Transcripts For CSPAN Counterterrorism Efforts 20140907

Thank you for the social media club. Please take note of this. Him to the foreignpolicy debates that really starts the Critical Issues that our country needs to decide about. In 2012. Founded and the mccain family going back generated once in the history of service they have provided. The mission is some hope. It is to promote the next generation of care are driven leadership. We want to promote human rights and National Security and we want to contribute to a culture debate about the critical choices our country faces. That is why we have launched this today. To eliminate the issues and make it nonpartisan but highly informative. We want to give equal time and want you to make your own decisions about what you think we need to be doing as a country. We have covered issues such as serious. Should we get out of that dennis dan . What do we do about policy . When its too much nsa too much . Define all of these on our website. I encourage you to take a look. Our next one is october 23 about china. Tonights debate is being covered by cspan. Pleased with this. The topic of tonights debate the global war on terrorism. Given what weve seen with isis taking over part of iraq and syria, with the horrible beheadings of two american citizens in the past two weeks, is it time for us to double down . Should we be taking the war to terrorist again . Is it time to renew the global war on terrorism . To debate that topic, we have people of unparalleled experience and knowledge in that area, former deputy National Security advisor or counterterrorism is our moderator. I will say more about him in a second. But also, former security advisor and acting director of the cia and the Deputy Director for counterterrorism at the cia. It is a very well informed sets of debaters. I hope we get a lot out of this tonight. We want the audience not only to listen, but also to take art. There will be an opportunity for questions. Think about what questions you would like to put to a panel such as this. At this point, let me turn to introduce our moderator, juan zarate. He was a particularly good friend. We served together in the National Security council when he was a deputy the deputy. Prior to that, he had set up the task force to go after terrorist financing. He is now doing many things, including working with cbs as a commentator. I will turn it over to him to introduce our debaters. Over to you. Thank you. [applause] ambassador volker, thank you very much. Its an honor to be here and i appreciate the opportunity to serve as moderator for this panel. Good evening to all of you. As kurt mentioned, we are being covered on cspan. We have to be conscious of our audience abroad. We will be getting questions from the twitter audience. This will be an act of debate, both here and on line. Let me say first that there could not be a more timely debate or discussion. The question of what to do about the terrorist threat, as kurt described, is front and center in our national debate. I cannot imagine a better panel to have that debate. These are individuals with unprecedented experience over the course of many administrations. And so we are set for a lively and important debate. We will allow for as much distinction as possible. They are owing to be ready to debate, as a they are going to be ready to debate, as opposed to coming to Grand Central conclusions together. But first, let me open up the debate and i will and how we will move forward with the format. We have seen a more dangerous and complicated terrorism environment. The march of isis, now proclaimed as the Islamic State, establishing a safe haven in the heart of the middle east, foreign fighters and seen before in the history of modern terrorism, thousands of foreign fighters flowing to the region. In metastasized Al Qaeda Movement in nigeria in the form of boko haram all the way to the indian subcontinent, a movement that has developed new techniques to raise funds globally locally and draw global funding. And they have used the media in innovative ways. And an ideology that is inspiring both in the fight and in western societies. The question now before us, as you see in our program, is whether it is time to double down. What is our strategy, given this new complicated and more dangerous environment . What does that mean you are the administration has talked about degrading and destroying the Islamic State. What does that mean in terms of National Power . What does doubling down mean in the kermit the current context . And with the potential for quagmire in places like syria, and other places around the world in crises, whether russia and ukraine, or tension in the south china sea. Let me describe the panel collectively. You have their bios in front of you. I will give a thumb description of each in just a second. Let me describe them collectively. Collectively, they are quite a remarkable group. They have all served at the seniormost levels of the government. They have set in the sickroom, if not sharing meetings in the sickroom that advised cabinets and secretaries. And president s. And they have all served in different administrations at different times in our counterterrorism campaign. They now all sit on the outside, so in some ways hopefully this loosens their tongues of it, makes them freer to debate. But they also serve as key voices in the media. These are remarkable panelists. Let me describe the panelists in teams. We have arranged them to and to two and two, with mike morel and Fran Townsend advocating for the idea of doubling down. And the other two arguing against. Let me introduce mike very briefly. Mike was the former acting director of the cia after a long, storied career in the agency. He served as a National Security consultant, and also with me at cbs news as an advisor and talking head, if you will. Next to mike is Fran Townsend. Full disclosure, a former boss of mine. Former assistant to the president , president bush. For Homeland Security and counterterrorism. Served in numerous capacities, and you can see in her bio the multiple roles that she has played. But in particular, the Vice President at mcandrews and forbes holding, and also a commentator at cnn. Next to fran is dan benjamin. Ambassador benjamin was the former ambassador at large for counterterrorism in the Obama Administration at the state department. He now serves as the director of the John Sloan Dickey center for International Understanding at dartmouth. And next to dan is philip mudd. Wellknown to many of you who watch cnn, especially recently, a commentator there. Former Deputy Director of the cia Counterterrorism Center shortly after 9 11. These are all individuals who have been in the battlefield, so to speak. Theyve been in policy and operational positions and can speak to not just the theoretic, but the practical almonds of this debate. Let me say briefly how we will conduct this debate. We will have five minute openings from each side, and then three minute rebuttals from each side. We will then open it up to questions and answers. I will start with a few questions, but then we will open it up to