[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RISE OF RADICALISM: GROWING TERRORIST SANCTUARIES AND THE THREAT TO
THE U.S. HOMELAND
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-45
(Committee on Homeland Security)
__________
Serial No. 114-178
(Committee on Foreign Affairs)
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and
the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-750 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Curt Clawson, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Katko, New York Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Will Hurd, Texas Norma J. Torres, California
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia
Mark Walker, North Carolina
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia
Martha McSally, Arizona
John Ratcliffe, Texas
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Edward R. Royce, California, Chairman
Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Eliot L. Engel, New York
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Brad Sherman, California
Dana Rohrabacher, California Gregory W. Meeks, New York
Steve Chabot, Ohio Albio Sires, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Theodore E. Deutch, Florida
Ted Poe, Texas Brian Higgins, New York
Matt Salmon, Arizona Karen Bass, California
Darrell E. Issa, California William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania David Cicilline, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Alan Grayson, Florida
Mo Brooks, Alabama Ami Bera, California
Paul Cook, California Alan S. Lowenthal, California
Randy K. Weber, Sr., Texas Grace Meng, New York
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Lois Frankel, Florida
Ron DeSantis, Florida Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Joaquin Castro, Texas
Ted S. Yoho, Florida Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Curt Clawson, Florida Brendan F. Boyle, Pennsylvania
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin
David A. Trott, Michigan
Lee M. Zeldin, New York
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff
Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign
Affairs:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Witnesses
General John M. Keane (Ret. U.S. Army), Chairman of the Board,
Institute for the Study of War:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Mr. Matthew G. Olsen, Co-founder and President, Business
Development and Strategy, IronNet Cybersecurity:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Mr. Peter Bergen, Vice President, Director, International
Security and Fellows Programs, New America:
Oral Statement................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
For the Record
The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan:
Letters........................................................ 59
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Article........................................................ 89
Statement of the Syrian American Council....................... 90
Statement of the Syrian Community Network (Chicago, IL); Syrian
American Medical Society; Karam Foundation; Syria Relief and
Development; Syrian Expatriates Organization; Watan USA;
Rahma Relief Foundation; Hope for Syria...................... 91
Statement of Brian Michael Jenkins, RAND Office of External
Affairs...................................................... 93
THE RISE OF RADICALISM: GROWING TERRORIST SANCTUARIES AND THE THREAT TO
THE U.S. HOMELAND
----------
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
joint with the
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committees met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 210, HVC, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman of the Homeland
Security committee] presiding.
Present from Committee on Homeland Security:
Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Miller, Duncan, Marino,
Barletta, Perry, Clawson, Katko, Hurd, Carter, Walker,
Loudermilk, McSally, Ratcliffe, Donovan, Thompson, Sanchez,
Jackson Lee, Langevin, Higgins, Keating, Payne, Vela, Watson
Coleman, Rice, and Torres.
Present from Committee on Foreign Affairs: Representatives
Royce, Smith of New Jersey, Rohrabacher, Chabot, Wilson,
Salmon, Cook, Weber, DeSantis, Yoho, DesJarlais, Zeldin, Engel,
Sherman, Meeks, Connolly, Deutch, Cicilline, Bera, Lowenthal,
Meng, Frankel, Gabbard, Castro, Kelly, and Boyle.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Homeland Security and
Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. The purpose of
this hearing is to examine current and evolving terrorist
sanctuaries abroad and the threats they pose to the United
States homeland.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Before we begin, I would like to have a moment of silence
in memory of those who lost their lives in the attacks in Paris
and in honor of those who were wounded.
Today, we must make this much clear. We are at war. The
world was reminded last week that Islamic terrorists are
seeking to harm our people, destroy our way of life and
undermine the foundational principles of the free world. The
Paris attacks also confirmed our worst fears, that of the
thousands of foreign fighters who have gone to Syria and Iraq
to join access, some would be deployed to bring terror back to
the West.
For more than a year, my committee has warned of this
growing threat. We launched a bipartisan Congressional task
force to focus on closing security gaps both at home and abroad
to make it harder for terrorists and foreign fighters to slip
across the border undetected.
More than 5,000 individuals with Western passports,
including Americans, have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq, and
some have already returned, battle-hardened and prepared to
strike. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, we traveled to Paris
and met with the counterterrorism officials on the ground who
have known that Europe was wide open to this danger. We
conducted site visits along the jihadi super-highway from
Western Europe to Turkey and then into the conflict zone.
Our findings were alarming. This September, the committee's
final task force report concluded that we are losing the
struggle to stop Americans from going overseas to join jihadist
groups. It announced that the gaping security weaknesses
overseas are putting the U.S. homeland and our allies in
danger.
These worries have materialized. We know that jihadists
exploited these gaps to plot and execute the worst terrorist
attack on French soil since World War II. The world is now
looking to America for leadership and for a clear eye to
understanding of the threat.
ISIS is not contained as the President says. ISIS is
expanding globally and is plotting aggressively. In a matter of
weeks it executed major external terrorist plots on 3
continents, destroying a Russian airliner, conducting suicide
bombings in Lebanon and launching a mass attack in the streets
in Paris.
ISIS is now responsible for more than 60 terrorist plots
against Western targets, including 18 in the United States.
Here at home, we have arrested more than 70 ISIS supporters
over the last year. That is on average more than 1 per week,
and the FBI says it has nearly 1,000 ISIS-related
investigations in all 50 States. If this is not a war, then I
don't know what is.
America cannot wait for terrorists to launch their next
attack. The security of the free world depends on our response,
and we must respond immediately. We can start by securing the
homeland. Our task force report will not sit on the shelf. We
are taking action to turn our recommendations into reality.
Soon we will release legislation designed to help close
security loopholes and keep terrorists from reaching our
shores.
We will also work to make sure terrorists do not infiltrate
refugee flows to sneak into our country as some apparently did
to reach France.
Today we released a report laying out the preliminary
findings of a nearly year-long investigation into
counterterrorism challenges associated with Syrian refugee
flows. The results of this review are sobering. While we are
proud of our humanitarian tradition of welcoming refugees into
our country, this is a special case. The President's own
intelligence and law enforcement officials have warned this
committee of the risk involved with the Syrian refugee program
and the high-threat environment and I have to take them at
their word.
I have called upon the President to temporarily suspend
Syrian refugee admissions into the United States until we can
improve the screening and vetting process. But we cannot wait
for the President to take action. Congress will act immediately
to make sure the system is more secure.
Americans are worried about the terror threat level, and my
promise to the American people is that we are working hard to
strengthen this country's defenses. My promise to our allies is
that we stand ready to help you to do the same.
But as we will discuss today, the rise of radicalism cannot
be reversed without confronting the problem at its source.
Terrorist sanctuaries for jihadists recruit, train, and plot
against us. In Syria, we are witnessing the largest global
convergence of jihadists in world history; yet, the President's
plan is to contain rather than roll back the threat. What we
have seen as a policy of containment leads to a constant stream
of terror.
We need a strategy for victory in the war against Islamist
terror and that strategy must begin in Syria. Our enemies have
said that the latest attack is just the beginning of a storm,
and our message back to them must be clear. You have fired the
first shot in this struggle but rest assured America will fire
the last.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us here today.
Each of you worked in different ways on our front lines in this
long struggle. Look forward to your insights.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
November 18, 2015
Before we begin, I would like to have a moment of silence in memory
of those who lost their lives in the attacks in Paris and in honor of
those who were wounded.
Today we must make this much clear: We are at war.
The world was reminded last week that Islamist terrorists are
seeking to harm our people, destroy our way of life, and undermine the
foundational principles of the free world.
The Paris attacks also confirmed our worst fears--that of the
thousands of foreign fighters who have gone to Syria and Iraq to join
ISIS, some would be deployed to bring terror back to the West.
For more than a year, my committee has warned of this growing
threat.
We launched a bipartisan Congressional task force to focus on
closing security gaps--both at home and abroad--to make it harder for
terrorists and foreign fighters to slip across the border undetected.
More than 5,000 individuals with Western passports, including
Americans, have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. And some have already
returned battle-hardened and prepared to strike.
After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, we traveled to Paris and met with
counterterrorism officials on the ground who have known that Europe was
wide-open to this danger.
And we conducted site visits along the ``jihadi superhighway,''
from Western Europe to Turkey and then into the conflict zone.
Our findings were alarming.
This September, the committee's final task force report concluded
that we are losing the struggle to stop Americans from going overseas
to join jihadist groups, and it announced that gaping security
weaknesses overseas are putting the U.S. homeland and our allies in
danger.
Those worries have materialized.
We know that jihadists exploited these gaps to plot and execute the
worst terrorist attack on French soil since World War II.
The world is now looking to America for leadership and for a clear-
eyed understanding of the threat.
ISIS is not ``contained,'' as the President says. ISIS is expanding
globally and is plotting aggressively.
In a matter of weeks it executed major external terrorist plots on
3 continents, destroying a Russian airliner, conducting suicide
bombings in Lebanon, and launching a mass attack on the streets of
Paris.
ISIS is now responsible for more than 60 terrorist plots against
Western targets, including 18 in the United States. Here at home we
have arrested more than one ISIS supporter a week, on average, in the
past year, and the FBI says it has nearly 1,000 ISIS-related
investigations in all 50 States.
If this is not a war, then I don't know what is.
America cannot wait for terrorists to launch their next attack. The
security of the free world depends on our response--and we must respond
immediately.
We can start by securing the homeland.
Our task force report will not sit on a shelf. We are taking action
to turn our recommendations into reality.
Soon we will release legislation designed to help close security
loopholes and keep terrorists from reaching our shores.
We will also work to make sure terrorists do not infiltrate refugee
flows to sneak into our country, as some apparently did to reach
France.
Today we released a report laying out the preliminary findings of a
nearly year-long investigation into counterterrorism challenges
associated with Syrian refugee flows. The results of this review are
sobering.
While we are proud of our humanitarian tradition of welcoming
refugees into our country, this is a special case.
The President's own intelligence and law enforcement officials have
warned this committee of the risks involved with the Syrian refugee
program in this high-threat environment, and I have got to take them at
their word.
I have called upon the President to temporarily suspend Syrian
refugee admissions into the United States until we can improve the
screening and vetting process. But we will not wait for the President
to take action. Congress will act immediately to make sure the system
is more secure.
Americans are worried about the terror threat level.
My promise to the American people is that we are working hard to
strengthen this country's defenses. And my promise to our allies is
that we stand ready to help you do the same.
