Place where his professional journey began, at carnegie where he served as an intern. After graduating from west and and ive known and admired nick for many years and we served together at the state department when nick worked for mister ross as a special middle east coordinators office. Nick went on to serve as one of the very few senior Us Government officials to serve virtually continuously since 9 11 in fighting terrorism around the world, first at the white house and then at nctc. Over the last three years, hes led and molded hundreds of colleagues from across 17 different federal agencies into a remarkably strong and cohesive team. At a moment when their increasing tendency, i think to disparage sometimes and to politicize the work of earlier Public Service, im especially glad to have the chance to highlight and honor the Public Service of Nick Rasmussen because nick has been the very best in Government Service so i hope youll join me in a warm welcome for Nick Rasmussen. [applause] thank you bill for the warm words. And also my thanks to Carnegie Endowment and the carnegie staff for pulling this event together. Making my last public appearance as director of nctc but also as a, last appearance as a career civil servant. At carnegie, seems right to me. My first paying job as bill noted was as a National Security professional was as a party in turn, a preview to the fellow program. 12,500 and Carnegie Endowment dollars i made that year allow me to live comfortably in my parents basement in fairfax city and subsidize my very much used nissan sentra, that was my first grownup car coming out of college. In closing, this particular chapter in my career here at carnegie as bill noted feels like coming home. Its an honor to be here. I want to spend most of the time of the hour we having conversation with bill and you but i wanted to offer a few quick framing thoughts on some topics to set the stage. For thousands something about the connection that exists between whats happening on the ground today in iraq and syria and the threat we face from isis at home and around the globe. I will say a few words about the terrorism problem that we face at home inside the United States and how we might do more to deal with that problem and lastly i will offer thoughts about altered terrorism or broadly as a National Security issue, where it fits in our landscape and our hierarchy of concerns. First, isis in iraq and syria which is of course in the headlines. Theres no question that things on the ground are trending well. After to shrink the amount of territory that isis control as its socalled physical caliphate, that effort is proceeding apace. The campaign is playing out like we hoped and envisioned it would and isis have been driven out of most of his urban stronghold and is finding itself dispersed and isolated and certainly under pressure. For the most part, isis lacks the capacity to command and control and hold territory and exercise like functions. Taxation, the exploitation of natural resources. As a haven enjoyed by isis is largely taken away. Isis hold 11 percent of the territory it held that the p of its expansion in august 2014 and thats all tremendously good news. But if thats true, and it is true, why doesnt feel that way . Why do we still feel busy by isis threats and the isis narrative around the globe . The short answer is those of us in the terrorism world expected it to play out largely this way. We expected as isis was driven out of places like mosul and raqqa, they would attack. Not directed by isis leadership in iraq and syria, increased emphasis on efforts to inspire or an able attacks by isis porters, far from the conflict zone. Urge the number of attacks taking place around the world, loan actors, people acting in small groups. These are all signs that isis has adapted to its more difficult circumstances by changing its operational model and it will continue to adapt. Or sake of context, let me say this. Im not trying to get the good news story that in many ways we are waiting on the battlefield. And turned into bad news, not all. Dripping away the physical manifestations of the caliphate will have profound implications, positive implications for our threat picture. It just wont happen right away. In time, isis will have fewer resources to support its agenda and the narrative of success that isis propagates will begin to rain more hollow and likely begin to appeal to view fewer central adherence in the months and years ahead but as i said a second ago, those games are not going to be realized overnight. Theres going to be a lifetime i would argue between the success of the military campaign in iraq and syria and the time when we will feel appreciably less threatened by isis around the world. I say that not to spread pessimism and dread rather to suggest that we still have a ways to go in our counter isis works around the world. There are chapters yet to be written in this campaign, especially as we deal with the array of isis branches and less formal networks. Places like libya, yemen, the philippines, egypt, turkey and perhaps a dozen other countries i could mention if there was enough time. None of this is comfortable to the policymakers and the policymaker looks at what we committed, on the ground in iraq and syria, they want result and they want to see an outcome in which our threat condition is somehow soft and or ease simply isnt there yet in my view. My second set of pots narrows more specifically to the homeland inside the United States. Unlike my time at the state department i spent a lot of time thinking about the whole land and what happens inside the United States. For the most part i feel good about the work done during the 16 years hence 9 11 in terms of hardening our defenses. I can certainly think of things that remain to be done and i could rattle through those at great length in the question and answer but we can say with some confidence we made it very difficult for terrorist organizations like al qaeda or isis to penetrate the homeland with a group of operatives. They drew