values is bounding us -- binding us at the hip. having a good allies who share the same values and who can handle and resolve problems effectively is a good thing to have even for america. particularly for regions that are a concern to you. there is a great deal we have to talk about and cooperate about and to be worried about together. i think there is a great deal we can ask you for advice about that we can use your help on. one thing is certain. if and only if europe resolves its own security dynamic one we be able to join the united states in providing stability and security on a global level. we need to do the heavy lifting

ourselves that we could use her help and we need to coordinate with you because so many of our interests overlap. one final point that i think is valid for all of us, you hear and us in europe, what the terrorists want more than anything else from us is for us to overreact severely, to in other words, to deny our own values, to deny the values and inform the constitutional order. so that they can use that as excuse for the next attack. if we betrayed those values while fighting them, we have already lost again. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we will take questions from the audience, before the we do that, we have a tradition here of giving a student the first question. she has opened up an opportunity for you to give another talk.

here in the united states, there has been much talk in conversation about the value of nato and its financial cost to the american people. is it nato still important to europe, and if so, why is it not played a more decisive role in solving the problems associated with terrorism? dr. stelzenmuller: thank you. that is actually a really good question and we know with up to go" came from. particularwhere that quote came from. there is a whole school of real thinkingme -- realist in america, and it is legitimate for you to ask and legitimate for you to expect us to have an answer for it. unfortunately, the first sentence to my answer is, it is complicated. [laughter] dr. stelzenmuller: nato was invented as the military armor

of the transatlantic line to deal with one threat in one thread only, the threat emanating from russia during the cold war to contain it, and to deter it. washe time, when security what i used as a student, overkill studies, that was pretty much a branch. you accounting divisions, warheads, attacks and trying to calculate how much you were going to have to need to deter the other one from acting. the resurgence of aggression from russia, particularly the annexation of crimea in the war in ukraine, let there be no mistake that the unrest and instability in europe through what the intelligent experts call, hybrid warfare, trolling on social media, the

forming a fascist parties, undermining of politicians and media, that has acquired this new urgency but a slightly new, the emphasis has shifted slightly. we still need old-fashioned territorial defense. we need to be able to deter the russians from ever thinking that they could possibly ever cross the line into nato territory. that is the biggest grid line that there is an they can be absolutely no question that it is nonnegotiable. that is why, in head to the summit in warsaw in early july this year, there were, people were planning feverishly to make sure that preparations were adequately serious and that was conveyed to russia. nato still has a purpose there. it is really important. if nato was not there, i do not want to thank what things would

like -- think what things would look like in the geography of europe would look like. that said, i also think within the context, europeans need to carry more weight. the germans are saying they are increasing the defense budget to a staggering amount. we are participating fairly experiment -- expensively. i do not want to bore you with details. the question with using nato against terroris is a little more difficult, because as i have tried to explain, it is a domestic problem in europe. addressed with the border threats, and terrorists are essentially a threat to do with for intelligence and police, not much you can do with tax. the other problem is there have been internal discussions

between member states about whether it would make sense to use nato as a framework for the attacks on isis. to prevent the islamic state from gaining a territorial foothold in the middle east. coalition that is currently running the operation is an expression of an unspoken decision to not go down that route because nato membership is so large with its 27 or 28 member states. i am sorry. this is embarrassing. i think it is 28. it is far easy to marshal support politically for something as obvious as a territorial threat on nato's byders then for strikes fighter planes and special forces and supported by

intelligence deep in the middle east. that is politically so sensitive. it is also so sensitive or other middle eastern government's, that i suspect he would not find inther -- find a great deal tel aviv for a new operation. i am sorry. that was a somewhat wonky explanation. the bottom line is, there is a really good reason for nato to still exist, but do not expect it will resolve all security problems that you and we share. >> let's take questions from the audience. what is going to happen to all of these refugees that are scattered in so many areas over europe? , i stelzenmuller: well sometimes wonder whether i know

what the current policy is on that because it is so difficult to understand just what is happening at what level. i think that is true even in europe. it is also true that a number of level approaches have failed, such as an attempt to take iny country refugees. particulate eastern european countries have said, no, we are not going to do this, and after brussels in the polish government who had promised to take and 600 said, no, we are not even doing that. at any given moment, this is a bit of a kaleidoscope. i think it is going to be a mixture of a number of approaches, of trying to integrate people whom we think we can integrate, and there are good reasons for doing that including demographics.

we are trying to close down the illegal trade route, the trafficking route across the mediterranean which has led to so many losses of human life, tragically. , wew agreement with turkey will ask turkey to take back refugees they came in illegally, but every refugee who has escaped illegally we will take one. obstacles tomany that network on so many levels, that most say it'll never work. i am hoping it will, actually. i think of the many plans i have seen, this is actually an intelligent way of trying to get at this. is that we are only able to integrate a small minority of the people that

arrive that a number of going to be sent back, either immediately or after conditions in their countries of fortune becoming -- origin becoming less violent. ruel to you,ds coo that is what happened with bosnians. one of the orchestrator's of the bosnian genocide was sentenced to 40 years in prison today and i can say, deservedly because i covered those hearings and he truly is one of the worst war criminals europe has ever seen. those refugees came to europe in .he 100s germany took in 300,000, which by our standards was more than we had ever taken an. in.

