threat. this is far more dangerous than al qaeda for four reasons. number one it is its own self-generated fully fledged transnational insurgency. al qaeda, in all the places where it existed in the last 14 years, was a parasitic terrorist organization that attached it self to indigenous insurgencies, whether it was al-shabab in somalia or whether it was the taliban in afghanistan, it did not generate its own mass base of mobilization as a true mooist insurgency should or one that follows mao's rule book for mobilization. isis is different. isis is its own self-generated insurgency. and of course the big difference between a terrorist group and an insurgency is that an insurgency holds territory in daylight. and this we know now, isis holds more territory than the territorial expanse of the united kingdom. it is a graduate threat. more importantly, what we don't talk about, it is the world's first transnational insurgency. not just international all insurgencies are to a lesser or greater extent international with foreign support or foreign fighters this is one that operates and holds territory in at least three countries. in the 20th century, insurgencies were always about one thing. taking control of the country within which the insurgent group was established. whether you're mao in china or in colombia. this is different. isis has much greater -- grander ambitions. it wishes to create a global caliphate. next will be jordan and saudi arabia and on and on and on. with boko haram's act of feelty -- feelity now boko haram territory in nigeria is also under the control of the caliph. this is stunning that we have one insurgency that controls territory in more than one nation in the middle east and now also west africa. second, completely open source, it is the richest threat group of its type in human history. let's just leave out the elicit oil sale through turkey, the sale of antiquities, the kidnapping and everything else. just look at two events in the last year. after the second raid by isis on the iraqi national bank, isis netted $823 million in cash. $823 million. if we look at the 9/11 commission report which did the financial forensics of that attack 9/11, the whole operation, from safe houses to student visas, to flight school training, cost $500,000. that means that isis has the equivalent at least in cash of 1,600 9/11's. should they wish to do that, that is a very large threat. thirdly, as c.j. cleveland -- c.g. cleveland has used the word staggering, which i agree, the recruiting capacity of high sis is mind boggling. you just heard that we have figures that if in historic perspective, we have never seen before. 19,000 foo foreign fighters in nine months. these are the kind of figures that al qaeda had wet dreams about. and isis made it a reality and they're keeping on this drive to recruit. lastly, most important of all, in the macro of strategic context, is the declared caliphate successfully. al qaeda never did. the taliban's pathetic little caliphate was never a caliphate. this is a real caliphate. for 90 years, since the disillusionment of the ottoman empire, they've been demanding a rere-establishment of the caliphate, whether muslim brotherhood, this is the only group that has successfully done it. this puts it at the pinnacle of the extremist islamist threat. lastly, unfortunately, it has no peer competitor. unfortunately everybody in this room knows it's very easy to estimate, the number of insurgencies defeated by air power alone since the invention of air power is exactly zero. thank you. air power prepares the ground for ground troop wloss take back the territory. therefore we will never defeat isis. with air strikes. somebody has to take the ground back. i'm not saying the 82nd airborne has to deploy tomorrow, but somebody has to. egypt, jordan, the iraqis themselves, the kurds. but somebody has to contest that soil. so why is isis so successful? well, a lot of it has to do with its name. in d.c. we have a childish argument is the islamic state of iraq in syria or the levant? both of those are wrong. when you do your intelligence preparation of a battlefield, you start with what the enemy calls themselves. you're not permitted to make up your own labels. we wouldn't call the soviet union, you know, misguided democrats. now would we? [laughter] all right. so what did isis call itself? before declared caliphate? the islamic state of iraq and alsham. hugely important. why? because alsham, as every good muslim knows, is a very powerful term in islam. it relates to the story of end times, of judgment day. just like in christianity, the plains are expected to see the final war between the anti-christ forces and the true believers, well, guess what? al-sham is that of islam. it is explicit. the final holy war before the end of the world and all humans are judged by allah will occur on that territory in al-sham. the final holy war. think about what that name says. as an information operations the tool to all those hormone-laden 17-year-old muslims around the world looking for some meaning. not only did he name his threat group after al-sham, he captured al-sham. and his message is, you want to claim your soul in jihad, the clock is ticking, gentlemen. come on down. this is the only way to explain more than 20,000 foreign fighters recruited in less than a year because of the significance of the territory that has been captured and the name of the threat group. and of course the problem's a little bit bigger than iraq and syria. this is from the isis twitter feed. this is the visual that was splashed all over the internet after the declaration last june of the caliphate. as you can see, their game plan is a little bit larger than iraq and syria and it's not about just assad or maliki's corruption. it is a global caliphate. the last thing i want to do is get you inside the mind of isis today. i want to give you that you are playbook. -- i want to give you their playbook. unless you're looking for the g.p.s. coordinates of a high value target, everything you need to know at the strategic level about the global jihadist movement is available on that super classified system called google. [laughter] it really is stunning. there is no polygraph at the strategic level for isis. if you want to know what they're doing right now in syria, iraq, libya and elsewhere, you need to read this book. this is an egyptian that we killed a few years ago or rather the pakistanies killed a few years ago. the book is called the mastery of savagery. if you know your u.s. military doctrine this is the anti-petrino manual. this is the antidote to our f.m.-324. and this is exactly what they are using today to run their operations. if you're interested in the book, send me an email and i will send you an unclassified english language translation. but to summarize it, the operations undergoing now in the middle east and north africa are in three phases. he said that to beat the infidel, you must break your operations down into phase one. vexation operations, classic warfare where you do dramatic irregular warfare attacks. not the scale of 9/11 but dramatic attacks. that prepare the ground for phase two. phase two is the spreading of savagery phase. this is where you coordinate your irregular warfare attacks with the goal of dislocating the local government from its capacity to govern. so you're challenging the syrian government, the iraqi government next, the saudi or jordanian government from actually being able to govern its territories. and if it's true if the reports i have received that on day ramadi fell they were in excess of 200 vehicle-born i.e.d.'s detonated on that one day, we are in phase two. coordinating that means they are following this textbook and they are on phase two. and lastly, the most important phase, is the administer savagery the consolidate and expand. here we want to stabilize held areas. just like we did with our coin manual. but here the purpose is to unite the populations of the fighting force, to implement shari'a law, to provide services and here is the real value added. what he's doing here in the final phase, and don't think of this as a phase that ends in a few months or years. this can last for a century in this phase what they are create something a giant f.o.b. a giant forward operating base. which can be used as the platform from whence to deploy more phase one or phase two operations into neighboring territory. this is what i call the hybrid caliphate. the big difference with this is that prior jihadi strategists were purists. use violence to achieve the goal of the caliphate. he says, yes of course, we want to achieve the caliphate, but you can't just click your fingers with violence and then create a caliphate. there has to be a transitional phase. his transitional phase is this phase three, where you act like a quasi-state, you don't reject the west failing model, you just could opt it as a transitory face toward caliphate and this unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, this works. as we have seen. so, most important question, so what? what does this all mean? to conclude, number one. isis is far more successful and deadly than al qaeda for very identifiable reasons. it's not magic. there's no voodoo involved. number one it understands irregular warfare. it's read the right books. u.b.l. and a.q. followed the gavaris model of irregular warfare which is wrong and ended up with him dead at the age of 39. this threat group has read their mao. they understand that to win you have to outgovern the government. right now they're advertising for less jihadists online and more engineers and nurses. that tells you they've read their mao. secondly they have a very expective exploitation of a mobilizational ideology of global jihadism across the internet and social media. everybody in this room knows the facts right? we are having our lunch eaten every day by isis on social media. we aren't even scratching the surface of what they are doing in terms of information warfare. second, the caliphate will continue to grow unless it is challenged on the ground and in the ideological domain. to deny the relevance of ideology as this administration does, to say it's all about economics and jobs for jihadis well, it's like a bad "s.n.l." skit. i'm very glad the president made some noises in this direction this week, but i want to see some proof that we are prepared to talk truly about the ideology that is being used to mobilize. lastly the enemy threat doctrine of isis and the global jihadist movement must be better integrated, i put it in better because i don't think it's integrated at all must be integrated into the strategic response or we will be condemned to w whmbings ack-a-mole. your children, my grandchildren will be killing jihadis 100 years from now. if you want to go deeper, i wrote an article on the central gravity of the jihaddest movement -- jihadist movement. if you want the real graduate level analysis, an organization my wife was affiliated with, the westminster institute