a sleeper so literally under our nose. Groups like isis and al qaeda at this point know and understand we are a difficult target, difficult to penetrate and thats why their focus is on inspiring and mobilizing young people already here, People Living in the United States but the term of art we use in the Counterterrorism Community is hpe, homegrown violent extremists. They clearly represent the most immediate, most ubiquitous threat to us inside the United States on a daily basis. If you look back at the last half decade in particular, most of our terrorism problems inside the United States come from individuals either born or raised here or who only became radicalized well after they arrived into the unitedstates. The challenge we face at home i would argue is a hardedged intelligence challenge of ferreting out sleeper cells hiding in our midst. The challenge tied more to soft power and community engagement, working with communities to give them the tools to counter the rise of extremism inside their own communities. As i step away from Government Service in a couple weeks i can say with some credibility we are not doing enough on this score and we need to do better. If that sounds like im taking a shot at my former colleagues or any former administration, its not a shot at any of them all. Id be entirely selfcritical because ive occupied some of the positions and that challenge has fallen to me to contribute solutions and i dont think ive done a good enough job in contributing those solutions. We can talk more in the q a if theres any interest but my mom line is the battle against violent extremists will be won by the fbi alone. We need to easier for leaders to play a role in that effort. Starting in a few weeks when i need government i will try to contribute to that objective with my voice from outside government. Lastly, a few very quick words about terrorism as a broader National Security issue, why its in the focus of my professional life every day of the last 16 years. Most people know 9 11 had a way of changing most americans of a certain age and i was one of them. Or me it also sent me on a path personally and professionally that brought me to this job and ultimately to the end of my federal government career. My involvement in that our Terrorism Mission has been the most extraordinary privilege of my career, allow me to work with some of the most talented and dedicated professionals serving anywhere, not just at five but at places like cia, fbi, nsa, department of Homeland Security, the department, Justice Department and i could name a dozen other organizations. I often tell my new employees at nctc that when they are joining counterterrorism work they are playing the ultimate game. Their own success and how well they do will not be predicated on their own good work , it will also be predicated on the good work done by thousands of others, partners in the federal government but also our partners overseas. And certainly our partners in the United States within the state and local Homeland Security enterprises with whom we work so closely and i would argue that is why the work is so rewarding. Sharing both the successes and failures with fellow counterterrorism professionals has been one of the highlights of my career. At the same time i also know well counterterrorism does not shift either above or in isolation broader National Security interests or other National Security challenges. These days when i sit in the situation room and i see what secretary manis and secretary tillerson are carrying on their shoulders, it is really hard for me to fathom how they do it. North korea, china, iran, the array of cyber challenges we face, all of that weighs heavily on me even those both responsibilities are mine. Counterterrorism will fit into that National Security landscape for a long time but i accept there are other National Security issues which could demand more of our time and resources. There is still something i would argue is unique about terrorism and its ability to drive the agenda or our National Security community. Asymmetric attacks are called asymmetric because their impact extends well beyond what rational assessment would suggest they should. I would argue that sustained investment in counterterrorism capabilities from the government, even as other National Security priorities again to take over. I havent said much about this afternoon but our work at counterterrorism is in fact getting harder and more challenging and we need to continue to hire and retrain the very, very best and brightest of our young people in the counterterrorism profession. Yesterday i spent from about an hour meeting with 11 young people at nctc who showed up last monday for their first day of Government Service of entrylevel terrorism analyst. I have to say that spending an hour talking to these incredibly smart and brave young people who have joined the fight was truly inspiring. I want nothing more than to be able to serve their country and that made me feel very good about the future. I told them i would be watching and rooting for them on the sidelines in the years ahead and i hope each of you will do the same bill, thank you. Im happy to be at carnegie today and its an honor to be here. [applause] ,thank you very much and youve given us paint reminder of why we were also fortunate to have you as the director for the past few years and over a professional lifetime of service. Ill get the conversation started with a couple of questions but i dont want to monopolize it so i hope you are thinking of your own questions as i will open it up shortly but let me start by, you provide a good overview i think of a lot of the challenges that youve seen over the last 15 years and as you look at the landscape over the decade and a half or so, as you look back to a period when you first started engaging in ct work after 9 11, how have your assumptions changed over that period . Whats surprised you most as the landscape has shifted those last 15 years . I guess it would be best. We tended to think of terrorism organizations