the largest went back after the dayton agreements in 1995, which enable people to go back. some of them were pushed to go back. thereality is also that dayton peace accords have led to something good. states is now one of the aat developed and is now member of the european union. serbia, which also was a major war party is well on its way to membership. sometimes, as unlikely as it may seem at the time that one speaks of these things, it is possible for conflict and peace to return. i admit in syria, that is more hard to imagine than any other place, which is why i suspect

that we may have to work a little harder at integrating syrian refugees than any others, because the neighboring states of turkey, jordan and lebanon are buckling under the strain and we need to take some off of their borders. resulting in pulling up the drawbridges. that is impossible in europe. our borders are too complicated. >> we have time for three more questions. i have spent a lot of time in europe and you said something a while ago which i think is strategically important and that was the matter of shared values, the shared values should be looked at very carefully and europe and the united states, but going specifically to the problems we

are facing today, i am reminded of a very famous rating that took place shortly -- reading that took place by the .hancellor at reims at the end of the conference, the two of them walked the altarral, and, no at the and ask god for forgiveness for all of the conflict between france and germany. that was significant in that it was the beginning of a conference which called for germans graduating from top schools in germany to spend the last year in france and for frenchman spending their college years in france, spend their last year in germany so they know each other. i was in germany and france and that people who had never gone outside of their own villages. , anyhow,the germans

the questions i have is this, should not france and germany be the leaders in getting this effort together in europe and it moving forward? dr. stelzenmuller: i can only a test that what you described -- ttest that what you described is alive and well today. i am a beneficiary of that. i grew up speaking german and english. my parents thought by the time i elementary school, i would be bored with english so they put me in bilingual german-french schools. i have been going back and forth and the relationship between germany and france on that level is incredibly close. the same thing is true of poland. by way of anecdote, my father was once a junior speechwriter for a chancellor and he was a warsawcause he went to

and begged for forgiveness. the stuff we did to the poles in the ukrainians is on some level, unforgivable, and that is not to say we did not try to do bad things to the french. warsaw,ave ever been to that is also a hugely important relationship for us. the reality is, for many people in europe, including people of george, high school, university, the, cross-border friendships, going to university in different places, working in different places is a reality they take for granted. they do not know how much suffering went into that. thereality is also that

franco german voter which ran europe for such a long time, particularly after the war is no longer enough to run europe. it is just not accepted anymore. there are reasons it does not to theat are internal relationship on a political level, but frankly, the spanish, swedes, the balks would not expect that. that theem right now is t germans have in the german government has is the french, and for the first time in our postwar history we are entering a situation where we have become the defective motor of europe -- de facto motor of europe. people want us to do this and they fear us.

this is a very difficult thing. i could give you a long list of points where i think we have failed and a shorter list of places where we have succeeded, but i do not think this is a tangible solution. in the unlikely event that should try to restore after becoming election, restore the european community, what will be the advantage for the rest of its members? dr. stelzenmuller: the question was, in the unlikely event, you do not think it is likely the british will secede from europe, but what would be the damage for the european project? worry that, i think

my worst nightmare is i wonder if europe would have a civil war like america did in the 19th century. i hope we do not. i do not think, what want on c-span is that i suggested this. now, we want the brits in the eu. their sense of global mission and, in understanding of global trade, their understanding of global culture, their forward leaning security policy, all of that has been a key part in making europe a foreign security policy actor. their attitudes toward free trade, all of that are valuable elements in europe. the lawyer i fear a lot of advocates do not really understand how deeply written britain shaped and --

has been shaped by your. europe. that would be substantial. i think that most brits or brits who are not specialists, think that this is on signing a treaty --unsigning a treaty. that is not how it works. it is more like the state of the union leave in the union out on its own. i suspect many of you think that would not be a very good idea, but of course, it is texas. [laughter] comments, you referred that the united states has made some compromises, and i think you mentioned turkey, russia and saudi arabia. dr. stelzenmuller: not just the u.s..

>> i was just wondering, you did not mention iran and i was wondering, would you include iran? dr. stelzenmuller: i am obviously aware that a meeting hosted by the agency, iran will be sensitive to the topic. i am going to look at my watch. [laughter] dr. stelzenmuller: i am on the is, that this iran deal while it has a lot of issues, it is the least worst deal we could have gotten, and i think that is indeed quite corners, aome military strike, what have been disastrous. that was a serious matter of debate and foreign-policy circles and i am going to a conference in israel, and it has

been discussed their. re. of you watch the israeli debates, many of them were not happy about it. a matter of debate even in the israeli community. it will not have escaped anyone's notice that a number of governments are falling over each other in order to go make deals with the iranians. that is not terribly pretty. i still think that iran has a society and an economy that, despite their incandescent longsemitism, has a historical tradition of tolerating in welcoming jews, have beenn jews

another matter. i have a greater hope for the iranian society that i do the saudi society based on a very superficial, not expert sense on what is going on. be a slim argument for those of you who find the whole idea of the agreement offensive and those of you planning to vote for ted cruz. this is like with russia. i think we need to stand up to russia and we need to send of conundrum,ut the unlike you, we are not on another continent. we have to find a way of protecting israel and living with iran. we have to find a way of protecting ukraine and living with russia. we know where the sympathies lie. up and leave,

sadly. that is the conundrum of making policy in europe, sometimes leads to uncomfortable compromises, but rest assured of concerngreat deal of these issues with america, and i feel we are pretty much in line on many of the technicalities. >> thank you very much. [applause] you forld like to thank taking on a challenging topic .nd doing it with such depth i know we will be following your writings and your remarks for a long time. on behalf of all the members of the world affairs council and the american jewish committee, i would like to present you with world council medallion.

the onlyzenmuller: thing i know about the jewish community in texas is from kinky friedman. [applause] i found theseler: completely mind blowing, and i suspect it is not fully representative or up today, so i'm willing to be informed. thank you. thank you. [applause] me remind everyone, if you have not registered for our program next tuesday please do so. thank you so much and have a great afternoon. >> the need for horses on the farm began to decline radically in the 1930's. it was not until the 1930's that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on a tractor. starting in the 1930's and

1940's, you had an almost complete replacement of horses as they work animals on farms. i do believe, and one of my books, i read that in the decade after world war ii we had something like a horse holocaust , that the horses were no longer needed and we did not get read of them in pretty ways. >> tonight on q&a, robert bookn discusses his which looks at the growth of the american standard of living 1898en 19 -- 1870 and questions its future. >> one of the impacts of ndy, thatm sa wiped out the 20th century for many people. in newvators still work york, the electricity stop, you cannot charge her cell phone.

