Thank you for coming on such a chilly day, and im delighted to present perhaps 25, 30 minutes of comments and the interaction with you on the questions you have. Im also very glad to see jim phillips here. Ive worked on terrorism issues with jim for it must be a quarter century now, and there are very few people that write with the intelligence and prudence that jim phillips does. Heres a couple reasons why i wanted to write this book, with the way terrorism encounters the citizen. I remember back in 1980 reading some clippings many newspapers, it was in newspapers, it was in the chicago area. And a woman was looking out her window near her home, and she saw a van pull up. And in that van there proved to be some nine different people. And they looked rather like an athletics team, you know . The jogging uniforms and the bags. But as she looked out her window, this lady, mrs. Walter jacobson, decides that she should be a little nervous about this. Thered been some robberies in the area by the faln who were puerto rican separatists, and she noticed a but things that were odd to her. First of all, these athletic bags seemed much heavier hand she was used to seeing heavier than she was used to seeing, and some of the guys were smoking. She thought for a minute, and she called the police. And more effect she interrupted an Armed Robbery that was plotted by the faln, and there was a cache of weapons and a sawedoff shotgun and all that. And these all went to jail, these people. Although oddly enough at the end of his tenure, president clinton pardoned a bunch of them. One of the policemen who was there at the time said, just trying to be cheery, that they all felt lucky that day. And one of the others, a newspaper reporter wrote this happened during a i routine traffic stop. And both of those accounts were really incorrect. It was really mrs. Walter jacobson ive been unable to even find her first name, a completely obscure case now but is she broke an attempted robbery. Of the greatest importance by hardened terrorists who all went to jail thanks to her intervention. So you know that phrase now, it started in new york and its now kind of a nationwide push by department of Homeland Security that if you see something, say something. I like the phrase, and i think it captures well the sense that we as citizens have both a duty and an opportunity to be citizens in cases that do touch on civics security. I like the slogan more than i do some which have more emphasis. For example, youll often see signs around military bases that say if you see anything that looks at all suspicious, immediately report to authority x or y. I would think its better, really, for the public to think a little bit, to contemplate a little bit, to ask themselves what theyre seeing and not to jump to any conclusions too quickly. But i like the notion of this sort of a responsiveness among citizens. I cothink that by and i do think that, by and large, citizens have some understanding that they are involved in some ways. And i wrote in part to tell the book, to tell the stories of some citizens who have been involved and in good ways. In the spirit of mrs. Jacobson, for example, there was another person who was part of the lack wanna community in new york, and no one ever has reported who this person is, although theres a good book on the case. The person suspected in watching some of the many men whod come back in mid 2001, a por ten white house time, from overseas. She the el that they were up to some she felt that they were up to some bad things. And she wrote in somewhat troubled english to authorities and said they ought to look into this half dozen young men who had come back. Pause this person who wrote because this person who wrote seemed to feel those men were a threat to the community, and he or she was absolutely right. Authorities did look into it, and those people had not only been abroad to southwest asia, they most of them had been in a camp run by afghan, run by afghanis and Osama Bin Laden, and they were there for training. Now, i found another kind of category besides these persons who act privately and quietly, and another sort of group that we have among us is those who really have tremendous physical courage and may not be looking for trouble but seem to show the right attitude this response when they, when the alarm bell sounds. If we think back to 9 11, it is astonishing the way those men charged down the aisle of the United Airlines flight over pennsylvania. They knew from cell phone traffic what had happened in new york city when they did that, and they were sort of, you know, minute men more our day for our day, except the analogy fails really, momentum it, from doesnt it, from concord and lexington commonalities because they didnt have muskets, but they were willing to charge. And we think that thats pretty unusual, and it is especially in airplane situations. For decades the counsel from authorities was always the same, stay very calm, stay uninvolved, dont make eye contact can, do what they tell you. But these people, knowing what they did on that day, made a different decision, and it was very heroic. And it wasnt freakish in the sense that since then 2001 and 2009 weve had passengers subdue other terrorists, richard reed and fra rook alabama lab, and both of them had clothing treated with explosive material, youll remember, and hoped to blow up the planes. Now, my favorite, actually, man on spot is a woman, and thats ulie derekson, and this does go back a ways, but she was central european, she was an american citizen, 40 years old. It was her fate to be the lead stewardess on twa 847, on that flight. So shiite thugs had attacked the plane, taken people hostage. They were working a kind of perverse psychological approach to break down the passengers, whip saw everybody into confusion and submission. She was fright ped, actually, who wouldnt be, but gradually her composure returned, and she began thinking about what she could do to moderate this impossible