Millions as a bum for the president in 2012 and gave 3 million to the proobama superpac. We will have that live for you on cspan. , they recently announced nuclear deal with iran, hosted by the heritage foundation. Canadan event on u. S. Cooperation, and that begins at 1 30 p. M. Eastern. Were the 60s were different. [laughter] there were a lot of things happening involving race, the breakdown in the structure of society. I was suddenly out of the seminary and in new england, and there were no rules. Things were falling apart. Very,t structure, it is very difficult to navigate. I was extremely fortunate to be at holy cross. I was extremely fortunate to still have had a residual him the way i was raised in the structure the nuns had given me and the structure the seminary had given me. I was also extremely fortunate because i had already been in predominantly white schools. I was the only black in my high school in savanna. So, the transition to a school with very for you very few black in a very difficult set of circumstances academically and otherwise, i had sort of a junction did a jumpstart. I was ahead of the game. I had something. So it allowed me to continue to do well, even though it was very, very difficult. Thanksgiving on cspan, here from two Supreme Court justices. Clarence thomas at 9 00 a. M. , followed by elena kagan at 945 a. M. Eastern and also for days of book tv on cspan2, including Deborah Solomon on the life and art of Norman Rockwell and on c span3s American History tv, the 150th anniversary of the it is birgit prinz. Come him rating commemorating the words lincoln spoke at the, moderation dedication of the soldiers the cemetery. Former intelligence official said another attack on the scale of 9 11 in the u. S. Is not likely but also more needs to be done to counter the threat of those who work alone. Also discussed in the balance between security and Civil Liberties, saying it is impossible to prevent every potential terrorist attacks. At thescussion up up Potomac Institute is about one hour and 45 minutes. I amdies and gentlemen, the ceo and chairman of the Potomac Institute for policy studies. We are a notforprofit think tank in the washington dc area that focuses on the issues of science and technology, how science and technology is. Hanging our society for almost 17 years now we have been the host and home for the International Center for terrorism studies headed up by professoryona alexander. And i think most people here would agree and understand that the center that yona has is one of the most foremost academic institutions and consortiums of institutions in the world focusing on all aspects of terrorism. Hasessor Alexanders Group looked at, studied, and published documents on every conceivable realm and aspect of terrorism for many, mary many years. Personally author of over 100 books on the subject and we are quite proud at the Potomac Institute to be the home of his academic efforts. We are also privileged to partner with the international doninstitute and professor wallace is here representing them, as he always has, as the chairman. And for well over a decade we partnered with ili and professor wallace to bring to you these seminars in these discussions on terrorism. Are focusing and would have, i hope, a very spirited discussion, presentation followed by a questionand answer with the audience. One of the most insidious and hard to defend parts of terrorism, that associate with the lone wolf. Upre we have built tremendous body of policy and procedure for dealing with terror groups and state loneored terrorism, the wolf, the individual who plots and puts together a plot often in sympathy with the group is also often hard to find before him. Finding and dealing with lone wolf will continue to be one of the most challenging aspects of society Going Forward. How we use technology to help us do that and how we figure out how to use technology to do that while protecting Civil Liberties will be one of the key lessons of our time. So it is with great privilege i professionaluce lone wolf terrorism. And with that, i will once again try and introduce the person who is impossible to introduce, professor yonah alexander, who i think is the worlds foremost expert on terrorism. The faster . Professor . Mike,nk you very much for your always generous introduction. Lets talk about technology. I would appreciate you kindly turn off of this because we are being on tape. Mentioned the collaboration with our academic lawners, the international institute. And in fact, the latest publication with professor don wallace and our colleagues is on selectedd terrorism perpetrators. The next one will be developed llah, and, on hezbo the next one is on iran, which i guess many people are concerned about. A veryay, we do have distinguished panel to discuss what might indicated mike indicated, one of the most insidious challenges, and we are aally delighted to have variety of perspectives. At this pointce. Embers of the panel former deputy general counsel, National Security, of the fbi, currently distinguished fellow at the center for National Security law, university of Virginia School of law. The other partner we collaborate with. At theofessor amit kumar school of Foreign Service at georgetown university. Olson, thele president of the olson group. And professor don wallace. Say a few words later on in terms of introduction before they speak. Usually what we tried to do is to keep always in mind that terrorism is only one of the many challenges in terms of man made and natural disasters. Therefore, we always try to remember and never forget those who were victimized by both Mother Nature and manmade disasters. , i wouldopportunity like to express sympathy for the victims in via latvia in the supermarket who were killed, those in the philippines, and of course, those victimized in terrorist attacks in algeria, kenya, and the ongoing attacks now in syria syria, iraq, pakistan, and elsewhere. That is one aspect to express our solidarity and sympathy with the victims. And then, of course, on the other side, we have to honor who saved the lives, those who protect lives, all the way from the First Responders to the those, the military, and who serve governments, those who serve the civil society, to combat terrorism. Obama made a statement several years ago and he said most likely scenario, and i quote, that we would have to guard against what he calls the lone wolf operation rather than a large, well coordinated service attack. Put it puts the lone wolf on the agenda but today i obviously the top security concern is the iran Nuclear Campaign and the geneva , and we would have to obviously focus attention on this issue as well. And the question arises whether there is a link or connection between the lone wolf and the weapons of mass destruction, and we are going to discuss it also today. Academically, as mike indicated we tried to many of the issues that relate also to the lone wolf. Today it happens that it is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of jfk, and in fact, exactly 50 years ago, the state funeral took place. I am mentioning this because even the assassination of jfk is a big question mark in terms of whether wet are dealing with a lone wolf or may a member of some sort of conspiracy. Mention today, the month of november, some other effects that relates to the lone wolf. Hood,r the attack at fort in texas. But prior to that, in 1950, we do remember the attempted assassination of president rican by puerto terrorists, and the question is what is the definition of the lone wolf. Again, there are many examples in recent history that focus attention on the lone wolf, 1985, 18 years ago individual,n assassinated the Prime Minister rabin. And this can be regarded also as a lone wolf operation. Again, history recorded many instances of the lone wolf. About we but before we go into specifically the lone wolf examination, i would like to suggest a context to our discussion in terms of trying to look at the forest and not only of the trees. By that i mean what are really the challenges that we are facing on the holistic level this is guarded security agenda. In other words, our sense of challenges all the way from organized trying crime and the linkage between organized crime, terrorism. The humanng trafficking, and so one. The financial threats around the world. The Maritime Security concerns. Aviation security. As dictation concerns. The infrastructure security transportation concerns. Security, cyber security, and environmental security. I just returned from a nato ra, turkey, and we discussed the specifically the threats to north africa, the one, andand so so on, all the way from the atlantic and the red sea and beyond. So what is the bottom line . Mikenk the bottom line, indicated clearly, the issue of Civil Liberties, technology. Questions that we have to ponder again and again. After 9 11, is the worst yet to come . Secondly, will civilization survive . Now we are dealing with the iranian challenge. Es,dly, we come back to mik i think, concerned, whether counterterrorism strategies and democracy can coexist. When we look at the various explanations related to terrorism, we cannot even agree universally how to define terrorism. That alone not to mean lone wolf. I would submit we are facing by thely three types perpetrators. One, we can call them the lone wolf but we can also call them the individuals that are involved. Secondly, i think we have to some moree groups, organized