you cannot pump gas into your car because it required electricity to pump the gas. so, the power of electricity in the internal combustion engine to make modern life possible is something that people take for granted. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." ♪ >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, patrick tucker, technology editor will talk about the use of cyber technology by terrorist and counterterrorist experts and how facial recognition could reduce terrorist attacks. he will discuss the cost of republican candidates, donald ted cruz'sexas deportation plan.

what he calls multibillion-dollar zombie government programs. be sure to watch washington journal beginning live 7:00 eastern monday. join the conversation. now a look at events in syria and the threat of terrorism in the middle east with former homeland security adviser, samar history spoke about the of the syrian conflict and for proposals for countering violent extremism. this is that the center for public policy at the university of tennessee and is one hour. >> i am met murray and i would like to welcome you to the center for public policy. i am very pleased to be the person to introduce our speaker for the evening, samar ali who is an attorney with the national based law firm or she

specializes in cross-border transactions, international law and private diplomacy. underrved as assistant governor bill haslam. in 2010, she was selected for a white house fellowship or she served as an advisor on the senior staff of homeland security is eyes are, -- advisor, focusing on latin america and the middle east. following are fellowship, she worked as an advisor to the department of homeland security in washington dc. in was an associate washington dc until 2010. she is an adjunct professor at vanderbilt university and we invited her to give her best gift her talk.

she received her bachelor's degree from vanderbilt and notably she was the school's first arab-american elected as student body president. she graduated from vanderbilt law school and serves on a variety of boards in the national area -- nashville area. please help me welcome, samar ali. [applause] adviser ali: thank you so much for that introduction. thank you for inviting me here even though i am a black and gold fan. on a saying that, i grew up in waverley, tennessee. how many of you have been to waverley? ok, not too many, but it is between nashville and memphis. you know you cannot survive if

you are not a boston. black and gold fan. i am very happy to be here. i admire samar: today, we are somehow miraculously going to cover two topics, two of the most important topics of our time. and that is the syrian conflict and also countering violent extremism and how it has evolved over the past 20 years. these two topics are related to each other, and somehow we are going to cover them in 40 minutes. we will start with the syrian conflict. and i will take you through how it has evolved and how it is related to countering violent extremism. by stating that, i would just like to start and say that this is a conflict that is personal for me. my mother's family dates back to

damascus hundreds of years. i have lost friends and family members in this conflict. it is a conflict that is very real, and one that i pray will end with peace and that will create a better future for the syrian people and also create a better platform for global security. starting off with that, we are now five years into this conflict. and if i could just go to slide nine and show you the ramifications of what this conflict has created, you will see that there have been 200,000 -- an estimated 300,000 deaths caused by the syrian war so far. and there have been 13.5 estimated syrian refugees, syrians who have been displaced. that is close to 50% of an entire country.

now to take a us moment of silence actually and think about those 300,000 syrian refugees from the lost their lives in the past few years. thank you. so, how did we get here? how did this happen? i apologize that i am taking you back to the beginning. but it really is the beginning of where we need to start. how did we get to this point? well, to start, let's talk about the players in syria. there are really four main players in syria. there are the russians, the iranians, hezbollah -- which we will call the government in syria -- and their goal is to break the back of the syrian revolution. and also they have been making , faster progress today than at any point since 2011.

we will cover that later in the presentation. the second main group, which we will break down into three categories, are the complex makeup of the armed groups. this next slide will show you that make-up. as i said, you will see that one of the parties, the government of syria, has russia and iran supporting it, along with hezbollah, the russian air campaign, the iranian revolutionary air command, and the iraqi militia. next you have the different rebel groups. as you will see here, they are supported by us in the united states. also the u.k. and france, turkey, the government of saudi arabia, qatar, and jordan. that is making up one group of the opposition. the next side of the opposition, of which you will have heard most likely many times before, is that called [foreign language] it is sponsored by al qaeda.

and lastly, on the side of the opposition movement, that is isis. you will see that i in the corner there. which is the islamic state. some call it the islamic state of iraq in syria. the funding mechanisms which is the al qaeda sponsored organization in syria, and that and that of isis, you will see, private funding. there are accusations that there are government entities that are supporting -- let me come over here so i can point -- that are supporting them specifically and particularly, but we -- i do not have concrete evidence of that. these are just speculations that have been made. we do have concrete evidence here, as you will have heard. and we will go through the timeline, that the u.s. has been sponsoring a majority along these lines here. not so much on this line which

is closer to that organization, along this line. and many people will then ask about the kurds and where do the kurds fit in. really, you see the kurds coming on this line right here, mainly they are fighting against isis. primarily. too, isiseing here, fighting the al qaeda group and a lot of the rebel groups. they compete for recruits as well. so, how, again, how did we get here? i was teaching a class, speaking to some of the students earlier today, and one of the questions that someone in the audience raised already was, what is the timeline? how does this start? what happened five years ago? how did we move from peaceful protests to one of the worst civil wars of our time?

the refugee crisis is the worst since world war ii. the past five years have created the worst crisis of migrants since world war ii. i just want to repeat that so we can all understand what that means and how we got here. if you will remember, almost five years ago today, five years and some change, the tunisian arab spring happened. and it spread to egypt and it spread to libya and it spread to yemen and it spread to bahrain. and then it spread to syria. and this at the time was something that surprised many people, because everyone knew that if there was a revolution to happen, if a revolution were to occur in syria, it would be different than the other revolutions. the response by the regime and the capability of the regime and the report would be different.