published this book recently called fighting the ideological war. this is a book that ali said is the only book president obama needs to read to defeat isis. in "the new york times." we took the very best strategists from the cold war that worked for the reagan administration and undermined the soviet union and we put them in a room with the very best experts of jihad and asked for a game plan. this is the book that came out of it. if you'd like more of the information or any of the books, you can contact me by email. everything i do that's for public consumption is on my website. all my lecture, my videos and my articles are commercial sites that support the government and music. and lastmy my wife has a not for profit that maps the growth of the jihadi ideology which is council on global security dworling. toes may be of use. i'd like to say thank you to heritage, to jim. it's been a real pleasure. [applause] lisa sara. i think she'll dress us from her seat. sara: yes. i'm not going to go over what seb just spoke about. my focus has been mainly south asia and isis, for this discussion. and the potential that isis will encroach in this region is growing daily. i have -- i'd like to read something to you. a document that i obtained in the region, an isis document. i'm going to read just one portion of that and i think it will fit into what seb spoke about. al-baghdadi is very focused on the end times. his focus is on -- his mindset is to launch this final battle with the west, with the rest of the world, to see a fundamental change between, not necessarily in the way a christian might see armageddon but a change and shift in the world powers and system. that is his ultimate goal. here is a little piece of what's been floating around in the fattah recently. talking about al-baghdadi. his blessed brilliance shines through his practical life. he's filled with the honor of god and his informed approach to matters of faith is unparalleled. before the u.s. attacked iraq, he had acted as a sermonizer and a scholer in various mosques. he was also highly regarded in academic circles. the purpose of life was to purify one self 6 6 -- one self, follow prayer, establish the caliphate and wage jihad and warfare until all faith is oriented to allah. this is the important part. although he was primarily focused on inciting slaughter. this isis document is so significant because it gives us a look into the mind of baghdadi and what his intentions are. and you would say, well south asia, what is he trying to do there? he's looking for more recruits. he's looking to gain and spread the caliphate wide enough that it spreaded us -- spreads us so thin that we'll be incapable of tackling on all these fronts. it's a brilliant stage. he built up his financial base, he got his recruits, and if you believe what they're saying, 16,000, i think that's even minimal. i think it was 20,000-plus foreign fighters that have gone into syria. and in ramadan alone, according to some of my sources last year more than 6,000 and from the documents that i've seen from the united states from chechnya from europe across north africa, in the month of ramadan alone 6,000 fighters. in afghanistan the situation is obviously very tenuous. you have fractured taliban groups, you have certainly the united states and pakistan in a geopolitical situation that is seemingly never-ending. but you also have pockets inside the region that isis is now encroaching on. and this isn't just a hypothetical. this is a fact. it may not be widespread yet, but they do have a plan. and if i can just go back really quickly and just read one more thing that i think is important. when he talks about -- you talked about the -- seb, the name and how important that is, for him islamic state caliphate, you know, the islamic state caliphate was the transformation, i mean, on june 29 last year, when al-baghdadi walked on those steps, and i've been talking to specialists, you know, about his mannerisms and how he moved and what he did, i mean, he was very methodical. he knew what he was doing. he knew what he was doing as far as reaching the muslim population those disenfranchised sunnis who feel that there's no place for them to turn to. that the world is kind of somehow working against them. and he uses that to his benefit and to the benefit of his movement. and like seb said and i'm sure like you'll be talking about, you know, the war, and this is coming from a reporter who's been on the ground in the war zone quite a bit and who spent some time in pakistan and had an -- been able to experience the region it's not something that you can win with drone strikes alone. i mean, the commanders on the ground, even when you talk to old mujaheddin fighters, and i've had that opportunity to speak with them, would say, you know, you're not going to win this with a drone strike. you're not going to win this battle by trying to build a state at the same time you're fighting a war. this is a never-ending battle that's going to evolve. and a lot of people didn't listen to them. we thought, oh, we're going to wraup the war, we're going to -- wrap up the war, we're going to leave afghanistan, we're going to tie a bow on iraq, we're going to walk away. this is about an ideology. and unless we understand this ideology and this leader and those leaders underneath him, we will never be able to defeat him. because you can't defeat an ideology unless you're able to exploit it, right? you have to understand where he's coming from in order to teach something different, to deliver a different message. now, for me, looking at -- back to afghanistan and looking at the region in itself,coming out is the fear crisis may conduct operations in the region, whether in india or afghanistan. recently yesterday we saw a drone strike that killed approximately eight isis members and the leader in that region right now. there is a concern among u.s. intelligence officials that i have had the privilege to speak to, as well as pakistani officials. mostly their government denies isis'presence. that is not what i'm hearing from the region. that is not what i am hearing from the people. we have seen isis encroach in india as well. indian officials have been monitoring that carefully trying to garner recruitment and establish some kind of presence there. i think for lawmakers as well as those in the academic field the focus is right now on iraq and syria, and north africa, but we should not forget south asia is going to play an enormous role, and it also plays an enormous role in the eschatology, because it looks at the islamic state the belief. if you look at the hadid, and those are the writings of mohammed, and all -- one of the things he focuses are the ones on the end times. that is his main focus. part of the final batter is a per cursor -- precursor that'll that takes place in south asia. we are not going to get the final battle until the precursor battle actually happens. however that happens, it is definitely in baghdadi's plants, and something i think should not be a ignored and an area we should pay attention to. to wrap it up, a lot of people think the taliban may never merge with isis, that they are two centric to their own area. i should go you that taste on the investigations i have been conducting an research i have been doing, isis is working day and night to move recruits into their fold. and there is this conception that isis and al qaeda which is true now, are continuously butting heads. what i found to be interesting through the research was that baghdadi is preaching among his group, al qaeda and the islamic state, we have different ways of achieving things. that does not make us enemies. that is allah's will. so now is the time to look at what we have accomplished and join us. and the message is reaching people in the five top -- fatah. we see that it has been reaching and people have been joining them. this message is holding true to that. i believe that there'd definitely needs to be more focused in the south asia area when it comes to isis. i would be surprised of isis' rise in iraq and their ability to take territory from them and us and what we have tried to put in the iraqi and syrian regime. we should have our eyes on southeast asia because they could surprise us once again if we are not paying attention. thank you. [applause] >> i think it is amazing how we end up being surprised by the growth of crisis and al qaeda groups because we are not paying attention to what they are doing at the local level. i do not to rehash policy. i want to put out differences between what isis is doing and al qaeda believes it is doing, because fundamentally we cannot feet the threats from radical islam without tackling at isis and al qaeda. it does not make sense to defeat out qaeda in -- al qaeda in iraq and syria. it is doing well in areas where it remains strong. at the same time, we found focusing on al qaeda is leading into 2013 2014, allow for isis to go back and research -- re surge in iraq. it looks for local insurgencies to educate them, correct them, to enable them to be more -- than they would be at the local level, and bring together what they see as the muslim world under a unified banner fighting for this. they key difference is al qaeda does not see governments and state building at the immediate level as the priority. we see this in al qaeda documents where leaders have been told do not call your self a. if people called yourself estate people will take away your advantage to provide water, food, keep electricity running. what you should do instead is be effective in areas where you can, provide security when it is not there. provide water, goods services, a do not call yourself a state because that built expectations, and we are not able to fulfill that now. you saw al qaeda fail at this in yemen, mali, somewhat in somalia, but whenever it tried to replace the state, it failed. it is much more of a long-term vision insurgency. the reverse of that is al qaeda is not directly attacking states day in the way we see isis looking to break the iraqi state . al qaeda is looking to break the west first. it sees the objective as forcing the united states and other western partners to retreat from the region, and i will argue some degree it has been somewhat successful. isis has helped that. i think the unwillingness to become engaged in the counterinsurgency fights in north africa and the rest of the middle east region and also growing in south asia has enabled both isis and al qaeda to do well in the past couple years. it is looking to call everyone to islam. when baghdadi declared the caliphate, you saw reaction from the al qaeda leadership from north africa into south asia that said we support an islamic caliphate. we do not support the current islamic caliphate is it was not brought about in the right way. they point out that reasons why. but the animosity with isis is not over the fact it is isis. it is over the fact that al qaeda sees isis as doing this the wrong way. isis is killing other muslims, sunni