during the period during 9 11 as being covert, clandestine movements that could pose a threat to us, but they were certainly not Mass Movements, not mass ideologically driven movements. It was about trying to read out all cells of highly committed , highly ideologically committed bad guys were trying to do is harm and isis has changed the model in many ways. Isis are not the majority in any muslim or certainly any Muslim Community but certainly isis has a Mass Movement approach to terrorism, allday crowdsourcing approach to terrorism and that requires a different set of tools if we are going to fight back against that particular problem and thats enough of a challenge but all other challenge thats already there that we had after 9 11 is still there. We added more onto the table, something fell off the table in the interim. To think i just talked to you for 150 minutes and didntuse the word al qaeda once , that would suggest we are not totally focused as a government, totally focused as a Counterterrorism Community on the continuing work to protect ourselves al qaeda that ive made a mistake in my remarks. So we keep adding problems to the problem set and at the same time, the resource picture as i suggest that the end is destined to get tougher as some of these other issues again to crowd out the state. Just to to the question a little bit, its one thing to look backwards but as you look out over the last decade and a half, what worries you the most . You talk in your remarks about cyber tools which the technology is going to create more vulnerability in some ways, less terrorist groups, state actors can take advantage of so are we doing enough at this stage to anticipate those kind of threats and prepare for them . Where should we be focusing more of our attention . Good question, i wish i had a concise answer. One of the things ive taken away from the last 15 years is the requirement to exercise a fair amount of humility. Now we in the Intelligence Community but to put up these oriented bits of analysis, i struggled to take them seriously even in reading them if they extend much beyond the 3 to 5 year timeline because im not sure its a useful conversation. What i have challenged are analysts to think about and to try to contribute to solutions about is where does this ideological struggle go . We had a conference last fall that i commissioned by asking the question how does it all end . It was in my mind not isis or al qaeda but it, this particular form of extremism largely emanating from sunni communities. But which has taken on different flavors over the past decade. Al qaeda, isis and other regional terrorist groups and the question is not how do you defeat isis because if isis is defeatedthere is Something Else that will pick up the mantle of that struggle. Probably fed by some regional conflict in some challenging part of the world, so how do we get that problem and not just think of it in terms of defeating isis or killing bin laden or winning in afghanistan because that isnt going to get us to the end of this problem. The answer i got back from the analysts after a couple days of conference making was its probably on the time horizon youre talking about not going to get outcome though that was a little bit like talk about sustained investment because this is a problem that can be managed, a problem set thats not likely to drop off the National Security agenda in any reasonable time horizon. The best case outcome as it was described to me from the people taking a look at this question was itemizing or localizing the problem that it wasnt a global problem. Reduce it to a series of localized challenges where the grievances were largely local and the answers were driven locally, rather than some sort of global narrative that isis and al qaeda propagate. That doesnt play very well in strategies from the administration, democratic or republican. You cant talk about holding the problem that they and get a lot of credit for that. A very compellingpolitical argument. So geographically, it seems that sort of disorder and continuing dysfunction in the arab world, whether it faces al qaeda or another acronym, youre likely to see people but as you look elsewhere around the world, what concerns you the most as you see people taking advantage of dysfunction elsewhere, is it going to take different forms in your experience in the middle east . While it may have a reasonable manifestation, thats one of the challenges isis has thrust upon us is that the effort against terrorism could end up being pretty borderless pretty quickly. The individuals who are involved in recruiting and inspiring in training and enabling terrorists dont have to be physically located and dont even need to speak the same language. Or operate on the same historical frame of reference. So that, think about it as a regional problem now is a little bit misleading because there almost is no boundary, no way to bound the terrorism problem we are facing now. Also i think gives us certain advantages. We have individuals operating in this environment can be isolated and the environment can be in a sense off if we can successfully identify them througheffective Law Enforcement and intelligence. But its a pretty daunting prospect to think about dealing with something where there simply are no physical barriers or physical boundaries that prevent the flow of information and capability here. So it leaves me not to be optimistic about, as i said, ambitious solutions. I think of this more as a problem to be managed within acceptable range of costs rather than Something Else. You talk in your opening remarks about counter extremism, cte which more than a decade has animated a lot of different factions of Us Government. What is it weve gotten right and what have we learned about the cv effort over time . You see a largely personal perspective where everybody comes away with this with their own sense of what works and what doesnt. I come away feeling again, a pretty well developed sense ofhumility about our ability to engage in this work across the globe. The