groups some more sophisticated, some less sophisticated, and other state sponsors of terrorism. We do haventally individuals. Some of them are meant to lead to arrange. The flag as wave singlers or martyrs, issue politics, extremism. Ideologicallybased roots where ethnic, racial, religious movement, with the nationalist and separatist actors, and then we mentioned but terminals and local mercenaries. Mercenaries. And in the United States, we see the variety all the way from what we , forthe hate crime example. The white supremacists, for example. Differentare loyal to kinds of ideology or to the based ideology. So in terms of what is happening in the United States itself, whether we call them freelance or whether we call them leaderless resistance groups, we find two types. One on a nonpolitical terrorist. For example, the navy yard shooting. And this month, the los angeles airport. And then of course we have the lone wolfs going all the way back, if you will, to 1968 wins rhanhogs iran when si sirhan assassinated bob kennedy because he was motivated by antiisrael sentiment at the time. Also, all of us remember the who bomber unabomber conducted a campaign for many years. The radicalized Technological Society at the time. All remember what happened in oklahoma city, 1995. The attack on the Federal Building when 168 people were killed and 800 wounded. Course, the most recent, the fort hood shooting, that Nidal Malik Hasan perpetrated at the time. So again, when we talk about the lone wolf, the individual acting on his or her own, incidentally, we do have an increasing number of women who are involved. We can look at the nonpolitical motivation and then we the political motivation. Fundamentally, i think what we are going to discuss today are basically the two sides that we have to consider. But mostly the political side. We can spend a semester at least discussing the various trends. Were not going to do that. I think it would be useful in terms of context to discuss the phenomenon which is not very well understood. We have to keep in mind that terrorists are not born, they are created by various political, social, economic environments. In other words, the lone wolf terrorists do not appear from outer space. They are part of our societies. They are subject to the political, social, and economic ideologies. And their religious environments. In other words many of them , share values through technology, through websites and so forth. Some operate on one basis, and others operate on multiple cks. Ultiple serial atta multiple studies developed over the years and we are trying to follow it on a daily basis. It requires a great deal of interest in terms of radicalization. The International Society tries to understand what are some of the root causes and what can be done to deal with that. Hopefully, todays discussion will provide the initial context for our discussion. The first speaker is mike bowman, who has a rich background in the government, and the military, diplomatic and academic activity. In fact, he is teaching one and one of ourw interns right there and he is a student in his class. You can prepare for the class tomorrow. He has very broad experience in the government and counterintelligence. Also in various other positions senior positions with the fbi, and as i indicated, he also has a very rich academic background. We are looking forward to his remarks. Then we are going to followup with our other panelists and hopefully then developed a discussion with the audience. Here . You mind coming up i will let you get by. Ok. Next thank you, yonah. I first started thinking about lone wolf terrorism right after 9 11. At the time i was debating nash that the council of National Security affairs at the fbi. We really did not know an awful lot about al qaeda at that point in time but we began to look into it very quickly. Among the things that we learned was that there were a number of Training Camps being run by al qaeda in afghanistan. The more we look at it, the more we realized that while al qaeda was trained in the camps in afghanistan, an awful lot of other people have gone through there too. Not necessarily affiliated with al qaeda or intending to do something on a terrorist plane. But perhaps going there for training for something later on. We begin to think about what would happen if one of those people began to decide to do something. Unattached, unaffiliated. The reason that made a big difference. A big difference was because the way we look for terrorists and spies and so forth in the United States was largely the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which is operated by a secret court. Warrants for wiretaps and physical searches. The predicate for a fisa war and warrant is that the target is either a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. If you have a person acting on his own, it is hard to talk that tuck that person into an agency or a foreign power. After 9 11, i suggested that perhaps we could have an amendment to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act to look at this Single Person. This caused consternation because it did change the way we thought about the act from the start. We eventually did get an amendment to the act for that purpose. We also began to realize some other things that might happen. One of the things that started us thinking along a different line was soon after 9 11, Dutch Foreign intelligence produced three studies about radicals in their part of the world. One of the really startling things that came out of that was that they did not find a lot of ideologues. They found people who seem to have an affinity for violence. They wanted to do something violently. As a consequence, they started looking at those individuals. That did disrupt not only in the netherlands but in other countries, some things that were beginning to happen or were planned to happen. We began to look at that. And then another thing happened in 2005. We had the British Underground bombings. We began to look at that and think, we have got people in the country that this contends too. Too. Ybe discontents, something we have not focused on all that much since Timothy Mcveighs. We might have people not affiliated with al qaeda on the we might have people in our own communities who want to do violence. We began to think more and more that there might be some other thing to do about this. When i testified in 2002 in congress, asking for the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act to be amended, congress was very skeptical. They were not ready to accept the fact that we might have other types of individuals in the u. S. It took a period of time for congress to come around. They eventually did. The only thing that has happened through the years is that we have fairly well decimated the ability of al qaeda and al qaedatype affiliates to carry out the large, complex type of operation that 9 11 represented. Could it happen again, yes. But what is more likely . I will give you a prediction. In the u. S. And most western and probably most of the western countries as well, future terrorist acts are more likely to be less well organized than we saw with 9 11. Likely to be less complex, less likely to succeed. Theyre less likely to be as lethal if they do succeed. They are going to be more numerous. And in all likelihood, i believe that they will be mostly conducted by citizens or long term residents of the u. S. Why do i say that . First of all, i think that is what the sequence of events that i have just laid out point us towards. But secondly, if we stop and take a look at what has happened in the u. S. Since 9 11, we have had over 50 terrorist according to fbi reporting over 50 terrorist attempts defeated. We have also had a number of terrorist associated persons arrested. Of those who had some link of al qaeda or al qaedatype philosophy, more than half were u. S. Citizens. 35 were born in the u. S. 60 have a college degree. 60 were either working or in school. These were not the people that we were looking at right after 9 11. These were not the discontented arabs who were going to camps in afghanistan to try and learn how to make an explosive. To try and learn tactics or go learn to shoot a gun. Basically, we are looking at today an entirely different cadre of people than we thought about many years ago. What bothers me about it is i dont think we are looking at it hard enough. I dont think we are focused enough on the lone wolf, who might have no affiliation with anybody. Who might not even be an ideologue. Who might just want to blow something up because he is a discontent. Think back to the example of Timothy Mcveigh. We have seen others in the u. S. As well. That is what the future holds for us. I will leave it there. Obviously, i think the way you described it there is no doubt about your analysis on the basis of what already happened. Not only u. S. Citizens or permanent residents, but also those who come here to study on a visa or illegals as well. It is also characterized in the European Countries as well. As we have seen with the tragedy in norway, in the name of some secular ideologies. This is the wave of the future. We are going to have another perspective to discuss the issue with dr. Kumar, whom i introduced earlier. He is teaching at georgetowns school of Foreign Service, he specializes in the financial aspects as well as on south asia, the case study in that region. I asked him to bring in some of his findings and