situation. So, for example, it emerged that she spoke german, and some of the hijackers did as well, and that became the only common language, actually, that all the parties had x. She sewer screened intervened sometimes psychologically, sometimes physically. They once asked her to sing german songs to her to them, believe it or not, in the long, long drama of this hijacking, and she did so. Very strange. She and the pilot, john tesdrake, both showed amazing courage in the twa 847 hijacking. Remarkable. I suppose we all admire this kind of thing, we wonder or whether wed ever be up to it ourselves. These people on the day proved themselves up to the level of events. Extraordinary persons. Third category i found to look at is sort of measure predictable. The tried and true professional. The persons trained to do the kind of intervention that sometimes happens, and its not very often. But they are involved. We saw someone shot at los angeles airport not too long ago. Not everybody in the business of security, private or public, might be top of the line. Some might seem to us as Airline Passengers a little bit disengaged, or someone might be very good but only in five years will they really know all their trade. But otherwise we meet in public life, many people involved in the security business who prove themselves very capable. They rise to the moment. Maybe it takes you back too far, but in 1988 a remarkable occasion in new jersey is one of the things that makes the book for a paragraph or two. A trooper nameed robert suplinski took notice of a driver as theyre trained to do and he pulled him over for moving violation, but he saw through windows that there were materials on the backseat which he distrusted. So simply a traffic stop turned into an arrest. The man he caught that day was a member of the Japanese Red Army which had trained with libyans and many other international terrorists, and he was there on his way to new york to hit a Navy Recruiting station. And this was going to be the two Year Anniversary of the bombing of libya in 1986. And it was only suplinskis intervention that saved that recruiting station from being bombed by yu. 995 you 1995 you may remember that Timothy Mcveigh came very close to escape over a state line after bombing the Oklahoma City building. He was caught by a oklahoma highway patrolman nameed charles hangar. Hangar noticed that simplest of things, that he didnt have proper plates on his vehicle. And he noticed it when they were passing like this on a highway at a very high speed. So he swung around, and he stopped mcveigh. He was a trained patrolman, so rather quickly he assessed that a slight bulge within the jacket of or of mcveigh suggested a pistol, and so they had a little talk about that. And the terrorist said that my side arm is loaded, and the fbis john oneill was one man who did so. Remarkable, well trained, thoughtful. For years he had believed that alqaeda was coming back to his city. John oneill was a kind of cassandra, he knew it was coming, and he kept warning of it. Eventually, he got discouraged, and he retired from the fbi, and he took a new job. He took a job as head of security in the World Trade Center in new york city. And so he turned up for work there in august of 2001, and he kept that job only for a few days. And he was on scene when it all happened, and he died in the rubble. So that kind of citizen is one reason i wanted the write the book. Another one is a very different reason. I wanted to write this short book to talk about the way we do have a grand strategy in our fight against terrorism. I dont think a lot of americans know that, or they dont see all the pieces. And i tried to lay some of those out to help the citizen reader kind of develop a fuller perspective on what public business has done by all parts in this drama. This that respect in that respect then a couple of assumptions. The book starts with terrorism is a real thing, a definable thing and a bad thing, and in the academy those arent all accepted propositions. I use a definition from a think tank. This is not mine, but its always guided my scholarship, that terrorism is the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends. The character, terrorist threat that we face, is explored in the book, and certainly it starts with alqaeda but is also broadened enough to wig in wing in of the other hostile and political groups that we see. Its a premise of the book that we are, in fact, at war with core alqaeda. Now, we can find quotations from the white house saying that they agree with that, but i would argue that in the last year there had has been some doubt oe question of whether were at war with core alqaeda. I argue that we are and that we ought to be, and i think its a bad thing that its become an open question of just how long in this fight will occur, for reasons ill get into. The central part of the book tries to look at our strategy, what are the components of it, how does it work. I suppose the white house and the National Security council will always have that central coordinating role in making all the agencies Work Together if they can and all the bureaucracies respond if they can. And its not easy. So a sort of candid account in the book of how hard it is to do this, no matter what partys in office or whos in charge. So you might have, tradition, Commerce Department for example, Commerce Department in the business of promoting exports. Very reasonably, we would want them to do that. And yet there could be tension with the Treasury Department which might be very eager to put sanctions on a particular business, a particular powerful individual, maybe a state sponsor of terrorism like iran at a time when its not convenient with respect to diplomatic initiatives. Our intelligence agencies certainly differ legitimately. They can quarrel about assessments in priorities. Theres a fine new book called treasurys war by juan zarate who has a lot of experience in this, and he brings up one case in which intelligence is