counterterrorism center. thank you for being our guest this week. let me introduce the two reporters that will be asking questions. national security reporter brian bennett, l.a. times hovering the white house and national security. deb, you are a first. deb: what kind of an organization do you think isis will morph into? any kind of ideas? what are the options they have? : there is no question that success on the ground in iraq and syria aimed at reducing territory isis holds is a key part of the campaign. it is a necessary step to degrade and defeat the organization. isis is an adaptable adversary. they have the ability and we

have known for some time he would be losing these urban hubs in which they have concentrated leadership over the last few years. they have thought about how to maintain their terrorist reach even in the absence of a physical caliphate. while i look at the positive results we are seeing on the ground with a lot of satisfaction, i also have a sense that we will be dealing with an enduring threat condition for a period of time longer. in terms of global terrorism, they are inspiring individuals overseas to take action on and the name of the group on , behalf of the group. you can do that even when you are operating on the run or in a much more constrained or difficult physical environment. i am not minimizing the progress we have made in pressuring isis as an organization. i'm pointing out some of the things they can accomplish will

be within their reach, even within this degraded form. of the attacks in europe a , significant number of attacks this year have note direct connection to command-and-control. individuals operating on their own at the inspiration of the organization, those individuals are not disappearing from the scene simply because the battle is being lost on the better yield -- battlefield in iraq. deb: do you see them becoming more like al qaeda in that respect? nicholas: in some ways come yes, in terms of a distributed network around the world. one thing that will always distinguish the group from is al qaeda sought to operate as a clandestine movement that carefully vetter and control to participated in the organization and acted on behalf of the organization. isis has been much more

aspiring to be a mass movement with low barriers to entry. if you say you are isis and want to act on their behalf, you are in. that is a more difficult problem set to address. even as the organization loses syria, theyiraq in can grab onto individuals from all parts of the world, bring them into the movement or encourage them to act on behalf of the movement, and that is different than al qaeda. brian: have you seen an increase in the number of fighters trying to leave syria into europe? nicholas: if you look back the arc of last couple of years, our european partners have done more to make it a more difficult project for individuals to travel from the conflict zone to europe. they have upped their own game

in terms of tracking individuals from their countries who have gone to iraq in syria and doing a better job of sharing that information with other partners so we can all be aware if someone is trying to travel back europe for the purposes of carrying out an attack. a couple of years ago when the numbers were steadily increasing, we thought there would be a huge reverse outflow when the conflict ended, thousands and thousands of people who went in and would come out and show up in europe or other places. i think our assessment has changed over time. we now think of it less in terms of a mass outflow. many if not most individuals will remain to fight and die on behalf of their losing caliphate in iraq in syria. but what we do focus on is quality more than quantity, individuals who have particular

skill sets or networks. if they leave the battlefield and show up in the european capital, that would be a tremendous concern. brian: you are talking about people with bomb making skills? nicholas: yes, and access to networks in iraq who use chemicals on the battlefield in iraq and syria. as a terrorism professional you can wrap your head around all type of scary scenarios about what might happen. it is our job to anticipate what kind of capabilities terrorists operating outside of iraq in syria might use. deb: can you give us an idea of the leadership, the state it is in now? we were curious to know if some of the affiliates are running on command andr if the control is really functioning. nicholas: our assessment is that there is a command and control apparatus at senior levels. we have had some success

degrading that apparatus. even more than removing individuals, i think the pressure we put on the organization to cause it to have to physically relocate into less urban areas of the euphrates river valley makes it harder for them to communicate with out stations, overseas affiliates, colleagues around the world. that said, it is one of the things i think is interesting about isis looking at it and allegedly with how bureaucratized the organization had become over time. in running a physical caliphate, a proto-state they took on many , of the characteristics of the government, including bureaucratizing certain functions. was anthose functions apparatus aimed at guiding operations and activities around the world. we have made that less effective, but not eliminated it. deb: how are they doing on recruiting? where are the fighters coming from now?

the ones that are coming into the organization, or has that slowed? nicholas: the flow to the central conflict zone has slowed dramatically. we don't see anything like the flow we saw 2014-2015, where at times the numbers were increasing month by month by the hundreds. what we see now are isis affiliate organizations around the world seeking to recruit extremists in their particular area and saying fight here. create something here. it is something we are concerned about in southeast asia these days. i returned from a trip in southeast asia where are -- our philippines colleagues are fighting quite hard in the southern philippines against an isis affiliate and group that has maintained control on a southern island. that is one example. it is a place where before you would have seen those fighters want to go to iraq and syria, now they try to carry out their agenda at home.