perspectives. Then we will have a third speaker to focus on weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Kumar, would you kindly come up here. Many thanks to yonah and mike for having me here. It is an honor to be here. And with such a distinguished panel. I thank the previous speaker, spike, for an excellent presentation. Essentially, i am going to run through some important aspects of lone wolf terrorism, incorporating some south asian examples. As well as others. When we talk about what is lone wolf terrorism, most people conflate it with one person who planned it and executes it and finances it. The reality is, especially in political terrorism, the radicalization process. A single individual may perpetrate the act. But he may be radicalized through a group or the internet or army experience. Or what have you. That is a distinction one has to be clear about. The kneejerk response is just because it is a single individual, he must be a lone wolf. He may not be a terrorist, but he may be a terrorist as well. He may be a covert or overt member of a terrorist organization. Some previous interface with an organization. The radicalization process through the organization. Some previous travel in terrorist camps. If you look at the boston bomber, one had traveled to central asia. It is hard to call the person who travels a lone wolf terrorist. He was indoctrinated in dagestan, along with the internet. Secondly, it has been alluded to by yonah and spike the types of lone wolf terrorists. They could be secular, a la Timothy Mcveigh. They could be religious. The al qaeda guys. It could be single issue, the unabomber. Could be criminal, could be idiosyncratic. When you say criminal for example the anthrax attacker in , 2001, bruce ivins, he had criminal intent. It is hard to be one or the other. It could be a mishmash of all the five categories or one or more. What factors contribute . Social and political grievances, documented psychological disorders that we discovered with the boss and bombers and others. The affinity with or membership of terrorist organizations or criminal gangs. Then there could be a broadcasting of terrorist intentions. In norway, Anders Breivik had broadcast what he was going to do. There are signals that the lone wolf would be doing something spectacular. Then there is the role of enablers. For instance, prisons, the internet or previous military experience. Then there are catalytic agents. There could be personal or political triggering events. Timothy mcveigh went through radicalization after an experience in the first gulf war. He developed a loathing for the federal government. And he wasnt for state rights. You have all these basketcase folks who may be radicalized in one or many ways. Then there are what we called stochastic terrorism. Basically folks like zawahiri and bin laden, alawlaki, uploading videos and exhorting their al qaeda brethren to engage in lone wolf attacks. That would be a stochastic process where the perpetrators of the attack are what some terrorists call missiles, actually. What do terrorist organizations achieve using lone wolf terrorism . I will focus on how terrorist organizations might utilize lone wolf attackers. What do they achieve . They are low cost, greater impact, require low planning. They are difficult to predict and detect and take Counterterrorism Measures against. There is the aspect of plausible deniability. If you look at the mumbai bombings. This is topical because we are celebrating the fifth anniversary of the heinous attacks in mumbai on november 26, 2008 when the 60hour carnage began. Initially, the news report said it was the deccan mujahedin. Then it was the Indian Mujahedin. Then we discovered Lashkare Taiba was engaging in plausible deniability. It is not lashkaretaiba, it is an offshoot of it. There could be threats of the Indian Mujahedin or a local criminal gang. This has happened before. A lashkar operator, if you look at it David Coleman headley surveillance of the mumbai targets in 2007. Is he a lone wolf terrorist . Or is he sent there by lashkar etaiba to act as a lone wolf to make people believe that there is an individual acting on his own. There is a case of the man involved in the plot to survey the Financial Institutions in new york and new jersey and washington. And then there is the need, the requirement on the part of the lone wolf to communicate with members of the organization. This way the terrorist organizations can engage in plausible deniability. It is the individual. You this was an individual and we are not involved. What these lone wolf attacks as far as terrorist organizations go, they show would be lone wolves, here is one guy, all of you can do the same thing. That is what ill unlock you have been saying, thou what year he has been saying this september what alwakia nd zawahiri have been saying. Extorting would be lone wolves to terror. What strategies can be used . Community posing, easier said than done. The washington metro bus Say Something if you see something. That is a typical example of what can be done. I would consider a lone wolf terrorist as someone who executes and finances and plans the attack, but is radicalized by in external agent. For example, the terrorist organization. Whatever means, enables. The internet, military, previous travel, part of a sleeper cell or what have you. Then there is the need for federal, state, and local information sharing. Trying to nip would be attacks in the bud. Then there is monitoring, that brings in a Civil Liberties issue. With what powers can the government monitor the internet . It obviously can and it should. Place, the taking stew is brewing over the internet. What kind of messaging, chatting, would be the wolf terrorists financing plots. What kind of interactions does he have . Then there is the question of rapid response. For example if the norwegian , authorities have responded after the first attack to Anders Breivik, it is difficult to predict what the basketcase is going to do. But if they had responded, he may not have perpetrated the second attack. That had larger casualties. Then there is the question of investigating not just lone wolf attacks, but the botched plots. There is so much more one can learn from a botched plot. The underwear bomber. There is so much more one can learn from a plot that has been foiled. What kind of implications does lone wolf terrorism have for Counterterrorism Measures . It is difficult to detect, unorthodox strategies are called for. Including some i mentioned, Like Community policing. City strategies need to be designed to prepare for, respond, and prevent terrorist attacks. It is difficult to make out when we are doing this whether the attack is by a criminal or by a secular terrorist, a religious terrorist, or an idiosyncratic terrorist. It is difficult to address the tailor make the strategies to address the potential plot or potential perpetration of terrorist actions. There are issues of whether lone wolf terrorist attacks are more possible in developed societies versus developing societies. In the context of south asian nations, their information sharing methods and their monitoring measures are not as good as ours. Or our other allies in the developed world. There is a thinking amongst intelligence circles that it is harder to plan a lone wolf plot in a place like india or any other country in south asia then the developed world. Then there is in the developed world. There is an opportunity to study what is going on in terms of the lack of lone wolf attacks and thank god, in the looking countries or other south asians sideways. The real possibility of terrorist attacks here. Lastly, i want to talk about radicalization. I want all of us to look carefully at what does radicalization entail . What is al qaeda . When we say bin laden is gone, al qaeda is damaged, we are obsessed with the organization of al qaeda. The organization structure. There is the al qaeda ideology, which we have not been able to do much about. The radicalization in prisons are important strategies. Counterradicalization are important strategies to employ. Then there is the al qaeda movement, which is still intact. If you look at the ideology or the movement of al qaeda to grab local separatists. In kashmir, mali, or other parts of the world. The separatists in south asia, the taliban. That, coupled with the fact that there is increased interaction amongst affiliates of al qaeda points to the wouldbe or potential lone wolf terrorist part of this movement. There is some connection, either ideological or in person or both. It is difficult to really spring to a judgment. If it is an individual, it is only an individual act. I would reckon that radicalization is a kind of Material Support as well. Most people would not recognize it. We have got to go beyond the obvious. What appears on the surface may not be true. Dig deep and look at crucial aspects of radicalization. More can be done in terms of engagement with the imprisoned individual. Or to prevent someone who has been imprisoned for criminal activity not to become a terrorist. Through education or employment outside prison. A lot of literature deals with recidivists. Folks who have been left out of Guantanamo Bay and are perpetrating attacks in aqap or in other outfits either in syria or yemen. That is it for now, thank you. Our next speaker is kyle olson. He has a very rich experience as well consulting and advising governments and industry and the academic