and given the location of syria right next to iraq, and right next to lebanon, it would be different. and that is exactly what we have seen. so let me take you back to march 6, 2011. the graffiti incident. it is in the southern part of syria, which borders jordan on the southern side. it is called it is referred to , as the cradle of the revolution. there are a bunch of graffiti artists or revolutionaries who spray-painted that the people want to topple the regime. what happened in response to that is that those protesters were killed. on march 15, just a little bit of a week later, there was a facebook page titled syrian revolution calling for a day of rage protest. remember, the day of race protests were happening across -- rage protests were happening across the middle east. next thing we know, syrian forces attacked protesters are killing people. the civil uprising was an early stage of protest, but the

protest was met with violence. that violence in the protest combined only escalated. in april, what we saw was assad trying to calm the masses and trying to calm people in syria, saying let's have a national dialogue process. i have heard you, let's recognize the kurds and give them citizenship in syria. let me build trust with you. it was too late. the protesters did not accept , did not accept assad's attempts, and also they watched that assad, just a few days after making an announcement in his speech he was interested in a national dialogue process, killed syrians that were protesting -- over 100 syrians -- on the great friday protest. this was april 22. 24, two months into the

revolution, 1000 syrians had died. you can imagine, 1000 syrians across all of syria, not just in one area, 1000 syrians have died in eight weeks time. in august the 18, fast-forward a few months, received leaders in the u.s., france, britain, and germany calling for assad to resign. dissidents announced the formation of a council to unite groups. you are already seeing right here this evening why this is od, why this- peri is important. that i have highlighted it. you are already seeing that the opposition groups, notice the plural, the fragmentation is a key point that you will have seen over the past five years and heard over the past five years repeatedly. whose side are we taking? if we are supporting the opposition, who is the opposition? the opposition has evolved over time, and in different areas it has evolved. on september 14, ambassadors

from the u.s., japan, and the u.k. take part in individual to support the protest movement. again, the west is taking a side. it is very clear who is coming down on what line. and then we see october 4, china and russia, watch the lines here. china and russia use veto power to block sanctions on syria. this creates a global risk that will continue for months. not only will it continue for months, it will continue for years, five years to be exact. syria is suspended from the arab november 12, league. the suspension is a harsh diplomatic punishment, isolating assad's regime from arab neighbors. syria called it a betrayal of arab solidarity. next we see january 6, the free syrian army games strength with one of assad's generals defecting. this is a turning point in the civil war. you think about your memory in january 2012, and what people

were talking about. they were saying is only a matter of time before assad goes. the opposition is winning. then russia and china veto a , resolution backing and arab arab league peace plan. on february 6, the u.s. embassy suspends operations and closes consular services. this is a major sign. the u.s. pulls diplomats out of syria. the u.k. also recalls ambassadors to the country. again, signs of escalation of conflict. it is moving from internal conflict to really a regional conflict that one could argue is a global conflict. what happens next? well, sorry about that. what happens next is that on february 16, the un's general assembly passes a nonbinding resolution for the resignation of bashar al-assad. this is the first formal

resignation request from the united nations for the removal of assad. the reason i am bringing up this point is what is the key point we are hearing today in february 2016? that sticking point is the removal. this is what people are fighting over. february 23, general kofi annan is appointed the special envoy to syria. he will become the first of three special envoys deployed to syria. that is also a sign of how complicated the conflict has been. on june 16, the un suspends the monetary mission in syria. this is june 16, 2012. a year and some change into the war. the un says the situation has become dangerous to continue after observers are directly targeted in an attack. in june, we have the syrian communique which calls for a transitional body with executive power. that was supposed to set the framework for peace talks to

follow. unfortunately, it never did. on an explosion at the security july 18, building in damascus kills top regime officials. this is important because now we are into the war by a year and a half and it looks like the opposition is winning. in august, kofi annan quits his role as the special envoy. besides a lack of unity over how to solve the crisis he cites a , lack of unity among world powers over how to solve the syrian crisis. minister syrian prime defects to join the revolution. another sign of the weakening of the assad regime. august 17, there is the second special envoy from the u.n. to syria. september 16, iran confirms that the revolutionary guards are

helping assad. another critical moment. this is september 16, 2012. iran steps in in a very major way. on january 11, u.s.-russian talks on syria and without a breakthrough. another failed moment to make a breakthrough. march 7, syrian refugees hit the 1 million mark. march 7, 2012. one million refugees already displaced. weapons, iran sets up to assad. march 15, 2013, the eu rejects the franco-british to arm syrian rebels. another major point. and the rebels take over oilfields. this is important because many people ask how are rebel groups getting financed? part of the financing mechanism for these rebel groups, including if she missed groups

-- extremist groups, is through the oil fields in northern syria. may 25, a major moment. hezbollah leaders vow victory for assad. hezbollah steps in also very publicly, taking sides with a --e and that syrian regime taking sides with assad and the syrian regime. this is the summer of chemical gas. this is when there were several chemical gas attacks against the syrian people by the regime. this is when there was the discussion over whether the red line was crossed. june 25, syrian death toll tops 100,000 syrians, by june 20 5, 2013. that was almost two years ago. so july 13, the u.s. alleges chemical weapons -- you will see that there is a lot of different discussions as to whether

chemical weapons happened. if there was confirmed that there were. the western powers came to an agreement that there were. there was a lot of discussion happening. july 16, a militia kills a reconciliation team. again, intensifying attacks against you and officials and people working in private diplomatic circles. july 20, the syrian kurds plan a self-government. they have been playing the role in the conflict as well. the resolution has evolved the kurds. -- involved the kurds. on july 30, iran grants syria a $3.6 billion credit line. that is another show that the iranians are helping support the syrian regime. this is the turning point, really. this became the turning in the point syrian war where we began to see the balance shift towards the regime winning over the opposition. and what happened there, too, as the opposition was weekend --

ed, or the middle opposition you saw an , opportunity for the extremist opposition to come in and begin fighting against the middle opposition. they were actually attacking more of the middle -- i would say, we call them rebels. the rebels are more moderate, i don't like that term, but the moderate opposition was the target primarily in august 2013 of the extremists. isis also started fighting as you will see in 2014. and that al qaeda sponsored group breaks its ties with isis officially. on august 14, the extremists the raqqa.rian rebels out of they claim that die in a hundreds chemical attack. the chemical discussion is happening right around this

period. we're not sure if the u.s. is going to come in. august 27, the u.s. is ready to launch a syria strike. august 29, the u.k. parliament rejects intervention. on august 30, first obama slows the timeline for syrian intervention, delays it taking , it over to congress, saying approval from congress is going to be needed. we never go in. from january 14 to july 14, geneva two is attempted. it fails. the majority of fighting is happening between isis and the other groups. al qaeda breaks off links with isis entirely. in june, the city of mosul falls to isis. this is also a major moment because it shows the strength that isis is beginning to gather, and also their entrance from syria to iraq. 2014,ust 2014 to december