closely watching a whole Terror Network someplace, but at the same time they have to have a meeting with justice because justice i is eager to wrap these pell las up and fellas up and make arrests. One or the other has to stand down. Certainly, state and dod have their differences, and those are famous. I think for citizens we dont see always how many overseas personnel we have that are not military or not cia. So, for example, the Drug Enforcement agency has a remarkable International Network which is very active, very smart people. They go through many of the same fine schools in the states that other experts in security do. And the fbi, you would know, has some legations overseas as well and deploys on a spot basis, ad hoc basis to a lot of crime scenes. And they are extremely important, so theres some stationed overseas and many who go there overseas in a contingency. Even the new York City Police department, to go back to new york for a minute, has a remark bl Intelligence Organization remarkable Intelligence Organization that probably was con itsed initially by folks like fbi and cia. But they felt if the federal government wasnt going to defend them very well, after 9 11 they needed to set out their own defense, so they sent tent calls out, and theyre trying to keep pulse on parts of the world which they think are dangerous. And they do this through the appropriate channels, but theyre trying to watch the world before the world comes again to new york in a way that they dont like. So nsc, if theyre doing well, will sort of moderate some of these turf problems when theyre federal. The book has then several page groups on each of the major elements of our strategy, so diplomacy, Public Diplomacy, economic tools, law, Law Enforcement, the military. Diplomacys probably a good place to start. We know terrorisms very political. We know its usually international. Diplomacy, therefore, has some prospects. And diplomacys done well in some cases. In multilateral diplomacy i think most folks regard the Irish Settlement which took from, oh, maybe 1997 onward til 2007, but that was an impressive product from multilateral diplomacy involving a lot of the irish and british players, but a lot of outsiders including some americans like mr. Clinton, like george mitchell. A lot of others from around the world. Bilateral also has some successes, bilateral diplomacy ill mention in a minute with respect to the libya problem where we worked with the United Kingdom on that. But i also in the book draw some cautionary notes, because in going to conferences as you do and sort of listening to discussion and watching the way, quote, talking to terrorists has now become one of the hottest fields in my own business in terrorism, i have a lot of reservations about the way in which diplomacy can succeed, just how far it can go. So im more reserved this that a respect, but i in that respect, but i look, for example, at some of the false negotiators, abbas back in the famous Achille Lauro case where an american was murdered. He positioned himself visavis resident governments as a kind of intermediary who could step this and be help helpful. There was an absolute classic by colonel gadhafi. One of his last cases i find of deliberate export of international terrorism, about 99, 2000 there was a crisis with abu saef taking multiple hostages, foreign hostages. So out of the philippines this group asked. Gadhafi steps in in a grand yoalings way as a mediator, and he offers a fantastic amount of money 20 million is whats referenced by a filipino dip plo mat and it was marvelous. 20 million, thank you, but he also e americas as the classic emerges as the classic diplomat which was good for the image he was seeking back in 2000. It was highly skillful stuff. So theres a lot to be wary about in diplomacy, of course, and theres not always an easy payoff. A lot of groups like, say, the l2te tigers went for decades with many attempts at intervention which all pailed, and they had to be simply crushed. Economics is a important tool. You know, we know, everybody, every College Graduate knows that if your going to do economic sanctions, its important to have as many people in the mix as you can and also to hold them with some patience for some time, pause sanctions take because sanctions take a long time to work. But, you know, sometimes they do work. Ill bet you if you think about it, most of you will think that sanctions had some role in the resolution of south africa with its apartheid regime. Certainly, my studies made me believe that libyan behavior was changed by sanctions. It was changed some this the 1990s in the 1990s, and it was dramatically changed in about 2003 and 4. Some of the people are right here in town who did this. An intelligence man, steve kappas, and ambassador robert joseph, they worked with the United Kingdom to press the libyan authorities to get them to divest themselves of wmd. Not only the supplies, but the actual machinery. The machinery this is kind of prelude to what youre seeing with syria the machinery for making that wmd was put on a ship and brought to the United States. It was the solution to a long standing problem with the gadhafi regime, and that was through diplomats from two different countries. And its an extremely good story. Well, i go then into the questions of the strategy, so i need to mention a few of these. Mr. Bush then writes the First National counterterrorist strategy that we have, right this and he actually did two of them. And his principles were to defeat the terrorists and their organizations, deny them sponsorship and sanctuary, diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists exploit and defend the u. S. At home. His government did a superb job of that. He got himself a very broad congressional authorization which is now, im sorry to say, being prematurely questioned. He argues in his strategy that terrorists are truly evil. Hes not afraid to say so. In fact, he says, they are enemies of humanity which is an old term in