community. Particularly related to the nature of the threat. I remember very vividly after the attack in tokyo with sarin, which was mass destruction, you were kept quite busy to make sense of that. I really think with your wide experience, share with us your thinking about various scenarios and possibilities with the use of what we call some sort of weapons of mass distraction, whether chemicals, the sarin, or the anthrax. Some cases we have seen in the u. S. And abroad related to deaths kyle, if you please, peer. Here. E up thank you. The lone wolf terrorist is obviously a subject of great interest and concern. You threw several questions out at the beginning. You asked whether or not the future for terrorism in general but certainly the lone wolf terrorist are we looking at something worse than 9 11 . An event on that scale . You asked about whether society askedrvive and you whether or not democracy and freedoms can survive in that environment. First of all, echoing a couple themes which were already voiced. The lone wolf represents a unique problem. We sometimes through the label terrorist orlabel terrorism around into expansive a fashion. It may be a person out for revenge. In other cases, it may be at criminal activity. The terrorism word puts it in a comfortable basket for many of us. That can lead us down a sometimes slippery slope from an analytical point of view. I would note that when i think about the lone wolf, we often see Timothy Mcveigh as an example of a loan will terrorism. Terrorist. But he had some help. Lone wolf or semilone wolf terrorism is a similar threat. Something significantly below the level of al qaeda or al qaeda affiliate. At the same time, it represents something outside that construct. The reason i get there is because the lone wolf or someone with a very small group has the potential for accessing weapons that we would lump into the weapons of mass destruction category. The classic hierarchy the chemicalbiologicalradiological hierarchy is one we can look at and say many of these are in the reach of an individual. Look at the notion of being able to access some quantity of toxic chemicals. You can find some ways to introduce those in a setting. That does not need to be a mass killoff. It does not need to produce body counts of hundreds. But for example, the introduction of a chemical into a school building, access to cylinders of chlorine or other materials has the potential to create a toxic event. 9 11 scale . Probably not. But the threat is there. There are materials available that are accessible, whether we are talking about getting discrete quantities, capturing, disrupting, diverting trucks and truck loads of material. Even an attack on a production or storage facility. The collateral effects are significant. They are real, and they could be very meaningful in that regard. Within the capability of someone with even a rudimentary understanding of the fact that if there is a label on the side that says it is bad, it is bad. On the other hand, a comical weapons attack like what we saw in the tokyo subway event in the 1990s required investments on on the part of a group of individuals. Talking about on the score of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and a commitment to work on that problem over a period of time. That is may be something that this images that kind of a something that distinguishes, maybe it puts it out of the classic lone wolf pattern. Dont ignore the fact that you know bomber maintained a campaign over a number of years, but his work was basically the small package bombs which he developed and in processing and producing. Chemical weapons probably, in a meaningful way, are outside the scope of an individual but not a small group. Biological weapons, we hear about the poor mans atom bomb. The biological threat is legitimate in the sense that biological weapons can be self replicating in the environment. You do not need a Large Industrial base if you have access to stocks up front. An Infectious Disease is an Infectious Disease. As anyone who has survived flu season will tell you, the little kid next stories a delivery next door is a delivery device. The biological threat can be an example of a talented dabbler working in his own laboratory or diverting Research Facilities in a university or hospital setting. The technology is there. Biological weapons the reference was made to the anthrax attacks earlier in this decade. Anthrax technology is 1950s level weapons grade technology. You look back at some of the other biological agents, they have been used as a weapon either with great conscious thought in advance or as a collateral effect going back for hundreds of years. An individual could find a way to apply a biological weapon. Are we talking about a Society Killer or a city killer . Probably not. The lone wolf this is true for all weapons of mass destruction or mass killing scenarios. The lone wolf terrorist operates in a vacuum in terms of supervision, in terms of restrictions or limitations, in terms of any kind of filter on what is or is not acceptable. The true lone wolf terrorist is only answerable to him or herself. By the way, that means that many of the traditional deterrent tactics that we use as governments, as militaries, Law Enforcement organizations short of identifying and capturing attackers are not going to have much impact. The lone wolf operates without committees and without worrying about going before in an appropriations board. He does what he can do when he wants to do it to his timetable. Obviously, high explosives fall within that universe. That goes without saying. The one that is probably of most significant concern in terms of its real footprint is the radiological threat. For the last 10 years or 15 years, one of the recurring questions on the part of security planners everywhere is why havent we been hit with a dirty bomb . Dirty bombs are the easiest weapon in that whole panopoly of choices. Probably the easiest weapon to assemble, it easiest to use. Obtain a quantity of rheological material, it does not have to be highgrade, wrapped around explosives and detonate. The effects do not have to be lethal. The sociological, economic, political, cultural impacts of detonating a radiological dispersal device in a major urban area the monumental core of the city of washington would be substantial the allclear notice is almost impossible to obtain. From any government agency. A dirty bomb went off, but you are safe. Go ahead. Lets not leave out cyber attacks. You could argue that the recent actions by anonymous as well as the release of the nsa files constitutes an act of terrorism. Certainly the impacts have been dramatic and political in nature. But they have also had impacts far beyond what you would expect to find on a thumb drive. Once again, that is an example of an intelligent individual, and arrogant individual, and a disassociated individual feeling free to carry out what he or she saw to be a legitimate exercise of individual his selfimposed authority. Going back to 9 11. A review on that. Redo on that. For the lone wolf, i would argue that a 9 11 spectacular or event with that kind of a body count is probably beyond their reach. Probably. You could have the perfect storm. You can argue that 9 11 itself was the perfect storm. It exceeded the expectations of al qaeda. Will society survive . Yes. Society will survive because we are more resilient than any one individual or one small group of individuals. We are a society of 350 million within a Larger Society of 6 billion. Yes, society will survive. But at the end of the day asking the question about democracy and our rights and values. The lone wolf operates without the restrictions, the filters, the constraints that we associate with organizations. Even terrorist organizations like al qaeda had a command structure and the decision matrix. The lone wolf gets up and feels like killing you, he will kill you. I look forward to our discussion. Obviously, i think you raise some profound issues and questions. I hope we can develop a discussion among the panelists as well as the audience. That is why i think we have to, in our analysis, make a distinction between the individual terrorist and a group as well as statesponsored terrorism. By the way, as a criticism of the deal, whether it is a Historic Deal or not. Concerns of some members of congress and others that in the package there was no indication related to statesponsored terrorism of irans involvement in syria and so forth. The bottomline is the nature, the intensity of the thread on the part of states, groups like al qaeda and the individual. What is absolutely correct that you mentioned in terms of the impact is the number of attacks according to our studies, maybe 2 of all terrorist attacks, we are talking about thousands, are related to the individuals. One attack can have a very significant impact. I mentioned the assassination of the Prime Minister of israel, rabin. We focused our seminars and so forth by individuals that undermined the Peace Process for many years. It is not only the number, but the impact. One of the areas that we still have to consider, not only the political and nonpolitical how many attacks we had in the u. S. In the schools, with the the availability of guns. In fact, one of the most recent letter, was it anthrax or some other device, that was sent to president obama and to new york city mayor bloomberg was related to that issue. I think we have to look at the broader