and nonstate actor. there are many other examples.but also universities, nonprofits, clergy, media, private companies like the tattered cover, this bookstore. more and more when they think i think about the variables along this global landscape, we are thinking about nonstate at year's. in afghanistan, after our efforts immediately preceding 9/11 in afghanistan, looking back on that. i realize that the most important ally we had in that fight was not a nation-state. it was not nato. it was nonstate actors, those afghan tribal leaders scattered throughout the country. they were our ally in that fight and you see that repeated in many places around the world. but they are variable is global battlefield. i talked about that single hacker or that single al qaeda operative with those horrible images uploading in cyberspace. more and more our enemies, our adversaries, they can plot and plan on one side of the world and execute on the other in days, hours or in cyberspace we are talking seconds. so if you look at these three variables, the a

the second variable, the role of nonstate actors. when we used to think about war, conflict not very long ago it was nation-state on nation-state primarily. always been irregular forces, of course, always irregular warfare, but more often than not today when we think about threats to the united states, we think about risk we're talking about nonstate actors; al-qaeda, hezbollah, the narco traffickers south of our border and within the united states, these transnational cartels. they have $25-$40 billion a year of revenue, mostly from consumers in the u.s. and they're growing influence not just in the u.s., central america, but into west africa and into europe. it's a nonstate actor. there are many other examples. but also the positive side. universities, nonprofits, clergy, media, private companies like the tattered cover, this bookstore. more and more when we think about the variables along this global landscape we're thinking about nonstate actors. in afghanistan after our efforts immediately preceding 9/11 in informing looking bac

i think they will face some consequences from the ugly nonstate actors. >> i'm going to use moderator's prerogative and jump in on the question as well. military academies teach the so-called dime paradigm that every strategy should have diplomatic and military and economic components. we have a problem within the region that the longer some of the conflicts drive on, some seek to profit from them. we saw for example, saddam hussein who no one expected to survive the 1991 uprising. eventually companies in france, russia, china perhaps decided they were going to try to break the international isolation by trying to win contracts up to and including the last days of hussein. i do think contracting sanctions actually have some -- can provide positive pressure to bypass the stranglehold moscow has on the united nations security council by means of veto. if it is not adopted by the syrian council but also adopted by declaration in london and in washington as the policy of the british government and the american government, it can perhaps have some weight in courts and discussions as various

i confess as a republican hispanic trying to put a positive spin on romney immigration nonstatements. well, let's just say it ain't easy. when he does speak, he's been -- he doesn't really articulate an answer to what the people are asking. what do you want to hear him say? >> it ain't easy, soledad. i've been at it now for a while. and that's it for me. i want to hear him say some specifics. it's very difficult to put a positive spin when he's not addressing some of the key questions. he's talking -- he's getting some very thoughtful and good proposals on fixing legal immigration and how it will affect the illegal immigration problem. let's be clear here. saying that fixing legal immigration is going to solve the illegal immigration problem and solve the issue for the undocumented here is like saying we can fix the obesity problem by selling more lettuce. it doesn't happen that way. we need specific proposals. >> let's talk about president obama. in some ways, is this a lose-lose for him? he didn't reform immigration. as you heard just a moment ago he promised he would do. he had a w

there's some serious diplomatic efforts regarding syria, but more often than not, it's about the nonstateusion of power among these actors. so it's a very complicated issue in terms of how we dealing with it, how we approach it. >> can a group operating in yemen or nigeria, can they access funds in the way that bin laden could apparently? >> well, certainly not ten years ago where you had a strong flow of cash to al qaeda central. that's been degraded through a very robust, vigorous international cooperation led by u.s. treasury department. they've done a good job. so i think the cash has been reduced, but it doesn't take a lot of money to launch some of these attacks. >> what concerns you most? i don't know if that's too dumb or broad a question. >> it's a good question. weapons of mass destruction in some form. al qaeda said this was an objection, it was an obligation. we know in '01 when we captured and uncovered the anthrax laboratories al qaeda had near kandahar, all it takes is one really smart scientist with one pathogen and you've got a real problem. >> we also saw over the last c

it could be a state, it could be a nation state, it could be insurgents, terrorist, nonstate actors.ce a ion all i could come up with several scenarios where you would have all of those involved. it's about the complexity of th we might have to conduct. so in my mind, it's about developing leaders who can operate in this environment. and who can understand and who can lead. we have to have capability of to provide a variety of options to the senior leaders. different levels ofo battalions that are going to afghanistan and they know there's a drawdown coming and there's a date specific, 2014, what do you say to them about the mission and what do you say to them about what's required of them? >> what's interesting inn afghanistan. so they understand their mission to change them. they understand that where we're at now is, it's really about putting the afghan army out in front the next couple of years. yes we still do operations jointly. the mission now is to do that. but also do it with them, partnering with them. so in two years, they'll have the capability to provide security when we

countries are backing the syrian regime are going to face some consequences from this sort of ugly nonstate actors. >> i'm actually going to use moderate prerogative and jump in on this question as well. military academies teach the so-called dying paradigm, that every strategy just as idiomatic military and economic component. we also have a problem within the region that the longer, some of these conflicts drive on, the are some that seek to profit from the. we saw for example, with saddam hussein were no policy makers expect to spot the 1991 uprising. eventually various companies, beat in france france, be in russia, be it in china perhaps, decided they're going to try to break the international isolation by trying to win contracts up to and including the last days of saddam hussein. i do think that contracting sanctions action have, can provide some positive pressure to unilaterally by as the stranglehold that moscow has on the u.n. security council by means of its beta. at the same time it is not adopted, but it is also adopted by declarations in london and in washington as the policy