idea that americans fought for resources or programs are going to shape outcomes in an urban ghetto of a large moroccan city or some part of the city heartland is a little bit pretentious to think we would have that impact. On the other hand, i put all the weight of the world on our own shoulders dealing with that problem inside the United States where we have an obligation, a positive obligation to be aggressively involved in countering violent terrorism work at home and its something i alluded to in my remarks that the idea being that we need to engage with communities early and often to explain to them what we are seeing, what we know about how extremism takes root. Not with the idea that the problem can be solved in washington but the idea that an informed community as in most cases the tools within it to identify and eventually, hopefully diver that person who may be headed down that path. The problem is that makes a great briefing but implementing and executing a program of the kind i just described in the diverse landscape that is america is pretty tough. I do a lot of travel and theres communities i go into where there is a very, very mature and welldeveloped conversation going on between the community and Law Enforcement about how to manage this and other communities go to those communities and theres a hostile conversation going on between Law Enforcement and the community so its simply not a one size fits all set of solutions. In terms of figuring out how to president someone doing that thing but when im in that i argue that regardless of what metrics we can identify we have an obligation to try and do this is to get better at it was learned from when we screw it up and do better the next time works three times out of ten or five times out of 20 and that is okay and we have an obligation to do this. We will probably make mistakes along the way and its a business in which you have risk tolerance because it involves working with individuals who are on the fringe of doing something. A back to your question ive learned this is hard in imperfect but we have no choice but to try to do it better. Communities as you look across that experience in the us and alaska and you can think of any examples or the ingredients for their success in those particular instances . The ingredients had tend to be of holistic 360 involvement so its not just a conversation with a cop and the fbi. Instead its a conversation that involves the entire community is broadly defined as defined it. My snapshot of this when it works well is that there is a conference table in a room somewhere in that city or Community Around which sits the police the Emergency Management and the federal Law Enforcement personnel but also sits educators and leaders, housing authority, Sports Authority and representatives of literally every social Service Provider or Community Like organization you can imagine and in the middle of that table is the file and its a file about one potential individual who may be headed on a path of doing something and becoming radicalized and potentially extreme. The file gets opened and the conversation starts can do something about this in his current tool and who can change this persons circumstance and get them out of the housing situation there in which is making them more vulnerable and for them in another situation. Can make sure theres a diversion that would get them off this past because the fbi, i can tell you there sitting at the table and last thing they want to do is get to the point where they have to arrest an 18 yearold or 19 yearold to throw them in jail for 30 years. But if he gets to that point they will do that. The community i think if they are involved in i can understand that there are opportunities before that point left at that point and thats the ideal scenario i would see and yet that conversation isnt easy to arrange. Im sure that is true. Thank you, nick. I promise not to monopolize the conversation so let me open it up to all of you and all i ask is raise your hands, wait for the microphone to come to you, please identify yourself and please be concise and remember to and with a . Yes, sir. Could you please comment on current state of corporation pitching United States and russia in [inaudible]. Thank you. As you can imagine cooperation with Russian Security services is a difficult enterprise. Yet we certainly approach it from a position of trying to identify areas of mutual interest and working with possible capitalize on those areas of mutual interest and i shouldve started first by saying that whenever we have any information with respect to a terrorist threat that may impact another country and not even a partner country but litter literally any other country in the world we will share that information and we take it very seriously and bill knows this from his time as a master that the duty to warn we feel is a solemn duty and at a minimum we always share information of relevance to the security of another country. Day in and day out is it possible to have that kind of intimate counterterrorism cooperation that we have with many other partners around the world right now . Certainly i would argue in the current environment is not there are certain areas of shared interest where we can identify work that we can do together, not too long ago i hold status in a meeting in my organization with russian officials who were thinking about securing next years world cup game in the United States has a profound interest in making sure that goes well despite the fact that there is in a us Team Involved in the us we wanted to so go well. But it is to us that we sit down with them at an early stage and talk to them seriously about how we have taken steps to secure those type of events when we have them and the set up intelligence sharing mechanisms for sharing what we can with them while theyre doing it. That is a good example of the tangible but maybe narrow cooperation we can engage in with. Thank you very much. Thank you. Michael with the department of state. What do you see is the effective role of