International Law that compares them to pirates or people who do genocide. He had a strategy of attacking the core of alqaeda but also what his adviser, dave kill cullen, called disarticulation whereby the links between the groups are broken up if need be. And i suppose assessing that would require clearances that i certainly dont have. The Obama Administration enters the fight and actually surprises many of us, i think, probably you too with remarkable continuity in some of the actual practices. Because rhetorically he had suggested it was going to be pretty different, but in fact more similarities than differences appear. Certainly his strategy, published in 2011, has less martial language. Certainly, theres less of a conviction that this is a war. He does call for help from allies which is prudent, he does say hes going to try to get at the roots of terrorism, something thats exceedingly hard to do. I wonder how, i wonder how jim phillips would assess getting at the roots of terrorism in the middle east. I wonder how anybody with whatever level of expertise could imagine really solving those problems rather than just managing or dealing with them. But he tries to get at the roots. Mr. Bush had thought we can do this best if we advance democracy, because democracy is a great prof lactic against terrorism. And that is, thats a proposition which is by and large true, i think, but also has some difficulties. Because weve seen many, many open societies which have wonderfully open political orders but which are afterraged by terrorism. So its not the full answer, but it may well with part of a good answer. Theres a bit of a paradox there. So im not sure that either mr. Bush or mr. Obama can tell us exactly how to deal with the roots of terrorism, but i suppose we all want to try. Mr. Obama said we need to do a lot more with allies and a little bit less on the go alone approach. A marked rhetorical difference. I have no problem with that. Our International Efforts with exceedingly important. Theyre at the very heart of trying to counter terrorism. In moral terms he says less about the evil in terrorism and much more warnings to us about evil in our own practices. In other words, in counterterrorism have we crossed the line in places and ways that are troubling . And hes especially worried about the conduct of torture. Again, i have no problem with that. I think we should all oppose torture. In terms of other things, he calls for a, quote, effective, durable, Legal Framework for ct operations. Great idea, but i dont know if weve seen this yet. I dont think we have a durable and Legal Framework that our citizens understand or even counterterrorism experts understand. I think that seems clear. So all the fuss, for example, about closing guantanamo, i would say, is related to this failure to have an appropriate legal strategy. I could offer some comments, but the short of it is that i think when james cole and eric holder and others were talking about this in old campaigning days, it seemed easy to criticize guantanamo. But once many office they found for a variety of reasons that they actually find guantanamo quite useful for managing the legal odd problem of the detainees that we have who are neither pure criminals, nor people in uniform who we would treat purely like. The basic point i want to argue, and i think that the administrations a bit soft on, is the question of whether were at war with terrorism. Suggestions that the war should end, the war will end, the that were withdrawing from the war, nobody, of course, wants perpetual war and, of course, thats right. And so theres some ambiguities that i think have been entered into the conversation which right now are simply are unhelpful. Because alqaeda still thinks its at war. I certainly think were still at war. Theres parts of the executive branch, the military and all who very much think theyre at war. And i think going back to the question of legal strategy, some of the conone crumbs conundrum cans weve made for ourselves about surveillance are resolved if you consider that were, in fact, still in a state of war with alqaeda central. Some of those problems get quite clear. We have great deal of rights as a belligerent against this substate organization which we can exercise in that respect. Last thing i want to say is there is, of course, a leader of the opposition. The president almost never mentions Ayman Alzawahiri. June 2011 explicitly says in two places, not just one, that Osama Bin Laden is the only leader that alqaeda ever had. And since hed just been killed, thats an extremely important and interesting statement. But its only about half truement true. Bin laden had, as a deputy from the very beginning in the 80s all through the 90s, this man, the egyptian, Ayman Alzawahiri. When the Atlantic Monthly published stuff right off the hard drive from his camp in afghanistan, we could see he was functioning as the deputy. Everyone assumed he would take over, most people did, when bin laden died, and he did so. And the oath to, of allegiance made by the subsidiary groups now to Ayman Alzawahiri. Ask so he may not have kind all the flash or organizational abilities, and he may even be less of a leader, but he is the leader, and hes important. And hes been a leader for decades this terrorism, and hes been one of the leaders in alqaeda for decades to too. So i think its important to keep a fix on him. In short, my assessment this the book is theres some things the president s doing very well. His opportunities and his job difficulties are both enormous. I think that hes done well to impose sanctions on iran. I hope we stick with those and not give them up. Im glad hes identified the revolutionary guards, in fact, as part of the problem. Im glad that hes pursued the drone war with its remarkable fusion of intelligence and defense assets, and i approve of that, and i think the president s very smart to keep pushing on that. There are some other things that were perhaps not doing so well, and the book makes a few modest recommendations. In short, i think that what were looking at is a long war. Its a long war. Its just what the Heritage Foundation said it was going to be many years ago. Its not a perpetual war, and nobody wants it. Its not necessary to have a perpetual war, but it is a long war. And certainly this the leader of alqaeda core, Ayman Alzawahiri is either caught or captured, then i suggest were still many a state of war, and we ought to be. Steven . [applause] okay. We have a few minutes for questions. I would ask you to raise your hand, i will recognize you. One with of our folks will give you a microphone. Identify yourself briefly and hen, please and then, please, ask a question. If i dont hear a question mark at the end of the second sentence, ill ask you to stop. Because be you want to give a presentation here, see me afterwards, well arrange for it, but weve got chris harmon for today. The lady right here. Hi, im a law student at american university. My question is in regards to this long war that you referred to. I would like to get your comments about what would you say to the people who say that weve been losing war for the last 13 years, and if we continue down path, we are never going to win . Even if you capture one or two people, the alqaeda threat that you have formulated is, apparently, appearing everywhere around the world. And id like to, your comments on the specifically about the losing the war. Thank you. Sure. I dont think theres much evidence that were losing the war, so youre right, theres probably some that say so. I disagree. The way i assess in the organization, the way i did when i spoke here in may of 04, talked about the longterm problem, was to think of alqaeda as having two centers of gravity. If you know that phrase [inaudible] dont you worry because he actually does and his analysis allows for more than one center of gravity, and we as analysts are hopefully able to narrow it to one, but sometimes we cant. One center of gravity is the operation of capability which he led, which Ayman Alzawahiri has always led starting with especially the formal merger of algae had with alqaeda in mid 2001. And all those sort of third operatives and personnel who very often have been caught and are in custody, are in guantanamo, are in jails in afghanistan and so forth. And hundreds of those involved have been caught. Many of them are the most talented or had direct roles in planning and executing operations. All of those people, the catching of those is all sort of a victory. But moreover, the International Community is sort of alert and capturing some of those when they come through their territory. And so i think that part of its impressive. The other side of it, though, is as you suggest the unique creation of others, you know . The raising up of new terrorists, you know . This isnt anything about religion necessarily, although that is central to their ideology, but be we rook at if we look at, you know, phases of the red brigades in italy or the irish republican army, theres also a process of regeneration. We need to somehow get at that. On that account, i think were doing very badly. I dont know that were losing, but were not making headway. Ask what bothers me is good people like kelly dale right here have been talking about Public Diplomacy for years, but were actually not showing the kind of new arguments, imagination, determine nation that wed need to make that succeed. So in that way weve made very little progress. And i dont think this administration is going to do any better than the last one did on the side of Public Diplomacy. Get this gentleman and then well get you next. Thanks. Mike [inaudible] Counterterrorism Office for many years, done some writing since then. And, chris, in your strategy area you talk about various things. You know, you dont seem to mention some of the nonsexy programs like the training we give other countries this counterterror toism in counterterrorism, building up their capabilities or countering terrorists and financing which all take a lot of money. You mentioned the budgets been cut since the bush administration. A, what do you see as the role of these training and kinetic, nonkinetic programs and any theories as to why the its so hard to get funding levels to stay by congress . Yeah. Michael, thank you. You were careful to say that on the skim you hadnt seen that, but with i think on a close reading youll see i. Youll be youll see it. Youll be happy to know theres a section on what we can do on strategy that says Something Like our partners can catch terrorists too. Because with i think youre right. And, in fact, i know how you spent your career at state, and the interesting thing is when we look at the Drug Enforcement agency, when with we look at, you know, Defense Intelligence agency, we look at, you know, so many parts of our operating forces, our military forces, many of them are involved with these liaisons abroad which are not understood by the public. So, for example, five academies around the world are Law Enforcement training academies. And is youll get this wonderful joint combination of the fellow from the bureau and the fellow from dea and somebody from treasury thats an expert on terrorist finance and someone from special forces and maybe some international perspectives. And in places like bangkok these things run all the time. Budapest, bangkok, there are five of these. And those are very important because they say with pricks and hour tar bricks and mortar and a long procession of speakers they say year after year our allies count, our partners count. Were creating an International Network of ct just like the terrorists have an International Network themselves. So, you know, my last job in europe ending many 10 was with a program thats now had 1400 graduates from all over the world, all professionals in counterterrorism. So the u. S. In that case, the germans and the u. S. , make Tremendous Investments in this respect, and im very optimistic about the yield in some of those. Right here. Thank you. My name is Leann Bernstein with eir, executive intelligence review. And this is a twopart question at, getting at what you said about the roots of terrorism and the overarching, the overarching question for the two is what is your view of polling the money . For example, representatives walterer jones walter jones from North Carolina and Stephen Lynch of massachusetts cosponsored a House Resolution to declassify the 28 pages of the 9 11 Commission Report which this their review of the pages they said reviewed foreign, the foreign financing for the 9 11 attacks and points to saudi arabia. The second part of the question is your view of auditing certain banks, for example, hsbc, other banks that have been known to be taking part in the financing of terrorist groups in violation of Money Laundering laws and also in violation of antiterrorism laws. The hsbc case was the most recent study done by carl levin in the senate. Okay. So whats your view on following the moneysome. Sure, its a good question, especially as it was part of mr. Crafts too. I completely agree with the current federal effort to try to get at the sources of terrorist financing. And, boy, is that hard to do. I never say things like money is the life blood of terrorism or that a with cutting off the money supplies we can strangle terrorism. I think thats a gross overstatement, and politicians should never say that. Its like being elected in mayors job in the big city and saying im going to absolutely end crime, and if you come back in tw years, youre going to want to reelect me. We wouldnt believe it, nor should we. Terrorisms important. Its one of things that you have to have in terrorism, you have to have some money. But it doesnt take much to do Something Like happened in, oh, say the West Gate Mall attack in kenya recently. Something like that can be quite cheap. Socalled lone wolf terrorism can be a long, elaborate process of ten years as it was for anders breivik, or it could be with a simple, ugly thing like one man with a couple of machetes outside British Army Base many london a couple months back. Thats cheap terrorism. So its never going to be the essence of it, but it is part of a grand strategy. Second point is that sometimes the forensics value is fantastic. Do you know how the bali bombing was solved . This is an incredible thing, a double bombing where they bombed a bar to drive people out into the Public Square q thats where the major bomb was waiting. The damage looked like the luftwaffe had just hit the city. And the way that had broken was through financial forensics. Some of the money came into an atm and to dispurse the money, these fools all went down there together, so theyre all looking into the picture waiting for their shear. So by simply finding one atm slip, authorities were able to get right to the bottom of the case. Its never usually that easy, but it was in that case, and selena has documented that, shes here at the university. We should just never overblow the paveoff. Its rarely going to work as easily as it diss in breaking the the bali case. Chris said i could chip in now and then. As a former special forces officer, i was greatly heartened the fist time i went to one of u. S. Special operation commands global synchronization conferences at the amount of focus they put on the terrorist financing aspects of it and how it could lead to other operations in stopping those things from going on. It is an enormous part of the national effort, so i would never discount how much of that were doing. Theyre paying attention. They might not put it out to the general public, but theres a lot of effort all the way across the u. S. Government and many con junction with our allies. Its major track of our counterterrorism effort. And there have been a couple of book withs on that, but this newest thing, treasurys war, is really a very fine piece of work, and we can all learn a lot from looking at the way hes addressed this problem. All right, the young lady right here and then the gentleman in the back. Hi, rebecca [inaudible] im here at the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Harmon, you talked about Public Diplomacy and the fact it seems we really arent doing it so much, and i was wondering if you could give examples be, perhaps, there are any Public Diplomacy efforts that are working in counterterrorism as well as some efforts that we should be implementing. Yes. The opportunities are wide open. Some of them we explored during the cold war, so good congressmen who many of you would know like jack kemp and jim porter exploited the ideas in the way of american democracy by with Sporting International supporting international broadcasting, work at the u. S. Information agency. I was in warsaw for the first time in my life, and i was able to buy an old yellow copy of solidarity which we openly added to funding during the crisis back in the 80s. And it was very exciting to watch way many which that funny Little Organization came out of nowhere and had such a amazing effect. Of course, the popes another case of having an amazing effect, and that was just as important as the political side. These things can have effect. People like andre [inaudible] and others who have come out of soviet union say that we are absolutely ignorant and blind to the good effects we ourselves were having, that we didnt realize the kind of thunder this created over there in a world deprived of information, what little we could provide was greatly important. Well, i think weve mostly forgotten that. And its too bad. And we have not only broken down United States information agency, weve tried to then build up some structure. So the new Public Diplomacy team seem to always have a pretty good budget. I think its Something Like 800 million now which is about half our total Public Diplomacy budget, 80 million for broad 800 million for broadcasting and such perhaps. And we have a new its station thats aimed television station thats aimed at the arabic