Afghanistan, a taliban leader basically issued a letter asking them to back off. I think isis realizes it cannot replace the taliban as a major fighting force in afghanistan right now. The taliban is too established in the region. But, will they try to make common cause with the taliban . I think this is what sara was getting at. Will we see a merging together of the two . This would be very dangerous for the u. S. If the speakers could address that issue, because i think what we heard from dr. Gorka was that isis is the graduate level. But does this hold up when youre looking at afghanistan . The taliban has been able to continue to fight there after 14 years. The taliban still has sway in that region. I dont think it will be so easy for isis to make inroads despite it trying. If you look at how the idea of peace talks plays into this just on tuesday, the taliban engaged in peace talks with the afghan leadership in pakistan. This is quite significant. But what is their calculation . Because on the one hand, maybe the taliban would favor peace talks so that the Afghan Security and nato forces turned their guns on the isis camps in afghanistan. On the other hand, this could cause greater dissension in the taliban. Those taliban leaders who do not support talks will have more of a reason to defect to isis. We are in a state of flux with regard to isis and the taliban. I would like to hear the panelists comment, what they think, how they see this moving in the future. Mr. Gorka the ladies are the real experts on the ground on these issues but let me share a macro perspective. It is an analogy my wife hates but my viewers love it, so i am going to use it anyway. Think of soft drinks for the for a second. For 14 years, al qaeda was that red can with the white logo. Right . It was cocacola. It dominated the jihadi brand. And then two years ago this little upstart breaks out, and it is a kind of tab cola. Most of you are too young to even know what to have what tab cola is, but it is a very junior coke. In the space of less than two years, it is isis that has become cocacola. That is what we are talking about. Do not focus on individual groups. Focus on who has successfully become the ideological brand leader, because today it is the Islamic State that dominates the narrative. I hate the word, but lets use it it dominates the international narrative. Today al qaeda is relegated to being the rc coke of cocacola. Now they have the question of can they swallow the bigger pill of seeing their upstart cousin now being the brand leader and say i am going to stay outside or try to find my way back because i was here first . I do not have the social media capabilities, but i will do it anyway. Will they say one day, ok, if you cannot beat them, join in. That is the decision we are hearing them make. On the ground there will be competition, but right now the brand leader with that shiny red can is isis. I think you brought up a point. But if you look at baghdadi, his relationship with osama bin blondin was Osama Bin Laden was he respected him. He exalted him. It was not that he looked at bin laden as a threat to what he was creating. They had disagreements on how they were going to achieve kind of the same goal. It was really just in the first phase of the war against the west. I mean, Everybody Knows this line. Zarkawi, the reason he never fully fledged to al qaeda was because he believed that they got to take down the nation states those countries like saudi arabia and jordan who were working diligently with the west, and with israelis, and who have these relationships that were antimuslim, that they were not connected. Baghdadi would say himself, why do you need a passport to travel to egypt if you are a muslim . We should be one state. So then, and you had bin laden who was, ok, this guy, i respect him, he and i can Work Together. For some time until the passing, and when the baton was passed, to zawahiri, i think and from what i have been reading and learning bag daddy baghdadi was like, this guy is completely different. We do not need to deal with him. He does not allow us to go out to the shia. They use the word heretic. Its like they its like they do not even exist. Its like they dont even exist. All of their writings already seemed like they won. They talk about this grand future in the sense in the present tense. Not in the past, not any hopeful sense. So when you think about the message that he is delivering inside south asia, he is saying, look, i am not opposed in fact, he respected the taliban. If you really delves delve into baghdadi, he thought that taliban to the most marvelous job. They stood up against the west the United States. The u. S. Came in. Osama fled from tora bora. And the taliban never back down, never backed down, not even to pakistan. So he delivered the message that is appealing to them. They do not want to give up their power. But i believe, like lisa said, the possibility of saying ok let us sustain our kingdom here. And then maybe we can Work Together. The common purpose being to push the west out, to push nato out to reestablish an emirate in afghanistan and basically go after the peace talks, the pakistani government, which the taliban really has no time for. These peace talks are just to fill in a void, in my opinion, for them and to buy time. That is my opinion on this. Ms. Curtis thank you. I would like to open the floor to our audience. If you have a question, please raise your hand. Somebody will bring a microphone to you, and if you could state your name and affiliation and then ask your question. We have somebody right here in the middle. Hi. I am with in defense of christians. My question for dr. Gorka, you mentioned that the airstrikes are really doing nothing. So in your opinion, how should the United States look to address the kurds, who are actually be the most effective in fighting isis . Mr. Gorka i am impressed with the kurds. They are not as impressive as they would like to think they are, but very impressive. They are not going to defeat isis. You are a lot of how should i say this politely there is a lot of clamoring on the hill to make the kurds the silver bullet. I have even heard people tell me it is 100 sure that kurds will wipe out isis in nonkurdish territory. That is a fantasy, and utter pipedream. The kurds will