniversary of the revolution. when this revolution started it was not secretive. the international community was reluctant to support this revolution. we now have a be hundreds of terrorist organizations and egypt.

that is why egypt is keen to urge the security council to dr. resolution's. finally, two days ago they had offered resolution in this regard and i had hoped that we would have the political will to implement these two resolutions. the final lesson, i think, is that the main tool to combat terrorism is very important. it is, i challenge you, of crucial importance.

which is why we have been calling for revolution in islamic thought recently. in order to show the young people in islamic societies that this is a tradition of the koran and it it is a manipulation from the terrorist organizations. we have been sending photos to places like nigeria, iraq, and syria in translating it into local languages, distributed in schools and mosques and local communities in order to make sure that the right

interpretation of islam is there. fighting the finances of terrorism is also important. they are not getting ransom. they are not even selecting taxes for receiving international financial support. such economic development is also important. studies have shown that it is much easier for terrorist organizations to recruit young people, something important to discover as we fight terrorism for development in order to make sure that this is going

hand-in-hand with fighting terrorist groups. finally, humanitarian assistance is also equally important. tomorrow there will be a meeting for international donors in order to raise funds to support syria and refugees in the united states. we had 16 million people of syrian nationality. i think i will stop here and yes, we can get back to these points during the q&a. [applause] michael: thank you very much.

we're moving down to the foreign policy embassy policy expert but also an engineer and educator and human rights advocate. many of us have very much to say , particularly around the confusion over libya at this time. >> thank you so much. can you hear me? it's ok? thank you so much to the potomac institute for hosting this event. ladies and gentlemen, honorable guests, it is my pleasure to make a presentation about libya and our vision for countering

the wave of terrorism we have been hit by lately. each day as the future of libya is being discussed by dispatchers in morocco, the country and the democracy continues in the streets in different towns. as the world we cannot wait for the formation of a new unity government before we act in a strong, united front against the school urge in my home. as i stand before you hear young men are being recruited into joining extremist groups across borders to create havoc in my country.

as i speak to you men in my country are dying while training alongside our military troops. our history and our wealth. as i talked to you here, weapons are being provided across borders to fight our young democracy and prosperity. to fight the same human rights in the international conventions and chapters.

that we are all in this room signatory to. to reverse the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to good living and good education and the right to be free from oppression. today as we look at what is going on in the world, terrorism knows no religion and does not restrict itself to borders. terrorism is the same anywhere, committed by the same persons across the globe. however there do exist certain communities and societies where terrorism has a bigger risk to do harm. societies where citizens have been deprived of their basic rights for too long. countries like libya where tyranny and oppression ruled for

over 43 years. when a parliament of women is not a priority and where economic right have been abused. we have felt the impact. we know, now, that reforming the educational system is paramount to each core human value. paramount to respecting human rights and each other, to inform and enforce social justice is one of the most important reasons for making countries fall under the web of terrorism and radical movements.

the attacks carried out at home by terrorist groups, whether by their government or by civilians in states, the execution of libyan activists and military personnel in libya, airports and ports in libya, and the spread of extremism will not affect only libya, but the whole region . and we fear, as libya is a gateway to africa, europe, and the middle east, those acts of terrorism will spill into the region. these were radical movements of terrorism. much had to change in order to fight the terrorists.

time is running. our neighbors have common goals and new -- mutual interests. we need to work together to enforce order and stay in place for future generations to live in. putting together a global chapter that regulates the flow of money and ridicule is him leaving the fighting to countries that are weakened by it. communities are not -- communities alone are not enough.

policymakers ended corruption and made sure that human rights were not violated. we are committed and persistent in the pursuance of an economic stability. in our country it will lead to utter living standards for our people, not impacting negatively on the regional the globe. esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, you are all aware today that libya among others is fighting a vicious war and it is not a threat to libya alone and i emphasize that. it is not a threat to speak of future prosperity and progress alone, but to the whole region.