then: when it comes to islamic state's global reach i , want to bring us to west africa. on october 4, a u.s. special forces unit was ambushed on the .ali-niger border can you speak to islamic state's presence in west africa, why the u.s. is involved in counterterrorism operations there and what the threat emanating from there is? nicholas: isis has set to create a global reach for itself. they prioritized creating a presence for itself in west africa, looking to leap off a platform that already existed, boko haram, a local terrorist group, a pretty significant concern with quite a bit of legality was already a threat to -- lethality was already a

threat to the nations of west africa. isis was able to tap into that strain of islamic extremism in west africa and create a presence. i would not point to that isis presents as being directly threatening to the united states in a homeland since. but what concerned us was the ability to create a safe haven, taking advantage or mimicking what they accomplished in iraq and syria. control the territory and give the organization the ability to carry out more ambitious attacks that ultimately might threaten u.s. interests. certainly u.s. interests in west africa are at risk today because of what isis in west africa is able to do. i would distinguish it a little bit from isis activity emanating from iraq and syria. in terms of what we are trying to accomplish one of the , bulwarks of our strategy in counterterrorism is to embolden nations so wener

don't have to take on the burden ourselves of defeating every terrorist organization that has a potential threat. the effort in west africa has been to enable military and intelligence partners to increase their skill sets and increase their capabilities so they can take on the problem themselves. that is undoubtedly what our military forces were engaged in when that horrible event happened a week or so ago. brian: what is the trendline? is there a concern that islamic er and the push to nig african firewall? nicholas: i don't know i can point to any particular trend line that says we are headed in a worse direction. this will require a sustained effort over time. they need to hold this threat at at bay or defeat it.

one of the things that is made isis more challenging terrorist adversary is the global reach. we need to spread our resources more thinly around the globe more than we have in the past because isis has more presence in more places. the spreading of resources i mean in the broadest possible sense. our diplomatic, intelligence, our not-infinite capacity to do advise and assist operations with our military. we have to make choices about where we can be more effective. west africa is an theater we have prioritized but you can do everything everywhere. deb: where are some of the other places where isis is gaining a toehold? you mentioned the philippines and we know west africa, but where else? nicholas: i mentioned southeast asia because the trajectory is in an upward direction. it concerns me particularly

because those of you who followed the terrorist problems the 2004-2006w in period we were dealing with an al qaeda linked terrorist group that carried out the bali bombing and other bombings in indonesia that were quite quite devastating. so there is a capacity in southeast asia for extremism to manifest itself in terrorism. if isis taps into that successfully, it could create regional threat we have not seen in the last several years. that is one of the reasons i highlighted it. i would point also to north africa, not just west africa. again, a wide range of terrorists and extremists groups already -- even predating isis operated in libya, algeria,

morocco. so the arrival of isis on the scene only added another player to what was already a difficult terrorism situation. i would characterize it largely a local problem, a significant threat to our interests, rather than something truly transnational. but you don't have to look far africa edges of close to europe. the southern tier of europe. they concerns we have about foreign fighters migrating in the europe, those are not just iraq and syrian fighters we worry about. those are foreign fighters we worry about transiting from northern africa onto the european continent. halfway point. deb: do you see any isis presence in the united states other than people who have been ? spired by nicholas: by and large that is

her biggest concern in the united states. individuals who are motivated by, inspired by tapping into the isis ideology. beyond that we certainly don't see at present the kind of sleeper cell or clandestine cell structure we worried about when we were dealing with al qaeda after 9/11. the organization does not run itself in the same way. that doesn't mean -- i have to be careful in terms of what it means for actual threats. in some ways it is a harder threat for us to counteract in the united states. when you are dealing with the network, you only have to find one entry point to learn what the network is up to. when you are dealing with an individual largely acting on his or her own with only passive connections to a isis's

leadership, the challenge for law enforcement, the fbi and local law enforcement is much greater. how do you identify the person who may be sitting home alone consuming extremist materials and entering a path to radicalization and ultimately thinking about caring out an attack but did nothing along the way that would give us a clue that is happening? that is a big challenge for law enforcement. for al qaeda, i was confident if we could get our hands on some bit of information that would give us an entry point, we had the wherewithal to unravel the plot before it could take place. deb: speaking in london last week, elaine duke told the audience the terror groups are trying to reorganize themselves for a 9/11 style attack once again using aircraft. can you tell us about this specific threat?