speakers, for example, based right here in springfield. We have a new effort by the last secretary of state to get some things going on social media which is probably wise. But, in fact, we have so far an e lab race attention to be relab rate attention to technology, to budge, to media. And do you know what the problem is . We dont know what to say. We dont know what to say. Were embarrassed by many of our, the ideals that were the thrill of our founders. Were not really sure how to frame the arguments. We dont want to attack the salafi jihadists who call themselves that because somehow we think were going to use the wrong words ask were going to alienate and were going to alienate muslims. We fail frequently to give air time or to amplify the speech and argument of some very fine critics of the terrorists themselves who were on the inside, the egyptian who helped raise bin laden, many of the people at places like the quillian foundation. Its folks like this who we could really work with and use more, and we dont do that. We really have a poverty of imagination on Public Diplomacy side. Gentleman in the back, then i have one thats from the web. Chris, do you think the ira can you talk into the microphone be, please . Do you think the ira and the basque terrorists have gone away as a longterm problem . Right. The its a good question of whether groups ever sort of end. You know, and sometimes they seem to, and they just change their name. And i had hoped, for example, that the successful rendition of abdullah only land in 1999 had quieted forever the pkk, the kurdish workers party. And i was sort of half wrong. I mean, we got five years of peace in that theater, which i think was welcome to the turks and other kurds who are pkk terrorists who arent pkk terrorists. But, in fact, they managed after name changes and other kind of work to sort of creep back. With the irish liberation army, weve seen an incredible breakthrough. When you have people taking senior posts, when you have people like that get out of the fight, advise others to get out of the fight, youve had a real ground changer. And thats exciting. But there are remnants. Some are older, and some are very young. And they think the guys like adams and are pacifiers, you know, appeasers. But i dont think that the irish case will blow up again. And with respect to eta, ive argued a couple years ago that organizations dying. And thats not a small thing. Its founded at the end of the 1950s. Its been an attempt to make insurgency. Its already had terrorist dimensions of it, but right now theres hundreds of those people in jail in spain and in france, and moreover theyve published a rejection of violence as not the way to go. The spanish have also compromised them by encouraging Pacific Basque nationalism while roughly opposing the terrorists with Law Enforcement, with prodescription of their political fronts. And so youve got, actually, a Great Success story by a couple democracies here with the irish and the spanish. There are ways to do this. Its not balanced towards military things. Its usually as much as anything Law Enforcement. It involves per sinks, it involves leadership persistence, it involves leadership, it involves clinging to the higher ideals of Democratic Politics and refusing to let terrorism be an alternative to Democratic Politics. And the leaders in spain have done that. The leaders in old italy did that too. So there are some good success stories. Okay. And we have one from our group watching on live video. And this is from adam johnson, and he says the speaker implies we are still at war. Actually, i thought you said we were still at war. [laughter] but if alqaeda is religiously inspired and were still fighting them, wouldnt we be, therefore, in a religious hiinspired war carried out by military means . Carried out by terrorism means. Not military. Most states in the world have forces that have guns, and theyre not terrorists just because of that. A hot of terrorists, by the way, might wear some parts of uniform or do certain things that seem like they wish to be a state, but they dont make the cut, the simple cuts defined by geneva so long ago of four tests for whether youre a legitimate belligerent. I think its true that the the alqaeda guys are definitely inspired by religion. We, of course, make an obvious distinction between that faith which ises islam and the extreme versions of it which are at the heart of alqaeda. But its valuable for us to face those religious roots of the problem and, in fact, one of the best ways to do that is to simply open an edition of inspire magazine. And theyll tell you how theyre inspired. So there have been 10 or 11 of these so far, even after the editors were killed in a drone strike, there have been subsequent issues. And that lays out in very clear terms how they do their Public Diplomacy is and how they hold to their religious beliefs and how theyre willing to fight and die for them. And so they are religiously inspired. Our war is not. Weve got to remember as americans we fought with the an anarchists a sent ago plus, and we defeated them by a long process of Law Enforcement, attrition and other things. We have resisted for years guys like the kkk who have very different motivations, and there have been waves of kkk and theyre still with us, but theyve never been able to affect their real purposes. We attack the communist terrorists within this country, groups like the weathermen, like the liberation army. These groups have all been beaten. In the 80s the fbi and others infiltrated the right wing, the militias, and they locked these guys up in jail. And they did it with great skill. So weve beaten many waves of terrorism that have nothing to do with religion. And so it isnt that we have some kind of obsession with religion in this war, its we have an obsession with alqaeda which is an organized and hostile entity thats attacked us repeatedly. Still have your question . Okay. Right there. Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a question regarding Public Diplomacy. In europe, asia and the middle east, theyve placed a high priority on counterideology focusing on radicalization and deradicalization programs. Would you say that in the tool kit that the u. S. Has right now that those are areas to further exb mother or that were doing that quite well . Thank you. Thank you. And i dont think were doing it well. The dutch are way ahead of us. The british are way ahead of us. Weve tried in this way the martial centers held many meetings on this and brought people together from around the world to try to decide how to do it better. I know in germany they do that. I think that its very difficult to change peoples ideas, and i think that you have to have people that have the right arguments and sometimes the right qualifications. So in an audience that ive seen, you know, theres nothing quite as powerful as a member of one of those organizations that has quit. You know, in the past with some of our wars we can take an example from this, whether its the first war in the philippines at the turn of the century or the war that ended with louie that rooks surrender in the mid 1950s, in both cases the commander of the opposition in our custody wrote books and went on and gave lecture tours and such. I mean, and they actually talked about the prospects for the philippines being a partner of the americans without being subservient. It was incredible Public Diplomacy. And they have a kind of credibility that no professor from university x or y can have. And i think thats a good example of how we can do far better. In terms of deradicalization, again, some successes by saudis, yemenis and some other countries, but also some losses, you know . Recidivisms a problem in prisons, its a problem in terrorism too. So you never are absolutely certain that youve got, youve changed the mans views. There are some very good cases and the saudis especially worked very hard on because they are stung by the fact that many of the dollars in alqaeda came from various monies usually private in saudi arabia and ore places others places. And they want to fight back, and they also got stung by alqaeda allies like saudi hezbollah and such, people in the not formally allied, but terrorist groups have stung the saudis, and theyre trying to overcome the direct personal threat too. So this work can be part of a grand strategy, and its one of the many areas in which we americans have much to learn from our partners that are sometimes ahead of us. Theres a lot more we can learn on that. Okay. Im going to exercise the moderators prerogative and ask the last question, and ill let you answer it and then take it wherever you want to do your wrap up, and well credit concl. And im going to steal this, actually, from your intro. You know, americans are very performance oriented. We like to, lets finish this thing, be done, walk away, move on to the next event. Will we ever be able to say that weve defeated terrorism . I dont, i dont think so. The method and the idea of it is introduced into International Politics in a couple periods, including in the anarchist period which i mentioned, fascinating and useful to study because of the similarities with flat organizations and internationalism and such. The years of 1880 and 1900 are not all lost on us as we think about this. But i dont think that especially since 1968 its likely to say that we wont see terrorism. Unfortunately, it works in many respects. It often works tactically, out often works operationally. And sometimes it even works strategically. I mean, we all know the National Liberation front in algeria that beats france is a nationalist organization and in some ways a legitimate one. But we also know they were practitioners of terrorism in the worst way, introducing palace teak bombings into Public Places and such. They won. They won, and they won, and their fln party held sway in the parliament in algiers for another couple of decades. And theres a lot of other groups that have won too like the cayman rouge. And so this is cay her rouge. At lower levels it seems to me theres too often going to be people who have seen some of those models and want to do that, you know . And they think it works. And in respects it has worked. So we have to continue to push back in a moderate way and a professional way, well informed by art and science and backed up by will power. Because, after all, terrorism is in many respects a test of our wills. All right. Well, i think all of you have realized probably by virtue of you coming to this that this is an issue that has not gone away. I would love to say that our president , many obama, was correct mr. Obama was correct chen he said, you know, we cant be at war forever, weve just got to end this thing. I wish that were the way the world worked. But, mr. President , im sorry. Both sides have to stop in a war, and unfortunately as chris has discussed today, the other side hasnt decided to stop yet. So that means we need to stay involved as well. Id ask you to join me this thanking in thanking chris for a great presentation. [applause] and he is going to stay up here for a little while to sign any books, so anyone whos purchased one outside can bring it up, and hed be happy to stein it. Thank you sign it. Thank you very much for being here at heritage with us. [inaudible conversations] booktv is on facebook. Like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers, watch videos and get uptodate information on events. Facebook. Com booktv. Second generation to have a kind of interesting, Creative Destruction relationship between their culture and American Culture such that immigration communities start very typically looking back at their parents and grandparents generation and saying we dont want to do successively us to. He said were the only one they make their decisions whether to be a standup comic for artists and yet what we found is aspirational he at least the same qualities can help them do that and achieve different kinds of goals