But as we will discuss today, the rise of radicalism cannot be
reversed without confronting the problem at the source: Terrorist
sanctuaries where jihadists recruit, train, and plot against us.
In Syria, we are witnessing the largest global convergence of
jihadists in world history, yet the President's plan is to contain
rather than rollback the threat. And what we have seen is that a policy
of containment leads to a constant stream of terror.
We need a strategy for victory in the war against Islamist terror,
and that strategy must begin in Syria.
Our enemies have said the latest attack is the beginning of ``a
storm.'' And our message back to them must be clear: You have fired the
first shot in this struggle, but rest assured--America will fire the
last.
Chairman McCaul. With that, the Chair now recognizes the
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Royce.
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you, Chairman McCaul. I thank
my colleagues here too and the witnesses.
I will give you a few of my observations as we get underway
with this hearing.
But the first is I think if we go back to the 9/11
Commission and we look at their core finding, what they warned
us of in the future is that terrorists should be allowed no
sanctuary because if we ever gave them sanctuary again, we
would see the consequences of that in terms of attacks
potentially on our homeland.
Why did they say that? They said that if they have safe
haven. If they have this, this time and space available to them
where they are going to be able to go forward with their
capabilities of making bombs or training with automatic
weapons, we could see them attack the West again as a
consequence of allowing them to have that safe haven.
In this particular case with ISIS, we have a terrorist
organization that believes that anyone who does not share their
world view are apostates. In other words, when you saw their
attack on civilians in Beirut, Lebanon, the argument was that
those Shia in the marketplace, those women and children were
apostates.
The attacks on the young people in Paris. The argument
there again. They are apostates. So, when it comes to a
philosophy like that, I think the administration is on the
wrong track with this strategy of containment. You can't
contain a terrorist organization like that--intends to
establish a state and use it to train and recruit in order to
carry out its attacks overseas.
You have got a second point that the 9/11 commission I
think would make. I think they would have been dismayed to have
watched ISIS, who say in their playbook, that their goal is to
take over territory.
I think they would have been dismayed to watch for 12 full
months, as ISIS took town after town, starting with Raqqa.
Going into Fallujah and Ramadi and all the way to Mosul. Twelve
months, when our air power was not allowed to take off and hit
any of these ISIS targets.
Over and over again, we in the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Members on both sides of the aisle called for the use
of our air power to stop ISIS from taking these cities and
taking territory. We know that we had allies in the Pentagon
and we know that we had an ally in the ambassador in Baghdad.
Yet, by the administration, not to take action until
finally Mosul itself had fallen. The central bank itself, of
Iraq, was in the hands of ISIS, close to a $1 billion in the
hands of this terrorist organization.
So, given that ISIS believed that a necessary step in
undermining democracy and setting the stage for their ideology
was to expand their territory, this containment strategy is a
very flawed position.
Now, the fighting force of ISIS itself is another issue
here, because on balance it has not shrunk. It hasn't shrunk
because of the virtual caliphate that they have set up on the
internet.
They have now attracted 30,000 foreign fighters into ISIS.
When you look at the more than 100 countries that they have
recruited from, it is clear again, that the containment
strategy, far from being a disincentive, has actually allowed
them to say that we are advancing in terms of our strategy and
our recruitment.
Young men are watching them on the advance. Forty-five
hundred hold Western passports, of these ISIS fighters. Two
hundred and fifty of them are Americans. In France's case,
1,800 of its citizens are entrenched now, in jihadi networks
and this terrorist diaspora is not far from France. It is a
plane ride away from here.
So, now with this conundrum that we are in, we hear this
argument from ISIS as the FBI director so aptly summed it up.
Troubled soul, come to the caliphate. You will live a life of
glory. If you can't come, kill somebody where you are.
Now that is the other aspect of what we are now dealing
with. The ability to attack is here by recruitment through the
internet. So, to hit ISIS from the air. This is a major
conundrum because we are hearing that 75 percent of the time,
pilots are returning without dropping ordinates.
We are hearing from those pilots who tell us that they are
not given the ability to target even when they have a clear
sight. There won't be collateral damage. They still can't get
clearance. We heard this last week.
We haven't had an aircraft carrier in the region for 2
months. Frankly, now a year after the U.N. Security Council
acted to curb travel by foreign fighters, only 12 countries
have databases allowing for quick risk assessments of
travelers.
So, given all of this, it is time for a broad, overarching
strategy for Syria and beyond Syria. It was also the 9/11
Commission that criticized the U.S. Government. They told us,
``You are too stove-piped.''
Congress isn't immune to poor communication and
coordination. So it makes sense for our committees to work
together on a topic like this and I look forward to working
with the other Members here as Chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, to make sure that end of the day we reverse
what the administration is doing here and put forward a sound
strategy to defeat ISIS.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The statement of Chairman Royce follows:]
Statement of Chairman Edward R. Royce
November 18, 2015
Thank you Chairman McCaul. With room to operate abroad, it was only
a matter of time before Islamist terrorists struck, hitting Paris,
again. They are looking to strike us too.
A core finding of the 9/11 Commission was that terrorists should be
allowed ``no sanctuaries.'' The reason is simple: With safe haven,
terrorists have the time and space to indoctrinate, plan, and
strengthen--and then take the fight to their enemies. In this case,
anyone who does not share ISIS's apocalyptic world view is an apostate
who must be destroyed--not something easily ``contained,'' as the
administration suggests.
The 9/11 Commissioners would likely be dismayed to have watched
ISIS take over more and more territory between Iraq and Syria--and sit
mainly uncontested. As one observer wrote this month, ``The terrorists'
own playbook sees the taking and holding of territory as a necessary
step to discredit Western democracy and prove that the Caliphate is a
real political possibility in the 21st Century.''
While ISIS has taken losses, its fighting force has not shrunk--
thanks in part to a steady stream of foreign recruits. More than 30,000
fighters have made it to Syria and Iraq from more than 100 countries.
Of those, it is estimated that more than 4,500 hold Western passports--
including at least 250 Americans. In France's case, 1,800 of its
citizens are believed to be entrenched in jihadist networks. This
``terrorist diaspora'' is a skip away from Europe--and a plane ride to
the United States.
With the internet now serving as a ``virtual caliphate,'' young
radicals don't have to travel abroad to become indoctrinated or receive
terrorist training. Indeed, the FBI has revealed that it is
investigating ISIS suspects in all 50 States. As Director Carney noted,
ISIS's slick propaganda sends a ``siren song'' that goes like this:
``Troubled soul, come to the caliphate, you will live a life of glory .
. . And if you can't come, kill somebody where you are.'' That includes
in the United States.
As is often said, the best defense is a good offense. But this
administration has not wanted to play offense. When it had the chance
to hit ISIS from the air early on, the White House sat paralyzed.
Instead of pummeling ISIS territory, the White House is still
proceeding with pinpricks. Last week, Secretary Kerry reported that the
President has decided to ``pick up the pace'' against ISIS. What on
earth have they been waiting for?
Worse, our defenses aren't where they should be. A year after the
U.N. Security Council acted to curb travel by foreign fighters, only 12
countries have databases allowing for quick risk assessments of
travelers. New technologies are making it harder for our authorities to
keep up with would-be killers. And our Government is still floundering
in understanding and combating the radicalization process.
It's easy to view these problems as being ``over there,'' but like
it or not, our National security is ever more connected to the chaos
unfolding in Syria, Libya, and other sanctuaries. This reality can feel
overwhelming at times. But unfortunately, the wave of radicalism around
the globe shows no signs of receding--making it essential for us to
have a broad, overarching strategy for Syria and beyond.
It was also the 9/11 Commission that criticized the U.S. Government
for being too ``stovepiped.'' Congress isn't immune to poor
communication and coordination. So it makes sense for our committees to
work together on a topic like this. I look forward to this timely
hearing.
Chairman McCaul. Thank the Chairman.
Chair now recognizes Ranking Member of the Homeland
Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. I thank you Chairman
McCaul and Chairman Royce for holding today's hearing.
I also thank the witnesses for their testimony that they
will give during this hearing.
I stand with my colleagues in expressing my condolence and
support for the people of France. As Americans, we stand in
solidarity with our French allies. The terrorist group, ISIL,
has claimed responsibility for the attacks that were carried
out last Friday in Paris.
The attacks were a chilling manifestation of the reach of
the ISIL terrorist network in Europe. On Monday, President
Obama announced a new bilateral agreement with France to share
intelligence and operational military information more quickly
and more often.
This move will close the information gaps that have existed
with our European partners. The bipartisan task force organized
by Homeland Security, cited this gap as a major finding of its
recent report that examined the threat posed by foreign
fighters.
Consequently, we welcome enhanced information sharing with
France. It has been reported that a fake Syrian passport was
found with one of the terrorists who carried out the deadly
Paris attacks. Since 2011, Syria has been a country torn by
civil war with an estimated 4.2 million Syrians forced to flee
from their homeland.
While the United States is the largest donor of
humanitarian aid to Syria, President Obama announced earlier
this year that we do more and work with the United Nations to
provide shelter to 10,000 refugees who are in refugee camps,
primarily in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
As we continue to discuss America's involvement with Syrian
refugees, it is important that we as Federal policymakers
embrace fact, not fear.
The Syrian people are the primary victims of the violent
conflict in Syria and the brutal actions of ISIL. They are the
most vulnerable to the violence and know first-hand the cruelty
of terrorists have brought to their communities. Syrian
refugees, like others who are given safe harbor in the United
States, are fleeing dire, even life-threatening, situations.
The migrants who have fled and continue to flee to Western
Europe will not be considered for protection in the United
States as they will seek protection in European countries. The
United States has the benefit of an ocean and time to separate
us from the flood of humanity that Europe is struggling to
manage. In stark contrast to what is occurring with migrants
arriving in Europe, our Government has the time to thoroughly
screen refugees before they are admitted.
Our extensive and deliberative vetting process takes on
average between 18 and 24 months. An individual seeking refugee
status in the United States cannot step foot in the country
until the Department of Homeland Security has made a
determination of admissibility, having applied a Federal
prioritization criteria and subjected the applicant to
extensive biometric and biographic checks, multiple in-person
interviews and medical screenings.
While concern about the risk associated with unknown
persons in refugee population is understandable, particularly
in the wake of last week's heinous attacks in Paris, we must
not lose sight of the fact that three-quarters of the refugee
population are women and children, and the U.S. Government will
be highly selective on which applicant it approves. Providing
safe harbor to individuals who no longer have a home because of
war and violence is a humane and American thing to do.