you, the audience, and those who will submit questions via twitter. What we will do at the end is ask each side to give us some cogent points and policy recommendations based on their opinions. Part of the reason that i think the Mccain Institute in these debates is in these debates is not only to inform the public, but to engage the public. One of the things i want to challenge you all is to think long and hard about your views on this and to think about how this debate is shaping and perhaps affecting the way you think about these questions i will ask a couple of questions at the end of the audience. I would like to start first if we turn it over to the panelists, to ask a broad and general question. How many of you in the audience think we are losing the war on terror . Ok, keep this in mind, because at the end, what i will ask you is whether or not this debate has materially informed your opinion. And whether or not your opinion has changed as a result of the debate. I would be interested to see the results. With that, lets begin. Fran, lets start with you. A couple of facts, isis,isil we will call it the Islamic State so we are not stepping all over the name. They have seized more geography than any other terrorist in history. They control a crescent from aleppo to baghdad. They control the border between what was iraq and syria. They have shut off the border between syria and turkey largely. They have seized weapons from inside iraq from the iraqi got iraqi army. They have seized finances. They have beheaded two americans. Cap the single most Sophisticated Media campaign that the u. S. Government has ever tried to combat across two administrations and multiple parties. No administration has been able to effectively counter their media campaign. The videos of the beheadings that you saw were not an accident. They were carefully orchestrated. They had a british individual who was a clear english speaker. The orange jumpsuit of the victims was reminiscent of gitmo. Clearly, these were edited videos. You see the knife go to the victims throat. It fades to black, and then you see the aftermath of the beheading. They intentionally do not show the bloody, protracted process of the beheading. The Islamic State is tracking its own numbers. It had been tracking its own numbers since 2011. The United States government to would do well to do the same. To give you a couple of data points, in quarter one of 2011, they had committed for executions by their own count, and in q1 of 2014, just 399 it was 399. It had more than quadrupled. Cyberattacks sniper attacks, in 2014 at 270. Ied attacks are on the rise. Impolite explosive devices require more skill, more financing, and more access improvised explosive devices require more skill, more financing, and more access to supplies. They had topped 1800 by the end of 2014. That does not account for the increase in the amount of cash they have access to from the bank of modal m osul, which happen at the end of q1, and before there were krugman of 6000 fighters of july, 2014. Suicide missions remain popular by the group. Although the use of suicide else is down. The use of suicide car bombs is up. That is why fatalities are up. 2013 is the deadliest year in iraq since 2008 with 8800 people killed. The Islamic State is not merely a terrorist group. It is any regular army using terrorist tactics. The document of atrocities in could kidnappings, beheadings, crucifixions, torture, slavery, rape, and summary mass executions, including 500 iraqi soldiers at a military base in june when it was seized. Now we come to foreign fighters. The single greatest threat, both to the United States, to the region, and to the government of iraq and what remains of the government in syria. The surge came in foreign fighters after they declared a caliphate the summer. The estimates range anywhere from 10,000 up to 30,000, depending on who you listen to. There are at least 700 French Foreign fighters, 500 rates, and as we know, the number of americans, while unclear, has been reported in somewhere of the neighborhood of 100. Many of those foreign fighters will die in the battlefield. Just yesterday, british investigators reported that they believe possibly have have returned to the united kingdom. That is a problem. It is a problem to track them. It is part of what makes so critically important identifying the individual in the videotape, not just because you want to capture and punish the individual who is responsible for the beheadings of the two americans, but because you want to be able to backtrack through the network, the pipeline that got him there, the pipeline that recruited him in the united kingdom, presuming that is where hes from, and the network of associates that he leaves behind. Frankly got about 30 seconds. Fran, youve got about 30 seconds. Is it time to double down . I would say it is passed down. We have a lobbyist on wednesday to gather too much momentum. Is doubling down enough . I would say no. We are not doing enough now to say that doubling down would be sufficient. We need a comprehensive approach that would adequately and immediately is adequately and immediately resource. Winning clear objectives, and that means a coalition that the u. S. Must lead. I will take a prerogative of the moderator to give you a minute or so, mike. Let me define what double down means to me. It can mean a lot of different things. Doubling down means to me that wherever al qaeda poses a threat to United States today, or is likely to throw to pose a threat to United States, we need to put as much pressure on them as possible. What history has shown in this entire fight is that when you put pressure on them, you can degrade them. You can disrupt plotting and reduce the chances they will be successful. When you take that pressure off, history has been very clear that they research, they rebuild, and a gain capabilities to attack us. We are under threat today from al qaeda in pakistan, al qaeda in yemen, and isis. And there are places in the world that if we dont watch, we will face a 9 11 style threat again. Double down, absolutely. Dan, why dont we start with you . Angst to the Mccain Institute. Thanks to the Mccain Institute. And to answer that we have to determine what kind of threat we face that will determine what kind of response. We need some precision here. It is clear, as fran demonstrated, that the Islamic State is a group of unparalleled brutality as well as surprisingly capable insurgent group. It is clearly a major regional threat. It has also created an enormous safe haven in syria and iraq and attracted numerous foreign fighters, which give it key assets for plotting terrorist acts abroad. While they hay want to carry out attacks in the west, to date, it has not carried out or even attempted a covert terrorist organization outside its theater. Indeed, i think we have to ask a question, is it focused on us . I would submit that right now its focus is not principally on us. Despite the appalling executions of the last two weeks, they are consumed by their efforts to tear apart iraq in a sectarian conflict. And to quote the direct i dont have director of