obama authorizes a strike in syria. we turn the focus of the war more to a retaliation against isis that a focus against the syrian regime. this is the first time we begin focusing on the extremist elements of the opposition group then on, if you remember what was being talked about in 2011, 2013, the removal of assad. following american airstrikes, the kurdish peshmerga the expected vital crossing and isis suffers due to american air superiority. that is an important point, too. it opens up an opportunity for a lot of different players to step in, and you will see who steps in in just a minute. armedofficials, the opposition will be able to militarily defeat to the government in syria. you are beginning to see alternative people looking at alternative reality than they had been looking at in the first

two or three years of the conflict. there is the third u.s. special envoy to syria. next, we have the u.s. train and equip program that i mentioned earlier. it launches and is suspended in the same year. the egyptian president expresses support for assad. and finally russian military , intervention drastically changes the military playing field. russians kill cia-trained rebels in their first week of bombing. this is where the conflict completely changes. this is the summer of 2015. and that is where we are today. just a couple of days ago, the u.s. and russia agreed to a joint party cease-fire to begin on february 27. of which we have seen. that excludes isis and al qaeda linked groups. 28, justebruary 2 yesterday, accusations are being made that the cease-fire was broken by airstrikes. some people say it was broken,

others say it was not. the majority of western powers are saying that it was not broken. where does this leave us? what does the cease-fire mean for us? let me take a moment so that everybody can digest the timeline that we went through. you can see the different -- remember the different evolutions from 2011 to 2015. and here we are today. the landscape has changed dramatically. as i mentioned before, we have 300,000 syrians dead. we have 13.5 million syrians displaced. what is going to be next? and how should we care about what is going to be next? and on that note, yes, the title of the lecture is countering violent extremism in syria and beyond. but also and part of talking about countering violent extremism, we have to have a discussion about what is the right and best future for the syrian people. because if we only approach this conflict -- this war in the future in what is in our own

perceived short-term best interests, if we do not think this from a government perspective or a reconciliation perspective of the syrian people themselves we are not , serving long-term security interests in countering violent extremism and also helping the syrian people. and i say this because many times, when people are talking about their security interests, they think about it just from their own prism. and they do not see the interconnectedness of this discussion. and it just becomes about how do , we get isis? how do we get the al qaeda groups? it is not how do we create an , ecosystem that is going to be sustainable, that actually creates a better future for people who had been traumatized and who have lost and who have seen the unthinkable, the unimaginable, have seen horror? how do we help them move forward to a reality of where they feel that we are a partnership, we

are in a partnership together that is a partnership about peace and stability? not just for ourselves but everyone. how do we get here. how do we get there? here are the options and scenarios ahead. we have three options in the settlement process that we are currently looking at. option one is what i call finish. finish is the government of syria breaks the back of the rebellion and pursues a fight to the finish. that is why it is called finish. and no real negotiation about negotiation of the confidence building proposals are discussed. there are no proposals. it is by brute force. the syrian regime continues to govern. and third, no humanitarian aid or pauses or any other political process really takes place. suffering, displacement, destruction, death, and refugees will be multiplied many times as tens of of hundreds of thousands flee wherever they will be able to go.

after the finish, the international community will be asked to assist on a limited basis, and surrender processes may need facilitation, but there will not be a place for a real negotiated cease-fire process. you can imagine what will happen , what the steps of what would happen next for the syrian people in a state like this. and about the 13.5 million people who have been displaced, they are probably not going to feel that safe about returning. i just spoke to someone the other day who was accused -- he is syrian with a u.s. visa -- he is accused of being a partner with the cia. that night, there were people security forces knocking on his , door. he escaped to beirut. he made it out safely. but you can imagine a lot of the people who have escaped and who have made it out are not going to feel comfortable returning in a scenario like this. and a scenario where it has really been more of a surrender

than anything else. but this is potentially where things could end up. we have to think about the reality of that and what that does mean for the syrian people and us from a global security standpoint. next is option two, which is the match option. outside states supporting the armed group will match the russian escalation. the slide where i pointed to, the proxies in the funders for the moderate opposition to the right opposition, the right-hand opposition, if you remember? those are the outside states that i am saying might come in and a stalemate might become a reality. going back to that, in a situation is that were the case, you can imagine that the conflict would most likely, because of the players we are talking about, which is saudi arabia, turkey, united arab emirates, qatar, remember how close they are, remember which neighborhood they live in.

if that were to occur and that were to happen, the conflict could spread even further beyond the syrian borders. and we would be looking at at a very different war than we are looking at right now. i think this is the least likely option, but i would not take this option off of the table. and the third option would be an actual settlement. and that would be external supporters on both sides, external supporters being, again the outside supporters like the u.s. and turkey and iran and russia, supporters on both sides of the conflict agree to the terms of a settlement and press the parties to comply. because it is going to take that external pressure that actually gets them there, that pushes them to the table. and the international syrian issg, willup, the set the framework for a political process and a sustainable cease-fire.

under this option, if the settlement is a pro-government settlement, what we will see is the government of syria and the international community will announce a cease-fire, setting out terms for those who agree to the settlement condition. and the battle will continue against all others. we are beginning to see this play out right now. armed groups will likely be destroyed and the international community will be asked to rehabilitate,n, but otherwise have a very limited role. a balanced settlement process, which is what i think the majority of people would like to see, would be the issg set out a detailed formula for a settlement process and cease-fire building on the previous statements. cease-fire, humanitarian aid, political processes that lead into a sustainable future that then leads into a national dialogue process and constitutional reform where there is coordination between the warring factions which would be critical. you will see cooperation and collaboration among all of the different groups that we covered

on the earlier slide. you remember that slide with the y diagram. all of those groups and outside groups collaborating with each other. as you can imagine, and what kofi annan stated when he resigned in this is extremely 2012, difficult. but if it were to happen, this is probably the scenario that is the best from a global security standpoint. and why is that the case? but as a we are now going to talk about. countering violent extremism. how do we counter violent extremism? what is violent extremism? what is terrorism? on this, i think it is important that we start with the definition of terrorism, at least as it is in the u.s. code. international terrorism means activity with the following three characteristics, so we are all on the same page. it involves violent acts or

dangerous acts to human life that violate federal or state law. it intends to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to , influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assessment, or kidnapping. and it occurs primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the united states. domestic terrorism involves the first two, but it happens on u.s. soil. so how do we define countering terrorism and/or countering violent extremism? counterterrorism, or countering violent extremism, incorporates the practice, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, military law enforcement, business, and intelligence agencies used to combat or prevent terrorism or extremism. for me, how that reads in essence, that is an ecosystem.

it is addressing a whole is, creating a holistic approach. an ecosystem that addresses extremism, or-- and/or terrorism. so i want to next go to how can human rights and good governance help prevent terrorism and extremism? and this goes back to why i was saying option three, with a balanced settlement process, is our best case scenario for combating violent extremism in syria. which, by the way, is also in the interests of the majority of the syrian people. most of these refugees are fleeing syria, yes, because they are fleeing the assad regime, they are also primarily fleeing because of extremism and the barbaric nature that they are facing. with the al qaeda groups and isis. they are saying this is not the community that we want our children to grow up in. these are not the values that we

want our children and our sisters and our mothers and our brothers and our fathers to witness. this is not us. this is no longer the syria that we once knew. yes, we love syria. i am saying this because this is what i have heard so many times from syrians who left syria. barbarismtake the that we are witnessing. keeping that in mind, how human rights and good governance help prevent terrorism and extremism, the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to violent extremism recruitment, often called "push factors," are often physical insecurity or the inability to provide for one's family. i think we can all agree that many syrian people feel that these are the conditions they are currently living in, and if we do not have a sustainable

peace process that supports them in a realistic way, this is only going to continue. two, even where people's low-level needs are not met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or a higher purpose. again, do you think that a valued role or higher purpose is being served right now for the syrians who are currently living in syria? or for the syrians who have left syria and have no place to go? and/or they do not have access to work permits or jobs or opportunities? and three, as president obama noted, groups like al qaeda il exploit theis anger that fasters when people feel that injustice and corruption leaves them with no chance to improve their lives. if you leave people with the thought that i have no hope, there is no chance for improvement.

there is no gateway for opportunity for me. they are vulnerable. and that is who isis and al qaeda, those are the conditions on which they thrive on. that is why we need to provide alternatives. how do we counter violent extremism? how do we counterterrorism? -- counter terrorism? we create an ecosystem that naturally, organically creates alternatives for people who are at this point in their lives hopeless and feel there is no chance available for them and nobody cares about them. and fourth, young people take up arms not only because they are poor but also because they are angry. this is important as well, because every extremism, every incident of a shame isn't or

every community that is preyed on by extremism is not created the same. yes, sometimes you see communities that are impoverished and preyed upon. sometimes you see communities that are not impoverished but they are angry because they feel politically disenfranchised. now i am talking not just about syria, i am talking about beyond syria. that is not to say that the reaction, and becoming a extremist or a terrorist is ok. but it is to recognize that nobody is born a terrorist, ok? and it is not good for us to just assume -- it is not a part of the solution for us to assume that everyone who is a terrorist was born that way and there is no hope for them. the only option that we have is just to crush them and fight them militarily. you have your short-term agenda and goals when countering violent extremism, countering terrorism.

but you also have your long-term. from the short-term aspect, yes, there are some lines where the only solution is force. but that is a minority. the majority is actually to identify patterns to radicalization. and to intervene, ok? those patterns off. going back to that point of creating an ecosystem of alternative to extremism. it is important to recognize that community radicalization and the types of interventions that are most effective may differ dramatically from geographic location to geographic location. so radicalization efforts in countering efforts in nigeria are different than those in france we can talk about that in . we can talk about that in the question-and-answer period, if anyone has a question about that. next i want to give you a bit of

statistics, because i think it is important for us to understand the data we are dealing with. 80% of terrorist attacks between 2002 and 2014 occurred in nigeria and somalia. 60% of terrorist attacks between 2007 and 2014 happened in muslim majority countries. measured in terms of concentration of risk regions of , the highest percentage of high or severe risk countries at the top, here is where we are. south asia, north africa, latin america, western countries. asia-pacific, sub-saharan africa. 2007, 80% of all terrorist attacks of happened and 10 country. the quote i give you before is from 2002 to 2014. 78% of happened in iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, india, thailand, russia, somalia, nigeria, yemen, and columbia.

the trend is starting to change as russia and columbia have seen decreases. libya and egypt have seen decreases. why is that relevant other than understanding the data accurately? that is because a lot of these countries are in the same neighborhood. that is important for us to recognize for a variety of reasons, which, again, we are running a little bit out of time but i will take it in the , question-and-answer people have questions. latin america is the region with the most positive overall results that we are seeing and , in a hyper connected world, far away problems can affect local threat, and political violence can escalate and spread rapidly. that is also why, from a self-interested standpoint, when thinking about extremism, is it is happening in faraway places and i have heard many people , say, let's just keep that over there. it is becoming almost impossible to just have an isolated

mentality that says, let me just see if i can build my walls bigger and higher and just keep that stuff happening over there so that it does not touch me. because what happens in the end is somehow, and we have seen this and history has repeated itself in many occasions, it does come back and affect us. so, if but for our own self interest, what is happening with the extremism growing in the faraway places is relevant to us. i just wanted to highlight this very quickly with regards to military spending equally 2.3% of global gdp. you will see of the u.s., china, saudi arabia the u.k., and , russia are in the top five. i want to highlight this because many people say that the u.s. defense apparatus is weakening. i will you be the judge of that. and then i just want to say, as secretary kerry, eliminating the terrorists of today with force will not guarantee protection

from the terrorists of tomorrow. this is what i am saying here. the matter how many terrorists we bring to justice, those groups will replenish the ranks. we need to do more to prevent young people from turning to terror in the first place. the young people that turn to violent extremism do not exist in a vacuum. they are often a part of communities and families today and then lured into barbaric organizations tomorrow. that is a very critical point. we need to prevent them from being lured into barbaric organizations of tomorrow. that is countering violent extremism that will make the world a safer place. and i just want to mention that there are really eight factors here, that i will step out and address. and those eight factors that i think if we focus on will make

us safer if we follow these over the next 10 years. not only will make us safer as americans, will make the world safer. that is number one, develop a policy that aligns government policies with communal interests. here i am not just talking about a national u.s. cve strategy. i am talking about every nationstate having a national cve strategy that focuses on on aligning policies with local and communal interests. when these policies and interests are not aligned, guess what happens? revolutions like what we have seen that do not go the right way. number two -- and i must say that i do not believe in revolutions, but it is important to understand how this all begins and how it can be

prevented in a more peaceful way. number two is to empower civil society. by civil society, i mean nonprofit organizations, but i also mean the private sector as well. everybody plays a role here. we cannot just contract this out to the pentagon or to the defense department or to the ministry of defense. this is, again, going back to the ecosystem, this is a responsibility that all of us can play a part in in different ways. number three -- number two connects to number three. expanding political opportunities for at-risk populations. we can be strategic in where we focus our soft power initiatives. for example, we can be strategic about -- as i mentioned, one of the top places his nigeria right now. we can think through -- what type of private sector investments are we making in nigeria? how many jobs are being created in nigeria right now through diplomatic and international efforts? over 40% of youth in the arab

world right now are unemployed. you do not think that that is connected to the extremist trend that we are seeing increasing? they absolutely are. we can do something about that. we should do something about that. again, create an alternative to extremism. number four, promote human rights, which is also linked to number one. number five, counter dangerous narratives that create marginalization. words matter. this goes back to the feeling of being disenfranchised and not just being attracted to extremism because of being in an impoverished environment, but also being angry. and this is something we are seeing. number six, support youth suffering from mental illnesses and trauma. this is a critical point we should focus more time and energy on. think about the number of syria children who have been traumatized from five years of war. number seven, avoid generalizations about entire

groups of people that may feel disenfranchised. strengthen community and policing relationships. large-scale sweeps can in turn promote radicalize -- they can actually help people that are trying to radicalize those same exact communities. so i will stop there, because i know that we have 15-20 minutes for questions. and thank you. but so, happy to take any , questions on that. both phone the syrian conflict, countering violent extremism, and/or how they relate. >> thank you very much. we do have runners here with microphones. we are recording the event so i will ask to raise your hand. we want short, crisp questions. no monologues, commentaries please. , >> thank you very much for your presentation. i found it very interesting.

i did not see a lot of discussion in your conversation about the nature of the sectarian state. i guess a big part of the reconciliation process will be about how to restructure the state to make it more equitable among christians, sunni, and others vying for power. i wonder if you could address that? samar: address the sectarian nature of the conflict? >> no, no. i think that is pretty clear. you can describe that, of course. in the future, how will the state need to be restructured to essentially create this ecosystem where any group can profit? samar: right, so that is a very good question, and as you can see, that is where we are starting off. and we have to get to a line, really, of where this, this right here, collapses over here. and you have a state versus the extremist group. that is where we have to get to. if we can. and so what you end up having is

everyone working towards a common future. and we probably will not see al qaeda or isis working towards a common future that the rest of the world can get behind. but we will see -- we can see all of the others. and that is the majority of syrians. on the left side of the line, which would then be replaced with a g, which is one government. how do we get there? well, i think one of the conflicts that i have studied that gives me hope, and i think is a model that we can focus on is that of south africa. and in south africa, with the -- what the focus has been on is a common future. what is the common future that we can work towards? and that being, as we talked about earlier today, what are trade initiatives that can be institutionalized that encourage people who are currently divided

to begin to work together? and that you have to have a vision for, but you have to have a vision that is something that is attractive for people across the spectrum, from aloits, to people who are living in huts diversity-wise across the , country. it is something that benefits not only people who are in damascus or other areas but the entire country. i think the other thing you have to do with that regard is tone down the sectarian rhetoric and that happens through leadership mechanisms. that comes from how we here in the west are also talking about this conflict that comes from private diplomatic discussions that are happening not necessarily in open media circles, but that's getting different leadership to commit to a different way of approaching the middle east at the moment.

so i think this is not just a syrian problem. this is an entire middle east question that you've asked right now and that is, how do you get the sunni and the shia and the kurdish factions all aligned and moving in one direction? sort of like how we have in our country right here and right now. how do we get the republicans and democrats to cooperate together for the good of the country? how do we help them focus on what's best for america and not what is necessarily best for part of an interest. >> yeah first, thank you for , coming. second, i want to talk about saudi arabia's role in the syrian conflict and the greater middle east. specifically relating to ideological purposes. saudi arabia practices a strict interpretation of their religion while the isis state does not. i don't want to suggest that

saudi arabia is propagating the islamic state. or that al qaeda does. i just want to make clear that when there is western promotion of saudi arabia's economic needs , they exasperate their stranglehold on sunni islam and if there's supposed to be a cohesion of democracy within their religion, which should be for allowed all over the world. how can we get to that point for their support for those who practice that type of islam? samar: if you can clarify, what is your definition of that style of islam? >> from my understanding, it has to do with the strict interpretation of economic, socio-background processes that allow for marginalization of those who might not believe in the evolution of power that

started in 1980's between the -- the ad's between the death of muhammad and divided sunni and shia. really inherently saudi arabia practices, from my understanding. i am just, i was very confused as to how, if we're all talking about ideology and talking about wanting to stop the radicalization process. these type of sanctioned understandings where underneath , there could be that spread of extreme strict interpretations, how can we counter that and coalesce the different factions into doing something to progress that underground trend? if that makes sense? samar: yeah, i just start off by saying the strict interpretation on this issue economic background side is incorrect. the strict interpretation of