nicholas: i think what secretary duke was referring to was terrorists groups, both isis and al qaeda, continue to prioritize the aviation sector. that is a fact. they do that for a couple of reasons. they view it as iconic, a success in taking out aviation targets as attacking aviation would have disproportionate benefit to them. it would create disproportionate economic harm on the united states in western countries, create disproportionate political harm to western governments, and it would create disproportionate benefits to those terrorist organizations in terms of their reach and recruitment. we know of all the things bad guys can do, aviation is a preoccupation. they continue to focus on trying to attack us collectively in that way. they also know we are improving every day with our screening and

defensive capabilities. it is a constant push and pull to improve our capabilities even as they are coming up with ever more clever ways to get explosives aboard airplanes or somehow otherwise attacking an aircraft. so it is part of the terrorism problem set that gives me the most concern every day, aviation. one because of the continued prioritization. it is a preoccupation with al qaeda and isis. secondly, with aviation security, we are always at risk of the lowest common denominator of an aviation security system. you can have incredibly high standards and incredibly high performance in terms of aviation security at some airports, and at other airports around the world you have observed your selves that standards are lax and capabilities not up to snuff.

feeling answer is to increase our capabilities globally to detect explosives and prevent terrorists from getting explosives onboard an airplane. that is a long-term project with a technology component to it and an investment component to it. secretary duke and dhs are leading that effort. she is right to highlight it. i don't know if i would use the words "9/11-style attack" because that conjures up something specific in most people's minds, but she is right. terrorists seek to attack us in the aviation sector. they think that is a particularly effective way of getting what they want. brian: how many investigations are currently open in the u.s.? nicholas: certainly director coming -- secretary comey had referred to over 1000 terrorism investigations in the united states. terrorism investigations can

cover a wide swath of ground, that can be individuals who are potentially suspected of wanting to travel to the conflict zone in iraq and serious and have not carried out any kind of attack. theyligence may indicate would have gone to iraq in syria to fight on behalf of isis. a terrorism investigation can be something where the individuals who are fundraising or there are propaganda activities. i don't want to say that there are 1000 investigations, but there are 1000 plots with individuals set to do something in the united states to carry out a terrorist attack. terrorism related activity spans a wind range of activity. said aremey investigations in all 50 states. do you see any downward trend in the caseload? nicholas: not to this point, no. this goes to the point i was making a response to the earlier

question about raqqa. i think isis in its current form took a couple of years to wind up to the point where it posed the kind of threat it poses, and it would take some number of years to unwind the threat that has emerged from isis. one of the frustrating things about dealing with isis as an ideological movement is there -- their movement seems adept at dealing with success and failure. when they are winning, the narrative is we have a caliphate and growing. come to iraq and syria. this is where it is happening. you can be part of something special. now that they are suffering serious setbacks, losing territory, having their leadership attacked, their numbers are being decimated, the narrative is this is just one more phase and a long-term effort to get to our ultimate objective. be patient, carry out the fight

in another way in another place and it will still be a contribution. it is frustrating because we think we are winning on every available metrics and every available measure, and i would argue we are, but that ability of the group to reach a population of extremists will be there for some time. deb: do you think we will see fewer americans going to fight? nicholas: we have seen relatively few even today. our numbers are only in a couple of hundred. that includes people who wanted to go, tried to go, did go, failed to go, and it has only gotten more difficult. i think most people know most , individuals who have this objective know that if they leave any physical trail, law enforcement will intervene and likely prevent them from traveling and likely lead to their long-term incarceration. it has had a deterrent effect.

it has not stopped every individual. individuals know they may have may to engage in circuitous , roundabout travel to get really want to go. that is something we worry about and watch for. dealing withwe are a much smaller number than a european partner countries. i would argue the trendline is down, not up. deb: what does the administration want to do with the guy who they picked up who is an american citizen in syria? there are a couple of things they can do. they can put him through the federal court system. they could transfer him to a country of his origin or where he grew up or what ever. nicholas: i can't comment on a specific case. i know from our intelligence perspective we want to find every opportunity to gain whatever intelligence we could about that individual or any individual would know about route lines pipelines, travel , routes, and we certainly have had that opportunity. as for disposition, i don't have