nctc from his speech yesterday, at this point in time we have no credible information that isil is planning to attack the United States he added, in our view, any threat this is from the sympathizers and foreign fighters, any threat to the u. S. Homeland is likely to be limited in scope and scale. We as a nation have made some costly mistakes in the past in places like vietnam and iraq by making hasty and falseage cease of the threat we face and we really should not do so again. So while i support limited air strikes along the current line, i think the doubles down we need is in the form of intensive engagement, including thru financial and military incentives with regional partners who are the most immediately threatened by isis and above all we must stay the course and push the iraqis to get past the divisions in baghdad and take the fight to isis. I think we do face a longterm threat in isis, the desire to kill westerners. I believe well see a campaign in the region to destroy its leadership. But we should not own this struggle. It belongs to iraqis and their neighbors and a precipitous effort now with a broad air campaign or even Ground Forces would both fail and relieve these countries of their responsibility to get their act together and thats something we cannot allow to occur. I sat at the threat table at the f. B. I. And c. I. A. For almost 10 years. In the spring of 2002 into the wint over 2003 and beyond, the defining characteristic was the unknown. What will al qaeda do tomorrow . In particular thinking about everything from a major catastrophic attack and w. M. D. , in particular, anthrax. We have learned a lot since then, since we were defined by not knowing what the al qaeda adversary was. We watched them move into places like pakistan and watched them recruit american citizens from places like somalia. In each of those cases, in each of those three major countries which are on the front page and cnn every day, each of those cases have fallen off the front pages. What are the responses . In no case did we have a significant did we have significant u. S. Forces on the ground. In yemen, we had a group. We had a coalition in africa, and we had will agented u. S. Intelligence component with overhead assistance that helped go after a small sliver of the organization responsible for threats to the United States. We went from we dont know the adversary to we know the adversary. And in the circumstances where we knew the adversary, we decided not doubling down was necessary and history has shown us that we were able to contain the adversary with that approach. So my question to you is, indonesia, philippines, yemen, somalia, every day, every year, we have a new threat and now we have another one. Why are we going to change . The past has shown success, why dont we aplay the same instruments of power in the future . Thank you. Mike, you and fran three minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. Dan, i think, made the really important point here which is, whats the threat . Whats the threat . And weve got to be careful that we dont just talk about isis. This is a much bigger problem than isis. I would tell you that matt olson, who i admire greatly, his comment about theres no credible information that isis is about to hit us, let me tell you something, there was no credible information on september 10, 2001, that alchi was going to hit us. The threat is can what fran said it was, them directing a canadian citizen or western citizen to come here and dect a small scale attack that could happen tomorrow, with or without credible information. A. Q. In yemen could bring down an airliner in the United States tomorrow, they have that capability, with or without information. I agree with dan completely that we have to figure out this e the best way to put pressure on each of these groups. I afree with phil. Its going to be different in each case. We have to keep the pressure on. I would only add to what mike has said. Weve heard the story about no credible threat from this administration regarding al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and then we had the underwear bomber because he acted outside of the region directly against the United States. We heard it again later, and we had the computer cartridge case which we wouldnt we the United States, the United States government, couldnt find when we got the lead information from the saudis service until they gave us the bill of lading. So dont tell me to find comfort in the fact that theres no direct and credible threat. Id also say its not right to say that the Islamic State has not acted outside theyve theater if you define the theater as where they have where they holder to of syria and iraq. They plotted in lebanon, that was disrupted. Theyve been plotting in saudi arabia where they arrested some five or six dozen individuals. I would simply say with al qaeda. Years before they launched the 9 11 attack, had threatened us and we regarded them as not capable of acting against us in the United States and we were wrong. So i take little comfort in that. You know, i think we need a definition of terms that is insurgency vs. Terrorism. Ive watched this stuff for 25 years. Weve had groups that control territory, that want to take over the local Police Station or off the government in mogadishu. Think of al qaeda. These are groups that are not focused on the United States. There are slivers of groups that do. Weve used instruments of power that do not include doubling down. I mentioned yemen and somalia. How often have you heard of yemen and somalia last year. My point is you can talk to me about i. E. D. s, sniper, the control of geography, weapons. To my mind these are characteristics of insurgent groups. Theyre not the characteristics of the slivers of organizations that i witnessed to threaten america. We do not need instruments of power of people going against baghdadism worry about people going against new york and the instruments of power we used were not doubling down but lets take out a scalpel, use partners like the pakistanis and yemenis, use coalitions that support you and when you need to use u. S. Intelligence and scalpel strikes to take out the leadership. And by the way, it worked. Dan . Just a few points. Mike, you and i are going to disagree about credible warning between 9 11. At least in the administration i served in, we thought that nairobi and sar esa lamb were warning of a strategic car sallam were warning of a strategic plan. One thing about these groups theres an amazing welcome of confidence in the improvements we have made since 9 11. We are much better and intelligence, much better at training and assisting other countries, we are much bet for the tracking travelers. Someone may get through. And someone may act up in the United States. Theres going to be violence in our future but the fact is, these are low level threats. Its the high end threat we have to worry about. I agree with mike. We have to keep the pressure on al qaeda groups everywhere. Its how we keep the pressure on. If we put u. S. Forces on the field, were giving them a target, giving them a rayway to radicalize