picture and the issue of radicalization. It is true what you said about the individual who does not look at some approval by his peers or colleagues, he has no constraints whatsoever. That individual does not exist in a vacuum in terms of radicalization. I think dr. Kumar mentioned the technology, social media, for example, the internet and so forth. The inspiration that they have. What i propose that we can discuss is the issue, how is the lone wolf being created . I indicated that in general the terrorists are not born, but they are created. We can condemn them, as dostoyevsky observed a long time ago, we can be against evildoers, but we cannot understand the mind of the evildoers. We cannot understand the mind of the lone wolf. Again, do you want to respond to some of the comments . Dr. Kumar . I agree with yonah about the radicalization piece. As much as the radicalization and counterradicalization could take care of behavior, they cannot impact ideology. The symptoms could be taken care of, but in terms of the ideology, which is so profound, whatever the agents could be, triggering events, folks like alzawahiri or alawlaki, exhorting these loose Affiliate Members or cell members or potential lone wolf attackers, there is not much can be done as far as ideology because we do not understand why they have this ideology of anti despot. The other feature is the hatred towards the u. S. , israel, and allies. The Movement Towards a global islamic caliphate. This is why they have foot soldiers. And they are foot soldiers with a cause. They may not have the kind of terrorist leaders as part of an Organizational Network or the financiers, but they can be selffinanced. The ideology is something they import from the outside. To the extent that this attracts with mental dilapidation or mental disagreement or other personal or political greviances, it is difficult to fathom what to do about it. These guys can be criminals who are radicalized. They could be folks who are idiosyncratic and have funny behavior patterns. It is difficult to come out with measures, per se. I would look at the ideology and the whole radicalization process as the more important object to study. You are right in saying it is important how these lone wolves are created, incubated, made. Much rather than how they perpetrate the act, which is at the end stage, or how they plan. External influences on a would be lone wolf needs to be studied. It is hard to theorize and be studied in the absence of case studies. Every attack is unique and special, with a different message and ideological impact and so on. Lone wolf terrorism cannot be a typology. It is only a tactic that could be used by wouldbe terrorists as well as nonterrorists. Thanks. Spike, can i ask you a question from the Law Enforcement point of view . One concern is the role of intelligence and the sharing of intelligence in terms of different agencies. How do you see this, especially in light of the recent revelation of the nsa saga, in terms of the question of the Civil Liberties concerns that you have worked on for so many years . Civil liberties was always one of the biggest concerns we had at the fbi. The fbi is unlike nsa, unlike the Central Intelligence agency. 95 of what the nsa collects is of u. S. Persons, not foreigners. We have always been concerned about that. I received at least one phone call a day from agents in the field who asked can i do this, should i do this, where is the line . This is something that i mention that only to emphasize the fact that this was a real issue. If you come up to today and look at what the nsa is doing, several Different Things. First, what the nsa is doing is collecting metadata. What the newspapers have not told you is the metadata is constitutionally unprotected. It is thirdparty information, it does not belong to you, it belongs to telephone companies. Telephone companies can do what they want with it except give it to a federal officer without being compelled to do so. That is one thing. I will say that when i argued for the creation of that statute, article 215 of the patriot act, when i argued for that, i never anticipated i do not think anybody anticipated it would be used as it is being used today. We looked at it as being something that would target a Single Person for something. That is another thing that is happening. If you take the program and work it backwards to 9 11, if we had had the opportunity at 9 11 to collate telephone messages and frequent flyer numbers, none of which is constitutionally protected, we could have discovered all 19 hijackers in the u. S. I am not telling you we would have prevented 9 11 from happening. If we had discovered all of them here and we hade been following them and watching them and saw them get on the airplanes, i am 99 certain that what would have happened is the fbi agents who were following them would have noted the plane they got on, where they were going, and called the field office and told them to pick them up when they got there. My point is you can do this information, valuable information that is constitutionally unprotected. The thing you have to ask yourself and this is what the public needs to ask itself two phases the flip side of the question here one question is, do you want the government to do everything it can to protect you . The other question is, do you want the government to look and record every time you visit a website or make a phone call . Those are real questions. Right now, i will tell you that as a matter of law, what the nsa is doing for privacy purposes is not a privacy intrusion. I will leave it to the judges of the fisa courts to determine whether the activity is lawful. 11 senior judges have said it is. But nobodys privacy is being affected by this program. Thank you very much for this clarification. I suggest that we develop some sort of discussion in terms of number one, the radicalization process of some of these individuals. All the way from alienation or unemployment or whatever it is. Secondly, what are some of the strategies that are available to deal with these on the local level, the national level, and the International Level . We have in the audience those who have very broad experience in government and outside governments. I would like to invite them to participate. First, mike, who worked at the state departments counterterrorism office. Would you share some of your views on the lone wolf idea . Maybe i can project. First, i want to pick up something spike said about people who have a tendency for violent acts. There is a psychological aspect to this. We saw this with the ira. When they reached an agreement, some people could not put down the tools. It seems to me one of the tools we have not talked about is that the fbi has conducted sting operations against lone wolves. I would be interested to get your thoughts, what are the guidelines . The other thing that occurs to me, the psychological aspect. There may be some similarities between people who conduct violence for various reasons like the shootings that we have had, the navy yard, etc. , and people who do it for terrorist motives. Part of a problem is detecting somebody before they go off the deep end. I am struck how many times when they identify the culprit, the neighbors say we did not know or he seemed to be a nice guy, nothing out of line. It turns out that there were some indicators along the lines. My daughter lived in the same neighborhood as the boston bombers. It was only later that people said, oh, yeah, this guy sounded strange or radical. Where is that dividing line with privacy, where people report it . It is still a fuzzy area we have not been able to address. Getting back to tools, one of them is the nsa intercepts of the patterns you talked about. The other is the sting operations. The third is the deradicalization. I disagree with you that you cannot get rid of ideology. If you can somehow discourage people from acting on that ideology, we are ahead of the game. It is a hard thing to measure. It is hard to measure what you succeed or do not succeed in. Ok. By the way, mike, could you comment on the role of the media . At one time, you covered these events for the media . Does the media has a role in terms of creating a radicalization process . I think there are two aspects. My involvement in journalism was before the terrorism episodes really developed. It was covering washington and overseas. The attempts of glamorization of terrorists as romantic freedom fighters. I was recruited to the state department in 1985 when secretary schultz wanted to start a campaign against terrorism. Especially in europe and the middle east, people tended to glamorize terrorists. The media sometimes plays a role, sometimes inadvertently or by carrying or reporting some of the claims without the counterbalance. When there is an incident, it is difficult. Reports come out. Sometimes reporters are reporting what they hear from Police Officials or local officials who only have part of the story. That is why there is often so much confusion. Another aspect that we dealt with at the state department. The attacks in london, the libyan or iranian embassy. The press was showing where Scotland Yard people were stationed. There have been issues and trying to restrain the press from quoting information or reporting things that might be useful to a terrorist. This happened in mumbai, too. They were picking up radio or tv reports and newer security the securityere forces were. There is an