and doing it at a publicly. al qaeda will assassinate an official do it off-camera in general. al qaeda incorrect eating the major exception and -- al qaeda in iraq being the major exception. the al qaeda network, despite that challenge from isis, have remained cohesive. we have not seen mass leaders effecting from al qaeda. we still have a strong and somewhat resurgent al qaeda network in north africa coming back. al-shabaab remains loyal to al qaeda. there are rumors that our shabbat will move to isis because of finance and it has not been successful in somalia and kenya with what is doing. aqap is doing quite well in yemen without being a part of isis. there are rumors aqap might go to isis. we saw a leader we pledge the group's leadership. he has put aqap back in the al qaeda pile. why am i arguing al qaeda is still doing well? it is not most eminent threat to the united states. i think al qaeda is an enduring threat, and isis has raised the bar for intervention in a way it is dangerous long term for us. there is now a level at which al qaeda can operate with relative impunity, because it is not isis. i mentioned the al qaeda islamic system. that group has remained focused on france. what we see is the resurgence of attacks in mali. mali is not that important to the united states, but aqim has facilitated movement of fighters across the region . that is a major boon to any organization that is trying to enter europe. they're looking at libya, and isis has a presence there. it has suffered setbacks in an area which was a flagship city is held in libya. i would argue one of the challenges isis will face in libya is libya is 99% sunni. isis has thrived in environments where there is a sectarian differences in the population. most sunni do not like living under isis role and they would find a softer hand, and al qaeda has a softer hand in this because it is not looking to build up a state, more acceptable. let's look at east africa. our shabbat has been said to be on the run. -- our shabbat has been said be on the run. it was the defect state. that is nonexistent anymore. it has been a success in that sense. al-shabbab has not been defeated. it is still exploiting the challenges in somalia and also once in kenya and growing in that sense as an insurgency, and will be able to exist as a threat to the united states. over the july for weekend, all -shabbab took back a series of military bases right south of mogadishu. we're looking to see al-shabbab resurgent in southern somalia as groups try to deal with the new federal government that is finally recognized that has no actual sovereigntyl i will look as that is group that will continue to exist. it will not be able to attack the homeland that we see from isis but it is an enduring threat because it has that east african, horn of africa, that it can access. finally, at yemen. i have been looking at yemen for 5 1/2 years, and conditions are so different that we saw in 2011. aqap has not declared an emirate in the south but it is currently governing one of, the port cities in eastern yemen and there is no one fighting it. the al qaeda fighters are there. it is nine-day r there. it is known dairy influential in the governance of the city. they stay in the shadows, except for the times we have had successful drone strikes against them. the other place where al qaeda is successful right now in yemen is tapping into the mass mobilization of occurring against the presidential connection. for those unaware, there is a major war being fought in yemen between powerful actors as to who controls the state. hutis being a group that are not representative of all shia in yemen, currently control the capital, and i would say contest the entire state of human. they progress -- of yemen. they progress quickly southward until you reach the sunni population of yemen. they are not seeing the fight today as sectarian. al qaeda is working alongside tribesmen facilitating the fight at an integrating themselves into the fight. this is similar to what -- did so successfully in syria, where now it is going to be near impossible to separate -- from the syrian opposition. al qaeda is trying to do that same thing in yemen. isis is probably strongest and yemen of all the places i mentioned, accepting what it is doing in libya. but is's capability is still limited. it is most -- it's most powerful demonstration of force is a campaign against al[-huti targets. it is trying to drive a sectarian war and the way it did in iraq. in many knees ---the involvement of the air campaign have created the conditions for saudi a arabian and around in proxy wars inside yemen, and it is being cast in sectarian trends and the region. here's a potential for isis to capitalize on it. i do not think that isis will find the same safe haven it has had in iraq and syria, but there is a potential. so rounding out, i want to underscore that in areas i have mentioned, we have forces fighting al qaeda, and they are not doing well, not wil nning. that is something we look to. this is something that we need to preprepared and fight for, a long-term more. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to all the panelists. i think that was an excellent discussion framing the terrorist threat we face and i am glad we have had this discussion because if you look at this on the face of it, you think al qaeda is competing with isis, is itt is good for u.s. policy. it is feeling them both to be more brutal and there, edition with each other. unfortunately, this is not playing to our favor at the moment. if there was a battle royale between both groups, showing off each other, that would be a benefit. right now what we see is more of a competition. if you look at the establishment of al qaeda in the indian subcontinent, which was announced last fall, it was an effort to directly compete with the message that was coming from isis. i notice that around 121 aqis were arrested this week. i would like panelists to address inroads in south asia. what sara said is really important. even the right now, they are competing. the taliban is clearly not happy with isis trying to set up camp in afghanistan. a leader issued a letter telling them to back off. i think crisis realizes it cannot replace the taliban as a major fighting force in afghanistan right now. the taliban is to established in the region. but will they try to make common cause with the taliban? will we see emerging together of the two? this would be very dangerous for the u.s. if speakers could address that issue, because i think what we heard from dr. gorka is isis is the graduate level. but does this hold up when you're looking at afghanistan? the taliban has been able to continue to fight there after 14 years. the taliban still has swa in thatay in that region. it will not be that easy for us is to make inroads. if you look at how the idea of peace talks lays into this. on tuesday the taliban engaged in peace talks with the afghan leadership in pakistan. what is their calculation? on the one hand, maybe the taliban would favor peace talks because the afghan security forces turned their guns on the isis camps in afghanistan. on the other hand, this could cause greater dissension in the taliban. those leaders who do not support talks will have more of a reason to defect to isis. we are in a state of flux with regard to isis and the taliban. i would like to hear the panelists comment, what they think, how they see this moving in the future. mr. gorka: the ladoieies are the experts on the ground. let me share a macro expecto perspective. think of soft drinks for the second. for 14 years, al qaeda was that readd can with the white logo. it was coca-cola. it dominated the jihadi brand. and then two years ago this little upstart breaks out, and it is a kind of tab cola. most of you are too young to remember tab cola, but it is a junior cook. in the space of less than two years, it is isis that has become coca-cola. that is what we are talking about. do not focus on individual groups. focus on who has successfully become the ideologically brand leader, because today it is the islamic state that dominates the narrative. i hate the narrative, but let's use it. it dominates the international narrative. today, al qaeda is relegated to being the offbeat coke of coca-cola. now they have the question of can they swallow the bigger pill of seeing their upstart cousin now being the brand leader him and him i going -- and am i going to say i'm going to stay outside, or tried to call my weight back? i do not have the social media capabilities, but i will do it anyway. will they say one day ok, if you cannot beat them, join in. that is the decision we are hearing them make. on the ground there will be competition, but right now the brand leader with that shiny red can is isis. >> i think you brought up a point. if you look at baghdadi, his relationship with with osama bin laden, he respected him. he exalted him. it was not that he looked at bin laden as a threat to what he was creating. they had disagreements. on how they were going to achieve kind of the same goal. it was really just in the first phase of the war against the west. i mean, everybody knows this line. zarkawi, the reason he never pledged to al qaeda because he was trained to, believe they got to take down the nation state those countries like saudi arabia and shorten who were working diligently with the west , and with israelis, and who have these relationships that were anti-muslim, that they were not connected. abaghdadi with say why do need a passport to travel to egypt if you are a muslim? we should be one state. so then, and you had bin laden who was, ok, this guy i respect him, he and i can work together. for some time until the passing and when the baton was passed, to zawahiri, i think and from what i have been learning, baghdadi was this guy is completely different. we do not need to deal with him. he does not allow us to go out to the shia. they are the heretics. if you look at the writings of faces, they do not even use the word shia. they use the word heretic. it's like they do not even exist. all of their writings already seemed like they won. they talk about this grand future in the sense in the present tense. not in the past, not any hopeful sense. so when you think about the message that he is delivering inside south asia, he is saying, look, i am not opposed -- in fact, he respected the taliban. if you do not delve into baghdadi he thought that taliban to the most marvelous job. they stood up against the west, the united states. the u.s. came in. osama fled from tora bora. and the taliban never back down not even to pakistan. so he delivered the message that is appealing to them. they do not want to give up their power. i believe likely the possibility of saying ok let us sustain our kingdom here. and then maybe we can work together. in the common purpose being to push the west out, to push nato outcome to reestablish and and merit in afghanistan -- an emira te in afghanistan and basically go after the peace talks, the pakistani government, which the taliban really has no time for. these peace talks are just to fill in a void, in my opinion for them to buy time. that is my opinion on this. lisa: i would like to open the floor to our audience. if you have a question, please raise your hand. if you could state your name and affiliation and then ask your question. he have somebody right here in the middle. -- we have somebody right here in the middle. >> hi. i am when in defense of christians. my question, you mentioned that the airstrikes are really doing nothing,. so in your opinion, how should the united states look to address the kurds who are the most effective in fighting isis? mr. gorka: i am impressed with the kurds. very impressive. they are not going to defeat isis. you hear a lot of -- there is a lot of clamoring on the hill to make the kurds the silver bullet. i have heard people tell me it is 100% sure that kurds will wipe out isis in non-kurdish territory. that is a fantasy, and under pipe. the kurds will fight to the death on kurdish territory or territory they think is kurdish. they are part of the solution, but not the solution. the only solution is that the various constituent elements of iraq is a be the whoever, have to really why into the idea of iraq -- buyuy into the id of correct. it is a political challenge. it is an attachment to their country, to the bit they stuck on the edge of the house. so we have to be part of the political solution that convinces them iraq has a future, and i do not think despite the sectarian history and the blood feud or revenge it is not a hard argument to make on one foundation. if you really take emotion out of the equation, there is not one actor in iraq who by themselves can defeat isis. it is a fact. i do not care who you are, whether you are a good sunni, a shia. \ by yourselves you will not defeat faces. and only by coming together and that happen. but it has to happen without troops embedded as advisors, because that is the reason that -- fell. 900,000 on paper. a couple of thousand guys took mosul. we had no embeds. we were there to shame them. shame and honor. if there is nobody there to be embarrassed about you running home, you will run home dear your try because that is the entity that has protected you best the last 200 years. we have to sell the concept of the functioning iraq. we have to jettison once and for all -- i know it is apocryphal lly an arab, but the idea that my enemy is my friend is complete hogwash when it comes to iraq. the idea that karen, because they are killing sunni extremists are our friends, you have to be smoking some become and is not tobacco to believe that. lisa: ok, we have a question over here. >> yes. i'm with the 21st century wilberforce initiative. i am wondering if the panel could speak to understanding this i delay knowledge be here indr. gorka you mentioned how the narrative of information for wharf where we are putting out is completely insufficient to combat what isis is doing on social media. how can the narrative be better influenced to counteract that? is it going to require educating people any very secure context that cosmology teleology eschatology are still important and they are important in this situation? mr. gorka: buy the book. how many theologians does the pentagon have? i do not mean chaplains. i mean theologians who understand the enemy threat doctrine of groups like isis. it is about the same number of the number of insurgents defeated by our power alone. how do we address it? you really hit a crucial question. with the political elite on both aisles, both sides of the house that sees itself as a modern, postmodern, secular, and sophisticated, it is hard to take religion seriously. and one thing i have learned working with people who have had multiple tours in theater is if you do not have religion i do not care what it is, i do not care if it is his own seventh-day adventists, if you do not have religion, you will never understand this. you will not be able to absorb the concept of suicide bombing the logic of suicide bombing. we have to take political distortion out of the intelligence cycle, tug about the enemy as they took about themselves. cannot win a war of ideas of as you begin to understand how the enemy thinks about themselves. and if they say i am a holy warrior, realizing the sovereignty of my -- on this earth, if you say he is a disenfranchised person who needs a job, you will never get a strategy out of it. let's start by reading what the enemy says. the most important writer in the muslim -- read abdullah azam, the real creator of al qaeda the man who issued a fatwa who said jihad is an obligation of all believers, because we have no longer a caliphate, you must the company holy warrior. if we do not read these things we will not win this war. and allowing politics to get interact understanding of the enemy is and can -- akin to in 1944, as we were about to deploy on omaha beach, the normandy grannies, the generals in england having the troops getting on the transports, do not say the word nazi. you must understand what mobilizes the enemy. let's take politics out of it. let's talk about religion. we do not have to go declare war against islam. we have to be honest. who are the majority of victims of isis? is not christians and jews. in many theaters ist is sunnis. the lieutenant that what religion was he? he was a sunni burnt to death. let's start about -- and i will close -- the most amazing chapter in this book ulph, a walking genius on ideology. it is a tough chapter to read. he identified what is the key vulnerability of everybody we face today. it is not matter whether it is hamas isis. the key is their claim to authenticity. their statement that they are the best muslims and their fighting to protect islam. if they are the best museums you do not emulate jordanian fighter pilots. on what basis? the local sunnis have to destroy it with our assistance, but we have to start. the 15th year of the war might be a good time to start. lisa: thank you. write down here in the front. -- right down here in the front. >> i would like to draw my question out of three books rul ers of evil, operation --and an authoritative comic book that speaks about the history of islam. to draw on yourr analogy if we look at a broad historical context, leaving christianity aside, the roman church and islam is equivalent to coke and pepsi, it is good to have an enemy. argument can be made that the papacy was very much involved in the creation of islam and that the trying of arabs to mohammed 1500 years, it was good for each side to have an enemy than everyone gravitates toward one side and another. lisa: question? >> can anyone speak to the relationship between the papacy and the development of islam expansion and contraction and the entering into of -- between the vatican and islamic interests? lisa: i would take the privilege. one of the things that both al qaeda and cases is trying to do is make this into a religious war. i think the best thing we can do to counter that narrative is make sure we are not blaming the entire religion of islam for what is happening. i think what is happening in terms of the violence and terrorism we are seeing, these people see themselves as muslims and they are using religion of islam. it would be a mistake if we would equate the one billion-plus muslims in the world as equivalent as to what is being represented by ounces and al qaeda. i will stop. does anyone want to comment? mr. gorka: i will not address this. lisa: do we have another question? right in the back. >> i want to take a moment to thank our great panel speakers. i specialized in radicalization and looking at what other countries have been successfully or not so successfully. overall, our penalty stressed issues ideology and strategy. if you could serve as an advisor, what are three points you would suggest for u.s. strategic responses when it comes to u.s. ideology and threats? when we look at other countries have addressed issues of extremism, countering violent extremism, radicalization, where countries have used counterterrorism and methods successfully. thank you. lisa: katherine, you have anything to say in terms of what is happening in africa, whether african governments are supporting the u.s. in terms of radicalization efforts in these countries? ms. zimmerman: we have outsourced for decision-making to partners who may not have the same of vision as to what a successful outcome is. here i am thinking about the case in somalia where we rely heavily on kenya. saudi arabia, whose actions in yemen could be said to be in flaming the conflicts there and algeria, who's interested in protecting its borders and only its borders and the terrorist threat that resides inside its borders. those of the first challenges, taking ownership of the problems these countries base and helping them understand their actions are driving the issues. the second is recognizing the al qaeda threat, isis threat, they are insurgencies. we are hearing them described as terrorist relations. terrorism is only a tactic they use. the american partnership directly with the central state which is sometimes driving the grievances, is not always the most beneficial one. it is hard to work around. we cannot be going around a governing state within a sovereign territory. it is something we need to become this of of as we pursue our partners and pursue that counterterrorism counterinsurgency relationship. we need to recognize our action inside and outside different theaters they concretely to these -- play concretely to these in individuals. as we moved to protect the yazi dis. we have set ourselves up to say we are trying to fight isis , but we are only coming to the rescue of certain individuals and that is not playing well in a sight that is sectarian in the middle east, and we are seen as fighting only the sunni and not protecting the moderate sunni that would otherwise look to the united states for support. the three major changes i would like to see compound of the discussions we have seen going on for the past couple months. >> i think katherine has such a great point there. if you state the issue of the radicalization, or the ideal edgy that you could -- ideology that you could turn into coca-cola right before your eyes. nobody is focused what is happening on the ground, nobody has been able to exploit what baghdadi is doing, because in all honesty we ignored it. in all honesty, nobody knew who to talk with in syria, who are the right players. we were fumbling around, trying to figure things out. as badghdadi was on the rise. you see the disenfranchised sunni reaching across their hearts, it grabbed them, and we ignored it. just cannot happen again, you know? they were the j.v. team. nobody wanted to pay attention to what was happening on the ground. and u.s. intelligence, as well as european intelligence officials, as well as iraqis who were on the ground, were warning over and over again that something was coming, and nobody wanted to listen. it did not fit the narrative. it does most of us are exhausted of us did not want to see another 10 years in the region. and i think you cannot ignore ba that narrative anymore. the reality is we are in, for my own expressed on the ground and from what i am seeing, we are not going to be stuck in a long drawnout battle, and it is not just one that is going to be a military battle. it is an ideological war, that is going to require us reaching out to not just specific players, not just hoping we can find a quick solution to wrap this up, but reaching out to everyone, including sunnis. so the people like baghdadi, there will be something else -- someone else who will rise who will not have the kind of power to do what he has already done again. mr. gorka: i am a child of the cold war, so that is my socialization, and i miss it immensely. and i think we can learn a lot from the cold war. the first thing we have to do is we have to really aggressively support all those very brave sunni reformers that we are not helping at all. there are some very brave people in the middle east and north africa who they in and they ar out who are writing they are distorting muslims, how democracy and jihadi cannot function together. these are the people that america does not touch because we do not deal with this because it is not a religious war. in the cold war, we supported dissidents aggressively. we have to do this now because they are on the front lines and we need to do this well. we do push back against propaganda. i write to now, the state department has 11,000 followers. there is one turkish woman who has 1.3 million followers. that is one woman. so we have to be tedious about our response, and i recommend an incredible model from the end of the cold war called the active users working groups, a tiny organization with congressional staff, the active measures working group that targeted soviet propaganda and do it out of the water. national defense university has a good online's dougie. go -- a good online study. lastly, we need to ditch complete irrelevant concepts such as counter radicalization. it is a band-aid on a chest wound. counter radicalization is the equivalent to denazification. when can you do that? when we won. counter radicalization is a small activity that does not address the ideological force of the enemy you are facing. we need to support people like king abdullah ii, president sisi. president sisi is the number one target. how many people in this room know on january 1 this man walked into the vatican of sunni islam. it has a vatican. you walk in there with all the important a lot jens of islam in there, and he said gentlemen you have got to help me execute a religious revolution to take down the jihadis, because they are stealing our religion. what happened in d.c. when he said that? crickets. that is the only way we will win but, by supporting local reformers at the grassroots level and national level and not treat them like pariahs because they used to wear uniform. lisa: i hope what sarah has said about iraq and how we were not paying attention i can only hope it is a lesson for afghanistan and that the white house will get away from this idea that we have to put timelines on withdrawal and drop the timelines, keep residual forces in afghanistan and as long as we need to. so hopefully, there has been something learned by the fact that we have pulled all forces out of iraq, perhaps a little more quickly than we should have. i'm not saying we need to be fighting everywhere on all fronts, but we certainly can afford to keep u.s. forces embedded in countries where the threat is greatest and were the partners need our advice training equipment and those issues. there is a question in the back. >> hi. conversations in afghanistan are really great. thank you very much. i have a point, coming from afghanistan and being a witness of what has been happening i believe there is a big difference between two generations. as sara said, american people are exhausted of the war. afghan people are also exhausted of two decades of war. we need to find the right people to build strong relationships so that we can defend against terrorist groups that are rising. there are so many people who will work toward supporting democracy and human rights and workers rights. my question is, how can the united states and the international community in general can cope with the right people on the local level to fight or to stand against the growing extremists? sara: i am so happy you are here. she is an example of a strong afghan woman, which we never see in the united states. we see the stories that afghan women who have been maimed or harmed or forced into their -- to never see the outside world. she stood up and fought for the rights of afghan women during karzai's passage of the sharia laws and she is quite someone. she is an example -- she is not an anomaly. she is an example of muslim women and muslim men all across the world that i have met who i believe we have ignored, and we're not reached out to. and who can make the greatest difference for our nation and who can help find and establish peace. and i think her point -- i think you are right, you have to question that, whether we do. i think we need to make thou onion efforts as people -- to make valiant efforts as people, academics, to reach out to our muslim friends overseas, the families the people, especially women and children, and build those relationships so we do not end up the way we have ended up today, in battles and the kind of slaughter that she has had to witness and many people around the world are dealing with every day. lisa: i think the u.s. will have to engage with the civil societies of these nations. that is the key for moving forward. anymore? -- any more? ok over here. >> i was a student in the soviet union, and i recalled one of the soviet students once praising stalin. i asked her, didn't he also kill a lot of people? she replied what do you do with people who are opposed to revolution? of course, you kill them. i objected to british students who have not been exposed to that alternative idea. i can understand the struggle, presenting an alternative idea, where people have not been exposed to the other idea. with regard to the islamic state, even zawahiri denounced the islamic state. and yet people are choosing to go with the more savage.you mentioned the mastery of savagery. they are choosing to go even though they know the alternative. that is what i have difficulty understanding. mr. gorka: we have to be careful. one of our biggest sins should tediously is when we mirror image. i was asked by an audience recently, how can this be going on? how can the people who are putting up with decapitation, cause they are shot in the head because they are not wearing a face veil? do not impose your categories upon the population that may not share those categories. remember to say i would love to live a thousand years under dictatorship under a year -- instead of a year under a democracy. that is a phrase i heard in afghanistan while i was there. it may make us qualified, but we have to understand what is the context of that savagery? is it like the person you met in the soviet being? they do not count. that is the only way you can kill 8 million ukrainians, by saying they are not human. we have to start with the very essentials. what are the categories of that culture? what are they used to? what are the motivations? we get ignored if the wifi in our hotel is not fast. that is not the definition of governance in the fatah region, and we think it should be. maybe an hour a day would be impressive. it is shocking to us, but let's step back, take off our skins try to understand it in their contacts, and then we will see why savaging worse because not to be human, if i would not even use the word shia, anything is possible, but that does not we cannot degrade their message. what gives baghdadi the right to be a caliph? we do not know if he is a -- it is a requirement to be a caliph. that would hurt him a lot. you are not a -- you have declared yourself a caliph? most people do not know that they have to be a -- i'm not a social scientist. lisa: we have time for one more question. let's see here. this is your first question, right? right here in the middle. i am sorry, the rest of you can ask afterwards. >> i am from george washington university. to continue the discussion on the ideological mother is an article calling ideational balancing. he writes the islamic state's effort to project this power triggered defensive reactions from threatened regimes that play out in the religious public space. the risk is that you are attending to out-islam islamists. these regimes will move the terms of combat further and more deeply into the islamic state's preferred that a foothold. if you look at saudi arabia, where they have an extreme form of islam that is essential to the identity of the regime. if you look at sisi trying to revolutionize islam, places like georgia where they are changing their flank. how do you win the battle of ideas without moving the terms of debate on the battlefield but that is preferred by the atomic state? -- by the islamic state? mr. gorka: a superlative question. you cannot win this war -- because the ideology of global jihadistsm is tied to the texts and is tied to the printable of application. the violent passages of the koran, from the later periods that were revealed by mohamed. it is a contradiction in the koran must abrogate the earlier ones. this plays into the jihaadidi hands. what do we know about his life? it was violent at the end. the principle of application will always it if it jihadis. that is why i mentioned sisi and abdullah. it has to be a politically driven thing. we need the aptitude model. whatever you think of turkey today, the turkish state was muslim and stable and functional. the way we understand this for turks. -your president and i will second lori's politics. -- and i will secularize politics. i will segregate like the founding fathers segregated america. it is a battle that has to be fought on the political arena, saying islam is compatible with your vanity, but you have got to separate religion from politics as the west has done. that is the only way we are going to binwin lisa: that will focus on each individual nationstate. it be each individual nation. lisa: i think that is a great note to end and i hope you will join me and applauding a very excellent panel. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, josh earnest talks with reporters about the resignation of the office of personnel management director and other news of the day. then republican presidential candidate carly fiorina in an event in new hampshire followed by new hampshire politics with dr. ben carson. >> here are some of the featured programs for this weekend. for the upcoming release of harper lee's new novel. book tv focuses on the pulitzer prize-winning novelist. we talk about the impact of lee's book to kill a mockingbird, her life in the event that led to the discovery and publication of her new novel. we will re-air these program starting at 6:30 p.m. eastern. radio talkshow host on hillary clinton second run for president. on c-span, saturday night the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war with readings and remarks by members of congress. at 6:30 p.m., carly fiorina meets with new hampshire voters. on c-span3 laggler college professor that led to the factors of the great depression and president roosevelt's actions to help the american people and the economy. sunday evening, jeff the burning of atlanta georgia and columbia, south carolina and why general sherman is not the complete billing. get the complete schedule on www.c-span.org. now, white house press secretary josh earnest so to reporters on the resignation of katherine archuleta, the extension of the andorairan nuclear negotiations and president obama's upcoming visit to a federal prison in oklahoma. this is one hour and 10 minutes. josh earnest: good afternoon everybody. t.g.i.f. >> can you elaborate? josh: this is the fifth of five briefings this week. looking forward to completing this one. >> that's an editorial -- josh: i'm sure there are some that share that view. jim, i think this is a milestone today. >> it is. josh: congratulations on your many years of service. [applause] josh: jim, you're a true professional man, we're going to miss you. we wish you and your family the best. >> thank you and your staff and to all my hardworking colleagues here, it's been an honor to work with you guys. anyway, we got news today. josh: yes, we do. >> just yesterday, director archuleta was insisting she would remain in the job. what changed? josh: i can tell you that director archuleta did offer her resignation today. she did so of her own volition. she recognizes, as the white house does, that the urgent challenges currently facing the office of personnel management require a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences. that's precisely why the president has accepted her resignation and assigned beth culvert to take on the responsibilities of the o.p.m. director on an acting basis. some of you had the opportunity to interact with ms. culvert she's been serving the administration for a few years but prior to that spent three decades working as a management expert at mckenzie. she had experience working with a wide variety of public private, and nonprofit entities to make significant improvements and enhance the broad deployment of new technology. while serving at o.m.b. in the senior role as chief performance officer and deputy director of management at o.m.b. she led the implementation of the president's management agenda to improve how government functions. this involved overseeing offices of government performance, government procurement, and financial management. the president believes she is, at least on an acting basis, the right person for the job while we search for a permanent replacement for director archuleta. >> does the president think there was actual failure under director archuleta's leadership? josh: i think what the president thinks is that it's quite clear that new leadership with a set of skills and experiences that are unique to the urgent challenges that o.p.m. faces are badly needed, and that accounts for the acting director that the president has appointed. it certainly doesn't take away from, or diminish, director archuleta's service to the office of personnel management. while she was there, she strengthened the use of evidence-based practices in data to drive human capital. she worked to allow federal employees to balance their responsibilities in workplace with their responsibilities at home. she helped keep cost low and expand coverage and also understood that cybersecurity at o.p.m. needed to be a priority. it's precisely because of some of the reform she initiated that this particular cyber breach was detected in the first place. but given the urgent and significant challenges that are facing o.p.m. right now, a new manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences is needed. >> when did the white house become aware of the 21 million people affected by this breach? josh: as you know, the investigations into the scope of these kinds of incidents are extraordinarily complicated, particularly when you're talking about data that involves tens of millions of individuals, and it is only in the last couple of days that those who are responsible for leading this investigation reached this final conclusion about the scope of the intrusion. and consistent with the president's directive, as much information as possible should be shared with the public. that is why the decision was made just yesterday by the office of personnel management to release some more of this information. now we also recognize that the public is due additional information, and when i refer to the public, i'm talking about those individuals that were -- that had data that was compromised. and so there is a responsibility that o.p.m. recognizes to follow up with those individuals and ensure they're given advice, that they're informed about what exactly happened, and o.p.m. has already committed to ensuring that those individuals will receive a comprehensive sweep of credit reporting and identity theft prevention tools. this would be on top of the suite of services provided to those individuals whose data was compromised in the first reported breach. >> does the administration have any sense of what whoever is responsible for this breach might be doing with this data? is it possible they could sit on this data while these protections that you're talking about take effect and then strike later? what securities are you taking into account for the long-term? josh: i don't have an analysis to share with you in terms of what we suspect this actor, what the true intent of this actor may have been. but you know, obviously we want to make sure that those who may be affected by this breach get as much protection and support that we can offer them, and that's a promise o.p.m. is committed to fulfilling. >> are you willing to confirm that the breach, that the chinese were responsible for the breach? josh: i don't have anything to say publicly about the attribution of this activity. >> what does the president think of the conclusion that 21 people were affected? josh: the conclusion was only reached in the last few days and the president was briefed shortly after the conclusion was reached. >> what was his reaction? josh: i wasn't there when he was briefed. i can tell you that the president believes this is significant and this needs to continue to be a priority of his administration, not just at o.p.m., but across the federal government to make sure that all the agencies in the administration are focused on this priority. that it is critical to their mission to safeguard their computer networks and safeguard their data, and you'll recall that i pointed out on a couple of previous occasions that the last cabinet meeting that the president convened a month or two ago, prior to this news about o.p.m. having been publicly reported, that cybersecurity and the effective and prompt implementation of cybersecurity measures at government agencies was an item on the agenda. i think that should be an indication to you that this administration, including the president, is focusing on this priority even when it's not on the front page of the newspaper. >> would you describe him as being angry? there's been so many different technical snafus, issues, that have come up for his administration, is he angry that -- josh: i'm not sure i'm willing to agree with the premise of the question, but let me try to answer it. i think the president realizes that this needs to be a priority. it's a priority that many private sector leaders acknowledge exists as well. the private sector has experienced breaches that affected significantly more people than this significant breach here in the federal government computer network. obviously this is something that, you know, both public and private entities are dealing with and the president is determined to ensure that all of his leaders of government agencies understand that this needs to be a priority because it goes to the core effectiveness of each of these agencies. >> with o.p.m. affected in the security clearances, how long will it take to fix that, and how long before that's fully operational again? josh: i don't have an update on those details, i refer you to o.p.m. >> how do we know, yesterday during the conference call o.p.m., then o.p.m. director archuleta was going to be director. josh: as our investigators have information to share, they'll share it. i don't have new information. >> last week, the director of national intelligence said china was a leading suspect in the o.p.m. hack. you're not going to suggest that the d.n.i. director was, i guess, talking out of school? josh: what i'm going to suggest -- i didn't refer to -- i'd refer to his office for an explanation of his particular comments. i don't have any information on who is responsible for that information. >> you're not say that's wrong -- josh: i'm saying for explanation of director clapper's comments look to his office. >> you said on one of the briefings here that your personal data may have been swept up in the hack. do we know if the president's personal data has been swept up in this? is it involved in any way? josh: i don't have any information about the president's personal data, but even if i did, i'm not sure i'd share it. >> it's every federal employee since 2000, that would include the president. josh: i don't have any information about the president's personal data. >> they say the federal database failed in preventing dylann roof from buying a firearm. what can you say about the state of background checks? josh: the f.b.i. is continuing to investigate what happened when it came to the purchase of a firearm by the suspect in the charleston shooting. so i don't have any additional information beyond what the f.b.i. has already shared. i'm going to decline much comment because there is an ongoing investigation to determine what exactly happened. >> i know the president tweeted about the confederate flag coming down in south carolina, did he watch it? were officials watching it? josh: i don't know if the president watched the flag come down or not, but obviously his message on twitter is a pretty good indication of his reaction to it. >> just to get back to o.p.m., what do you say to these 21 million people whose data has been potentially compromised, i guess it hasn't been violated yet, but they are now in this vulnerable position? that's a lot of people. what is the white house message to those people, 21 million people? josh: the administration feels a responsibility to communicate with them as best we can about what has happened. that's why o.p.m. established a website with as much information as they could compile about this particular incident. they're in the process of building structures as well as a mechanism for providing a whole suite of credit monitoring and identity theft protection tools. this would be a first step in trying to provide them the support and protection they need. obviously we recognize the significance of this incident, and protecting the data of the federal government and the federal employees is a top priority. i think that's why you've seen the office of personnel management take a number of concrete steps to address this. >> before i let you go katherine archuleta said on the conference call yesterday that she wanted to stay on to deal with this. was there a subsequent conversation that changed that or did she just decide later on last night or this morning that she -- that she wanted to go? >> i'm not aware of any subsequent conversation, but for questions on her decision to offer her resignation today, i refer you to her office. julie. >> yesterday on the call >> yesterday on the call, someone said the breach occurred and it shouldn't happen when there's two forms of identification. that's standard practice. how is it that that's not standard practice for the federal government? how long do you think that will take -- it will take for that to happen? short of that, i think it could happen many times over. some agencies have it 100% but most agencies don't. josh: there is an ongoing effort by the office of management and budget to conduct a rapid reassessment of the state of cybersecurity measures and accelerate the implementation of reforms that need to be adopted. one of those is two-factor authentication. and there are a number of offices that have fully adopted those security measures. these are -- this two-factor authentication is a security measure that's becoming more and more common because of the risks that exist in cyberspace and so implementing these reforms is something that the office of management and budget is trying to accelerate all across the federal government. there's one other aspect of this that is important and is a relevant security-related reform. and that is -- that relates to the conduct of privileged users. there's some indication that once the system was breached that by using privileged access, that's what allowed these hackers to do exactly what they did. so one of the things our experts tell us is that it's important to limit the number of privileged users in the computer system and i think this is something that's becoming more common across computer networks both inside government and outside government. it's also important to think carefully about the capability given to those privileged users and if their activity or capability can be limited in some way that can often be a wise thing to do. the other thing is that it's possible and important to closely monitor the activity of privileged users, that maintaining logs about how often or how frequently they log in and log out and what -- maintaining a log of their activities is also another way to try to counter or at least limit this particular vulnerability. these policies around privileged users is also something that the federal government across agencies is seeking to implement. again because privileged users do pose a vulnerability. >> do you have any estimate of how much it's going to cost to provide credit monitoring and identity protection and any potential liability the government might bear for the loss of information? josh: i don't have those numbers in front of me, i'm not sure those numbers are available at this point. once we're in a position to announce more details about the suite of services that can be provided to those whose data may have been compromised, we'll have more information about the potential costs involved. >> on iran. it's been announced that they're going to extend the joint plan of action through the weekend, through monday. to give more time for the talks. is there any scenario where, short of a deal, they will meet? will you give us an update of the president's thinking? are there very, very close or is he in the mode of however long it takes, and they could be there through the summer. josh: i think the way we described this before is an apt description of where we stand now. the united states, our p-5 plus one partners and iran have never been closer to an agreement. important progress has been made other the last couple of weeks since the negotiators have been in vienna to try to complete an agreement. that said, there continue to be significant sticking points that remain. and that's the essence of the ongoing negotiation. the president has indicated to his negotiating team that they should remain in vienna and continue to negotiate as long as the talks continue to be useful. if it becomes clear that iran is not interested in engaging in a constructive way to try to resolve the remaining sticking points the negotiators should come home. that's essentially what's driving the timetable here. it's not the deadline, it's the usefulness of ongoing negotiations. >> what happens, is there something in place that if personal information is accessed, you said it wasn't at this point, but if it is accessed, what happens? josh: for those individuals whose data was compromised we're offering a suite of credit protection and monitoring tools to protect them from the improper use of their personal information. this is a suite of tools that's not been provided yet but they are working hard to arrange that and contact those individuals whose data may have been compromised. >> but if they break into the system, they may be able to break into someone's information. what happens? is there a fingerprint you can find to find who did this? josh: there's an ongoing investigation to learn more about precisely who may have been responsible for this breach. i don't have any information about the -- about those investigative tools being used. but rest assured that is something that continues to consume the time and attention of a lot of cybersecurity experts. >> many people, including the president, noted the significance of the confederate flag coming down today but sources on the hill say it's not over. what happened, you talked about yesterday how republicans are still trying to make efforts to keep it on national park grounds. is there a concern at the white house that this could come back up? josh: i think as a general matter, april, the president was pretty direct when he talked about this in charleston just two weeks ago. that he's hopeful that the debate would not stop at the confederate flag but would continue into a debate and discussion about policies to make our country more fair. that's where the president hopes the debate will continue to move. >> there was a statement yesterday condemning republicans on the hill about trying to reverse the amendment about the national park service. again, there's concern on the hill from democrats that republicans are still wanting to do this and trying to make it happen. is there concern in the white house that they're going to do that? he spoke so eloquently and strongly yesterday on -- i'm asking today about concerns? josh: again, i think this will be a decision for republicans to make. i do think the decision they make will give the country a lot of insight into the values and priorities and agenda that that party promotes. olivier? >> there's a security component here, too, has the president ordered a special review to understand the extent of damage to american security and hoping against hope you might give us a sense of how many current or former intelligence or military officials have been compromised. josh: i think, for obvious reasons, that's not information i'm willing to share here. i'm not aware of any specific national security review that is being conducted. obviously there are assessments done all the time about the safety and security of the country and those individuals who put themselves in harm's way to try to protect the country. at the same time there is an interagency 90-day review the president has ordered. this is a a review by the office of management and budget. it includes the office of personnel management as well as the director of national intelligence and a wide range of national security and law enforcement agencies. the goal of the 90-day review is to take a look at policy questions that related to cybersecurity and the defenses that are erected to protect the federal government's computer network. there obviously are significant national security implications for doing that. that is a review that's under way and we'll ask for another 90 days and we'll -- it will be something that will be considered carefully for its impact on the country's national security. there's a review, i don't know when it started, we can get you the start of the 90-day clock if you want. >> i want to try this a little differently. o.p.m. and the federal government were broadly offering all these remedies, identity theft protection there is credit counseling being offered to people whose information was affected. what's the price tag on that? wouldn't we have been better off spending the money on cybersecurity before this all happened than on this remedy? josh: again, as i mentioned to julie, at this point, i don't have a price tag to share with you. i will say that when it comes to the effective and judicious use of taxpayer dollar the administration has long advocated to make sure our agencies are properly funded so the priorities they have can be met. right now there is a vigorous debate on capitol hill among republicans who want to slash government funding and slash funding for agencies that will necessarily have an impact on a wide variety of priorities that these agencies confront including basic cybersecurity. so this will be -- i would anticipate that this will be part of that budget debate that is already occurring up in congress right now. >> one last one, nowhere near the top of the agenda when it comes to the o.p.m. hack, but under personal curiosity, i underwent a background check to get my hard pass to get into the white house, am i going to get one of those letters? josh: that's a good question. i don't know the answer to that. obviously you'll find out at some point. susan. >> my question is, when will the people who had their information hacked find out? and when will former military, how do you locate these people? is there a timeline on when they'll find out if their information has been breached or not? josh: they're working very diligently. we're talking about a large number and this is a complex investigation. they are working diligently to determine whose data may have been compromised. there will be an effort after that to locate those individuals and communicate to them the risks that they face and communicate to them the kind of assistance and protection that the federal government can provide to mitigate that risk. >> do you have any idea when that would occur right now? josh: at this point i don't have a deadline. obviously we're working very