more, giving them a way to recruit more. We can work through partners around the world to achieve the kind of success that phil was describing. Well start the q a session. Im going to poke and prod, make them a little uncomfortable, which is good. Fran and mike, let me ask you this question. Point has been raised, these are groups that in many cases, whether its isis or al shabab that appear to be more like local insurgencies, more focused on their local tactics and survival. More regional strategies. These arent groups that in the first instance are necessarily focused on the u. S. System of why in some ways provoke them, provide them targets by again having an aggressive, allout war on terror effort . Ignoring them is not a strategy. A great military leader once said hope is not a strategy. Being quiet and hope they go away is not going to work. Theyve beheaded two americans. Mike rightly argued in my view that those are direct terror attacks against the United States. When i talk about National Power, let me use the Islamic State as an example. You can use he call local partners and i believe weve got to use our partnerships in Foreign Intelligence Services and local militias. But you have to do more than that. The Free Syrian Army, we have not done enough to train and equip them. Weve talked about it but from everyone in the region, we havent done it. If you want to use that, dont want to use actual military force and i think its right, you want to be surgical about phil goes back to the use of American Military power, but youve got to step up, man up, and do what you say youre going to do in terms of equipment. The only thing i would add is there are two al qaeda groups in syria, al nusra and isis. Both of them have said, both of them have made very clear that the United States of america will be a target when they set intool a safe haven. Both have been clear about that. One of the things you learn in Foreign Policy over time is that your adversary tells you what theyre going to do. Lane did it, al nusra and isis are doing it. What about the point that embedded in the d. N. A. Of these groups is in some ways a global focus on the u. S. And that you cant necessarily predict at what point or what part of that group will actually set their sights on new york or detroit or San Francisco . And so how do you address that, given the nature of these groups . Thank you for supporting my position, we can conclude the conversation, phil agrees with me. Lets be clear here. The original architects of 9 11 clued us in. And people do tell you what theyre going to do. The original architects not only told us but murder thousands of people. Theres broader application in afghanistan but not pakistan. Where was the core that threatens, across the board. Foreign partners, money, intelligence and the application of u. A. V. Technology to take out the leadership. Lets take out other places that not only talked about us but acted against us. I mentioned earlier in yemen. Youre right. Came after us with the underwear bomber, came after us in cargo aircraft. Somalia, didnt come after us directly, recruted kids from minneapolis, minnesota, i remember hearing the store roffs families and moms when i was at the f. B. I. Talking about that. In each of those cases, i agree the adversary not only clued us in but acted on their clues and we contained the adversary without doubling down. Dan . Well, i agree. In fact i said its in their d. N. A. , theyre going to want to try to attack us. Because its critical for their credibility. Its critical for their reputation. And it helps with their recruiting. But i really do believe we have ample capabilities and with the right political will and the right diplomat exand military intelligence engagement that we can deal with that and prevent that from happening. S that group that really has not shown it has the necessary skills. I do worry down the line that they may urge with aqad and acquire skills that would make us concerned. But so far this group has shown little interest in that area of attack, by area, i mean the mideast in which they operate. I think we do have the wherewithal to do this. If we do things like have a broad air campaign now. First of all, theyre very good at learning about how to deal with air, we saw that in iraq when we were there. We couldnt destroy isis back then. We will first of all lose our sunni friends in the region if we do it in syria because they wont understand why were taking away an enemy of that side. So i think we have to be careful when we think about the application of force. And finally, what we want to do is have the iraqis come together and deal with this threat and if they dont, we have another set of problems. We have to deal with two different or three different entities as partners in the region. But to have us being the Leading Point of the spear on this one would be a big mistake. Dan, to your point about the future threat, what the islam exstate become os motivates srningt that an argument for doing something about the group now before the an opportunity to motivate a Broader Movement or coalesce its infrastructure and foreign fighters with other al qaeda elements . Isnt that an argument for acting now versus waiting for that moment . I dont think its clear that any of the tools we have at our disposal would actually really diminish the threat right now. We dont have the intelligence right now to detap ate decapitate its leadership which is an essential step. If we had it, i would endorse it. Whats more is, i think that its simply not a foregone conclusion that theyre coming after us very soon. And so if anything, i think we want to play out the dynamic by which they alienate everyone in their neighborhood. They have no state support. They have no unlimited resources. Change the currency in iraq and youve got nothing in the bank. There are things that we can do and its not clear to me that we have to once again be in the position where the United States is bombing muslims and giving the global Muslim Community reason to question about what it is were really interested in. So one more question off what dan said, isnt the intent here intelligence . We may have strategic intelligence and warning but we dont have enough tactical granularity to understand what may be happening. So in some ways, this is theoretical wetch dont know whats happening in sir yasm we dont know if theyre sending foreign fight wers british or belgian passports on planes in the u. S. So is it worth the risk to wait . I hate to kiss you but you really hit something. The media has gone beyond the question of what to we know about the adversary to the question of, shouldnt the president act now . Let me cut to the case. You mention questioneds about the intelligence picture. To my mind when you see two americans murdered, thats one of the significant questions. We had an american suicide bomber from florida. But the broader question, looking at 500 plus brits there, maybe 100plus americans, i think thats an underestimate. With the people who might have good documents to come back and hurt us. Were striking in iraq, the channel is not iraq, its