Furthermore, in our fervor to protect the country from
threats, we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that there
are people who would seek to do Americans harm and strike at
our way of life who were born and raised here in the United
States. Lone offenders have been reached not only by ISIL, but
by al-Qaeda and domestic groups having conspired to commit
domestic terrorism right here on United States soil.
Furthermore, the downing of a Russian airliner on October
31 by ISIL brings into focus that the aviation sector remains a
terrorist target and the importance of bolstering our screening
procedures at last-point-of-departure airports.
Finally, as we consider foreign terrorist threats to the
homeland, we must not ignore the risks associated with the Visa
Waiver Program. In fact, the committee's bipartisan task force
report acknowledged that while the administration has improved
the security of the Visa Waiver Program, continuous
enhancements must be made to keep pace with changing terrorist
tactics, and to detect violent extremists before they board
U.S. planes bound for here.
Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
November 18, 2015
I stand with my colleagues in expressing my condolences and support
for people of France. As Americans, we stand in solidarity with our
French allies. The terrorist group ISIL has claimed responsibility for
the attacks that were carried out last Friday in Paris. The attacks
were a chilling manifestation of the reach of the ISIL terrorist
network in Europe.
On Monday, President Obama announced a new bilateral agreement with
France to share intelligence and operational military information more
quickly and more often. This move will close information gaps that have
existed with our European partners. The bipartisan task force organized
by the Homeland Security cited this gap as a major finding in its
recent report that examined the threat posed by foreign fighters.
Consequently, we welcome enhanced information sharing with France.
It has been reported that a fake Syrian passport was found with one
of the terrorists who carried out the deadly Paris attacks. Since 2011,
Syria has been a country torn by civil war, with an estimated 4.2
million Syrians forced to flee from their homeland. While the United
States is the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Syria, President
Obama announced earlier this year that we would do more and work with
the United Nations to provide shelter to 10,000 refugees who are in
refugee camps, primarily in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
As we continue to discuss America's involvement with Syrian
refugees, it is important that we as Federal policymakers embrace
facts, not fear. The Syrian people are the primary victims of the
violent conflict in Syria and the brutal actions of ISIL. They are the
most vulnerable to the violence and know first-hand the cruelty the
terrorists have brought to their communities.
Syrian refugees, like others who are given safe harbor in the
United States, are fleeing dire, even life-threatening, situations. The
migrants who have fled and continue to flee to Western Europe will not
be considered for protection in the United States, as they will seek
protection in European countries.
The United States has the benefit of an ocean and time to separate
us from the flood of humanity that Europe is struggling to manage. In
stark contrast to what is occurring with migrants arriving in Europe,
our Government has the time to thoroughly screen refugees before they
are admitted. Our extensive and deliberative vetting process takes, on
average, between 18 and 24 months.
An individual seeking refugee status in the United States cannot
step foot in the country until the Department of Homeland Security has
made a determination of admissibility, having applied our Federal
prioritization criteria and subjected the applicant to extensive
biometric and biographic checks, multiple in-person interviews, and
medical screenings.
While concern about the risks associated with unknown persons in
refugee populations is understandable, particularly in the wake of last
week's heinous attacks in Paris, we must not lose sight of the fact
that three-quarters of the refugee population are women and children,
and the U.S. Government will be highly selective about which applicants
it approves.
Providing safe harbor to individuals who no longer have a home
because of war and violence is the humane--and American--thing to do.
Furthermore, in our fervor to protect the country from threats, we
must not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are people who would
seek to do Americans harm and strike at our way of life who were born
and raised here. Lone offenders have been reached not only by ISIL, but
by al-Qaeda and domestic groups and have been inspired to commit
domestic terrorism right here on U.S. soil.
Furthermore, the downing of a Russian airliner on October 31 by
ISIL brings into focus that the aviation sector remains a terrorist
target and the importance of bolstering our screening procedures at
last-point-of-departure airports.
Finally, as we consider foreign terrorist threats to the homeland,
we must not ignore the risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program.
In fact, the committee's bipartisan task force report acknowledged that
while the administration has improved the security of VWP, ``continuous
enhancements must be made to keep pace with changing terrorist tactics
and to detect violent extremists before they board U.S.-bound planes.''
Chairman McCaul. Thank the Ranking Member. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Chairman McCaul,
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Thompson. Thank you all. I am
glad that our committees have come together to take a look at
what I agree is a major element of the threat posed by ISIS.
I hope by putting all of our heads together and by hearing
from our witnesses we can find some answers to some critical
questions. How do we stop the flow of foreign fighters into
Syria? How do we make sure these fighters aren't coming back or
sneaking into the United States with designs to harm innocent
Americans?
Since this hearing was announced of course the complexion
of this debate has changed a great deal. We are all shaken by
the attacks in Paris. It is deeply troubling that ISIS was able
to orchestrate such a complicated attack, and that both home-
grown terrorists from Europe and possibly individuals posing as
refugees were able to carry out such brutality.
A tragedy like this invariably spurs us to action. During
my question time I hope we can get into some specifics. How do
we improve our detection methods to get past the encryption
ISIS is using to communicate? How do we counter their use of
social media to spread propaganda and recruit fighters from the
West?
What support do communities here at home and overseas need
to thwart ISIS recruitment? Are countries doing what they can
to stop the flow of their citizens to Syria and Iran, and block
those trying to come back? How do we empower law enforcement to
grapple with this problem while respecting civil liberties?
I look forward to a good conversation about what we do now
because it is up to us whether we will stand with our allies
and partners and effectively confront an enemy, or allow fear
and panic to make us forget who we are and what we stand for as
a Nation. I would like to say a bit about that because I am
unsettled by what I have heard from some people in Congress
this week.
I read a poll the other day. The question was ``What is
your attitude toward allowing political refugees to come into
the U.S.?''--67.4 agreed with the response. ``With conditions
as they are we should try to keep them out.'' More than two-
thirds, try to keep them out.
That poll was conducted in December 1938. The question in
its entirety was ``What is your attitude toward allowing
German, Austrian, and other political refugees to come into the
U.S.?'' European Jews--more than two-thirds of Americans
thought we should just close the gates. Just 4 months before
Kristallnacht.
So less than a year later that attitude sealed the fate of
the men, women, and children on-board the ocean liner St.
Louis. Nearly 1,000 refugees, most of them German Jews, boarded
the ship with the hope of finding safety across the Atlantic.
After being turned away in Cuba, those on-board the St.
Louis turned their sights toward the United States. They came
so close to Miami they could see the lights. Their cables to
the White House and State Department begging for safe haven
went unanswered.
The St. Louis steamed back to Europe. Six hundred twenty
passengers ended up back on the continent. Two hundred fifty-
four of them died in the holocaust. On-board the St. Louis they
would pass close enough to Miami to see the city's lights.
Syrians fleeing their homes because life in Syria for the
last 4 years has meant not knowing when Assad will drop the
next barrel bombs or release poison gas. It has meant watching
community after community fall under the merciless and medieval
rule of ISIS.
Often with just the clothes on their backs men, women, and
children are struggling to escape. Not because they agree with
terrorists, but because terrorists have destroyed their lives
and staying behind could very well ensure their deaths.
Let's remember these people are the victims of ISIS. They
are fleeing from ISIS. They are not ISIS. So will we now slam
the door in their faces?
The process the United States uses to screen refugees is
the most rigorous of any--investigation of any individual
trying to enter this country. Biometric screening to match
their fingerprints and vital statistics against any known
troublemakers, interviews with the Homeland Security
Department, background checks by the State Department, the
Defense Department, and the FBI, and medical screening and
orientation program. We all know there are other measures in
place that we can't discuss in this open setting. It can take
years.
Do we need to ensure we are following these procedures to
the letter? Absolutely. Do we need to enhance procedures?
Absolutely. Can we abandon our values as a Nation out of fear?
Absolutely not.
My grandparents, all 4 of them, were Jewish immigrants from
Ukraine. Like millions of others a century ago, they arrived in
New York before World War I in New York Harbor and saw our
country's front doorstep, the most enduring symbol of freedom
the world has ever known, ``A mighty woman with a torch, whose
flame is the imprisoned lightning, [with] her name, Mother of
Exiles,'' the Statue of Liberty.
The words of Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty, ``Give
me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be
free.'' The huddled masses we are talking about, Syrians,
Yazidi who are desperate.
When I hear suggestions that maybe we should only take
Christians, or that all these orphans would be such a burden,
or that State or another State wants nothing to do with these
refugees whatsoever, I am reminded of the St. Louis and what
happened to her passengers. I think of what we could have done
differently. I hope the decades and now our successors don't
look back to the year 2015 with the same regrets.
So let me say in conclusion, we can do a smart thing and
the right thing at the same time. We can stop the flow of
foreign fighters to ISIS and safeguard against attacks here at
home without succumbing to panic and xenophobia. Let's choose
the path forward that protects the United States and that
defeats our enemies without abandoning our values and repeating
history's mistakes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Engel follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Eliot L. Engel
November 18, 2015
Chairman McCaul, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Thompson, thank you
all. I'm glad our committees have come together to take a look at, what
I agree, is a major element of the threat posed by ISIS. And I hope by
putting all our heads together, and by hearing from our witnesses, we
can find some answers to some critical questions. How do we stop the
flow of foreign fighters into Syria? How do we make sure these fighters
aren't coming back or sneaking into the United States with designs to
harm innocent Americans?
Since this hearing was announced, of course, the complexion of this
debate has changed a great deal. We are all shaken by the attacks in
Paris. It's deeply troubling that ISIS was able to orchestrate such a
complicated attack, and that both home-grown terrorists from Europe
and, possibly, individuals posing as refugees were able to carry out
such brutality.
A tragedy like this invariably spurs us to action. And during my
question time, I hope we can get into some specifics: How do we improve
our detection methods to get past the encryption ISIS is using to
communicate? How do we counter their use of social media to spread
propaganda and recruit fighters from the West? What support do
communities here at home and overseas need to thwart ISIS recruitment?
Are countries doing what they can to stop the flow of their citizens to
Syria and Iran and block those trying to come back? How do we empower
law enforcement to grapple with this problem while respecting civil
liberties?
I look forward to a good conversation about what we do now. Because
it's up to us whether we will stand with our allies and partners and
effectively confront an enemy . . . or allow fear and panic to make us
forget who we are and what we stand for as a Nation. I'd like to say a
bit about that, because I'm unsettled by what I've heard from some
leaders in Congress this week.