to the economy of european countries that rely on our oil and gas and on africa, this will impact negatively on the strategic interests of the united states of america. we invite and will support strongly all research work and civil work to further shed light on the precursors of terrorism in order to find the best ways to contain it. ladies and gentlemen, we have a difficult fight to endure that requires putting all of the resources to make the outcome a winning one for the sake of his history. the history of the world is filled with agonizing encounters. let us try to change this

history forever. our children, your children, the world's children deserve that much of an effort. thank you. [applause] michael: thank you very much for your insights. we will come back to the discussions with religious questions. we are honored to present the ambassador who, as you know, was the ambassador pakistan to the u.s. from 2008 to 2011. the director of south and central asia and professor of

international relations at boston university. having written extensively on international affairs throughout the world. ambassador: it is a pleasure to be here in such distinguished company. i will keep my remarks relatively short. terrorism needs an international solution. after 9/11 there appeared to be a global consensus and at that point almost every nation in the world said that they agreed with the notion that no grievance and no injustice in the global system justified terrorism. yet almost 14 years later we find that terrorism is not only

alive and well but thriving in many parts of the world. what, exactly, has happened in years? many of you might recall donald rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, writing a memo on october the 16th 2016, in which he knowledge a long, hard slog in iraq. in that memo he posed an interesting question to his. the question was -- are we capturing, killing, or during and dissuading more terrorists every day than that radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?

with hindsight we can answer the question that no, in fact -- i am one of those that would argue that the very notion that you could capture, kill, and deter terrorists. the by military means was an erroneous notion. the very fact that two wars started and had major american involvement caused the situation in which an that of holding it true global alliance against terrorism and the concept what ended up happening was the only of him as a manner -- a manner which the construction has yet to come all over the greater middle east. the weakness has been that america, supposedly the leader in this, went from one extreme to another is one administration

is depending primarily on military means. the other actually wants to completely back away from using american power against global terrorism in any significant way. especially in the greater middle east. terrorist financing has been good, to a large extent, the terrorists are ahead in terms of being able to innovate how to move money. and the most important thing is that the global order now has challenges. one, they are you -- states that continue to harbor terrorists and two, states that are falling to or are hijacked by terrorist in increasing numbers. technology, such as the internet, are being used by

extremists all over the world without a counter strategy in place. above all, while the people involved in terrorism got identified by osama bin laden, who everyone knew was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, while they have been identified, fought and brought to justice, there is no global method to be able to take preventative steps to make sure that those who are emerging as the terrorist leaders of the future can actually be identified and stop for they are organized and i think, for example, took many people by surprise. people had been studying and analyzing the geology taking shape in the crucible of syria

and a rack, people could have identified that a new organization was emerging. the new war that is being fought is against the terrorists that attack is yesterday and has not been moved in terms of stopping the terrorist tomorrow or the day after. state sponsors of terrorism have been far from complete. many states have gotten away with sponsoring terrorist groups and making distinctions between terrorist groups. a is my alley -- a is my ally attacking my neighbors, and i will therefore go after some of these people and arrest them -- arrest them and send them to guantanamo bay. the approach to global terrorism has resulted in an increase in global terrorism.

if you are in american, you feel comfortable that there has not been an attack on the scale of 9/11 on american soil since 9/11 and that is a positive. the downside is that they multiply and other parts of the world and it is only a matter of time before they get their act together to be able to mount the kind of attack here that they did before. after all, remember, as a young journalist i covered the world against the soviets and many of these terrorists used to slit the throats of soviet soldiers. most of us did not think much of it. no one at that time did an analysis of what it meant to be so in human in the treatment of the enemy. many of the methods that were used later on in other parts of the world were developed actually in afghanistan.

this included many of our governments. then, when al qaeda emerged and decided that they would conduct attacks against the united states, initial attacks were smaller. the 93 attack on the world trade center was not a major one. it did not ring the building down. it was executed very clumsily. the man use the rented truck and went back to collect his deposit on the rented truck. which basically brought him on the radar or quickly. they have a methodology of learning from their mistakes which is how 9/11 became possible. al qaeda was formed in 1993. but the preformation took place during the war against the soviets in the 1980's.

it took them about a decade and a half to execute the kind of attack that we saw on 9/11. other jihadi group emerging right now will take a long time. so, the comfort that my american friends sometimes feel as a cause for comfort is i think actually not a sufficient reason for comfort. the global terrorist groups continue to organize and multiply. those scenes of ideological conflict are relative to all of us. what is the way forward? for one thing, i think that the hemming and hiring -- hemming and haunting -- hawing over

what causes terrorism has to end. if i were an american state department official, i would ask my allies -- you receive x amount of money in american aid for fighting terrorism, but if you do not know the definition of terrorism, what are you fighting terrorists for? this definition has to be brought to a close. second, i think the system does have to emerge, nations do not have to be destroyed militaries do not have to be removed completely to do this, but states that have been sponsors of terrorism and continue to partially sponsored terrorism should not be let off the hook from what they do. a lot of the allies of the united states that are partly sponsors of terrorist acts should not be allowed simply because they are allied in some