the us economic diplomacy other than a sanctions and trade and development in terms of combating terrorism and violent extremism and does the American Public appreciate and make this a priority for the federal government . You know, from my perspective economic diplomacy, if it can contribute to the creation of a more liberal representative democratic order in different places around the world that is a positive contribution. If that diplomacy can help undermine the source of grievance that feed the narrative at terrorist organizations use in order to recruit young people then that is a true and real contribution. It is a couple of steps removed from certainly on the continuum of time those are investments we make with no expectation that they pay off in the near term. So it is probably hard for most americans to appreciate how that particular tool connects to keep the nicest away from times square on new years eve. I would argue there is a connection but its just a long and tenuous one. How about the flipside of that with the treasury has developed a real capacity for in recent years and that is squeezing terrorism finance and what advances have you seen in there and what more can we do . That is a tremendous story that has been told but probably not enough appreciated over the last 15 years as we have largely forced terrorist organizations outside of the legitimate economy. Banks, Financial Institutions know that they will suffer not only massive Reputational Risk but massive financial risk if they dont attend to this particular part of their set of response abilities. They will pay a price and that price is way too high and so they will go overboard in order to make sure they dont have to pay that price. That is why ice is such a challenge for us because when you are of no no state and you have all the access to resources that come with being a proto state that disrupts the model of counterterrorist financing which we set into motion and created so effectively undersecretary treasury and the bush and now trump and ministrations. If theyve got their own oil and gas and ability to tax and extort from large populations than nothing we do with this paper that bank will permit them from funny what they do. All the more reason the discretion of the caliphate was so big deal. Even as it will not pay off tomorrow or next week but it is essential of the business. Yes, maam hello. Im alex, Research Fellow at Foreign Policy for america. I recently read a story on wire that said isis or that that isis is a media conglomerate as they are a terrorist group. I was just wondering if you could speak to the collaboration you had with the private sector like facebook and twitter or how you see social media responding to the order list challenges . Great question. I think one of the things thats been encouraging to me about the transition from the obama immigration to the trump and ministration as we carried forward the conversation that started last and ministration and has carried on with the Technology Sector in order to try to bring vast amounts of information to those who find their platforms used by bad guys. We are sharing much more information and i would argue with them that we would have been able to a few years ago. Some of that is intentional on our part and were trying to make them more aware so that they can take their own steps to police their environment and some of it in one of my former deputies id like to say is what killed them with knowledge and lets put on their shoulders some responsibility for owning their share of this problem. I would argue the conversation is a more mature one that was a couple of years ago and it still has a ways to go. I think there are still instances in which we wish these companies would be more active and proactive in bringing to our attention things happening on their domains that ultimately could lead to real terrorism. Right now the conversation is more one way when we bring something to them of significant concern they will act. I would like to see a more reciprocal arrangement. That is not to minimize some of steps they have taken all on their own to police their own domains. As i said, i want to give credit where credit is due in that regard. The other part of this conversation i would point he was our european friends are particularly aggressive in this space in talking with the tech companies. American officials when we sit down and talk to the from these we always have in mind our own set of principles tied to our own Civil Liberties from work in the idea that were not looking to shut off legitimate speech. European partners are less troubled or burdened or encumbered in that conversation and so they are sometimes more willing to be more aggressive and talking to companies and saying what they think they should be doing. Yes, sir. Hello. Daniel research intern. My question is for the ongoing debate with the a ums which has been criticized for lacking heavily the geographic limitation and what would you like to see if there is a new a ums to help ensure that we can continue to have counterterrorism by going forward. That starts to stray into the policy set of the questions that could pompously get me its not fired at least in trouble in the last two weeks but what i would hope to see is whatever framework emerges have it be sufficiently flexible that we can account for what i talk about with the investor earlier the fact that even after isis there might not be in isis black flag anymore but some other organization picks up the mantle of sunni extremism and carries it forward under different brand or name and we shouldnt necessarily have to go back to the drawing board and thinking about what tools we want to use just because of a rebranding or a new phase in order to what i described as a longerterm struggle. That unfortunately that impulse i just described a maintaining possibility may sound like asking for openended authority to operate around the world using kinetic course and thats not what i am arguing for. But i think there has to be a balance drawn between