syria. So we cut to the chase. Do we have, forget about whether the president s delay, whether hes on a gol cough golf course, do we have the intelligence pick tchoifer command and control of the adversary thats responsible for foreign fighters so that we can conduct a fairly surgical operation without putting men and women from the United States at great risk . I dont know the answer to that but i agree with dan. If we have that picture, my question today would be why arent we going, because theyve already killed americans. But thats a surgical operation like the operations i mentioned before, like the operations that have eviscerated the al qaeda leadership when we face the bigger threat in places like the tribal areas of pakistan. Fran, you can address this of course, but let me ask this question. Why get ahead of the curve and have the groups focus on the must ways they may not. Secondly and maybe this is worth a followon, do we return the risk of changing our other policies by rushing to focus so heavily on the counterterrorism mission, a common critique of the counterterrorism community, that it dominates the Foreign Policy. So the first question is, do we run the risk of getting ahofede the curve or focus on the u. S. Secondly are we beginning to distort policy that matters for u. S. Interests longterm . Im going to let zsh im going to let fran answer those questions but im going to come back to something my colleagues said. They both just said that if we have the intelligence, lets double down. They both said, they both just said if we have the intelligence, we should go after and decapitate the group. Thats what i mean by putting pressure on the group. Thats how i define cubble down. They both just joined in frans and my position. I guess i dont have to talk then. By the way, did you guys coordinate the purple . I just noticed that. Let me say this. I do you guys have no risk of getting ahead of the curve. Youre so far behind the cush you cant see the front of that line. Lets not even worry about getting ahead of the curve. These people have taken such a swath of territory while we sat back and watched them, and then beheaded two americans, youre playing catchup at this point. What you need to do is shift the momentum. Youre looking to disrupt them. And the president rightly said, you have to disrupt them, degrate them on the path to destroying and defeating them. Thats right. But at the moment youve got to disrupt them first. Youre not getting ahead of the curve. I will say this, what we know now is when we provide the help to our local partners we can be successful. I take issue with what dan said about al qaeda in iraq. We did degrade them. We really did degrate them. They went to ground they resurged and now theyve become the Islamic State. But we were very effective against them. And recently, the president , working, providing arms and equipment and intelligence, retook the mosul dam. We can work with local partners without having to be a solely american responsibility and be successful. Can we hold on a minute here . I would like my questions answered. Not anymore. I just want to make a point, right that in putting pressure on these groups, you have to put all the tools on the table. You cant take one of the tool office the table and say youre not going to use it. Youve got to put all the tools on the table an each situation, youve got to decide which of those tools are most effective. In some cases its going to be just our partners behind the scene. In other cases its going to be u. S. Military forces acting in some way. Hold on a minute here. Were 35 minutes in and youre wiggling off the hook on this. No kidding. When we talk about doubling down, i suspect if we said doubling down the majority of this audience would say, we double down in iraq and afghanistan because we committed u. S. Forces. We have a group here advocating doubling down without clarifying what that whether that means what we think it means. Drones fine. International partnerships, fine. I would say do not put men and women from this country in those country we was already doubles down on. Ky not get an answer. Is that what the answer is . Does doubling down also mean considering some of the things that were done post9 11 to understand better the nature of the threat . To include longer term detention of detainees . After the head of the Islamic State was in u. S. Custody and was released, to we need to think about longterm detention and other plcies that have proven so controversial post9 11 . Is that what doubling down means . I dont think so. I dont think. So but let me answer phils question. Im coming back to you, dan. I would answer phils question by asking having you think about this. One of the places in the world where we are at risk of seeing another 9 11 style capability is, unfortunately, in afghanistan. When u. S. Forces leave afghanistan if that were to happen, its probably going to happen, then what the best case outcome, best case outcome is that the taliban is going to have safe haven in the south and east. And when that happens, the remaining al qaeda in pakistan is going to come back across that border and find safe haven with the taliban in afghanistan. If the United States is unwilling or unable to do anything about it, theyre going to resurge or reregroup or come at us again. So the question to phil is, wouldnt you leave u. S. Forces on the ground in afghanistan, special forces to go after al qaeda to avoid that rebuilding of that threat . By the way, doubling down is taking out 90 of the u. S. Forces so we can have a group thats surgical. Im in with that. Thats not doubling down. Im with him. The white house has said, the withdrawal from afghanistan, on the timeline we are, is not going to be conditions based. The president has decided its famebased. There are very specific timelines. Those people are coming out regardless of the nightmare scenario that mike posits. If thats happening, those people are still coming out. Are we still ok with that . I dont think so. We shouldnt be. Because we will face that threat. When you ask about, what does doubling down mean . To me it means you need special operations forces, trainers and advisors, incountry working with partners. Whether its the Free Syrian Army or the iraqi army you need some presence. You need intelligence capabilities to help direct and target them. Is that a huge military forces . No. Should it be u. S. Forces aloan . No. I think you need a Large International coalition that includes ashe allies that are closest arab allies that are closest to this threat. I said that before. Ruining the whole thing. Now weve hogged this a little bit. Lets open this up to the audience. As you think about your questions, please raise your hand a microphone will come to you. I plead with you skrk a question, this isnt a commentary period, but ask a question and well have one or the other side answer. While you do that and collect your thoughts, ill ask a question posed by swune via twitter. This is in the legal domain so ill use it as a way of asking another question. Is the al qaeda state and my piggyback question is, given about the way we have begun to talk about constrain or constrained our use of lethal force are we ham strung in our ability to use those stoll tooles, tools on the table against the Islamic State . Dan . Well, im not a lawyer. But it would seem to me that you could say there was an ideological lineage that got us from a. Q. 1. 0 to the Islamic State and im frankly quite sure that there are plenty of lawyers in the white house and state department who can come up with an argument that we dont need a new aumf for this im sure there are plenty of lawyers outside who will feel differently. I dont think we should that this is the issue to get hung up on because the real question is the policy and the lawyers will find a way to accommodate the policy. I hate to say. Lets have some questions this gentleman. Please identify yourself and ask. My name is ahmed sullivan, im a consultant and a u. S. Citizen. What i have heard from the panel is that they want to rely on local forces like the iraqi army but what we have seen is that the that they relinquish their arms that were given by the u. S. And ran and were caught and destroyed. In order to again train those this army and equip it and that will take time. And during that time, what is going to happen to the isis . They are going to grow stronger. They have more money. They will have more men. And so on and so forth. Your question, please. My question is, are we really think that not doubling down will solve the problem . Thats one thing, the second thing is that i have noticed because i lived in this area for a long time that we open a can of worms and then we dont have the plan b to do after that. You create the powerview vacuum and then you leave. Thats whats happening in libya and egypt is at the same time fighting the islamists in this area. What should we do also in libya to count they are kind of new wave of islamist jew jihaddist. Let me take your two questions and pose them to each side. Phil take the question of, relying on nornse ground but theyve melted away in iraq, how can we fight a group if you dont have reliable forces on the ground . Couple answers. They havent melted away. This when i do cnn commentary, im going to throw fran under the bus because we both do it together. The fact is when you look at the history of these kinds of organizations, it takes a while for local populations to get a back bone. That isnt a couple of months. I think the question over time is, modest afterly case of u. S. Force and as weve seen in places like somalia and yemen, when the villagers start to say, i have enough of this, security is nice, but im going to take up arm taos. I think its time and understand, they made some early successes but i dont think that will define the future. I think we ought to be patient and say, we can help them. We can help them by bombing around the mosul dam. But we ought not to be saying that our definition of this problem is defined by a few isis successes over the past few months in iraq. I dont think thats the future. Fran, what about the second question which is a little bit of a pottery barn rule. By going in so aggressive, do we have a plan b . What happens in sir ark for example, if we double down there . So you are quite right. We are, across two administrations, an absolute fail on what we call phase 4 operations, coming in behind with a Civil Military partnership where theres a handover and this is now a euphemism that everybody hates, nation build, but by the way thats what youve got to do. We didnt adequately plan for that in iraq. This a administration didnt plan for it in libya. Weve seen the results of that. There are institutions inside the government that are in a nascent state, we began to build the civilian operations in the state department. The understand weve got to do that better. If youre going to go in, the pottery barn rule, shorthand for if you break it, you own it. You own it until you have something to come in behind it, indigenous. We have to do better at that but weve got we would have to invest in that. We have to be willing to spend money on that before we need it. I disagree with what dan said when he said the u. S. Government has done a good job building capacity in these countries. I think the United States has done a lousy job at building capacity in these countries. And it is the number one need in all these countries facing al qaeda, from mauritania, eyipt, they need intelligence capacity, Police Capacity they need rule of law capacity and nobody is helping them do it right now. Wait a second. So we have a lot of successes and phil enumerated them before, where we had a very good Capacity Building process in iraq. What we had was a terrible political process where we let someone continue to run a government on a very sectarian principle that completely gutted the army, gutted the Intelligence Service and led to disaster. The Capacity Building was fine. The Iraqi Military wasnt ready to stand on its own when we left at 2011. It needed our help in terms of building what we needed. Just as the afghan army needs our help right now. And youll see the same failure there if you withdraw on a time base as opposed to a conditions base. Another question this gentleman here in the yellow shirt. If i remember correctly all four of you guys advocated for a u. A. V. Campaign in iraq and syria against the Islamic State. Its easy to see how they could provide a an vng. Have we seen in yemen, pakistan and other places where weve embarked on these campaigns longterm degradation of these groups . Does it differ from geography to geography . Say we were to embark on a u. A. V. Campaign against the Islamic State, would we produce, say, a backlash from sunnis in iraq . And that would work to our detriment strategically . Mike, what about that . Taking the leadership off the battlefield is the single most important thing you can do to degrade a group. Its also the single most important thing you can do to disrupt plotting. Why . Because if youre a leader of those groups and youre worried about your personal security, then you dont have time to plan. Thats what we saw in out asia. Thats what we saw in yemen. Thats why i think we need to do it. Dan, do you have an opinion on this . I agree with mike. I think that if you see this safe haven and this influx of foreign fighters as, you know, a gathering threat of these kinds of dimensions and i think that in this case, it would be the appropriate course. Because its an ungoverned area. We should not be taking predator shots in the middle of Populated Areas with functioning government. That would be the wrong thing to do. It would undermine an awful lot of what we stand for and would be counterproductive. In an ungoverned space like this, i think it would make a lot of sense. Another question. Yes this lady in the middle, please. If we can pass the mike down that would be great. Good evening. My name is lashana and im a grad student at johns hopkins. My question is about the military strategy in the counterterrorism arena. We seem to be using an aggressive military campaign against terrorist groups but it seems we fail to understand the existential