an answer on the. susan: we have three minutes. brian: i wanted to ask about the threat from refugees coming into the united states. when the trump administration came into office, initiated a ban on immigrants entering the united states. a few have been let in because a court decisions but nonetheless, the trump administration will greatly reduce the flow of refugees coming into the united states and they want to increase the vetting. refugees were already the most vetted immigrants coming to the united states, two years in some cases. you were the deputy there for two years before that. what was not being done to vet refugees in those years before the trump administration came into office? nicholas: it is not that things weren't being done. i think they are just degrees of additional inquiry and scrutiny that you can apply that carried

you deeper and deeper into the available data we have or allow you to dig more fully into potential connections, even when you don't have direct information that a person is a security concern. i would argue that wholly outside of the executive order or any change in the administration, the intelligence community, our piece of this, we were already well embarked on an effort to increase the degree we could bring to the screening of -- screening and vetting process. one, these are not intelligence decisions. these are decisions made by the state department and the department of homeland security. we contribute to a decision process. there is no immigration program that we have is a country that risk.hout anytime you are admitting

anybody into the country you are accepting some degree of risk. our job is to reduce the risk associated. doing that requires we gather as much information as we can possibly gather about a potential individuals seeking to emigrate here through a refugee program or any other. sometimes that is harder with some particular countries when our information sharing arrangements are not as robust as they could be. i don't look at it as a red light-green light situation as i look at it as a sliding scale. how much risk you do we choose as a country to accept in service of admitting this population or that population? getting to where your question started when i look back at the , number of attacks we have had inside the united states over the last decade, the vast majority of homeland attacks inside the united states have been carried out by individuals who have lived here for quite a

long time, who have in many cases long-standing ties to the united states, not recent arrivals as refugees. that is just numerical fact. brian: what kind of information do you think would be useful? susan: we have about 30 seconds. nicholas: the main thing -- some of the things we require from foreign partners involve travel documents, understanding how travel documents work from particular countries is important so we can help judge if they are real or fake, counterfeit, fraudulent. that is just one example. there are many other examples here in susan: thank you for being our guest this week. it is a complex world, so please come back again. nicholas: thank you for having me. susan: "newsmakers" is back after our conversation with nick rasmussen. our two guests, brian bennett of the los angeles times and deb reichmann

of the associated press. the national counterterrorism center is a child of 9/11. what is its job really? brian: he has a difficult job. his job is to take all the information from different federal government entities that deal with intelligence, the fbi, the cia, customs and border protection and the list goes on and on and tried to look at the , whole picture and make sure things aren't falling through the cracks. this was created because of the criticism that the federal government was not connecting the dots in the run-up to 9/11. he has to be able to get the global picture of what the government knows and make sure all the different actors are talking to each other. it is incredibly difficult right now because the threat is about to enter into a new phase.

you have raqqa falling, islam state losing its hub in syria. they are watching very closely and don't know what islamic state will look like as it morphs into some kind of new entity represents new types of threats. susan: when you talk to folks across the board in the keeping the west safe, -- the u.s. safe what do you hear about the , threat level in the country these days? deb: i think they fear saying it's down. i think they want to make sure they cover themselves. it is very unclear as to what could happen at any particular moment. i think he was clear when he talked about al qaeda, and if they knew something about a threat possibility, they could pull on a thread and uncovered it because of the way al qaeda was set up and their network. but in this case, he was talking about how these are individuals who may have not given any hint

at all about their plans and are inspired by a group that is far, far away, so there is no way to get on top of that. i think that is what they fear the most. susan: the carnage of las vegas we have seenside , so many attacks in western europe and among our allies. what is the difference between what happens there and what is happening here in the united states? is it something endemic about society? brian: i have talked to federal government officials in the u.s. about that question. they point to a couple of things. they point to how the u.s. has a better track record of assimilating immigrants into the american fabric. i think that assimilation is being stretched by current

rhetoric and tensions from the trump administration. but they point to this long-standing track record that the u.s. has been better at assimilating and not having large groups of disenfranchised immigrants. another thing is information sharing. the u.s. really learned a lot after 9/11 and changed its the european countries were slow to adapt that way. attacks whenen these of information and parts of europe being governments were able to bring all of that together. the other thing is proximity. europe is closer to syria, it is easier because of the schengen zone, because people can travel through european countries more easily to get from the middle east into western europe. talk heard the director about resources and how decisions have to be made about where to deploy them.