two tightly circumscribing what will do and where we will do it and it has to be balanced against the recognition that we are largely fighting a borderless campaign right now. That is probably the closest ill come to offering the view on how it should turn out and i would argue for being mindful of the need for some flexibility in not shutting off our capacity to respond quickly if a new theater emerges that puts us in a bind. Way in the back. Thank you. Wondering what your reaction is and perhaps what advice youve been given to other Government Agencies now that the president has officially recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel and theres been a lot coming out from terrorist groups and Islamic State and al qaeda responding to that and how is that changing the picture and is there a benefit in the long term to the us question. My particular role is and i would argue my colleagues in the Intelligence Community our role is limited to spelling out with as much precision and care as possible our assessment of what particular courses of action will lead to in terms of threat and i can certainly say that in the case of this particular policy decision that was done and its also hard i find hard to project and predict with precision if a, then be with something as complex or completed as steps related to jerusalem or any steps related to the israelipalestinian conflict. I think theres no doubt in the short term in the near term there will be an increase in violence and that we are at greater risk in certain places around the world and certainly in a Diplomatic Security perspective our men and women serving in difficult spots overseas and this will add to the security problem and add to security complexity but i cant tell you how long that will extend and i cant tell you and what horizon that will take place but certainly we know in the near term the security environment is big chunks of the middle east will be more confident. In terms of the impact longerterm on the prospects for stability or progress in the israelipalestinian conversation where people are more far more expert the need these days can form an opinion on the topic you. Please. Hello. Ted, independent. Based on your experience and observation what have you observed to be some of the primary precursors in the formation and growth of terrorist organizations that affect the catalyst to newer organizations forming and rapidly growing . I think too easy, obvious ones are not telling anyone to profound regional, conflict and when you plant secretary and tension and regional conflict with almost guarantee yourself some degree of some terrorist movement emerging or becoming active. That the conversation inside the government of okay then how do we get through those underlying conditions and how to resolve regional conflict and how do we address sectarian tension and of course that is much harder problem than simply destroying a terrorist organization or ruining out a particular carousel and this is another area where i probably have grown more humble over time in terms of the way we as a government articulate strategy and dealing with these problems. I remember being part of strategy writing exercises in the 2003, four, five. That said all of the things were going to do to make yemen really successful as a state and here we are 14 years later still struggling with the disintegrating yemen which serves as an incubator for a terrorist organization and a safe haven for us to print terrorist Organization Top of our list the last 16 years. I just identified a problem and i dont think theres much of a solution to it and ive grown as i said more adopted more humility about our ability to truly produce the kind of outcomes that would lead to successful resolution of those regional conflicts. That is why i think my sense of strategy about counterterrorism these days is more limited to managing a problem is that it doesnt become a game changer politically, economically and socially the United States. That can be achieved thats successful. Yes, sir. And on [inaudible] i will stick closely to my prescribed role as a Senior Intelligence officer, professional whatever you want to call it but i mean i think we certainly continue to look at iran as one of the foremost aggressive sponsors of terrorist activity across the middle east. Certainly the kinds of resources that have been flowing into conflict written parts of the middle east, gavin being a good example do nothing to bring stability and do everything to add to the instability and add to the level of death and destruction, ongoing in a place like him in right now. We continue from an intelligence perspective to isolate and relate those bits of information that allow us to stay we can document and improve it talk about it so that we can, innocence, armor salt diplomatically to have those kind of conversations that say we know what you are doing and it needs to stop or to organize International Pressure more effectively than we are sometimes able when we cant think that picture. From an intelligence perspective that is what we focus on. Lets develop the clearest, possible picture, not just in terms of rhetoric but actual, tangible examples of how iranian support for extremist movements on the middle east is, in fact undermining stability. I dont know that ive seen any particular Inflection Point from the conclusion and it tells me that is worse or better but i dont know the infusion of Resources Available to the Iranian Regime has somehow made them dramatically more capable of the kinds of influence and contributions to instability theyre making in these places are not always measured in money or billions or millions of dollars. Relatively small sums of money and small infusion of personnel can add a lot of conflict. I dont know is i look at as tied directly to the baby away. Yes, sir. Sydney, breaking the fence. To follow up on iran. You focus mostly for obvious reasons today on sunni extremism that is nonstate although it became a cause i state in iran offers the other spectrum as a nationstate