to have defense mechanisms in those countries. so there is multiple roles there, but that does segue into the next section of the program. our disaster system is doing the best it can right now, but it is dealing with laws and infrastructure that are outdated and we need massive change in order to deal with both the disasters we are seeing now and the long-term changes we will see due the climate change. host: it is the university of delaware disaster research center, and the assistant professor a.r. siders with us this morning. thanks so much. andrew is a research fellow with the program on extremism, joining us to talk about potential terror threats out of afghanistan since the u.s. withdrawal. welcome to washington journal. let's start off with the question of who is this group that we have heard so much

about, isis-k? the group is focused on a and a stand. they formed in 2015 when members of the pakistani taliban, the afghan taliban, al qaeda and other members of different jihadist groups coalesced around one leader who was nominated as the governor or top leader to oversee this branch operating in afghanistan. not long after that they embarked on one of the most deadly campaigns of terrorism we've seen in that region.

>> the taliban has been aligned with al qaeda in the past. what is the isis-k relationship with al qaeda? >> these groups are vehemently opposed to each other. there's a little bit of history where different affiliates of both organizations were butting heads, leadership was butting heads, and since in there's been a competition between the two organizations. that has played out in afghanistan. we haven't seen i.s. k and al qaeda butting heads with each other, but because of al qaeda's relationship to the afghan taliban, we've definitely seen isis-k going at it with the afghan taliban. >> hasn't the history shown us decades if not centuries of internal conflicts between tribal groups and groups that represent different sets of

people? isn't that basically what we have continuing today? >> i think it is difficult to paint it so broadly because the past 20 years has been a. of intense hope for them. in some respects there are components that play out along ethnic lines and different factions decide which groups to align with and which groups meet their agenda. for all intents and purposes, the islamic state rent and the al qaeda brand or playing out in afghanistan now. >> it seems now that the biden administration faces multiple threats from afghanistan, but was that always the case? >> it was pretty much al qaeda

and over time we been able to degrade that threat and diminish it, but not destroyed completely. any of the claims that al qaeda had been defeated have been premature. right now of course the competition between the two groups shows there are multiple threats. we've got threats coming from the islamic state chorus on and from al qaeda. right now they are focused locally on afghanistan but if counterterrorism pressure is removed from either of the organizations, if our international allies take their eye off, both of those groups could pose a direct threat to us, to our western allies, anywhere from 18 months to 36 months is the estimate at the start of this year. >> without military boots on the ground and significant other

u.s. boots on the ground, how will the u.s. continue counterterrorism? >> we've seen from the biden administration and more from the united kingdom, over the horizon counterterrorism capabilities. basically what it means is that u.s. air assets will be flying missions from different basis in the middle east to conduct strikes against islamic state targets. intelligence, human sources on the ground to provide either locations for targets and information about when they will be traveling and so on. historically, we have relied immensely on the afghan intelligence for that. i think a lot of people in the last few weeks have discussed at the rapid fall of the afghan national forces.

there is merit to that, but we have relied on those forces for significant periods of time, and without them now, the reliance on them is really an open question and when we do not have good answers to just yet. host: andrew mines is with george washington university's program on extremism. we welcome your calls and comments. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. you have a masters in clinical psychology. does that bring you closer to trying to understand what is the mindset of these terrorist groups? guest: i am actually still working on it. yes, i am still working on it. this is actually my last semester.

i think it has definitely helped with understanding a lot of the things we see on the domestic side and working on why americans decided to join these organizations, why they decided to attack targets in the united states. i think it's more comparative politics and definitely history that is helpful to understand what is going on in afghanistan right now. host: do you think the withdrawal of u.s. forces there has emboldened people to take part to join the taliban there? obviously, the taliban has control in afghanistan. and what about isis-k, does this help their recruiting in that country? guest: on the al qaeda side of things, absolutely. they released a statement congratulating the afghan taliban, declaring that their al qaeda 20 year war against at the americans has paid off.

that this has been perceived as a huge victory for the group. that's the top-down dissemination. we have also seen osama bin laden's former head of security, who was spotted in afghanistan, and that is not bode well for what the organization plans to do. and we have seen al qaeda affiliates in official and unofficial channels, both are celebrating this as a huge victory, but also discussing a lot about traveling to afghanistan now to join al qaeda and the taliban. so that could mean problems because they will have expectations of the taliban, of al qaeda, and if expectations are not met, they risk being driven into their ranks of isis-k. on the other side we have isis-k, they are in a curious position because they need to show over the next few weeks and months, that al qaeda and the taliban together cooperate with the west and will be

illegitimate because if they are cooperating with the u.s., as we see this play out, they will view this as a threat. at that risk is driving additional fighters into isis-k. if the taliban concedes on even slight ideological issues, that is driving fighters into the ranks of isis-k. this is a precarious time for the region and i think that people need to wake up and see how precarious that is right now. host: let me read you another view, an opinion piece, "biden did not see the isis-k threat in afghanistan until too late." "the united states put the taliban and a potentially awkward position where they share the same enemy. should the united states work with the taliban against the islamic state? there are two paths forward. one option, which the

biden administration appears to be leaning to, his to cooperate with the taliban, including perhaps intelligence chairing -- sharing on drone strikes. or they could choose to do nothing and let allies and isis-k battle it out." guest: my colleague highlights an important consideration, that there are no good options. if we let the taliban be and try to control isis-k by themselves, we have seen them engage with isis-k in traditional clashes, more conventional warfare were either groups -- where subgroups will go after isis-k when they have held positions in different areas in afghanistan. we have seen them do that, but we have not seen them secure and govern a city and pursue counterterrorism against another insurgent group in urban areas. we have not seen that yet. so their capacity to do that, we

truly do not know what that is. that is a big unknown. and it has the risk of being incredibly dangerous. isis-k has a game plan to move through anti-research and consolidate territory and coerce populations and conduct of violence. and all the things it needs to do over the long run to establish that same caliphate we saw in iraq and syria, to establish a version of that in afghanistan. on the other side, what happens if over time -- let's look out a few months -- what happens over time if we are sharing intelligence with the afghan taliban, and they are sharing good intelligence or bad intelligence with us. over time, the taliban, what if they get tired of working with the u.s.?

and they start defecting over to isis-k. those are real questions into serious considerations we need to think about as we look down the line. there is no good answer. but that is the long and short of it. host: first up, jeff in cape coral florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: hi. am i on the air? host: yes, go ahead. caller: just a few questions. why didn't we see a -- any presence from isis-k during -- reign from 2014 to 2019? and what are the chances that we could see homegrown based

attacks since biden's failure? host: homegrown attacks in the u.s.? caller: yes. host: ok. thanks for your call. >> thanks for your questions. your first question about why didn't the biden ministration see i.s. k coming. [indiscernible]