other function or action. global terrorist ideologies and to be identified and combated. this ideological debate is going to involve primarily muslims and there is no way, no way, that the muslims of the world are going to accept the definition of their religion offered by people who are not members of the state. i would advise against, for example, the white house trying to tell me that islam is a religion of peace and that they do not represent a violent ideology. let us figure it out. lastly i think that weekend failing states hijacked by nonstate actors need support in building state structure. again, that is not going to be easy. there will be conflicts between states that have to be resolved, states like yemen will wind up

being the arena of jockeying for power. here the international community will have to figure out how to clear away that the great powers of the world can get involved without necessarily repeating the mistakes that they think they have made in afghanistan and a rack. there has to be a middle ground with a large number of troops for a long. of time and not doing anything at all. lastly, just as people are waking up to the threat of cyber warfare, they should also wake up to the fact of cyber recruit. you's do use the internet far more effectively. i have always wondered that the country that was able to come up with a recipe for sweet and

fizzy water and make it into an international drink purely through marketing, why is it so unable to market to the muslim world. the question that requires a conference in its own right. thank you very much. [applause] michael: i would like to mention, many countries including academic, it is important, i think, as a contribution to understanding with the institute in the journal, current trends are

important as well. i would like to move on now to our next speaker, formerly the ambassador to the united states and serbia, but he also served with great distinction in kuwait baghdad, and riyadh as well. he received many, many awards for his many contributions. he also served as a fellow at the french university. ambassador? ambassador: thank you -- ambassador kattouf: thank you.

terrorism is not an abstraction. to those of us who spent our years in the u.s. foreign service, and i spent my entire career either working in or working on the middle east. it is an area that is very familiar to me. some of us have unfortunately experienced terrorist attacks firsthand. all of us have lost friends and coworkers to this scourge. though many of us share similar tragedy. this is, well not surprisingly we come to different conclusions about what is to be done. most area specialist and counterterrorism experts believe that the u.s. government's approach must be nuanced and multifaceted. that is that it needs to involve not only the military, the state department, usaid, homeland

security -- homeland security intelligence, law enforcement agencies, i could go on but you get the idea. the principles that they seem to too often focus on our how large the american military response should the to terrorist threats. i think that we see in to exaggerate, what a military response can do. so, this afternoon i want to focus on what the balance should the around military response and the many other tools and policies available to the united states. let me clearly state that my 42 years of involvement with u.s. policies in the region have made

me a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences. even president george w. bush once famously said in a presidential debate with al gore that u.s. foreign policy needed to show greater humility. yet after two in conclusive wars that lasted for one decade or more iran is arguably left as the dominant power in iraq and the taliban and is poised to make a comeback in afghanistan. many of the principal architect and proponents of these wars mocked the obama administration for missed opportunities to intervene more forcefully in syria therefore not having left a residual force in iraq. indeed, even some former current members of the obama administration state much of the same thing. some weeks ago i was watching one of the saudi talk shows and

heard the former secretary of defense, asserting that matters might have turned out differently in syria if only the president had extended more and earlier military aid to opposition fighters there carrying through on the threat to hit the assad forces concerning the use of chemical weapons. let me add that secretary panetta has given great service for decades to our country and i have admired him for long from afar. along with some of my own colleagues who share his opinions. but the question to me is this which syrian opposition forces should we have more forcefully backed mark the opposition in syria was literally hundreds of small groups that lacked a central command. the muslim brotherhood initially dominated the syrian national council. even prior to that, there were

other islamic groups in the fields, such as the ones mentioned earlier by my colleagues. ever to root -- replace a corrupt regime with a bloody islamist regime? how did that serve u.s.? by the way, we had many years to train iraqi armed forces under relatively ideal conditions. how well has that turned out? why have these militias been spearheading offense of factions elsewhere against isis? why did the iraqi armed forces come apart so rapidly when isis attacked most of -- mozul. those who want to argue the counterfactual is need to

explain why it would have been different this time. my take away from focusing on the middle east north africa region for many years is that these countries are not ours to win or to lose. the people in the middle east have developed cultures and value systems not consummate with our own, but we must recognize imris acted differences. the u.s. and the west can encourage those who have pluralism and tolerance closer to our own, but it is not for us to impose that the point of the gun. many societies do not want to achieve this overnight.

we ourselves are always going to be struggling to create a more perfect union. conservatives and their report -- supporters who never believed in social engineering at home thought nothing of going halfway around the world to spread will sony and democracy and values. if we want to put our money where our mouth is, why are we not doing more to support those who are doing the right things. it seems to me that tunisia perhaps the greatest rebuke ever to the islamic fanatics and the bloody dictators of the region and yet you hardly read about the country, except, of course when there is a terrorist attack . so, what is to be done? first, we need to quit exaggerating the threat that terrorism poses to the homeland.

the 24/7 news channels have to fight for ratings, so every lone wolf operation in europe or the u.s. becomes an existential threat to western civilization. our police forces have become so militarized that it was necessary to virtually shut down the city of boston and its suburbs to catch and kill two brothers. copenhagen has experienced a similar phenomenon. yet right after 9/11 the washington suburbs were terrorized by two nonideological assassins who chose their victims at random. there was the horrible tragedy at the elementary school in newtown, connecticut, and at a movie theater in newtown colorado. each year tens of thousands of americans die from influenza and are killed in auto accident.

yet it is death at the hands of terrorists that haunts our thoughts and dreams. the terrorists could hardly hope for more. that is exactly what they want. a disproportionate u.s. military response. another u.s. president running against barry goldwater, lyndon johnson, stated that we should not asking american boys to do what asian boys should be doing for themselves. just like president george w. bush, he overreached rather than following his own good advice. the struggle occurring in the middle east and north africa's existential, but not existential for us or even for our western allies. it is the governments and the peoples of the region are most threatened. groups pledging allegiance to isis, existing in 16 countries. so after two major wars the

cancer has metastasized. the u.s. needs to calibrate the help it offers to the indigenous forces, militarily and otherwise. there were many groups and states that deserved our help but we have to keep in mind that those groups often did not share our exact interests. and in many cases we should not lend ourselves to advancing, for instance, hateful sectarian agendas or get involved in the middle of a sunni shia struggle. we should be, when we find those willing to fight the scourge, be ready to provide military equipment and intel sharing with

logistical support sharing, and in some cases air support, as we saw recently in yemen, search and rescue. but i think we have to ask ourselves how it would have been received if istanbul had sent the janissaries to sort out the war between catholics and protestants. this conflict was so bloody it may have wiped out one quarter to one third of the population of central europe. most of them civilians in the area where it was fought. before the war was completed isn't it treaty that set up the current nationstate system. so, i'm just saying. thank you. [applause]

michael: i would like to introduce a very special guest. this is our 17th annual review of the international terrorism coalition for cooperation. with us is the 68th governor of virginia, close friend to the potomac institute, he has been a little bit of everything, from an officer to a prosecutor and the elector of the attorney general, on many corporate boards. most importantly however on many congressional and presidential awards on the gilmore commission, which in 1999 was pulled together to assess the u.s. ability to deal with terrorism. the commission existed not just throughout 99, 2 thousand, but well past 2001.

with that the commission was the venue for the first line of advice in strategy on how to deal with a brand-new war on terrorism. the governor was the author of this nation's strategy for dealing with terrorism throughout the early 2000's, he coined, i believe, he should be credited with coining the term -- international cooperation on terrorism for the good of the united states. it is with a great privilege that i introduce you to governor jim gilmore. [applause] governor gilmore: i am struck by the story that the ambassador told about the man who went back for the deposit. at least he was a capitalist. i guess i am your politician here today. i was invited to participate with these distinguished

professionals who spoke with you here today. i think that i was invited as michael suggested, because i chaired the national commission and advisory panel on weapons of mass destruction in the united states. the commission was established in 1999. we stir -- we served until 2003. our work can be found under the gilmore commission. i was also, after the three years that the statute was expected to work, the governor of virginia at the time of the 9/11 attack. as everyone knows, two states were directly attacked that day, new york and virginia, because the pentagon is in virginia. i actually ended up being for a while award governor and had to do the things necessary to protect the commonwealth and work on behalf of the people of the state. the german aircraft comes to mind.