although very old and highly civilized that is moved down the spectrum conflict to use terrorism as a tool. To some degree the north koreans do this and russians like to assassinate people and how is iran as a model of statesponsored terrorism different as a challenge from these more amorphous bottomup Networks Using the sunni side . Thats a good question but the primary difference is with pure terrorist organizations al qaeda comprises, its not like we have any ability or reason to have any dialogue or with those organizations at all. There is no dialogue to be had so the tears apart of the problem with al qaeda is one of percent of the problem. They are simply not space to try to reach some kind of understanding that would take that tool off the table. On the other hand, what we know about Iranian State sponsorship of terrorism fits alongside a whole other things we know about iran and a whole other teams we engage with the Iranian Regime either directly or indirectly over the last couple of decades. That would argue to me that there is space for a conversation about how to use one of those one of those vectors in order to influence other vectors. I will leave it to others for more expert about the jp away on the podium here to talk about how we would view that particular set of problematic iranian behavior as alongside other iranian problematic behavior but at least there is a trait space they are when you have the ability to talk about one against another. With al qaeda there simply no conversation to be had and theres nothing that can be put on the table as a carrot or a stick that would change the way in which we engage with al qaeda. The toolkit should theoretically be more full of things that we could potentially do about the problem than dealing with the state. Absolutely to bring the resources of the state and it makes it difficult to strangle the resource flow that goes to terrorist organizations. In the back. Judy carson, retired for answers. Would you talk about the vulnerabilities in our immigration laws and what measures you would take to stop and elicit facilitation with smugglers and traffickers from taking advantage of our loopholes . All speak more narrowly than your question gets out because ive done a very, very deeply involved in this question over the last year and a half of my time. Our role in an tcc is not to decide what the threshold should be or not to decide what numbers of immigrants or numbers of refugees should be allowed into the country but what our role is to provide the best possible input into a decisionmaking process that is led by the state department and department of plant security and that input we provide is an Intelligence Community input that says here is everything we could know conceivably do know about an individual who is seeking to enter the United States and what we know about their associations and what we know about the potential connection to terrorist organization and what we know about their historical ties to anyone else that may have been a concern to us. That is an input and i would argue its important but entirely imperfect input. A lot of times what we do is say we dont know if that person has any of these ties and is that a sufficiently positive view to make a positive decision to allow a person to enter the country or is the lack of derogatory information something not enough to allow a person to be admitted into the country. I would argue those are non intelligence russians and those are policy questions to be answered and they should be answered on the basis of risk tolerance. How much risk are we willing to accept as a society for allowing certain revelations in the United States as measured against the demonstrated benefit that those admissions would allow us and i would hope that we can move to a more mature and responsible conversation about risk versus gain rather than conversation that is focused solely on preventing and blocking and stopping because i think over time it would be a healthier outcome could understand better risk versus gain. Six. Yes, sir. Jim, retired foreign service. Going back to your metaphor on the conference table where everyone could take a piece of the problem. You talk about collecting information in a piece of this effort which is putting out information there are a lot of players in that operation. Do you have any parting observation about is that properly resourced, targeted and structured and what could we, should we, will be be doing in the area of active measures and messaging going on as opposed to intel collecting . This is one of the areas is trying to be selfcritical because i think we could do more to resource these kind of outreach efforts particularly here inside the United States. I have a set of officers at an ctc work in this particular space who are amazing professionals and they know this train extreme a well and they go into trinities all around the country and sit down and have a very intense and emotional conversations about extremism and what extremism look back and when its happening in your neighborhood. I could have them on the road 22 weeks a year because there is literally not a Community Across the country where they would it become benefits of this and my point in mentoring earlier is were not operating at a scale in order to have these kinds of conversations and its not enough to simply ship out a bunch of pamphlets and say these leave these on the front table by the exit of the Community Center and hope that people will pick them up and read them and decide oh now i know what i need to know about extremism. We do that and we have products that we put out in one of the things that has been a huge evolution is we write and publish now much more for an unclassified audience trying to be able to share particularly terrorism and trying to share information with local Law Enforcement and who dont have security and arent members of the community and National Security and our contrition to them is to put some of them in a way it was useful and we do a lot of that and it has to be supplemented