aggressively to meet. let me just say it this way. there is an understanding that promptly notifying those individuals whose data may have been compromised is a top priority of the investigation. that is something they're very focused on. once we begin notifying people then we'll let you all know as well. >> you have been criticized for not reacting, saying it was -- not even say it was a tragedy before referring to d.h.s. josh: i didn't catch the beginning of that. >> in san francisco. we're wondering if the white house feels that this tragedy, there needs to be a call to action on this and whether there needs to be something done. you had characterized it as, at one point, reporters interpreted that you characterized it as house republicans were just killing immigration reform and you were blaming that death on house republicans. first of all, you still think this is a tragedy that needs a call to action and is that a right characterization? did you blame her death on house republicans? josh: i did not. and that's not the first time my remarks have been unfairly characterized, but i don't lose a lot of sleep over that. the president has spoken in compelling terms about gun violence and spoken out, i think, quite persuasively about the need for action to be taken in this country to reduce gun violence. there are some steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence and the fact is, there are some steps that congress could take right now that have strong support of the american people. that even have the strong support of gun owners in this country. but congress has resisted taking some of those steps that would not undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans but could have the positive impact of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or others who shouldn't be able to get their hands on them. >> a lot of people are saying it's a call to action on immigration. there's -- josh: the president did act on immigration reform. something that republicans didn't do. that is also a fact. >> an i.c.e. official testified earlier this week that it was not just that he blames states for lack of abiding by the laws but said their policy advice is to go after all the criminal warrants they can against illegal immigrants before they act to deport him or her. i'm wondering, is that a bureaucratic crack that can be fixed? is that something that the administration can do something about right now? josh: i haven't seen the claims of that particular i.c.e. official. i can tell you what the policy is that the president put in place back in november. that policy that ensures that our limited government resources, our limited law enforcement resources, these law enforcement resources are even further limited because republicans failed to take action on comprehensive immigration reform in the congress that would have made historic investment in border security. that being said, the president's policy is to make sure we're focusing our limited law enforcement resources on criminals, those who pose a public safety threat, those who pose a national security threat, that those should be the priority for deportation ahead of focusing on splitting up families. >> but this case is there something that needs to be done in light of this case? obviously this -- who is to blame for this case? josh: there are a lot of people eager to assign blame. i think we're eager to try to find some solutions. unfortunately, those solutions will -- well certainly one thing that would help would be comprehensive immigration reform legislation. we have comprehensive immigration reform legislation that passed the senate, it was blocked by republicans in the house for purely political reasons. and that does not represent blaming them for a tragic death that obviously occurred. but it is blaming them for putting their own political interests and ambitions ahead of the public safety and national security of the united states. they do it frequently and it is appalling and offensive. >> what about sang ware cities? -- sanctuary cities? josh: again, i've said this before too but the fact is, as a part of the package of executive actions that the president announced back in november, was the creation of the priority enforcement program. and this does significantly improve the ability of the federal government and federal law enforcement agencies to cooperate with local law enforcement agencies to make sure that we are focusing our investigative and law enforcement resources on criminals. and on those who pose a threat to communities. and again that is something that the president had to do because commonsense reforms were blocked by republicans in the house of representatives. so again, that's where the president's priority lies. and we're going to continue to urge congress to take that commonsense step as that is clearly in the best interest of our economy, it would reduce the deficit, it would have a positive impact on public safety. but in the minds of house republicans, i guess their own political and personal interests trumps all that. >> for possible bipartisanship treasury secretary lew was talking about working with paul ryan on international tax reform to help pay for highway funding. are those new negotiations or have they been going on for a while? and does the white house put a timeline or any direction on those talks? josh: the white house officials and the secretary, principally have been engaged in conversation for quite some time with house republicans about the possibility of pursuing tax reform. the idea that the administration has focused on is that -- is the idea of using some element of tax reform to close loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and well connected an -- and use the revenue generated by those loophole closings to invest in things that benefit us all. it would have a positive impact on economic growth and job creation that is a principle that this administration has strongly advocated for. we've also put forward a detailed proposal for making progress in that area. republicans have not signed on to that proposal unsurprisingly. but there has been an indication from some republicans that at least in principle, at least the concept of closing some tax loopholes and using revenue to invest in infrastructure is something they have indicated an openness to at least considering. that's been the foundation of conversations between democrats and republicans on capitol hill but also between republican leaders in congress and senior economic officials in the administration. >> then you're not seeing like a breakthrough today by any stretch? josh: unfortunately, no breakthroughs to announce today. if i did, i would be doing it. margaret. >> we know the iran deadline july 13. is there any expectation on the president's part that anything could happen between now and july 13 and how is that shaping his weekend? in other words, can you give us any readout on how he'll be checking in on iran? is he getting calls from foreign leaders or is he leaving everyone alone until something jells? josh: i'm not aware of any calls with foreign leaders related to this particular matter that are already on the president's schedule for the weekend. i would anticipate that over the course of the weekend, the president will continue to be regularly updated by his national security team and possibly even directly by the team that's leading the negotiations out in vienna. but that's the way that this process has been functions -- functioning over the last several days and will continue into the weekend. >> will he get a daily update or what? josh: he'll get at least a daily update, i don't know if it will require him stepping into the situation room or not. >> is there any doubt in the president's mind that hillary clinton will be a strong supporter of the iran deal? is it a situation like trade where she had the political breathing room to say nothing, or do you think because it's foreign policy and was secretary of state that she is firmly in the public support camp, and do you consider her a validator? josh: i'd point you to her public comments after the lausanne agreement was announced, when she spoke supportively of ongoing diplomatic efforts. i think like everyone else secretary clinton will have an opportunity to evaluate a final agreement if one is reached and will make a final decision about whether or not to support it. >> on the national monuments was senator harry reid the driving force behind the national monument being named in nevada? josh: senator reid has spoken publicly about his affinity for this particular area of the nevada desert. he's been an important advocate for that particular piece of property. and the president was pleased that he was able to use his executive authority to ensure that that important space could be preserved for future generations of americans to enjoy. >> is there politics at play in this? josh: i recognize the instinct to conclude that everything that happens within the capital beltway is influenced by politics in one way or another but i think in this case, both senator reid and president obama recognize the significance of this piece of land and recognized how important it would be to ensure it could be protected and preserved for future generations of americans to enjoy. >> i know you haven't been able to discuss specifically how much the o.p.m. hack will cost but when director archuleta was before the hill, she talked about the need this year for a supplemental to cover a couple of costs. new software and whatever it would take to pay for some of the things raised in this breach. to what degree did the reaction on capitol hill yesterday which included many republicans and at least one prominent democrat calling for her to be fired influence the administration's calculations about the ability to get the money you're going to need to address this problem and director archuleta's ability to get that as an advocate for the administration? josh: major, i guess you raise an interesting point. i guess we can all sit here and hope that the passion and zeal

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Charleston , South Carolina , United States , Nevada , Mogadishu , Banaadir , Somalia , Turkey , China , As Sara , Al Jawf , Yemen , Syria , Russia , San Francisco , California , Ukraine , India , Nigeria , Egypt , Libya , Vienna , Wien , Austria , New York , New Hampshire , Omaha Beach , Basse Normandie , France , Algeria , Iran , Afghanistan , Colombia , Georgia , Ramadi , Al Anbar , Iraq , Jordan , Pakistan , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Kenya , Mali , Israel , Aqim , Saudi Arabia General , Saudi Arabia , Americans , America , Ukrainians , Chinese , Turkish , Iraqis , Pakistani , Egyptian , Turks , Afghan , Israelis , Iraqi , Soviet , British , Syrian , Jordanian , American , Abdullah Azam , Harry Reid , Lisa Sara , Ben Carson , Carly Fiorina , Al Qaeda , Hamas Isis , Katherine Archuleta , Paul Ryan , Tora Bora , Hillary Clinton , Sunni Islam ,