I read a poll the other day. The question was, ``What's your
attitude towards allowing political refugees to come into the United
States?'' Sixty-seven-point-four percent agreed with the response,
``With conditions as they are, we should try to keep them out.'' More
than two-thirds: Try to keep them out.
That poll was conducted in the summer of 1938, and the question in
its entirety was: ``What's your attitude towards allowing German,
Austrian, and other political refugees to come into the United
States?'' European Jews. More than two-thirds of Americans thought we
should close the gates. Just 4 months before Kristallnacht.
So less than a year later, that attitude sealed the fate of the
men, women, and children on-board the ocean liner St. Louis. Nearly a
thousand refugees, most of them German Jews, boarded the ship with the
hope of finding safety across the Atlantic. After being turned away in
Cuba, those on-board the St. Louis turned their sights toward the
United States. Their cables to the White House and the State Department
begging for safe haven went unanswered. The St. Louis steamed back to
Europe.
Six-hundred twenty passengers ended up back on the continent. Two-
hundred fifty-four of them died in the Holocaust. On-board the St.
Louis, they had passed close enough to Miami to see the city's lights.
Syrians are fleeing their homes because life in Syria for the last
4 years has meant not knowing when Assad will drop the next barrel
bombs or release poison gas . . . it has meant watching community after
community fall under the merciless and medieval rule of ISIS. Often
with just the clothes on their backs, men, women, and children are
struggling to escape--not because they agree with terrorists, but
because terrorists have destroyed their lives and staying behind could
very well ensure their deaths.
Will we now slam the door in their faces?
The process the United States uses to screen refugees is the most
rigorous investigation of any individual trying to enter this country.
A biometric screening to match their fingerprints and vital statistics
against any known troublemakers. Interviews with the Homeland Security
Department. Background checks by the State Department, the Defense
Department, and the FBI. A medical screening. An orientation program.
And we all know there are other measures in place that we can't discuss
in this open setting. It can take years.
Do we need to ensure we're following these procedures to the
letter? Absolutely.
Can we abandon our values as a Nation out of fear? Absolutely not.
My grandparents, all four of them, were immigrants from Ukraine.
Like millions of others a century ago, they arrived in New York Harbor
and saw on our country's front doorstep the most enduring symbol of
freedom the world has ever known:
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.
We all know the rest of the poem, and when we talk about the tired,
the poor, the huddled masses, we're talking about the Syrians, the
Yazidis, the Kurds who are desperate. And when I hear suggestions that
maybe we should only take the Christians, or that all these orphans
would be such a burden, or that this State or another State wants
nothing to do with these refugees whatsoever, I'm reminded of the St.
Louis and what happened to her passengers and I think of what this
country could have done differently. I hope that decades from now, our
successors don't look back to the year 2015 with the same regrets.
We can do the smart thing and the right thing at the same time. We
can stop the flow of foreign fighters to ISIS and safeguard against
attacks here at home without succumbing to panic and xenophobia. So
let's leave aside the fear-mongering and the political posturing, and
choose the path forward that protects the United States and that
defeats our enemies without abandoning our values and repeating
history's mistakes.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Ranking Member. Other Members
are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Statement of Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
November 18, 2015
I thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Royce,
and Ranking Member Engel thank you for holding this morning's joint
hearing between the Committees on Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs
on the implications of ``A Global Battlefield: The Fight Against
Islamist Extremism at Home and Abroad.''
This week we mark another tragic attack on Paris--known the world
over as the City of Light from those who seek to plunge the world into
darkness. France whose motto is liberty, equality, and fraternity has
laid a path of enlightenment through culture, art, music, and
philosophy that the United States and its people have greatly admired.
I offer the people of Paris--especially the families of the victims
of the attacks and the hundreds of wounded who are recovering my
thoughts and prayers.
I welcome and thank today's witnesses:
The Honorable Matthew G. Olsen, the co-founder and president
of the Business Development and Strategy IronNet Cybersecurity;
General;
General Jack Keane (Retired U.S. Army), who is the chairman
of the board for the Institute for the Study of War; and
Mr. Peter Bergen, the vice president, and director of
International Security and Fellows Programs with New America, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute.
As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a former
Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee my commitment to peace and
security is unwavering.
I am committed to a peaceful world where differences can be
resolved among nations or individuals through honest open dialogue.
The world has worked for over 70 years to bring peace through the
development and support of international institutions that establish
protocols and regimes that had made the world a safer place.
Then the morning of September 11, 2001 came, and the world has not
been the same.
The enemy came from an ungoverned area of Afghanistan; it used
conventional commercial aircraft unconventionally by turning them into
guided missiles.
The 9/11 Commission report provided the fullest possible account of
the events surrounding 9/11 and identified lessons learned.
The report chronicled the activities of al-Qaeda which revealed the
sophistication, patience, discipline, and deadliness of the
organization to carry out the attacks of September 11.
From the Commission's work, we learned of the lack of imagination
among our law enforcement and National intelligence community in
understanding how dangerous al-Qaeda was to the security of the United
States and the safety of our citizens.
We were well aware of the threat they posed from the attacks they
carried out against Americans and American interests in the 1990s
through the year 2001.
On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the
North Tower of the World Trade Center--killing 6 people. It was
intended to cause both the North and South Towers to collapse
and if it had been successful thousands would have died on that
day.
On August 7, 1998, 224 people were killed and more than
5,000 injured by bombs exploding almost simultaneously at the
U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
On October 12, 2000, 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole were
killed by an al-Qaeda attack using a small boat packed with
explosives.
On September 11, 2001, 2,977, persons including 2,504
civilians, were killed when al-Qaeda operatives hijacked 3
planes and used them as guided missiles to attack both World
Trade Towers and the Pentagon.
the victims of the september 11, 2001 attack
At the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan, 2,753 people
were killed when hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and United
Airlines Flight 175 were intentionally crashed in the North and South
Towers.
Of those who perished during the initial attacks and the subsequent
collapses of the towers, 343 were New York City firefighters, another
23 were New York Police Department officers and 37 others were officers
at the Port Authority.
The victims ranged in age from 2 to 85 years.
At the Pentagon in Washington, 184 people were killed when hijacked
American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the building.
Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 40 passengers and crew members
aboard United Airlines Flight 93 died when the plane crashed into a
field.
It is believed that the hijackers crashed the plane in that
location, rather than its unknown target, after the passengers and crew
attempted to retake control of the flight.
The act of those passengers to stop the hijackers likely saved the
lives of thousands of their fellow Americans that day.
The heroic work done by the first responders who rushed into the
burning Twin Towers and the Pentagon saved lives.
We will forever remember the first responders who lost their lives
in the line of duty on September 11.
This Nation shall forever be grateful for their selfless sacrifice.
I visited the site of the World Trade Center Towers in the
aftermath of the attacks and grieved over the deaths of so many of our
men, women, and children.
I watched as thousands of first responders, construction workers,
and volunteers worked to recover the remains of the victims, and
removed the tons of debris, while placing their own lives and health at
risk.
The men and women who worked at ``Ground Zero'' were called by a
sense of duty to help in our Nation's greatest time of need since the
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Under the leadership of President Obama, Osama Bin Laden was found
and killed and the prosecution of al-Qaeda leaders has left the
terrorist group without the capacity to launch major operations within
the United States.
Al-Qaeda began in remote regions of Afghanistan with its own self-
defined vision of Islam and began to impose their views of one of the
world's great religions on the people of Afghanistan.
It took September 11, 2001, for the world to fully understand the
danger posed by al-Qaeda.
ISIS/ISIL, a new, and unfortunately, much improved version of al-
Qaeda:
sought out the Syrian conflict--where it could ferment more
war and violence so that no governing order could be found;
turned on any moderate or tolerant Muslim group engaged in
conflict with Syrian government and murdered them; and
conducted a ``lightning war,'' or blitzkrieg attack, into
Iraq and formed the largest border disruption since World War
II.
The ISIS/ISIL's control stretches from the towns along the Syrian-
Turkish border to Raqqa, in northern Syria, across the obliterated
Iraqi border into Mosul, Tikrit, and Falluja, through farming towns
south of Baghdad--involving one-third of the territory of both Iraq and
Syria are involved or impacted by this act of aggression.
The things that keep civilized nations in check are not the worry
of ISIS/ISIL leaders--they have no concern for anyone or anything.
Nations care about the well-being of their people--they worry about
how an action may impact its people.
Nations work to relieve the suffering of their people--they seek
peaceful means of addressing conflicts, but if necessary will defend
themselves, their people, and their National interest.
ISIS/ISIL is no al-Qaeda--it is much more dangerous because of its
global ambition to lure the United States into a ground war to solidify
its ambition to create a caliphate.
A caliphate is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph.
A caliph is the successor to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad
(Muhammad ibn Abdullah), and the leader of the entire Muslim community.
The goal is not just war with the United States, but to take
hostage one of the world's great religions and use it to justify a
murderous, blasphemous existence.
In the past 3 months alone, ISIS has claimed responsibility for
crimes, atrocities, and terroristic attacks, and deaths in Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Beirut, and Paris.
Daesh-ISIL, also known as ISIS, and other terrorist networks that
have pledged allegiance to ISIS today pose the gravest extremist threat
faced by our generation and those of our children.
Since September 11, 2001, it has been a priority of this Nation to
prevent terrorists or those who would do Americans harm from boarding
flights whether they are domestic or international.
Just as the terrorist threat has evolved--so has the United States
in its means, methods, and approaches to addressing this ever-evolving
threat.
The tools at the ready for ISIS include automatic weapons, suicide
bombers, and social media to recruit and influence those who could
become violent extremists.
The reality is that we can no longer think of just the threats
abroad, but the ones we may create for ourselves, as we grapple with
managing fear and anxiety of our citizens.
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) both domestic and international
in nature is a priority that the Nation and policy makers must face.
To succeed in the fight against violent extremism defined by the
actions of ISIS/ISIL and Boko Haram we must use every asset available
to stop the spread of the violence they perpetrate as well as their
ability to create safe havens in areas where Government authority is
not enforced or consistent.
The Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the subject of
people buying stolen artifacts and art from the region controlled by
ISIS/ISIL.
Anyone who purchased stolen antiquities or anything of value from
the region of the world controlled by ISIS/ISIL could very easily have
contributed money for the purchase of weapons, air flights for foreign
fighters, or bomb-making materials.
I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee for their focus on this
aspect of the ISIS/ISIL threat.
Part of our strategy to achieve global stability, especially in
light of what has transpired in the past few days alone, is to
destabilize ISIS so that it lacks the financial ability to recruit and
expand its caliphate aspirations.
In my estimation that is ISIS/ISIL's greatest vulnerability--they
need cash to function.
means employed by isis to achieve financing
One of the strategies employed by ISIS involve global
terrorist fundraising sources which may involve state sponsors
such as in the case of Iran funding certain terrorist groups
according to State Department reports.
According to the Treasury Department's first-ever-released
National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, we learn that
countries like Kuwait and Qatar may foster environments which
make it easy for terrorist organizations like ISIS to receive
some of its support from private donors.
In addition to its illicit activities such as drug
trafficking, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and antiquities
smuggling, ISIS is also able to sustain its activities on self-
generated profits through legitimate and non-profit
organizations who are not aware that their resources or funds
are being utilized to promote terrorism.
The battle against violent extremism is constantly changing but
their changes should not result in our Nation becoming less human or
clear-minded.
We are not ISIS/ISIL nor can our Nation allow any comparisons to
develop in the minds of our allies or enemies.
ISIS/ISIL's message needs words and deeds to further pollute the
truth about them by creating a false narrative about the United States
and its people.
After the terrible carnage inflicted upon unarmed people of Paris
they would like to change the front-page stories around the world from
the terrible things that they did in Paris to ones about anti-Muslim
sentiments in the United States.
I respect the concerns of Governors regarding Syrian refugees, but
the statesman thing to have done would have been to call a meeting with
the President, the Secretary of State, and the Chairs and Ranking
Members of key Senate and House Committees.
ISIS/ISIL is vain--it does not like bad press.
We cannot give them any good days where they can hide their true
nature with lies about the true nature of our Nation and its generous
people.
The United States as the greatest democracy in the free world must
and always lead.
It is not in our National security or economic interest to sit by
while ISIS-DAESH or ISIL wreaks havoc in our world.
As a Nation of immigrants, providing for the least among us is an
American value which makes us a leader in the world as well as promotes
our credibility in the world in other matters related to foreign policy
and our dealings with our international allies.
Indeed, as a world leader, our country carries the burden of
leading the international community in addressing the dire humanitarian
crisis we face across our world from Syria to Nigeria and the world
over, just as we did during World War II by playing an instrumental
role in the formation of the United Nations, on which we now sit as one
of the 5 permanent members of Security Council.
Remember that ISIS/ISIL covets a power vacuum--the United States
cannot step aside or away from the global stage.
We must refrain from knee-jerk anti-refugee rhetoric and policies
even as we grapple with the recent attacks in Beirut, Paris, Baghdad,
and Sana'a.
If anything, the recent attacks compel us not to stoop to the level
of the evil perpetrators of violence but rather to prepare ourselves to
redouble our efforts to address the refugee crisis the world faces by
making good on our promises to provide refuge to Syrians seeking peace
and security from the war-torn society they have fled.
Putting up walls and fences and closing borders to prevent members
of the human race from sanctuary do not provide any short- or long-term
solutions to the challenges we face as it relates to solving the threat
of ISIS or the challenge of the refugee crisis in Syria.
The circumstance for refugees that may enter the United States is
not the conditions people entered Europe from the conflict area.
They came by foot and could cross narrow bodies of water to be on
European soil.
The United States' entire refugee process has been completely
revised based on lessons learned from September 11, 2001 and the unique
threats posed by terrorism.
The process can take up to 2 years. The United States can hand-pick
who it will allow to enter. The policy of the administration is that
only the most vulnerable are under consideration--women with minor-age
children, persons with dire medical conditions and those who have been
victims of violence.
Yes, there are challenges--we do not have access to records on
persons who are coming from Syria. This is why the policy regarding
refugees entering the country takes almost 2 years and is so selective.
We should also be aware of burden sharing.
As the world's sole superpower we must do what other nations are
doing--accept Syrian refugees.
The United States has agreed to accept 10,000 Syrians through 2016,
which to some may seem to be a great number of refugees to accept.
However, when compared to other nations, our contributions toward
relieving the suffering caused by ISIS/ISIL the number is small, for
example:
To date the United States has accepted 1,500 Syrian refugees
since the start of the conflict in 2011 and will receive
another 10,000 by 2016.
Turkey has accepted over 1.9 million Syrians accounting for
almost half of the Syrian refugees.
Lebanon has received 1.1 million refugees which marks a 25%
increase in the country's 4.4 million population.
Jordan has provided shelter to 629,000 refugees from Syria,
Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan, but Syrians constitute the majority
of Jordan's refugee population.
Iraq has received 249,000 Syrians even though like Syria,
Iraq has been torn by attacks perpetrated by ISIS.
Egypt has provided refuge to 132,000 Syrians, with no
refugees living in camps in Egypt and Egyptian billionaire
Naguib Sawiris, one of the region's wealthiest men, offering to
buy an island for refugees and his name for the proposed island
home: Hope.
Germany has accepted 98,700 Syrian refugees as the European
country that faces the largest share of Syrian requests for
asylum in Europe.
Sweden has provided refuge for 64,700 Syrians.
France has accepted 6,700 refugees and as of September 2015,
has committed to hosting 24,000 refugees over the next 2 years.
The United Kingdom has accepted 7,000 Syrian refugees and
has committed to take up another 20,000 Syrian refugees over
the next 5 years.
Denmark and Hungary have received 29,000 Syrians combined.
Serbia has received 49,500 asylum requests from Syrian
refugees.
Italy, where many migrants have made the perilous
Mediterranean crossing from North Africa also receives
refugees.
Greece, which lies on a popular transit route from Turkey
north through the Balkans to Northern Europe, has seen more
than 250,000 people arrive on its shores this year.
Today's witnesses tell many of us what we already know--that we are
in a new era of geopolitical conflict.
It is no longer a matter of governments fielding armies or
combatants--but the emergence of what is best described as a new form
of geo-military transnational gang activity.
The affiliations of violent extremist individuals and groups are
loose, with membership remaining fluid--one individual or small group
may identify with al-Qaeda today, and switch its identification to ISIL
or al-Shabaab or Boko Haram depending on which group is perceived to be
the strongest.
These groups require chaos to function and they attack institutions
and people regardless of their religious or ethnic traditions to
destabilize regions.
They act in the name of Islam but institute intra- and inter-Muslim
faith conflicts against individuals and mosques to kill thousands.
It is ironic and sad that the single greatest casualty group of
ISIS/ISIL are Muslims--especially women, children, disabled, and the
elderly.
Violent extremism is not new--those who struggle to hold onto an
idyllic past or rigid view of their faith that does not tolerate non-
conformism has plagued societies throughout history.
The only tools that have succeed in overcoming violent extremism is
the commitment of those most affected by their violence to stand
against them.
We must remember that after the battles are fought and won that the
underlying causes for so many willing souls to commit themselves to
kill and die for ISIS/ISIL and Boko Haram must be addressed.
Where there is poverty, corruption, a sense of not having value or
social worth, violence and systemic disparity in living conditions and
insurmountable forces to resist upward mobility by poor communities
lays fertile ground for recruiting, training, and turning young minds
toward violence.
Some would argue that these problems are not ours to solve.
The counter argument is that the cost of not solving these
underlying problems makes the ability to win a lasting end to violent
extremism nearly impossible.
We cannot kill ideas with bombs--we must change hearts and minds.
I am a firm supporter of getting to the source of problems that
come from the complexity of our interconnected world.
Part of the struggle for peace we have today is a direct
consequence of invading Iraq without provocation or reason.
Paraphrasing Secretary of State Colin Powell's advice to President
George W. Bush: ``if we break it--we will own it.''
He was warning President Bush about the folly of entering into a
war of choice with Iraq and the complexities of that region of the
world that could spiral out of control.
It is time that we recognize how right Secretary Powell was then
and how his words are playing out every day.
Added to the challenge of violent extremists is their technological
savvy in the use of the tools of social media to reach far beyond the
battlefield to influence young people to join their cause.
Our work as Members of our respective committees should focus on
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
State have the resources needed to meet the challenges presented by
violent extremism.
I thank today's witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. We are pleased to have a distinguished
panel of witnesses before us here today. Our first witness is
General Jack Keane, who is a retired four-star general of the
United States Army and current chairman of the board at the
Institute for the Study of War. Previously he served as vice
chief of staff of the United States Army. Thank you, sir, for
being here.
General Keane. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman McCaul. Our second witness----
General Keane. Oh, I am sorry.
Chairman McCaul. I will get to you in a minute.
Second witness is the Honorable Matthew Olsen who currently
serves as president of Business Development at IronNet
Cybersecurity. Previously he served as a director of the
National Counterterrorism Center.
Our third witness is Mr. Peter Bergen who is the current
director of the National Security Studies Program at the New
America Foundation. Mr. Bergen also serves as the national
security analyst for CNN, and fellow at Fordham University
Center on National Security. Thank you, sir, for being here as
well.
The witnesses' full statements will appear in the record.
The Chair now recognizes General Keane for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN M. KEANE (RET. U.S. ARMY), CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR
General Keane. Chairman McCaul, Chairman Royce, Ranking
Members Thompson and Engel, distinguished Members of this joint
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am
honored to be here with Matt Olsen and Peter Bergen, both who I
have known for years and have great respect for.
Listen, please refer to the map that is provided at your
seat. It looks like this, provided by the Institute for the
Study of War, which I will reference in my remarks. I will
refine my remarks to ISIS in the interest of time.
ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization in
modern history. It is driven by a religious-based ideology with
significant geopolitical objectives to establish an extensive
caliphate that touches the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and
Europe by dominating all Muslim lands, and an apocalyptic event
in Europe that carves out an ISIS enclave.
ISIS has three major thrusts. The first is to defend Syria
and Iraq. While ISIS has lost some territory, it views
operations in Syria and Iraq as largely successful because it
controls large swaths of territory, it is recruiting
successfully, maintaining tactical and operational initiative,
and is able to logistically sustain its forces.
The second thrust is to use its headquarters in Syria to
expand what it terms the near abroad--on your map, see the
areas with the black stars or crosses?--by establishing
affiliate organizations they term wilayats, which is a formal
relationship in 9 countries and regions.
The third major thrust is to influence the far abroad, on
your map areas in yellow, which are Muslim lands and countries
that are supporting the coalition against ISIS by inspiring and
motivating radicals, by averaging thousands of social media
posts per day and by returning fighters from Syria who are
trained and motivated to attack their own citizens at home.
ISIS attempts to divide and polarize these societies by
weakening the people's resolve to support their governments'
efforts against ISIS and to fragment and polarize the non-
Muslim and Muslim populations.
What ISIS has accomplished in the last few weeks is
unprecedented and quite stunning. While conducting a
conventional war in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has staged terrorist
attacks on a global scale against the people from the countries
who are fighting ISIS. The result is almost 900 casualties in
12 days, both killed and wounded who are Russian, Lebanese, and
mostly French in Paris. Can you imagine the impact if the Nazis
were conducting terrorist activities in major American cities
while the United States was fighting the Nazis in Europe?
So what do we do about ISIS? Clearly, ISIS is not contained
and is far from defeated. The United States and our allied
partners need to wake up. ISIS is at war with us and
civilization, but in my judgment, America is not truly at war
with ISIS, not the President, nor the Congress and certainly
not the American people. We need to throw out the policy of,
``strategic patience,'' which is an excuse for a lack of an
aggressive coherent strategy, recognize that dragging out the
war provides ISIS with a degree of invincibility, a sense of
destiny and purpose shrouded in the aura of success.
The security of the American people at home is directly
related to ISIS's success and their ability to motivate and
inspire their followers to kill fellow Americans. One, step up
U.S. military activities in Iraq and Syria. Once and for all
send the required advisers, trainers, air controllers that are
truly needed to dramatically increase combat effectiveness.
Recognize the criticality of Sunni opposition forces to depose
ISIS who is largely occupying Sunni lands.
Also be realistic about the Kurds who are proven fighters
but are interested only in their territory and not reclaiming
lost Sunni territory. Mission the special operations forces not
just to target leaders or conduct hostage rescue but to conduct
large-scale in and out raids to target ISIS critical nodes and
functions. Dramatically increase UAVs, mine clearance vehicles,
Apache helicopters, and a host of other much-needed equipment.
The troops required is about a minimum of 10,000. Identify
combat brigades separate from the number I just gave you for
potential deployment but held in reserve and only committed if
all else fails. Unleash a devastating air campaign without the
imposed restrictions of the last 15 months which has been
disproportionate to all recent air campaigns in the extreme
concern for civilian casualties.
Establish safe zones in northwest Syria along the Turkish
border and in southwest Syria along the Jordanian border for
refugees. Protect on the ground with an international force,
protect from the air using coalition air power and with
Jordanian and Turkish missile defense on their side of the
border.
Step up politically in Syria. Recognize that ISIS will
never be defeated until the civil war ends. Only when there is
a genuine cease-fire can the Sunni Arabs turn their attention
on ISIS. Move to marginalize Russia in Syria and then encourage
a face-saving exit.
In Iraq, ISIS with the exception of some Kurdish land that
it surrounded, controls largely Sunni land. Obviously, to re-
take and hold this territory will require a significant Sunni
force commitment. Currently, Prime Minister Abadi has not been
successful in creating political unity, particularly with the
Sunnis. Dispatch retired Ambassador Crocker, America's
preeminent Middle East diplomat, to Baghdad as the President of
the United States' personal envoy to move the government of
Iraq toward political unification.
While I believe we should not overreact and certainly not
all get overly defensive, I will leave those comments for my
statement--my written testimony provided for the record and
discuss it in Q&A.
In conclusion, ISIS is fundamentally evil, brutal,
barbaric, killing every day, systematically enslaving and
raping women, destroying many of the monuments to civilization.
It is indisputable that ISIS is succeeding in executing a
global strategy from their caliphate in the Islamic State.
As much--as part of that strategy, they are planning to
kill Americans, they have repeatedly said so and they have
proven they do what they say.
Having the best security defensive system in America is not
sufficient. We must have as good an offense to stop and defeat
ISIS. We do not, we are not even close. I can say with
certainty that the current U.S.-driven coalition strategy with
its modest improvements will fail. I believe the Congress
should provide the President a bipartisan sense of the Congress
that we are failing to protect the American people and that
much more must be done with urgency and resolve to defeat ISIS.
The Congress should also pass the AUMF.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Keane follows:]
Prepared Statement of General John M. Keane, USA (Ret)
November 18, 2015
Chairman McCaul, Chairman Royce, Ranking Members Thompson and
Engel, distinguished Members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today. Am honored to be here with such a distinguished
panel. Please refer to the map provided by the Institute for the Study
of War (ISW) which I will reference in my remarks.
ISIS is part of the multi-generational struggle against radical
Islam which will likely dominate the first half of the 21st Century
similar to the fight against communism, which dominated the second half
of the 20th Century. Fourteen years after 9/11 the United States has no
comprehensive strategy or a global alliance to defeat radical Islam.
ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization in modern history.
It is driven by a religious-based ideology with significant
geopolitical objectives to establish an extensive caliphate that
touches the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe, by dominating all
Muslim lands and an apocalyptic event in Europe that carves out an ISIS
enclave.
ISIS has 3 major thrusts:
The first is to defend Syria and Iraq. While ISIS has lost some
territory, it views operations in Syria and Iraq as largely successful,
because it still controls large swaths of territory, is recruiting at
the same rate, maintaining tactical and operational initiative, and is
able to logistically sustain its forces.
The second thrust is to use its headquarters in Syria to expand in
the ``near abroad'' (on your map see areas with black crosses) by
establishing affiliate organizations (wilayats), which is a formal
relationship in 9 countries and regions: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, North Caucasus, and Algeria.
ISIS provides guidance and resources to these affiliates. The
affiliates are attempting to control a swath of territory inside these
countries and regions while undermining the local government. As we
know, Wilayat Sinai is suspected of downing a Russian aircraft.
The third major thrust is to influence the ``far abroad,'' (on your
map see areas in yellow) which are Muslim lands and countries that are
supporting the coalition against ISIS (United States, Europe, and
Australia) by inspiring and motivating radicals, by averaging thousands
of social media posts per day, and by returning fighters from Syria who
are trained and motivated to attack their own citizens at home.
Obviously the recent attacks in France and Lebanon are examples. ISIS
attempts to divide and polarize these societies by weakening the
people's resolve to support their government's efforts against ISIS and
to fragment and polarize the non-Muslim and Muslim populations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What ISIS has accomplished in the last few weeks is unprecedented.
While conducting a conventional war in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has staged
terrorist attacks on a global scale against the people from the
countries who are fighting ISIS. The result is almost 900 casualties in
12 days, both killed and wounded, who are Russian, Lebanese, and mostly
French in Paris. Can you imagine the impact if the Nazis were
conducting terrorist activities in major American cities while the
United States was fighting the Nazis in Europe ?
what we can do about isis
Clearly ISIS is not contained and is far from defeated. The United
States and our allied partners need to wake up. ISIS is at war with us
and civilization, but America is not truly at war with ISIS--not the
President, nor the Congress and certainly not the American people.
Throw out the policy of ``strategic patience'' which is an excuse for a
lack of an aggressive, coherent strategy. Recognize that dragging out
the war provides ISIS with a degree of invincibility, a sense of
destiny, shrouded in the aura of success. The security of the American
people at home is directly related to ISIS's success and their ability
to motivate and inspire their followers to kill fellow Americans.
1. Step up U.S. military activities in Iraq and Syria
Once and for all send the required advisors, trainers, air
controllers that are truly needed to dramatically increase IA,
Sunni tribal force and Kurdish Peshmerga combat effectiveness.
The output should be at least 3 times greater.
Recognize the criticality of Sunni opposition forces to
depose ISIS who is largely occupying Sunni lands. Also be
realistic about the Kurds who are proven fighters but are
interested only in their territory and not reclaiming lost
Sunni territory.
Mission SOF not just to target leaders or conduct hostage
rescue but to conduct large-scale in/out raids to target ISIS
critical nodes and functions.
Dramatically increase UAVs, mine clearance vehicles, and
Apache helicopters.
Troops required is a minimum of 10K.
Identify combat brigades for potential deployment but held
in reserve and only committed if all else fails.
Unleash a devastating air campaign without the imposed
restrictions of the last 15 months which has been
disproportionate to all previous air campaigns in the extreme
concern for civilian casualties. The result: Multiple general
officer layers clearing fires, targets lost, enemy taking
advantage of the rules of engagement (ROE).
Establish Safe Zones in NW Syria along the Turkish border
and in SW Syria along the Jordanian border for refugees.
Protect on the ground with an international force. Protect from
the air using coalition air power and with Jordanian and
Turkish missile defense on their side of the border.
2. Step up Politically
SYRIA
Recognize that ISIS will never be defeated till the Syrian
civil war ends.
The objective is not simply a cease-fire but elimination of
Assad and the Alawite regime. United States should not give in
to Russian/Iranian demands to keep an Alawite regime. Move to a
transition regime representing major power players and then a
general election.
Only when there is a genuine cease-fire can the Sunni Arabs
turn their attention on ISIS.
Move to marginalize Russia in Syria and then encourage a
face savings exit.
IRAQ
ISIS with the exception of some Kurdish land that it
surrendered, controls largely Sunni land. Obviously to retake
and hold this territory will require a significant Sunni force
commitment.
Currently PM Abadi has not been successful in creating
political unity in Iraq among Sunni, Kurds, and Shia.
Moving PM Abadi toward political unity is key to the
survival of Iraq and the defeat of ISIS. The status quo is not
working.
Dispatch retired Ambassador Crocker, America's preeminent ME
diplomat to Baghdad as the POTUS' personal envoy to move the
GOI toward political unification.
3. Don't over-react or get defensive
ISIS is seeking fragmentation and polarization of European
Muslim and non-Muslim communities. They want a crackdown and
further isolation of Muslim communities to move Europe toward
their idea of an ``apocalyptic war'' resulting in expansion of
their caliphate to a Muslim enclave in Europe. These drums are
already beating in European countries as resentment grows to
the Muslim migration and the huge refugee challenges.
Reactionary, revisionist voices are getting louder and gaining
influence.
Now is not the time to commit U.S. combat brigades to Iraq
or Syria. But if necessary, at some future date, it should be a
part of a regional Arab and NATO coalition.
We need to avoid over-policing at home or curtailing
American liberties. We need good counter intelligence from
Government agencies, police departments, and a sense of public
awareness about security.
As to taking in Middle East refugees the Congress should ask
the administration to prepare a Refugee Crisis Plan for
Congressional approval by their oversight committees. As you
know the Congress and the Executive branch set the ceiling for
refugees, currently at 70K in 2015, with 69K already in the
United States, with a White House request for an additional 10K
Middle East refugees. While we stand up for America's values
and what makes the United States a great Nation, the Congress
should be reasonably convinced that the American people are
protected by the Refugee Crisis Plan.
In conclusion, ISIS is fundamentally evil; brutal, barbaric killing
every day while systematically enslaving and raping women. It is
indisputable that ISIS is succeeding in executing a global strategy
from their caliphate in the Islamic State. As part of that strategy,
they are planning to kill Americans. They have repeatedly said so and
they have proven, they do what they say. Having the best security
defensive system in America is not sufficient, we must have as good an
offense to stop and defeat ISIS. We do not. We are not even close. I
can say with certainty that the current U.S.-driven coalition strategy
with its modest improvements will fail. I believe the Congress should
provide the President a bipartisan ``sense of the Congress'', that we
are failing to protect the American people, and that much more must be
done with urgency and resolve to defeat ISIS. The Congress should also
pass the AUMF or the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, General. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Olsen.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW G. OLSEN, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY, IRONNET CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Olsen. Thank you Chairman McCaul and Chairman Royce,
Ranking Member Thompson, Ranking Member Engel, Members of these
two key committees, I appreciate the opportunity to be here
this morning with my distinguished panelists General Keane and
Peter Bergen to discuss the threats we face from terrorism and
the steps we need to take to confront those threats.
Of course, we meet this morning only a few days after the
horrific attacks in Paris that took the lives of 129 people and
shocked the city of Paris and the rest of the world. So today,
our discussion of terrorism must begin, as you did Mr.
Chairman, with our expression of condolences for the victims
and our declaration of solidarity with the people of France.
The attacks in Paris serve both as a sobering reminder of
the severity of the threats we face from terrorist groups of
global reach and as a call for action in the on-going struggle
against terrorism and violent extremism.
Indeed, the attacks last Friday give this hearing added
urgency as you convene to examine the threat to the United
States and the steps we need to take to counter terrorist
groups both here at home and abroad. So I will focus my very
brief remarks on the terrorist landscape today, beginning with
the Paris attacks.
As that investigation continues to unfold, it now appears
clear the attacks were a deliberate and planned effort
conducted by the terrorist group that calls itself the Islamic
State, or ISIS. ISIS has publicly claimed responsibility for
these attacks, and the suspect coordinator of these attacks
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is reportedly a member of ISIS.
The Paris attacks reflect an alarming trend. Over the past
year, we have seen ISIS increase the complexity, the severity
and the pace of its external attacks. The Paris attacks were
not simply inspired by ISIS, but rather, they appear to have
been ISIS planned and directed. They were conducted as part of
a coordinated effort to maximize casualties by striking some of
the most vulnerable targets in the West--nightclubs, cafes,
sporting arenas.
The Paris attacks also demonstrate ISIS's expanding reach
beyond its safe haven in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, we have seen
ISIS-inspired or direct attacks in Libya, Tunisia, recently in
Beirut and apparently with the downing of the Russian airliner
in the Sinai. So far this year, there have been 41 ISIS or
ISIS-inspired attacks against Western targets. That is already
more than double the number of such attacks last year according
to reports. As the CIA director warned this week, ISIS likely
has other planned attacks.
The number of European and Westerners who have gone to
Syria to fight in this conflict is helping to drive this trend.
Estimates vary, but the reports suggest that the number of
foreign fighters exceed 30,000, and this includes as many as
4,000 or more Europeans, including many French, British, and
German nationals, and the number of Americans who have traveled
to Syria or tried to now exceeds 250.
Also disturbingly, ISIS has developed an unprecedented
ability to communicate with its followers world-wide. The group
attracts recruits through a sophisticated media propaganda
effort, the group uses multiple websites, Twitter feeds,
YouTube channels, on-line chatrooms, and it uses these
platforms to radicalize and mobilize potential operatives in
the United States and elsewhere. In short, ISIS's proven
intentions and its increasing capability, as the Paris attacks
reflect so starkly, warrant ranking the group as our most
urgent terrorist threat.
At the same time, I have to say that al-Qaeda and its
affiliates continue to pose a significant threat to the United
States and our interests around the world. Indeed, al-Qaeda is
vying with ISIS to be the leader of a global jihadist movement.
There is no doubt that U.S. counterterrorism pressure has led
to the steady elimination of the group's senior leaders and
limited the group's ability to operate, train, and recruit
operatives, but at the same time, the core leadership of al-
Qaeda continues to wield substantial influence over affiliated
and allied groups such as the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula.
On three occasions over the past several years, AQAP sought
to bring down an airliner bound for the United States, and
there is reason to believe it still harbors this intent and
substantial capability to carry out such a plot. Looking closer
to home, here in United States, there has been an uptick over
the past year in the number of moderate to small-scale plots.
Lone actors, insular groups often self-directed or inspired
by groups like ISIS pose the most serious threat to carry out
attacks here, and home-grown violent extremists will likely
continue gravitating towards simpler plots that do not require
advanced skills, outside training, or communication with
others.
Highlighting this challenge, the FBI director said earlier
this year that the FBI has home-grown violent extremist cases
in every State, totaling more than 900, and most of these cases
reportedly are connected to ISIS.
Finally, three broad trends that I want to identify make it
much more difficult for our counterterrorism professionals to
prevent attacks here in the United States.
First, it is increasingly difficult for the intelligence
community to collect specific intelligence on terrorist
intentions and the status of developing plots. The illegal
disclosure of our intelligence collection methods and
techniques give terrorists a road map on how to evade our
intelligence, and they are taking advantage of this.
Second, there has been a proliferation of rapidly-evolving
plots that emerge simply from an individual being urged to take
action and then quickly moving to attack. ISIS has adopted this
approach and the compressed time frame for these plots to
develop limits the opportunity for our intelligence and law
enforcement professionals to disrupt attacks.
Then, third, the instability--looking more broadly--the
instability and unrest in large parts of the Middle East and
North Africa have led to a lack of security border patrol and
effective governance. In the last few years, 4 states, Iraq,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen, have effectively collapsed.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the rise of ISIS and the
overall threat landscape present enormous challenges to our
counterterrorism law enforcement and military professionals and
to policymakers across the Government. Our strategy to defeat
ISIS and other terrorist groups must use all the tools of
American power. It must include military action where necessary
to eliminate leaders, deny these groups territory, remove
eminent threats to our citizens.
The strategy must seek to broaden and strengthen the
international coalition and includes our European allies and
partners in the region who are on the front lines of this
fight. We must redouble our efforts to collect intelligence
necessary to obtain advance warning of developing plots, and to
ensure that our law enforcement officers have the tools to
disrupt these plots. The strategy must counter the underlying
message and ideology of ISIS.
The enduring lesson of 9/11 is that American leadership is
indispensable to this fight.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew G. Olsen
November 18, 2015
Thank you Chairman McCaul, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Thompson,
Ranking Member Engel, and Members of these two key committees. I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committees to discuss
the threat we face from terrorism and the steps we must take to
confront these threats.
We meet this morning only a few days after the horrific terrorist
attacks in Paris that took the lives of 129 people and shocked the city
of Paris and the world. Today, our discussion of terrorism must begin
with our expression of condolences for the victims and a declaration of
solidarity with the French people.
The attacks in Paris serve both as a sobering reminder of the
severity of the threats we face from terrorist groups of global reach
and as a call for action in the on-going struggle against terrorism and
violent extremism. Indeed, the attacks last Friday give this hearing
added urgency, as you convene to examine the threat to the United
States and the steps we should take to counter terrorist groups both at
home and abroad.
I will focus my brief remarks on the terrorist landscape today.
Beginning with the Paris attacks, as the investigation continues to
unfold, it now appears clear that these attacks were a deliberate,
planned effort conducted by the terrorist group that calls itself the
Islamic State, also known as ISIS. ISIS has publicly claimed
responsibility for these attacks. And the suspected coordinator of
these attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who police in Paris may have
targeted in a raid last night, is reportedly a member of ISIS.
The Paris attacks reflect an alarming trend. Over the past year, we
have seen ISIS increase the complexity, severity, and pace of its
external attacks. The Paris attacks were not simply inspired by ISIS,
but rather it appears they were ISIS-planned and directed. And they
were conducted as part of a coordinated effort to maximize casualties
by striking some of the most vulnerable targets in the West:
Nightclubs, cafes, and sporting arenas.
The Paris attacks also demonstrate ISIS's expanding reach beyond
its safe haven in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, we have seen ISIS-inspired or
directed attacks in Libya and Tunisia, recently in Beirut, and
apparently with the downing of the Russian airliner in the Sinai
Peninsula. And so far this year, there have 41 ISIS or ISIS-inspired
attacks against Western targets, already more than double the number of
such attacks last year, according to reports. As the CIA director
warned this week, ISIS likely has other attacks planned.
The number of Europeans and other Westerners who have gone to Syria
to fight in this conflict is helping to drive this trend. Estimates
vary, but reports suggest that the number of foreign fighters exceeds
30,000 and this includes as many as 4,000 or more Europeans, including
many French, British, and German nationals. The number of Americans who
have travelled to Syria, or have tried to, exceeds 250.
ISIS also has developed an unprecedented ability to communicate
with its followers world-wide. The group attracts recruits through a
sophisticated media and propaganda effort. ISIS has multiple websites,
active Twitter feeds, YouTube channels, and on-line chat rooms, and it
uses these platforms to radicalize and mobilize potential operatives in
the United States and elsewhere.
In short, ISIS's proven intentions and increasing capability, as
the Paris attacks reflect so starkly, warrant ranking the group as our
most urgent terrorist threat.
At the same time, al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to pose a
significant threat to the United States and our interests around the
world. Indeed, al-Qaeda is vying with ISIS to be the ideological leader
of the global jihadist movement.
There is no doubt that U.S. counterterrorism pressure has led to
the steady elimination of the group's senior leaders and limited the
group's ability to operate, train, and recruit operatives. At the same
time, the core leadership of al-Qaeda continues to wield substantial
influence over affiliated and allied groups, such as Yemen-based al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. On three occasions over the past
several years, AQAP has sought to bring down an airliner bound for the
United States. And there is reason to believe it still harbors this
intent and substantial capability to carry out such a plot.
Here in the United States, there has been an uptick over the past
year in the number of moderate- to small-scale plots. Lone actors or
insular groups--often self-directed or inspired by overseas groups,
like ISIS--pose the most serious threat to carry out attacks here. And
home-grown violent extremists will likely continue gravitating to
simpler plots that do not require advanced skills, outside training, or
communication with others. The on-line environment serves a critical
role in radicalizing and mobilizing home-grown extremists towards
violence.