but facetoface human engagement and thats the part i dont think we have resourced yet to the point that we need to. Down to her last question. Retired state permit. I want to follow up on the last question and its a place where question between Civil Society and government and always be difficult and when we talk about those sitting on the table as i remember government and many of the agencies and the federals involved came from one flavor or another of on and sometimes those youre trying to reach in the communities out there are not necessarily lawenforcement may not be the best entry point. I wonder how do we think about building a better to a dialogue between Law Enforcement professionals and entirely soft, civil roles so that information flow back and forth and perhaps we can get to the point where a file that you didnt know about is up on the table and can be discussed. One of the. One of the particularly frustrating things matter terrorism problem is how many system starts with had bureaucratically about how to organize us. If you put too much of a lawn flavor it stifles the conversation and quickly makes it an us versus them conversation and on the other hand that is where most of the expertise insider government reside in the long been and weve tried to make this bureaucratically part of a broader Homeland Security and resilience rather than simply where are the terrorist in your Community Conversation but that means you are taking a long time to get to the point sometimes and you have to broaden the conversation in a way where it doesnt seem all that coherent. We want to sit down and have an Office Conversation with this community and all threats being everything from environmental terrorism to street gangs to domestic terrorism here in the United States. You quickly can lose coherency and mutter the message if youre into that space so i think were still in a trier and error phase and the department of Homeland Security has become the process of going the set of issues in each major metropolitan area and thats a start because that could become a Falling Point for trinity outrage outward but also inquiry coming inward and i wish we had more to say about just that but to me thats a positive start. Unfortunately it will end up also looking very different as a community in which you do it. What will work in denver will not work necessarily in los angeles or atlanta or new york or chicago until weve cracked the code on tailored structured Civil Society in each city that works and we have models that work but they dont seem to be replicated. Thank you, nick. I hate to bring this conversation to a close but it has been wonderful to welcome me home to carnegie and i want to thank you on all of our behalf, not just for your thoughts on this the past hour but for your extraordinary Public Service over the last 30 years. Please join me in thinking that. [applause] thank you so much. That was great. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] joining us live tonight for coverage of President Trump holding a rally in pensacola, florida where he is expected to talk about republican efforts. Our live coverage from the Pensacola Bay Center begins at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. We will have that right here on cspan2 be can also watch online at cspan. Org or by downloading the free cspan radio app. Sunday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on book tv on cspan2. Former Senior Advisor to secretary of state, rex tillerson, discusses his book Digital World war, islam is, extremists and the fight for cyber supremacy. Content is king. Distribution is clean and she wears the pants in the family. If you think about that the way i like to think about isis and others is that we are in a content for. At 8 00 p. M. Former msnbc acre with her book everything you need to know about social media without having to call a kid. In social media everyone can get together and everyone can join together and do incredible things. There are stories in the book about what others have done social media and social media is not really new. All thats new are the delivery platforms. Think about it. We have Smoke Signals and that serve to social media everyone can seize that and the party line in the top of mine that is social media and everyone in the block to get on the phone. Whats so different is that everything is amplified and in terms of how far you reach and of course the speed of the communication. With a full schedule go to booktv. Org. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3. Saturday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern, Yale University historian Joanne Freeman on alexander hamilton. In washington became president in 1789 he made hamilton the nations secretary of the treasury and in the post hamilton structured a National Financial system and pushed to strengthen and empower the national government. Washington wa launched a stratec battle and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were his foremost political opponents. Sunday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on real america the 19 80s training film unwelcome affection about inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Your new here on the staff, right . I make a lot of decisions. I am the one that picks up evaluation reports and i signed threeday passes and leaves and for a word of advice if you want to get a loan youll itll be beneficial to you to be nicer to me. At 8 00 p. M. On the presidency, historian on president Andrew Jacksons efforts to challenge and cripple the bank of the United States during the 1830s. No president s before had said anything like this. Other president s had warned americans against entangling foreign alliances and they had warned americans about sectionalism and excessive partisanship at home and jackson warned them against control of their own government by, in his words, the rich and powerful. American history tv all weekend, every weekend only on cspan3. Cspan where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider