investigate each of them thoroughly. to do less would be negligent to our country. we need the full cooperation so we may know what you know. second, i raise this because i believe that we would benefit from the work of an independent commission that can devote the staff and resources to this investigation that we do not have and that can be completely removed fri any political considerations. this should not be a substitute for the work that we and the intelligence should and must do but as an important complement to our efforts just as was the case after 9/11. the stakes are nothing less than the future of our democracy and liberal democracy. because we re engaged in a new war of ideas, not communism versus capitalism or authoritarianism versus democracy. only by understanding what the
attack on pearl harbor by joining britain in the second world war, and defeating fascism, not just in the pacific, but in africa and europe, too. and later, in the aftermath of these wars, power two countries led the west through the cold war, confronting communism and ultimately defeating it, not just through military might, but by winning the war of ideas. and by proving that open liberal democratic societies will always defeat those that are closed, and cruel. but the leadership provided by our two countries through the special relationship have done more than and more to overcome adversity. it made the modern world.
ideology, those who join isis do, and yet we re still going to have a problem. the organization will reconstitute itself, so, really there is something deeper we need to tap into, a deeper tap root. in your prepared statement, going back to that, you indicate that if confirmed you will ensure the state department does its part here in this war of ideas. now, based on your presentation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the state department s current performance in the war of ideas? and once you make your comment specific to our effort against the islamic state? senator, i m not sure i could articulate what the current state department is doing in the war on ideas, other than the advocacy, the public advocacy of condemning this type of brutality. i think, i think your observation that even if we
poisonous ideology with those who join isis do and yet we ll have a problem. the organization will reconstitute itself and there is something deep tore tap in to. a deeper tap roots. in your reare paired statement, you will ensure the state department here on the war of ideas. based on your presentation for the hearing. what is your assessment of the state department current performance in the war of ideas and once you make your comments specific to our effort against the islamic state. i am not sure i can articulate what the current state department is doing on the war of ideasorn condemning this type of brutality. i think your observation that even if we defeat isis and its
if we re selling something about having a productive constructive relationship with the muslim world, muslims buy that. if we sell we re just going to kill you more and kill your relatives this don t buy that. it s not as if we lack technically savvy americans that can get into this digital fight. you have groups like anonymous involved that are using ridicule to attack isis. we ve got the savvy. why aren t we able to engage? it s a few different things. you pointed out the rhetoric is really important. this is why messaging is important. however unrealistic some suggestions might be as a military strategy, the message it gives is important. the obama administration has emphasized this. while they are kind of combating that in the digital space when you talk about this war of ideas, when you hear this sort of language it reinforces isis propaganda. for example, the vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff sort of responed when cruz s carpet