issue of restraining press. It is more difficult in this country than the u. K. You have so many local tv reporters who do not have good relationships with the police or local authorities. The last pitch it is important for local authorities, fbi, etc. , to develop good relationships with local media so there is trust when you asked them to hold off. Ok. Are there any questions from the audience at this point . Yes. Please identify yourself for the record. [indiscernible] my name is carlos stern. I am retired, i spent some years in the pentagon. I am interested in this field. I am grateful to sit in. With regard to your example on the 9 11 hijackers, the real clue that was missed was a bunch of foreigners wanting to go to Flight School in florida. They expressed openly that they had no need to learn to take off or land. That was reported to the fbi. It certainly was a very bright signal. As they say, the metaphor congress uses is connecting the dots. The same with the chechen boys. The russians told the u. S. That these guys were probably trouble. That was not followed up on. There are many other examples. The reason i bring this up is the old adage that one learns more from mistakes than from successes. I was hoping to hear a discussion of failures and how we have mined information from the failure to do better next time. With respect to your examples, you have conflated two Different Things with the Flight Schools. One of them was foreigners who were taking flight lessons around the country. Not that they were not trying to take off or land, they were learning how to fly. What was misquoted in the papers was the instance of moussaoui, the company said he did not want to learn to take off or land. That is precisely what he wanted to do. That was misrepresented by the company and reported in the newspapers. I cannot answer the issue about the boston bombers, i was not with the fbi at the time. I will give you a vignette. When the terrorist Screening Center was opened up, and this is a center that has the names of all known or suspected terrorists, and it is a large number because there are many aliases that people can use and you can spell mohammed 40 different ways. We asked other countries if they wanted to give us the names of their known and suspected terrorists, and a number of countries did. Russia sent us 300 names, all chechens. A little thing yet. I do not know what was going on in the fbis mind. That was the first thing i thought of what i read in the papers. You are right. We need to learn from our mistakes. One of the issues and learning experiences is the 215 program today. We are trying to have an ability to look back and see if there is something we missed along the way. That is one of the things. Whether it survives or not, i do not know. That is one of the lessons we had at the time. You worked on this issue for a long time. Several things come to mind. If i could make three points. First of all, we need to be cognizant and recognize it is not just the role of the media when an event is playing out. It is the legitimizing or magnifying role of the media that is frequently sought by the lone wolf terrorist or the small organization, that the act itself is done in order to maximize and gain recognition or media attention. That becomes part and parcel of the objective of the exercise. A terrorist act that falls in the forest when no one is around does not get you much at the end of the day. The media role is significant one and we dont fully understand it. The urge to turn the boston bombers on to the cover of rolling stone. Who wouldve thought he would be the first guy in his class . The second thing we are conscious of is the fact that jihad he terrorism is only one thin slice of that continuum when we start looking at those people who we would terrorize as lone wolves. Wolves. Rize as loan if you look back at American History over the last 100 years, we have time and again had homegrown lone wolves and done things like bone up the Los Angeles Times or schools or carried out one act or blown up backpacks in olympic park in atlanta. Nothing of that has to do with islam. It had precious little to do with anything other than their own bias or concern at that point in time. Regrettably, we are not in a position of the guy who gets drunk and looks for his keys under the light at the street. Finally, one of the points i would make is i remain concerned and ambivalent and not terrifically happy when i hear about collecting metadata and it is not protected. The second question is, can society survive . The third question to ask is society can survive an almost limitless numbers of lone bomber attacks. If you do not believe we can do it, then look at what happens in downtown baghdad every day. Functioninues to after Something Like that. You cannot if that level of carnage were played at the United States, we would all be hiding in our basements. The concern i would have is if we are going to pursue perfect security and perfect protection and detection and maximize our ability to look at every clip on the internet as a way to look for that person who might be a radical or radical environmentalist or anti abortion or might not like people with blond hair, then we are not sliding down a slippery slope. Were on a tobaggan and we are headed to the bottom fast. I would like to pile on there. This is a Technology Angle to the whole thing. There have been lone wolves or lone wolfpacks since mankind grouped together and crawled out of the caves. It is well documented that a certain percentage of us, 1 to 4 is just nuts. They get guns and kills people. If it is motivated by ideology or Somebody Just going over the edge and killing a handful of people, it is part of human nature. The question is, as Technology Provides tools to these nuts to do harm and as that Technology Gets more lethal and more available, the impact of those lone wolfpacks grows exponentially. It used to be with just a few guns or a handful of hand grenades or even a panel truck with fertilizer you could kill dozens or maybe hundreds of people. One person could kill 400 or 500 people. Timothy mcveigh is the most successful lone wolf we have seen in 100 years. What technology is making available today, what will it make available 20 years from now . 30, 40, 50 years from now . Gene sequencers are available on the internet. People who can grow unthinkable biological organisms are graduating daily. I have a ph. D biochemist who tells you it only takes a bachelors degree today to know how to get a gene sequencer and create something really bad. As technology builds the capability to do harm, and there are individuals out there who will use that, when they get past getting a gun or something more lethal, what will be the needs of society to make sure that doesnt happen . Today we look at it and say it is going to happen a few times a year and it is not worth sacrificing our Civil Liberties for. But if the potential grows to the point of certainty that sooner or later one of these nuts is going to get something really lethal, we will look at it differently. We might say it is worth sacrificing that a significant portion of our population is not put in jeopardy. When will have that discussion . We should be having it now. We will have the discussion about whether we got to find the nuts and terrorists the day after one of them kills a million people. It is not a question of if. It is a question of when. How much longer . The thing is in our Academic Studies for a long time, the first lone wolf attacks took place in the garden of eden when we talk about cain and abel. Nothing is new under the sun. You spoke specifically, you mentioned the weapons of mass destruction and the cyber, i fully agree with you. If i am a lone wolf and i am trying to bring society to its knees, hundreds of people to derail trains or trying to choke us to turn off electricity. The point i am making is we have to be vigilant as a society. Now i have my colleague professor wallace. I usually make closing remarks. This discussion raises profoundly the issue which principally my neighbor touched on. When you think of the sheer spectrum of events that theyre going to be energetic and restless, violent, nutty and ingenious people, assume Something Big is going to happen. My very intelligent english life andife believes in Safety Society can protect itself. I teach a course on the subject of what the nsa is doing. I think this will be the issue. Society is going to have to learn the nsa is try to do more all the time. We have to assume in good faith and was to protect us. It has technology. The issue is, can Society Learn enough that our political colleages can intelligently decide what to do . My students write about this all the time. There are constitutional issues. I agree with spike. Maybe the metadata collection does not constitute a search. The nsa is making quasiprobable cause determinations. People point out if you look at my travel records and my doctors, that is the real issue. You are quite right. America will not want to lose its Fourth Amendment protections. As citizens we do not know what our preferences should be. We will learn. I have said this before, i have no tolerance for edward snowden. I have no respect for them whatsoever. He is in arrogant and self important person. He has raised these issues which our political and intellectual leaders did not. I think that is what comes out of this. There are as many lone wolves as there are wolves. We want to keep wolves alive. I think that is the issue. It is interesting for yonah, we have not yet defined it. Terrorism has meant Political Action to intimidate as results. I dont think the sandy hook killer would fit under that, or sirhan sirhan, or even lee harvey oswald. I think we need to focus on this plague of unpleasant things and figure out how to focus. We should not be focusing on the coping rather than the definition. I have a couple of points in response. Firstly, given the resources that we have in dwindling financial resources, it is hard to monitor something when you do not know what to look for. That is why there is so much talk about a riskbased monitoring measure or security measure. When you look assessment, that is one constraint when you look at that. In terms of having a lone wolf having the means to perpetrate a terrorist act, my understanding and my thinking is it is not just having the means, it is having the environment and the grievances, to do the kind of ask a lone wolf is capable of launching. It is an interplay between having the facility and the resolve to perpetrate something and having the environment to perpetrate it in. I think these are all salient points. There is a lot to be taken from this. Let me add, i want to go back to question number two. Survive . Ty i raised baghdad as a model of a society that continues to function under horrific conditions. There are others around the world as well. The question has been raised, what if that were happening here. The United States is arguably the most Resilient Society in the world. We are not capable of looking at this. 9 11 did not destroy the United States. It was a horrific event. The economic consequences got magnified because of our reaction. The event itself, and i say this with all respect, 9 11 itself was a very small blip in terms of the American Economy and americas ability to do the things that America Needs to do. Yet, it dominates every conversation we have had in the last decade for good reasons. Dons wife is british. Dons wifes people survived the blitz. They survived two world wars, and they soldier on. They survived the irish. At the end of the day, as a nation we need to be prepared understand that all the efforts to go forward when the to effectively identify the telltale signs, being able to dip into every internet search or being able to look for the ultimate filter of filters going through the metadata, things are going to happen. There is a degree to which the nsa and the fbi and our media and our politicians and others have defined our response to terrorism as being pursuit of a riskfree society, insuring the prevention of any act . First of all, we set ourselves up to fail. We are doing a disservice to the population by suggesting to them that somehow we can have this risk free society or future and not pay prices. Not having that discussion of what those prices are, i have no respect for richard snowden, but i will say he has gotten the conversation on the table. My name is steve duncan. Im going to follow up what mike said. In 1936 when germany was building its air power as fast as it could, there was a guy named churchill who on that floor of the house of commons was arguing for defense spending. The Prime Minister said we should not do that. We had no political mandate. Churchill got up by himself and said we must remember that the protection of the british country does not require a mandate. It is the first order of duty. When i was in the government prior to 9 11, i made a visit to israel. I was meeting with their security leaders, and i was impressed with the security. I was talking to one individual and he expressed the view that when i asked the question, what is your strategic approach to fighting terrorism, his answer was we know we cannot eliminate it, but we hope we can reach a point where it is politically acceptable in the number of events. That was fine before 9 11 and when we were not thinking about weapons of mass destruction. In my day we had to worry about missiles on soviet warheads. Now were getting to the point where we have to worry about one individual carrying a suitcase across an unprotected border. If that is the case, how do we get our Political Leadership to be honest with the American People instead of avoiding the discussion . Be candid, that we may have to pay a big price in our Civil Liberties to do with the constitution says which is to protect the American People as the First Priority of government. It was lincoln who suspended habeas corpus. He said it might make sense to cut off a limb to save the body. It would make no sense to kill the body in order to save the limb. We need a discussion along these lines. Our political leaders are amiss explaining to the American People that there is a Real Technology to be paid. We did not have a right of privacy until the 1970s. We have to take this with what is at stake and we need real Political Leadership. We need political leaders to discuss this with the American People bigtime. I would like again to call our attention that it is not just an issue for the United States. It is a global issue. It affects many other nations. We mentioned some of the democracies in europe and no one in norway dreamt about this possibility of massacre. I can report to you again from the conversations we had several days ago in ankara, discussing the likelihood and possibility of a lone wolf attacking in some city in north africa or in egypt. It is not a question of if, but when and where and with what impact. That is why it is is critical to look at this not just on a national level, but on a global level as well. Another comment on the technology. Every time we have this discussion, we have also had in our think tank at the Potomac Institute, and there is an issue of the technology that always comes up. I am always surprised that the general public does not realize this. I want to point out this issue about the technology. It is important that the general public here on cspan understands the capability to find outliers and lone wolfes, and where that technology has progressed. Not just in the civil government but in the civil sector. If you take your credit card and try to take a dollars worth of gas out and go to the bank and withdrawal all your money, it will go dead. The Credit Card Companies have built a profile of fraudulent behavior. The behavior of stolen cards is so well understood that the computers will manage it and your cards will go dead on the spot or youll have to call in and verify who you are. All of your frequent buyer programs is computerized. All the metadata is available. If you buy something and it prints out certificates for you or discount cards, those cards are tailored to you. They have been profiling you. If you buy a bunch of books on amazon, the next time it recommends books exactly like the ones you bought before. This profiling is so sophisticated one of our young interns gave me one of the best stories. He was talking about a friend of his in college, his wife got pregnant, and before she had a chance to tell them she was pregnant, he got an email from one of the stores they shop at recommending Baby Products for him and congratulated him. They so well understood and profiled him and his wife that he knew before his wife told him. Compare that to the fact that the guy who killed 21 children in the northeast earlier this year, the guy who killed half a dozen people here in washington a month and a half ago, they stood out in their backgrounds. All the neighbors said they stood out. Their behavior was profilable. I joke with the people upstairs. Amazon and microsoft, to have built such good profiles out there, that if some radical went postal and killed my children, could i sue one of these companies and say you had the ability to find them. The point of all this is the technology has gotten to the point that if we want to find lone wolves, at least some of them, we probably could. The question of whether we want to compromise our Civil Liberties is not an academic question. It is a real question, whether it is time to do that or not. Any other comments . Would you like to come up . Ive said what i said. It is that yonah knows too much and it is hard to pull together all the things that he knows. Especially with all these lone wolves. We are all lone wolves in a way. We were talking about america and the Great Society we think it is. I do think the issue is how do we cope with it. We do not want to be baghdad. We want to survive with our values. I predict we will. It is going to take hard work and we will work at it and the fisa courts will have to be a little bit different in the future. When you get down to the scoops. There are about 500 queries a year. It is hard to spike probably knows about it. It is not because he has read anything, he just knows. We will definitely make it. There will probably be some Good Business to be done along the way. Do you want to close it . Yes. Only with the comment that these seminars are meant to be the beginning of a discussion. Not the end of the discussion. Hopefully we have stimulated your thoughts and your desire to be involved more, and hopefully that will lead to greater involvement with us and greater help on your part in informing the public and keeping the discussion going. It is only through that process that we can ever resolve these issues. Thank you for coming and your participation. I hope youll come back. Thank you very much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] , in light of a nuclear deal and ahead of a january conference on sera, a discussion today on u. S. Foreign policy challenges in the second obama administration. Dennis ross is among the speakers. That is at 12 15 eastern. Resident obama is wrapping up his west coast trip, doing a fundraiser at los angeles. His topics will include jobs and economy. We will have that live at three 15 eastern. Also on cspan. At 7 00, it is more from our q and a series. The life and times of the space agency. Heres a preview. And years from now we will still be operating i hope on International Space station as our toehold to the universe. I would like to say that 10 years from now humans will have landed on mars, but that is not the course on which we are embarq. The president challenged us to but humans on mars in the 20 30s, so we that is far outside the 10year window. We should be there. We should have been there and out. But there they be humans on the moon inside that 10year window if necessary successful in fostering the development of commercial space and entrepreneurial space to the extent we are trying to do now. There are some private enterprises who really believe they can put humans on the moon, agreementsave formal with them to provide engineering expertise and other assistance, in a nonreimbursable basis. It is conceivable. My belief is my personal belief is it is probably and outside the 10year time frame. Were different. [applause] and there were a lot of things happening involving race, the breakdown in structure of society. I was suddenly out of the seminary and in new england. And there were no rules. These were falling apart. And, you know, without structure, it is very dumb of very difficult to navigate. I was extremely fortunate to be at holy cross. I was extremely fortunate to still have had the residual raisedof the way i was and the structure that the nuns had given me, the structure that the seminary had given me. I was also extremely fortunate because i had already been in predominantly white schools. I was the only black in my high school in savanna. The transition to a school with very few blacks in a very difficult set of circumstances, academically and otherwise, i had sort of a jumpstart. I was ahead of the game. So i had something. It allowed me to continue to do well, even though it was very, very difficult. But thanksgiving, here from Supreme Court justices clarence mas allah by alayna kagan followed by elena kagan. Also this weekend, four days a book to become including Deborah Solomon on the life and art of Norman Rockwell, thursday and 9 30, and on cspan3s American History tv, the 150th anniversary of the gettysburg address. At 4 00 and 10 00 p. M. Live coverage of a discussion on u. S. Foreign policy challenges in the second term of the obama administration. Until then, part of this mornings washington journal, looking at afghanistan. We are joined by Jason Campbell. Thank you for joining us. You told me you just returned a couple of weeks ago. Tell us about your trip and what you saw and heard there. Guest i was working as a to then analyst Coalition Forces, a stint kabul. Did a lot of focus on looking at how the afghan National Security forces are being developed, what are the gaps we are trying to close in the time remaining, and to what degree are they working to get her and coordinating at the subnational level. You have good visibility on what is going on among the Senior Leadership am minister minister of interior, defense, but it is good to get out and some of the provinces and districts to see to what degree these various components are working on the ground which is where it matters. Are you seeing from the afghan National Security force . Are they improving with their ability to take over after 2014 . Guest the biggest gaps are what are referred to and neighbors, someone you talk about intelligence gathering, you talk about maintenance, logistics. All these things that are little bit more specialized, but are Security National forces to run smoothly. Those are areas that the coalition put on the back earner for a number of years, and right now is working to try to make up. As far as the degree to which you have got police, army, intelligence on the afghan side working together, in some places it is working well and is well coordinated, and in other areas it leaves something to be desired. Overall, there is progress that has been made. It is a question of now answering some of the questions Going Forward with uncertainties as to how long we are going to be there, what our role is, and what numbers we are going to be dividing to similar assistance. Jasonwe are talking to campbell of the Rand Corporation. I want to ask you about a headline in this mornings wall street journal. The article talks about susan visit, reporting she told mr. Karzai washington has concluded negotiations over a path that would u. S. Would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post2014 future in which there would be no u. S. Or nato troop presence in afghanistan. That is from the white house. Are no u. S. Troops left in afghanistan after 2014, what does that mean and what does the country look like . Is the gold to predict. It will deprive this attorney forces some much needed andinued assistance advising roles of the coalition and mentorship that we were able to provide. It will put into question the amount of funding that will be made of mailable to afghanistan, because of you have ever one removed from the country, not the least of which is the u. S. , but the rest of the coalition, will ask questions as what kind of oversight are they going to be able to maintain with the funding provided. Right now you are hearing the ballpark of 8 billion a year in overall military and economic Government Spending that would be put into jeopardy, and you are going to be raising questions with regard to the ability of the Afghan Security to thoroughly be able to capture any insurgent threats beyond 2014. Host what is the Sticking Point . It appeared asw if everything had been ironed out. The afghan side him the Biggest Issue was the ability for the best that unilateral raid. That was a big issue of karzais going back years. The wording put in, the addition of the dsa, is very strong. It is not completely overruled the ability for the u. S. To be able to conduct such a mission or operation, but it limits them to do so only in the most dire of circumstances and as obama said in a followup letter to karzai, only when there are u. S. Lives at stake would be consider doing such. Strong word he seems to be enough to convince most of the afghans that that was sufficient. A the u. S. Side, it was matter of having legal immunity for u. S. And Coalition Forces over in afghanistan to guarantee that they would not be able to be arrested or tried in afghan courts for actions they partake in over there. Again, that has been ironed out as well and in very strong words so that immunity will be granted to u. S. And Coalition Forces. Host were reading the report about what the deal with afghanistan looks like for the u. S. What is the time here we are talking about . Guest that remains to be seen. As you talked about the scenario that might be on the table that is referred to as the zero option after 2014, would just be another one of many scenarios that planners in afghanistan that are now over there are trying to get prepared for, because even an enduring presence beyond 2014, you have a gamut of estimates as to how many that could be. It could go as low as 5000, as high as 15,000, and what you can do with those troops, what the missions they are going to be able to have for, providing dvisingence and a operations is undefined at this point. It is difficult to say right now with all the balls in the air what exactly that post2014 presence would be. We know it will be noncombat because that is firmly state meant that at the end of 2014 is the and of all combat operations, and quite frankly right now, operations are very rear or right now and will continue to be next year with the coalition. Host talking with Jason Campbell of the Rand Corporation about afghanistan. Just in savannah, georgia, like the democrats. Caller yes. My question to your guest is this number one, to give a little background, and then i will get to the question i a veteran of the vietnam war, and by being a veteran of the vietnam war, we ran into the same thing that these kids are running into now, and that is that when you try to infuse american troops with nationals there, you often get a big conflict. My daughter is in afghanistan right now, angie tells me one of the biggest problems that they are having is trusting the afghans themselves. So my question to your guest is, logistics and training when you really do not know who you can trust . I will hang up and listen for his answer. Host jeff, you bring up an excellent point, and it is one that has come to light over the last couple of years where you have the green on blue attacks, instances where you afghan uniformed personnel attacking Coalition Forces. It is absolutely one of the top, if not the top concern, of coalition and afghan and u. S. Forces. Building trust is paramount. Unfortunately, in this situation, when you are fighting in a counterinsurgency, you can mitigate the risk, you cannot cancel it out. As long as you are operating on the ground, providing the person to person mentorship that is required, you will be putting your troops at risk