islam focuses more on there being a balance and lessening inequality from the socioeconomic standpoint. so i don't think that that's -- from what i'm understanding, that's what you meant for how that branch is defined. i understand you're using the word as a philosophy that is extremely conservative and that's not representative of the majority of muslims in the muslim world. ok. [laughter] sure. and so it's a good question. it's a very good question. the answer is that you're never going to get 100% of people that will refuse to follow an ideological extremist narrative, but the majority of people and

the majority of people living in saudi arabia are not interested in living the lifestyle of which you just depicted, and the majority of syrians aren't interested in that as well. so sometimes it could be a means to an end, or sometimes it's a pathway because no other alternative exists. that's why i'm saying you need an alternative pathway that's more in line with how the majority of muslims want to live today, and the majority of muslims want to live the same lifestyle that everybody in this room right here are living right now. it's about connecting and building bridges and offering that opportunity that i'm talking about creating here. and if we're always going to be thinking about the 2% or the 3% of people that will never pull over, quite frankly and i don't think it's all of saudi arabia. i think it's a small percentage of saudi arabia, and i think it's a small percentage of the muslim world.

but if you only focus on what if we never convert the 2% to 3%, we'll never move forward. so you can't say -- don't let perfect be the enemy of good. i would say that. you might not ever have 100% but 98% or 97% is better than what we're currently looking at. >> hi. my name is yasim. samar: i'm from syria. >> i have a question. i just wanted to ask you about something you said. it's something we worry about as syrians. i think as a people, where you see syria has, i think, not changed now after like five years. samar: yes. >> we have the same group here. we talk about the same problems

from four years ago. the isis was about 500 people. just five years ago or four years ago, i don't remember the date. isis was about 500 people. now we're talking about 30,000 members of isis. if nothing changed in syria, or nobody do anything where do you see syria after five years from now? samar: when you say nobody does anything, you mean -- >> nobody stopped the war there. samar: would you consider finished the start of the war? the finished scenario? >> yes, from four years ago to now, nobody did nothing. rebutted talking about supporting their own way. if we could do it in their own way in syria after four or five years, how do you see the situation in syria and around syria, not only syria because , this will affect everyone wherever?

samar: as we discussed. i think if we don't do everything as the preventive measures i talked about or creating the ecosystem that i talked about, or addressing the injustices that have been committed on all sides, not just from the regime to the opposition, but on all sides and , you never address that, the anger is going to increase. we're going to see an increase in anger. we are going to see an increase in poverty. we are going to see an increase in a lack of trust. we're going to see an increase in a lack of cooperation across nation states. the world in which kofi annan highlighted for the reason of his resignation in the beginning of 2012 is going to magnify by 10 times as much, and i think by just what i just said, i think we can imagine where that will go and what will happen with that. but we shouldn't let that happen , because we have tools in our

tool box to change that course and that's what i want to get , across today, and that is many people throw up their hands and say, what do we do about the middle east? just as senator corker continues to remind us, our u.s. senator from tennessee, we need a broader middle east strategy. we need a middle east strategy that is going to work. we need one that is long term and that makes sense and we simply can't just say oh, well, those people are hopeless. those people are people just like anybody else, and they have, as you know, and you've experienced yourself, they have had historical realities that have pushed them into a very unfortunate time period, but that doesn't mean we just say, oh, well, that's just unfortunate. we look and see how do we get the different interests between the different proxies right now because this is in many ways a , proxy war. how do we get them to collaborate? how do we bridge the territorial -- sectarian divides that exist.

how do we create jobs in rebuild, provide humanitarian aid? these are questions we cannot just simply dismiss to the middle east. that's what i'm getting at, this is a global security matter of where we all hold a certain level of responsibility that if we rise up to the occasion, we we will counter violent extremism and provide a better future for the syrian people and one that has a common future and a common vision. is isis a part of that? that is for the syrian people to decide. >> fine right there. i have to say, given the political rhetoric that seems to be dominating the news today, this was a great breath of fresh air. that's all i can say. very insightful, and we thank you very much. folks, give her a nice round of

applause. [applause] i do have a very small token of appreciation for you. you can use these in your law firm office, at your home but they're very, very nice and thank you again for coming. samar: thank you. >> thank you, everyone. look forward to seeing you again here very soon here at the baker center for one of our premier events. have a good evening. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [no audio]

announcer: monday on the communicators, the virginia chair talks to the house committee about key issues in encryption, privacy, surveillance, and e-mail. he is joined by politico reporter kate. >> it is very important thing, and we have got to find our way through this, not by weakening encryption but by continuing the effort to strengthen it. you only need to look at the problems we have had with foreign government, with criminal enterprises, with plain hackers, stealing millions of documents from government agencies and millions of credit card records from retail establishments, financial establishments, to know that we need to be moving towards stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself. announcer: what "the communicators" on c-span 2 monday night.

for this year's student can contest, students make documentaries talking about the candidate issues they wanted to discuss. students told us the economy, equality, education, and immigration were all top issues. thank you to the students and teachers that competed, and congratulations to all of our winners. every weekday in april starting 21 winning entries will air at six a clock a.m. on c-span. they are all of viewing online at c-span.org. on c-span, "newsmakers" is next with tom cole of oklahoma. then a look at the future of space expiration with nasa planetary science director james green. and then the conversation with a" -- gordon on "two and

"q and >> newsmakers is pleased to to welcome representative tom cole. you wear a lot of hats. your considered one of the top gop strategist and before coming to congress, you are a political consultant and then congress, and number of responsibilities including appropriations committee and sharing the subcommittee on labor and part of the budget committee and rules committee and member of the republican steering committee and the study committee. that puts you in the middle of all the debates in the house right now. thank you for being with us. kristina peterson is with us from the wall street journal and scott wong and christina you're first. >> do you think it's likely that house republicans will be able to pass a budget? this would be the first time since republicans took col