the terrible, terrible thing that we just saw. struck over the weekend that the 150 victims on the airplane were actually's hill victims of 9/11. because all of those processes in the airplane had been put into place to prevent terrorist from getting into the cockpit. little did they know that it would be reversed on them because of this type of mental illness or whatever motive we will ultimately discover, those people died because we are engaged today in the global challenges we are facing because of the tactics being used. we saw it in copenhagen, where the effort there was to try to enforce a certain approach towards the muslim faith likewise in paris where a certain effort was being made to enforce certain approach to the muslim faith, to not be critical or challenging in any way area local harrumph, which has now tried to legitimate kidnapping,

rape, slavery. isis, probably the worst example of all where we are seeing the, people thrown off of buildings people trapped in cages and burned alive before our very eyes through the modern accoutrements of western civilization. these are crimes area did crimes against humanity. it has to be said of such. terrorism, ladies and gentlemen is a tactic, a vehicle, a methodology conducted by people. what we have to be constantly asking ourselves is -- what do these people want to achieve by the use of these kinds of tactic ? i would suggest that they are trying to destabilize the modern world, trying to undo the modern world, trying to change the status quo that has been in place at least since the end of world war ii.

we are seeing the legitimization of attacks on civilians, saying that civilians are in fact combatants in the global war that we are seeing, so civilians are not safe. states that set up security systems are not legitimate because they cannot protect the civilians the can be attacked at any point in time. they are attacking the economy. bin laden said that the goal was to bring down western economies requiring nationstates to respond effectively. hundreds of billions if not trillions, spent in response, a pretty good return on investment by the bad guys. we have recently seen the consistent attacks on tourists in various parts of the middle east in order to discourage tourism. so that -- so that the economies

of those countries can lead the way from the tourist opportunities that are there. we worked for five years and concluded that the only type of approach in response to this everywhere in the united states and across the world was in fact a decentralized response building of police, fire, rescue and emergency services, building up services in other countries it will have to be a decentralized response, just as the attack is decentralized across the world in today. there are some things that could be very bad. for example, an attempt to fight these kinds of decentralized tax through the lies of -- the rise of police states.

some panelists here have been critical of the bush doctrine and so am i. but nonetheless i would suggest to you, as has been suggested on this panel, there is a need for a new united states foreign-policy in the face of this challenge. what has been alluded to on the panel already, and i just wrote a whole book on the subject last week and it was published by the cato institute, they said the danger is not that bad and we can probably begin to pull back in such a way and i think of that reflect >> they have a tendency to get out there, use military first, impose nation building, in places where it simply will not work and is not wanted. and i believe that there is a middle ground that should be offered that uses all the advantages of ourselves and our allies with our economic diplomacy, military and above all cultural strengths in order

to achieve a specific goal and a specific mission. well, what is that? i think it's time to ask ourselves what we're trying to do here. one thing i believe we're trying to do is to preserve, as was alluded to on the panel, the peace failure, the creation of nation states that was created the whole structure set up as far back as 1640, that says that you have nation states in order to promote certain cultural values and certain values of individual people within those states. today that is directly under attack, by the russians, who right now are making it very clear that borders no longer matter in western europe, and that if they desire, the ukraine or maybe even the baltics, it's all in play, but also, much more in line with our panel here today, the issue of these radical jihadists, who not only want to undermine specific countries, they want to undermine all countries. they want to see in fact the elimination of countries and borders and the creation of a

caliphate. that is in fact what isis proclaims that it wishes to do. what is the purpose of the nation state if it isn't security of our people? but it can't be just security of our people. nation states and particularly the united states has an obligation to assert its values. and what are these values that are worthy of putting forward across the world that begins to allow us to win the war of ideas? because we are in a conflict not merely of car bombs and military weapons and news rooms but also in the minds of people, as has been alluded to here today. what are those values? democracy. the free enterprise system, which i would recommend the united states, by the way. the rule of law. the freedom of religion and tolerance of religion. the advancement of women. at least these values should

capture the minds of people no matter where they are worldwide. and i think, as the former governor of virginia, one of my predecessors in the office of governor in virginia, a man by the name of thomas jefferson who before he was governor of virginia wrote the declaration of inspection. i remind you of those words. all men are created equal, ep do endowed by their creator of certain inalienable rights. these are not just american values. when he wrote them, they became universal human values and remain the ideas that america and their allies must put forward today in order to win the war of ideas. and that must be the mission for all of us. [applause] >> thank you very much governor.

i think we would like to develop a discussion with the audience. and then the speakers will have another chance to respond. would you please, raise your hand those who are interested, and please come to the mic. sharon, will you please -- please identify ourselves for the record and just a question, not a speech please. >> milton is my name. my question is for dr. abdalaziz. the conference is scheduled to begin at the end of april into may in new york. what positive outcomes does egypt expect from this conference? what are the important issues? in particular, for example, the

failure to hold a conference in hel sink ki -- hell helsinki, one of your favorite cities, for sure. and the weapons of mass destruction free zone. thank you. [inaudible] >> yes. we are having -- [inaudible] of course egypt is going to -- [inaudible]

>> we want to have a conference to free the middle east from all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. unfortunately, this did not materialize. so ultimately, egypt as well as other countries, they are coming with the hope that we will have -- [inaudible] >> in order to have this conference as soon as possible, because we believe that it frees the middle east from all weapons of mass destruction is a priority and a necessity. it has to do also not only with faith but also with non-state -- referring to the state department which ambassador jenkins i refer to. thank you. >> anyone else? >> okay.

please. one second. >> i'm from the center of egyptian-american religions. my question to the ambassador is how would you advise the administration to -- on egypt, after the coup, especially as we know that positions have a grievance in general, and -- but because you support the dictators, they have become anti-american. do we know the -- [inaudible] >> soon will produce terrorists and the egyptian regime, souza and i can go on and on, and i have evidence of that.

thank you. >> you know, in foreign policy in any state, but particularly i think in the united states there is always great tension between our values on one hand and our vital national interests on the other. and as the governor pointed out, it's the first job of government to protect its citizens. the united states tried to back democratic elections in egypt and it seems that everybody blamed us. i don't think you'd mind me saying it, because he says it very forth rightly, but almost exactly a year ago, i met with the -- i was honored to meet with the sheik, the head of the oldest maybe higher education

institute in the world and a leading -- obviously a leading figure within sunni islam. and he was convinced that the united states had backed the muslim brotherhood and that it had been our intent all along to put the muslim brotherhood in power, and nothing i could have said to the contrary was going to change his mind. that's the view of many egyptians who back the current government. and at the same time, those who back the brotherhood and other similar islamic organizations are convinced that the u.s. colluded in bringing them down. so as i was saying in my talks i think the u.s. has to look out for our interests first and foremost. it doesn't mean that we don't still stand for democratic

elections and human rights and pluralism and the like. but it still comes down to the peoples in the region having to decide what they want. and as i said, there there are some differences, including this idea of, is god sovereign? although i'm not convinced that god talks directly to anybody and tells them what it is he wants here on either. or is it the people or is it a small oligarchy? i know that doesn't really what you hope maybe i would say, but it's the best i can do. >> okay. in the back over there. the mic, here in the mic. >> i think the room agrees with me in thanking you for a spectacular panel today.

and one of the things that we addressed is we talked about three things. who are the terrorists? what are the root causes of their angst? and what we can do about it. and i think we did a great job talking about who they are and what we can do about it but we never really spoke to root causes. ambassador's well-stated point about sunni issues should be dealt with my muslims what is your sense on the counternarrative? i really ask the entire panel. how do we define an intair narrative when we -- entire narrative when we haven't discussed what the root causes are? what are your suggestions and should america stay out of the counternarrative concerning shia-sunni issues? >> actually, i didn't just limit myself to shia-sunni issues i

think that muslims, whether they are american or otherwise, do have a role to play in defining islam. but if nonmuslims start taking upon themselves, as the president did, in saying these people who are attacking are not really muslim because... i mean, i don't think he has a degree that qualifies him to say that. so that was my observation. my observation was that the ideological divide between within the muslim community has to be addressed by muslims. if the united states wants to help, those muslims who have a shared value or belief system that's absolutely something that you should do. and it is something that i would urge you to do, because it is useful. as far as the roots of angst are concerned, first of all there's no single root of angst. there's many groups and each one has a different agenda. some started off as local groups morphed into something else.

some of them basically want to roll back, through what they see as subconventional military capability. i remember distinctly once seeing a demonstration in pakistan and some smart alec had a poster which said a suicide bomber is a poor man's f16. basically the argument he was making was we don't have the f16's. we don't have modern technology the way you do, so therefore, to bring you down, we're going to use this unconventional capability. so therefore the root, the multiple roots, but then there is the ideally motivated groups which are basically trying to level the field in their interest. therefore, it's in our interest not to let them level the field in that particular manner.

lastly, the counternarrative exists. the problem is that the 24/7 media here and elsewhere essentially treats all stories in a certain matter. the counternarrative is not a story. the terrorist narrative is. so it actually gets amplified much more than the counternarrative does. within islamic thinking, there are many sensible people scholars, who have a very different view on things. for example, the shia-sunni divide goes back to the succession of the prophet muhammad. people like me would say, well the succession of the prophet muhammad is over, centuries ago. anybody can have an opinion on it, but as far as my faith and practice is concerned and my ability to do good deeds and endure bad ones is concerned what happened in history is not going to determine that.

and so therefore my faith should be focused on a faith defining my action rather than fighting with somebody over what historic fact took place centuries ago. it's a bit like if the americans had a religious sect that still wanted to resolve the election which took place in 1871. remember any american history buffs here? the disputed election after president grant, 1866 or something, 1864. '68 he said. >> 1876. >> okay. whenever. so it was a disputed election. basically that -- huh? >> hayes. >> yes. president hayes won, of course. and i'm sure that there is somebody who argues it still. same goes for the shia-sunni

divide. was the succession correct? many of these issues are not relevant to modern life. the counternarrative is modern life. if the mums of the world -- muslims of the world felt they had an equal stake and that their future was what they were building rather than arguing over the past and killing over the past, we would have a much better muslim world. >> i had something. when i mentioned the socioeconomic aspect of terrorism -- the economic growth, the widening gap between rich and poor, the high rate of unemployment, these are root causes of terrorism, not only economic causes but some political root causes if you look at the arab-israeli conflict. when we leave a conflict without a solution, that's motivation in itself for people to tend to be

extremist or something like that. other root causes are related to ideology as haqqani mentioned. we have to admit that we have these problems when it comes to the islam thought and the misinterpretations of islam. so there are a lot of root causes that need to be visited. and discussed actually. thank you. >> it's just such a great question. you just spurred all kinds of interest, i think, from the panel up here. we have the phenomenon that there are people today who purport to wish to go backwards into a more barbaric time but at the same time are using the akreutments of modern age things to do it. modern jet airplanes jeeps machine guns all these elements

of modern life, modern transportation communication. i believe we can't ignore -- i would never presume, ambassador to ever lecture to anyone of the muslim faith. i'm not a muslim. i'm a christian. so i would not presume to do that. but the reality is that we're not going to be able, as westerners and as americans, to ignore this. the united states stands as the protecter of the modern world today. it is not only viewed as such and perceived as much, it is the reality of where we are today and well-understood by people who wish to undo it. therefore, they have to attack the united states. and we have to be prepared for that. now, we can't get lured into every conflict because of the return on investment argument that i made a few minutes ago that we can't be bled down, and that is a good approach to attack modern power. we have to be careful about that. that's why i advocate a new foreign policy, one that doesn't simply pigeonhole us into a

neo-isolationism. and i believe that a nuance foreign policy has been discussed and can be created in a way that assures not just american interests, security, but also the values of all humanity across the world. >> anyone on the panel who would like to make a statement? if not we will turn it over to the general for closing remarks. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to quickly introduce all gray, the chairman and the soul of the potomac institute. general gray? [applause] >> that's a pretty good speech, mike, if you want to keep going. i want to thank our colleagues and the panel for a super presentation. you covered a whole area of

matters and the like, and i think you did it in a very distinguished way. many of you have heard me say these things before at these seminars but i think we have to remember that it really is an international challenge. it's an international challenge in any form or measurement because we're talking about the people of the world. we're talking about our friends around the world. we're talking about really trying to stabilize the world trying to make it better trying to give people a better opportunity to live. and it has nothing to do with combat and war and dropping bombs and all that kind of thing. t it's a much higher cause. i agree with my colleagues. terrorism is a tactic.

and i've said that many times, and others have too. and you really -- i have never agreed with the global war on terrorism. it's the global war against ideas. it's the global war against ideologies. it's the war against the idea of people trying to do things barbaric horrific, et cetera et cetera, through terrorist-type tactics and the like. i mean, what are they trying to do? i mean, they're trying to scare you. they're trying to worry you. they're trying to put fear in the hearts and minds of all. they're trying to separate what we believe in from what they want to accomplish. they are trying to attract attention. there's all kinds of things that they try to do with these terrorist type activities and tactics. and it's not new. you can find examples of

terrorist-type tactics in the torah, in the bible, in the cory koran. and you can find it in our history. you have to look only as far south as the carolinas and talk about what they were doing in the revolutionary war. these are the type of things that people do when there's nothing else they can do and they believe in what -- their cause and the like, so they adopt these kinds of tactics. did you think mouse ydung made it part of his philosophy. if you're with me in the middle of october 1965, south of denang, you would have seen a small 12-year-old vietnamese

girl crying and running into our lines. she was crying and coming into our lines because her arms had been severed off at the elbows by the vietcong. not a nice story but these are the type of terrorist activities that people will do. they don't deserve to live. they don't deserve to be supported. they don't deserve anything. and we have to understand that. but it's an international type of a thing. it's not just united states. and i am concerned a little bit about this vital interests and national interests. i'm not so sure that the national and the vital interests of all nation states and all those who desire to be free and desire to get ahead, i'm not sure they aren't the same. and so i think truly we could do something about this. there's no question that the

military capability is really the least of our concerns right now. you're quite right when you talk about the political, the economic, the technology all the elements of national power. they've got to be woven together, not just by america but by the international community that we know of today, the united nations and all the others. so we've got a big, big challenge in front of us. we need a new kind of a strategy that's adaptive, that's smart and that's resilient and understands the end state of what we really want to be, free. we want to prosper. in my own country, i remember in 1974, at the army war college when i asked max lerner -- i used to escort everybody around because i was a dumb marine and not smart enough to sit in some

of the classes. at any rate, he talked about the national purpose. and i said, what do you think america's national purpose is? he said to survive as a great nation and per chance flourish. that's the kind of thing that i think our world is all about. we want to survive. we want to flourish. we want our children to have it better than we had it, et cetera, et cetera et cetera. and above all, in the case of my country, our country, we need to learn more about the world. we need to understand the cultures and the languages and what they think about. we need to understand and look at their world through their eyes, not ours. so i think collectively, we can do this. i wish my colleagues would get hot on this strategy right now governor and the rest of you. but i think -- i do think it is a clash of ideas and i think the good ideas will win out, as long

as everybody understands what this is really all about. so thank you all again for joining us. and it's been a great seminar. [applause] >> see you next year! >> coming up, we'll take you live to the council on foreign relations to bring you a conversation with the state

department's undersecretary, sarah sewell. she'll be talking about the work of the atrocities prevention board. again, that's live at 6:30 eastern here on c-span. and then tonight at 9:00 eastern, today's dedication ceremony for the edward m. kennedy institute, next to the john f. kennedy presidential library. it was envisioned by senator kennedy before he was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008. senator kennedy passed away the following year. post-op, vice president biden and republican senator, john mccain, among others, spoke. again, that's at 9:00 eastern tonight. tonight, on the communicators more from the international consumer electronic show as we look at new technology products. >> if there's something you want to capture, you just take it off your wrist and it will be very simple to take it off your wrist and it will expand.

and it will be as easy as gesturing. you'll literally just toss it. and there's no remote requirement. you don't need to be wearing something. it's smart enough to know the direction you toss it and the pressure of your toss, so if it's a gentle toss, it will stay pretty close. if you throw it, it will go farther away. and it will compose a photo take a photo, and come back, completely autonomously. >> the communicators tonight. a discussion now on how iran and other middle east issues have influenced american politics. panelists include david rothkopf, who is the c.e.o. and editor of the fp group that publishes foreign policy magazine also dov zakheim. this 90-minute forum was hosted by the center for the national interest in washington d.c. >> hello?

>> yes. >> hi. i am jacob heilbrunn, the editor of the national interest magazine. and i'm moderating today on behalf of the center for the national interest, which has invited two distinguished guests to speak today about iran in american politics. on my right is david rothkopf who is the c.e.o. and editor of the f.p. group which includes "national interest" magazine. he's also been magazine director of kissinger associates and held several high-level positions in the clinton administration. also the author of several books on international relations. and to my left is dov zakheim, a longtime friend and also the vice president of the center for the national interest -- >> vice chairman. >> vice chairman. dov has also been the comptroller at the pentagon

during the george w. bush administration. and he is the author of a quite provocative memoir published by the brookings institution called "vulcan's tale" dealing with how he believes the administration mismanaged foreign policy in afghanistan. and today, we're going to be discussing iran, as i mentioned. it could hardly be more timely. the middle east is always in ferment. but today the defense department official was quoted in the wall street journal asking, who is going to be the person that shoots the archduke of the middle east igniting a new world war i? and with the events with the negotiations in geneva, over iran's nuclear program and the events in yemen, i think it

could hardly be a better time to discuss the role that the middle east and iran are playing in american politics. i'll go to david first to kick off the discussion. >> well, thank you very much. good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be here. i think it's been observed, the observation i've heard most frequently since i've arrived here is that the center for the national interest has the best bunch buffet of any place in town. and i have to agree with that. i do also want to make a brief side comment before i dive in. several weeks ago, i made a pledge not to appear on any panels that did not include women. unfortunately, i -- fortunately i see that there's one woman at this table. >> there's behind behind. >> well, good. but i think we can do a lot to enrich these -- >> there's three. >> it's true. they