fight to the death on kurdish territory or territory they think is kurdish. They are part of the solution, but not the solution. The only solution is that the various constituent elements of iraq, the day whoever, be they whoever, have to really buy into the idea of iraq. It is a political challenge. It is an attachment to their country a little bit they stuck on the edge of the house. So we have to be part of the political solution that convinces them that iraq has a future, and i do not think despite the sectarian history and the blood feud or revenge, i do not think that is a hard argument to make on one foundation if you really take emotion out of the equation, there is not one actor in iraq who by themselves can defeat isis. It is just a fact. I do not care who you are, whether you are a good sunni, a shia. By yourselves you will not defeat isis. And only by coming together and can that happen, but it has to happen without troops embedded as advisors, because that is the reason that mosul fell. The iraqi army was 900,000 men in uniform on paper. A couple of thousand guys took mosul. Thats absurd. Why . Because we had no embeds. All the tribes could run home to mama because we were there to shame them. The culture revolves around shame and honor. If there is nobody there to be embarrassed about you running home, then you will run home to your tribe because that is the entity that has protected you best the last 200 years. We have to sell the concept of a functioning iraq. We have to jettison once and for all i know it is apocryphally an arab saying, but the idea that to the enemy of my enemy is my friend is complete hogwash when it comes to iraq. Ironic. Iran. The idea that iran, because they are killing sunni extremists are our friends, you have to be smoking something, and is not tobacco to believe that. Lisa thank you. Ok, we have a question over here. Yes. I am matt with the 21st century wilberforce initiative. I am wondering if the panel could speak to understanding this ideology. Dr. Gorka, you mentioned how the narrative of Information Warfare that the west is putting out is completely insufficient to combat what isis is doing on social media. How can the narrative be better influenced to counteract that . Is it going to require educating people in a very secure context that cosmology, teleology, and eschatology are still important and they are important in this situation . Mr. Gorka buy the book. [laughter] mr. Gorka how many theologians does the pentagon have . I do not mean chaplains. I mean theologians who understand the enemy threat doctrine of groups like isis. I would say it is about the same number of the number of insurgents defeated by our power alone. How do we address it . You really hit a crucial question. With the political elite on both aisles, both sides of the house, that sees itself as modern postmodern, secular, and sophisticated, it is hard to take religion seriously. And one thing i have learned working with people who have had multiple tours in theater, is if you do not have religion, i do not care what it is, i do not i do not care if you are a seventhday adventists, if you do not have religion, you will never understand this enemy. Ever. You will not be able to absorb the concept of suicide bombing the logic of suicide bombing. We have to take political distortion out of the intelligence cycle, tug about talk about the enemy as they talk about themselves. You cannot win a war of ideas of as you begin to understand how the enemy thinks about themselves. And if they say i am a holy warrior, realizing the sovereignty of my creator on this earth, if you say he is a disenfranchised person who needs a job [laughter] dr. Gorka you will never get a strategy out of it. Lets start by reading what the enemy says. The most important writer in the Muslim Brotherhood more important read abdullah azzam, the real creator of al qaeda, the man who issued a a fatwa in 1979 that stated jihad is an obligation of all believers, because we have no longer a caliphate, you must be a holy warrior. If we do not read these things we will not win this war. And allowing politics to get interact understanding of the into ourget into our understanding of the enemy is akin to in 1944, as we were about to deploy on omaha beach, the normandy invasions, the generals in england having the troops getting on the transports do not say the word nazi. You will be fired. You must understand what mobilizes the enemy. Lets take politics out of it. Lets talk about religion. We do not have to go declare war against islam. We have to be honest. Who are the majority of victims of isis . It is not christians and jews. In many theaters, it is sunnis. What religion was moaz alkasasbeh . He was a sunni, burnt to death. Lets start about and i will close the most amazing chapter in this book is by my friend ulph, a walking genius on ideology. It is a tough chapter to read. He identified what is the key vulnerability of everybody we face today. It is not matter whether it is hamas, isis. The key vulnerability of these actors is their claim to authenticity. Their statement that they are the best muslims and they are fighting to protect islam. If they are the best muslims you do not emulate jordanian fighter pilots. On what basis . On what basis are you the best muslim . We have to destroy that narrative i mean the local , sunnis have to destroy it with our assistance, but we have to start. I think the 15th year of the war might be a good time to start. Ms. Curtis thank you. Right down here in the front. I would like to draw my question out of three books, rulers of evil, operation , and a very authoritative comic book that speaks about the history of islam. To draw on your analogy of cocacola and pepsi, if we look at a broad historical context, leaving christianity aside, the roman church and islam is equivalent to coke and pepsi, it is good to have an enemy. The argument can be made that the papacy was very much involved in the creation of islam and the drawing of arabs to mohammed 1500 years ago, it was good for each side to have an enemy everyone gravitates toward one side or the other. Ms. Curtis question . Can anyone speak to the relationship between the papacy and the development of islam expansion and contraction and the entering into of between the vatican and islamic interests . Ms. Curtis i will take the privilege. One of the things that both al qaeda and isis is trying to do is make this into a religious war. I think the best thing we can do to counter that narrative is make sure we are not blaming the entire religion of islam for what is happening. I think what is happening in terms of the violence and terrorism we are seeing, these people see themselves as muslims and they are using religion of islam. I think it would be a mistake if we would equate the one billionplus muslims in the world as equivalent as to what is being represented by ounces isis and al qaeda. I will stop. Does anyone want to comment . Mr. Gorka i have heard these conspiracy theories before, so i will not address them. Lisa do we have another question . Right in the back. I want to take a moment to thank our great panel speakers. I specialize in terrorist radicalization and the radicalization d eradicalization and looking at what other countries have been successfully or not so successfully. Overall, our penalty stressed issues ideology and strategy. If you could serve as an advisor, what are three points you would suggest for u. S. Strategic responses when it comes to u. S. Ideology and threats . When we look at other countries, have addressed issues of extremism, countering violent extremism, radicalization, where countries have used countering terrorism and counterinsurgency methods successfully. Thank you. Ms. Curtis katherine, you have anything to say in terms of what is happening in africa, whether african governments are engaged and if the u. S. Is supporting them in terms of radicalization efforts . Ms. Zimmerman we have outsourced our decisionmaking on a lot of these issues to partners who may not have the same of vision as to what a successful outcome is. Here i am thinking about the case in somalia where we rely heavily on ethiopia and kenya who actually disagree on what the future of somalia should look like. Saudi arabia, whose actions in yemen could be said to be in inflaming the conflicts there. And algeria, whos interested in protecting its borders and only its borders and the terrorist threat that resides inside its borders to fight al qaeda. That is the first challenge taking ownership of the problems these countries face and helping them understand their actions are driving the issues. The second is recognizing the al qaeda threat, isis threat, they are insurgencies. We hear them described as terrorist groups in the news. Terrorism is simply a tactic that these groups use. They have longstanding grievances with in the country that generally come from the federal state itself. The American Partnership directly with the central state, which is sometimes driving the grievances, is not exactly the most beneficial one. It is hard to workaround, i understand. We cannot simply be going around a governing state within a sovereign territory. It is something we need to become cognizant of as we pursue our partners and pursue that counterterrorism counterinsurgency relationship. Third, i think we need to recognize our action inside and outside different theaters play very concretely to these individuals. How did the sunnis feel as we are negotiating an Iranian Nuclear deal . We have set ourselves up to say we are trying to fight isis on behalf of the muslim world, and yet we are only coming to the rescue of certain individuals. That is not playing well in a sight that is sectarian in the middle east, and we are seen as fighting only the sunni and not protecting the moderate sunni s that would otherwise look to the United States for support. Those are the three major changes i would like to see come out of the discussions we have seen going on for the past couple months. Ms. Carter i think katherine has such a great point there. If you state the issue of the radicalization, or the ideology that you could turn into cocacola right before your eyes. Nobody is focused what is happening on the ground, nobody has been able to exploit what baghdadi is doing, because in all honesty we ignored it. In all honesty, nobody knew who to talk with in syria, who are the right players. We were fumbling around, trying to figure things out, as baghdadi was on the rise. As out nusra alnousra was building momentum. And then you see the disenfranchised sunni reaching across their hearts, it grabbed them, and we ignored it. Just cannot happen again, you know . They were the j. V. Team. Nobody wanted to Pay Attention to what was happening on the ground. And u. S. Intelligence, as well as european intelligence officials, as well as iraqis who were on the ground, were warning over and over again that something was coming, and nobody wanted to listen. Because it did not fit the narrative. Because most of us were exhausted of war. Because most of us to not want to see another 10 years in the region. And i think you cannot ignore that narrative anymore. The reality is that we are in just from my own experience on the ground and from what i am seeing we are going to be stuck in a long, drawn out battle, and it is not just one that is going to be a military battle. It is an ideological war, that is going to require us reaching out to not just specific players, not just hoping we can find a quick solution to wrap this up, but reaching out to everyone, including sunnis. So the people like baghdadi, and leaders that will follow him there will be Something Else someone else who will rise who will not have the kind of power to do what he has already done again. Mr. Gorka i am a child of the cold war, so that is my socialization, and i miss it immensely. And i think we can learn a lot from the cold war. The first thing we have to do is we have to really aggressively support all those very brave sunni reformers that we are not helping at all. There are some very brave people in the middle east and north africa who dey and day in and day out are writing they are distorting muslims, how democracy and jihadi cannot function together. These are the people that america does not touch because we do not deal with this because it is not a religious war. In the cold war, we supported the dissidents aggressively. We have to do this now because we are on the frontlines, and it is their lives as well. Second, we need to push back on the strategic level against the propaganda. Right now, the state departm