struggle that encompasses global terror. Terrorist groups are, it seems, more so about National Identity and identity and using aggressive military campaigns in the form of drone attacks that do little to diminish the leadership struck all structure of terrorist groups as they show interesting resilience to the leaders. Do you think we need to reassess our strategy and approach to the global fight on terror because the military campaign seems to do little to eradicate the ideology ideology and the issue of identity. Fran, isnt that a problem here . Youve got this ideology thats fueling these groups, that animates these groups and if the u. S. Doubles down, perhaps the problem gets gets worse. I think there are two separate things going on that id like to address. The drone campaign, as mike suggested, are incredibly effective when they target the leadership. It is easiest to do that in ungoverned spaces, as dan alluded to, but i will tell you, there was the running joke, many of us served, that if you were the number three in al qaeda, you had the single shortest life span, i cant tell you how many number threes i saw. You didnt care about number three, he was director of external operations. We kill lots of them and eventually the people who rose up to replace him were less experienced, less good and obsessed with their own personal security so they couldnt plot. Its an important tool in terms of disrupting a plot. I will say now, when the last part of your question, right, about what about the idea snoling you have to have a broader strategy. Thats why when i ended my sort of beginning spiel about having a comprehensive strategy, you need to be able to talk to people about human rights. The bad guys are horrible abusers of human rights. Look right now in both pakistan and in the Islamic State if you will. The refusal to allow polio vaccines vaccines and theyre prohibiting the antimalaria this is a really important question you have asked on the ideology. Bettermuch, much developed or equipped for dealing with an imminent threat with an imminent plot than with dealing with already convinced and hardened jihadists. We are not very good at countering the narrative. We have made some interesting advances which brings together the government in one organization, but its impossible to expand this effort or expand developmentbased efforts to counter extremism because congress is an interested in funding things that are somewhat experimental in their nature but are absolutely wild. I wish i had a nickel for every general i saw on cnn who says we have to counter the ideology when we can get the funding to the counter ideology goal work that we have to do in that needs to change. Hold on just a second. This is one of the most frustrating issues, this debate about uavs will stop let me cut to chase and make the unfortunate mistake of introducing some tax into the situation. First, i disagree the leadership of these organizations is resilient. Im not focused on insurgents, im focused on the people who have the capability to work as straight an operation against times square. To have respect in the organization so they can get the resources to do this. Somalia,ot yemen, they cannot replace this leadership faster than we can kill them. That is not a supposition, that is a fact. Is it a fact . Look at the fate look at the pace with which we are eliminating this with will stop second, i listened to them when they spoke to us and was managing the Counterterrorism Center. We had detainees will stop they hate drones. I like to listen to what the adversary doesnt like because thats what i like. On thiswo and finally, issue of creating more terrorists, there are very few facts out there, but there are some who look at attitudes in places in the middle east, haveic countries that experienced both drone attacks and terrorist attacks against muslims in their own country horton, turkey, etc. Pew research will tell you the gap the between what people in on 9 11countries thought about al qaeda and what they think today is remarkable. It doesut drones not seem to me to have a Significant Impact on the attitude of muslims who have experienced al qaeda attacks. You know what they say . They say al qaeda stood up to the United States. You know what they say today . Andaeda offers no future put our heads on pikes. We dont like it. Let me add something about what and said about the game bill at the of the state department. I mentioned when i spoke about isis having the most Sophisticated Media campaign and him alone me give you some facts. The day of the beheading of isiss Media Operations immediately targeted me and other journalists and flooded our twitter accounts with victors of the beheaded. He of james foley. As quick as you could lock it, they got other accounts in and around you and continue to do it for 48 hours. The u. S. Government doesnt have the capability in its strategic and tactical way to do that. It doesnt exist. Thats the kind of thing you need to stop you need to have that sort of flexible, targeted, tactical capability if you want to counter this narrative and they are utter at this than we are right now. Let me add one more point about the narrative. Its not sexy, so it doesnt ring the money. Dan is absolutely right. Its also hard because the United States cannot do this on our own. We are only a small ease of the answer to this dirt and problem. We need the local countries to take this on. We local communities to take this on. When he local clerics to take this on. It is a much bigger problems than just the United States. Mike is right. Weve got a lot of countries in the fight now, but this whole thing has to be ramped up tremendously. There has just not been a willingness to do that. Thank you. Given your Previous Post bringing together a range of orders and counterterrorism efforts, we saw the uae bomb sites in libya. Leaving the Iraqi Military aside, how do we bring to bear everyone in a realistic way . What are the prospects for that . Fax it will not be immediately easy. It will differ according to which one we are talking about. The saudis have been reluctant to build serious military kate bill a decent they are afraid of it too. We need to do some encouraging with them. Jordanians have excellent special operations capabilities and there will have to be discussions about putting those to use. Always thrilled about who got bombed because im not sure the Muslim Brotherhood camps are appropriate targets, but the fact we have those nations getting into the act that far from their region is quite remarkable and sick just their israel capacity out there that can be used. This young lady here . My apologies to the side. You are on my blind side. Aboutquestion is countering the ideology. There is a huge need for butor t recently attended congressional hearis not a single hearse at the state department who knows the car on and knows the peaceful verses of the koran. Glanced at one less night and wrote down a few verses that might be help all in our messaging campaign, like the take life, dont kill wrongfully, a lot is full of love and kindness i dont see this kind of thing coming out of isis. Forgiveness for everyone on earth, including nonislam will the if allah wanted all worlds to be muslims, he would have made it such. You cannot compel mankind against their will to divert to convert. Why cant we have these things lasted on their twitter feeds . If you can address their ideology, most of muslims are people people of these guys have been misusing our religion and hurting somebody people. I dont understand why we cant get the funding for counter ideology. , 283. Good to people hearted, donth be severe. We need you and people like you in the United States government to be able to lead that kind of campaign. You are exactly right of stop i dont is agree with what youre saying, but its not just an issue with funding. Its an issue with people, expertise, and attacking attracting the people. Fax is it the problem that we able toconstitutionally advocate for anything in terms of religion . A number of years of hard experience has shown me that the United States is a secular nation and should not be telling muslims about what is true islam and what is not. That is a losing marketing campaign. We can say a lot of things about what is basic Human Dignity and what is deeply immoral like killing large number of people were killing large numbers of muslims. But it is really for muslim countries to discuss what true islam is. We are not in a position to take that mission on. Mind u. S. Created the first person to address muslim communities not for make really just an point, but from communitybased. Last question, and i apologize this is going to have to be the last one. Lets go with this lady in the middle. Going off the first question talking about nation and government building and you say as a result of the aggressive tactics is destroying the infrastructure. Shown itst, that has creates the resurgence of the terrorist organizations. Theseressive pressure on nations the best thing or should we tackle the infrastructure and ofuild it should mark one the challenges here is if you double down and use more military assets, you are destroying infrastructure that is important. Question, i will tell you having an intimately involved in iraq, about the time, effort and attention we spent rebuilding infrastructure. You mentioned water im glad you did. 10 years from now, our successors will be talking about water as a National Security issue, whether its scarcity, people will fight over water. We have seen it will stop Islamic State is using water as leverage not just with the dam in iraq but in northern syria. This is going to be a growing rubble. Part of operations and we were struggling with it when i was in the white house unfortunately, we do not have time for more questions. We will move to the final section of the debate which is the policy recommendations and conclusions from each side. Each side has three minutes to lay out your policy recommendations. Mike and fran, we turn to you first. I think you have to build capacity in all the frontline states against al qaeda and expend the resources to do that. Thoseen have to encourage states to use that capacity to deal with extremist since either border. One of the things that happened with the arabs ring is that it significantly reduced the willingness of some states to deal with extremists since either border. Egypt is a great example of that will stop then you have to encourage our partners, and i was a big supporter of what was done in libya. I would like to see more of it. We need to worry about libya a lot or that we have done. We need to encourage our partners to do more. France did in mali was a great day will stop what the eq humans and kenyans did was important. What mike is saying is critically important. More that encourage partners, we had to be clear about what our expectations are. We have to be crystal clear. Golden object is stated by the president about what it is we seek to achieve and private bilateral conversations about what we need to get them to do to get them to do that. Theres tremendous capability in the region with military access and any to be clear about what and whent nations are we talk about this, we need to be sure the things were going to take on is we fund them and execution is impeccable. Your recommendations about what to do or not to do . 5 of our nations life has been spent on this campaign. The conversation about doubling ofn sounds to me like a pair tens. We have matured to understand there are other entrants. Everybody here pays taxes, everyones got kids or nieces and nephews. We want to be exceptional in other areas and theres only a certain number of things a president in this country can do. We are not exceptional the middle of the pack among math and science among kids. We are not terrific with infant mortality or life expectancy. What do we expect in this american experiment . You market an education and be healthy. We cannot perform exceptionally in the fundamentals of these countries and we want to double down on a campaign when weve already realized that a targeted i have aceeds three letter word for you and iis why should mark agree with everything that has been said. Add to that and i think youve probably gotten the message that we are not all that far apart. I think the most important day is to calm down and take a breath. Isis is not burning down an American City in the next 48 hours as some of the discourse in washington and on the airwaves thats the just did. With. Handle if not handled, it will be a dangerous threat over the long term. Its time to continue the work that has been going on for four years which has been trying to get the counterterrorism element in our Foreign Policy right stop we are going through a pretty hellish summer. Ukraine is a big issue. Confronting russia is a big issue. China is a growing big issue and china is saying some very aggressive things about taiwan right now. Before we think about sending the first vision back into iraq, we need to take a deep rest and think about how we match our means and resources to our goal and what our priorities are. One foreign fighter coming to with. S. And going crazy the gun is not going to bring the country down. We have to defend against it and do the best we can, but we need to start thinking about what our grand strategy looks like and how we deal with the various challenges we face. Wonderful. Now im going to turn to you and asked you questions. The first is did you learn something today that has affected your opinion in some way . Fraser hand. Did your opinion change as a result of the debate . That at a minimum we hope you have been formed and perhaps entertained. Guests. O thank my thank all of you for attending. I encourage you to follow the Mccain Institutes in its work. Thank you and join me in thanking the panelists, please will stop please. [applause] , michael cox and Robert Mcdowell discuss merger proposals and several other issues before the fcc. The issue with consolidation as you have these huge come raise who are not only in control of distribution, but of content increasingly and theyre getting hammerlock on the news and information in the structure that we as a democracy rel