Highlighting the challenge this presents, the FBI director said
earlier this year that the FBI has home-grown violent extremist cases
in every State, totaling about 900. Most of these cases reportedly are
connected to ISIS.
Finally, three broad trends make it much more difficult for our
counterterrorism professionals to prevent terrorist attacks here.
First, it is increasingly difficult for the intelligence community to
collect specific intelligence on terrorist intentions and the status of
developing plots. The illegal disclosure of our intelligence collection
methods and techniques gave terrorists a roadmap on how to evade our
surveillance.
Second, there has been a proliferation of rapidly-evolving plots
that emerge simply from an individual being urged to take action, and
then quickly moving to attack. ISIS has adopted this approach, using
social media and encrypted means of communicating to inspire others to
carry out attacks. The compressed time frame for these plots to develop
limits the opportunity for our intelligence and law enforcement
professionals to disrupt potential attacks.
Third, instability and unrest in large parts of the Middle East and
North Africa have led to a lack of security, border control, and
effective governance. In the last few years, 4 states--Iraq, Syria,
Libya, and Yemen--have effectively collapsed. ISIS and other terrorist
groups exploit these conditions to expand their reach and establish
safe havens. Dozens of jihadist groups in as many as 18 countries have
now pledged allegiance or support to ISIS.
In conclusion, the rise of ISIS and the overall threat landscape
present enormous challenges to our counterterrorism, law enforcement,
and military professionals, and to policy makers across our Government.
Our strategy to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups must use all
the tools of American power. It must include military action where
necessary to eliminate leaders, deny these groups territory, and to
remove imminent threats to our citizens. The strategy must seek to
broaden and strengthen the international coalition that includes our
European allies and partners in the region, who often are on the front
lines of this fight.
We must also redouble our efforts to collect the intelligence
necessary to obtain advance warning of developing plots and to ensure
that our law enforcement officers have the tools to disrupt these
plots. This strategy must counter the underlying message and ideology
of ISIS. And the enduring lesson we have learned since 9/11 is that
American leadership is indispensible to this fight.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
Chair now recognizes Mr. Bergen for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PETER BERGEN, VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND FELLOWS PROGRAMS, NEW AMERICA
Mr. Bergen. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Chairman Royce,
Ranking Member Thompson and Ranking Member Engel, and also all
the distinguished Members here today and also it is a great
honor to be here with General Keane and Director Olsen.
I work at a foundation called New America. This week we
released a report of 474 named individuals, Western foreign
fighters, from reliable press accounts and also from court
records. In order to bring some light to the question who
exactly is--who are these Western recruits signing up for ISIS
and we found the following interesting findings.
For a start, the demographic profile of the militants drawn
to the Syrian war is very different from previous jihads. Most
notably, 1 in 7 of the militants is female. We just found out
last night that one of the people that was killed in the raid
on Saint-Denis in Paris was a female who blew herself up.
They are also very young; the average age is 24. For the
females it is even younger, it is 21. They are very active on-
line, unsurprising given their age. In United States we found
that 9 out of 10 were active on-line, by which I mean not just
sending e-mails but posting regularly on jihadi websites active
on social media.
Many have familial ties to jihadism. We found one-third of
the Western fighters have a family member in some way involved
in the jihad. We--this is in Paris--we found two brothers who
were involved in the plot; one of whom is still being sought by
police. We have seen people getting married in Syria.
Part of the attraction for people going to Syria is that
they in their own minds may find a perfect marriage partner.
ISIS presents itself as creating the perfect society and you
can come and marry the man or woman of your dreams.
The American profile of these militants is very similar to
the Western foreign fighter, in general. They are young, 1 in 6
are women, their average age is 25.
A lot of these Western foreign fighters are dying in Syria.
Syria is obviously a very dangerous conflict. Half the males in
our data set are dead; 6 percent of the females, even though
they are not fighting on the front lines. The war is very
dangerous.
The threat to the United States from returning foreign
fighters is low. We have only seen so far one returnee who was
plotting some kind of act of violence in the United States. The
threat really in the United States is much more from people
inspired by ISIS and we have seen in Texas and other cases
where there were serious plots.
Of course, the threat to the United States comes as the
Ranking Member indicated from countries with a Visa Waiver
Program. Making sure that that program works as successfully as
possible, of course, is vital.
The threat from returning fighters to Europe is much
greater than it is in the United States. In fact, Paris speaks
for itself. Few of the Western fighters who have traveled to
Syria and Iraq are in government custody. One one-sixth of--in
our data set are in government custody.
The most popular route to Syria is through Turkey. We
have--in the cases of militants, very few militants are going
by any other route other than Turkey. We could find only one
case of a fighter went via Lebanon.
The majority are joining ISIS. Director Olsen mentioned al-
Qaeda, the Nusra front. We found only one-tenth of the foreign
fighters are joining Nusra and only 6 percent are joining other
jihadi groups.
So in the brief time I have left, what can be done? I
think, you know, reading this--the House report from 2015 which
is obviously very thorough, I think the key recommendation is
the fact that we simply don't know who these foreign fighters
are. Creating a global database of exactly who the foreign
fighters are is absolutely key. If we don't know who they are,
how can we prevent them coming into this country or anywhere
else?
Interpol has a list of about 4,500 fighters, as Director
Olsen pointed out, but 30,000 foreign fighters so we only know
very small percentage of the people who have gone.
We should also enlist defectors to tell the real story
about ISIS. There is nothing more effective than a former
member of ISIS explaining that ISIS is not creating utopia here
in Earth but instead hell on Earth. Amplify voices such as the
Syrian opposition group, Raqqah is Being Silently Slaughtered
which is by far the most effective of the opposition groups in
terms of the information coming out of Raqqah.
Support the works of clerics such as Imam Mohamed Magid of
Northern Virginia, who has personally dissuaded at least 5
American citizens not to go to join ISIS. Nothing is more
credible than a serious cleric explaining that ISIS is not an
Islamic group.
Keep up pressure on social media companies such as Twitter
and ISIS to bring down material which is, after all, against
their own terms of use. Earlier this year, Twitter quietly took
down 2,000 accounts used by ISIS supporters, and we should
continue to make sure these social media companies keep doing
that.
As General Keane indicated, you know, ISIS's main selling
point is this victorious, and so if we can damage that claim
significantly, and he has outlined a number of ideas about how
to do that, the caliphate shrinks as a physical entity, it will
also shrink as an entity that is appealing to people around the
Muslim world.
By the way, just one quick other thought. The Turks have
actually done quite a good job on foreign fighters. Having been
very lackadaisical initially, if you look at ISIS's own
propaganda and since early 2015, the Turks are saying do not--
be aware that Turkish intelligence agents are not your friends
and don't go across the border as you used to in the past. This
is a whole new ballgame.
So we are basically--encourage the Turks to continue doing
the work that they are doing, help them with, you know, their
border patrol people need more assets, I think that is the most
important thing that can be done in terms of the Western
foreign fighter flow to ISIS.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Bergen
November 18, 2015
This testimony is divided into six sections:
the first, who the Westerners being recruited by ISIS are;
the second, how they are being recruited;
the third, the threat to the United States by ISIS's
American recruits;
the fourth, the threat to the United States by ISIS's non-
American recruits;
the fifth, how ISIS is expanding it reach;
the sixth, how to defeat ISIS: 12 action items.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thanks to Courtney Schuster and David Sterman of New America
for their help in preparing this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday November 13, France had its 9/11. At least 129 people
were killed at multiple locations in Paris, including a concert hall, a
soccer stadium and a popular restaurant, the kinds of venues that
ordinary Parisians flock to on a Friday night. At, or near, these
venues the attackers deployed a mix of terrorist tactics, including
suicide attackers, an assault using more than one gunman willing to
fight to the death, hostage-taking, and bombings.
In the years after 9/11, we have seen various forms of this
terrible news story play out: The multiple bombs on trains in Madrid
that killed 191 in 2004, the 4 suicide bombings in London that killed
52 commuters in 2005, and the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, by 10
gunmen who killed 166. The attackers in Paris seemed to have learned
lessons from all these attacks. (By the way, this is also the case of
U.S. school shootings in which the perpetrators study the tactics of
those who have gone before them.)
French President Francois Hollande blames ISIS, for the attack, and
the terror group has claimed responsibility. According to French
prosecutors, one of the attackers who has been identified is a French
national known to police, and a Syrian passport was found on one of the
bodies of the other attackers. CNN reports that this militant was
posing as a Syrian refugee. It is still early in the investigation, but
already the Washington Post and New York Times report that French
nationals who have been identified as among the perpetrators of the
Paris attacks had traveled to Syria, while Reuters reports that the
leader of the attacks is a Belgian citizen who also spent time in
Syria.
Until now, French citizen Mehdi Nemmouche was the only case of a
Western fighter in Syria accused of returning to conduct a deadly
terror attack--the May 24, 2014, shooting at the Jewish Museum in
Brussels, Belgium, that left 4 people dead. Nemmouche had served time
in a French prison, and he had an assault rifle when he was arrested in
France. A French journalist held by ISIS reportedly has identified
Nemmouche as one of the group's alleged torturers. Nemmouche has been
extradited to Belgium, where he awaits trial.
Returning militants from Syria are a worrying potential source of
terror attacks. And two major factors place Europe at far greater risk
of ``returnee'' violence from veterans of the Syrian conflict than is
the case in the United States: The much larger number of European
militants who have gone to fight in Syria and the existence of more
developed jihadist networks in Europe.
France has supplied more fighters to the Syrian conflict than any
other Western country. In September, Prime Minister Manuel Valls told
Parliament that 1,800 French citizens have been involved in jihadist
networks world-wide--almost all of whom were drawn to the Syrian war.
Nine months earlier, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve estimated that
185 militants had returned to France from Syria. Of those who had
returned, he said 82 were in jail and 36 were under other forms of
judicial control.
German security services report that 720 Germans have left for
Syria, and they estimate that 100 have been killed there, while another
180 have returned to Germany. Last year, the Belgian Foreign Ministry
released figures that up to 350 Belgians had left to fight in Syria.
More than 700 British citizens have left for Syria, with about half
estimated to have returned to the United Kingdom, according to British
officials. In January, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop placed
the number of Australians fighting abroad at 180, with 20 having died
in Syria.
1. So who exactly are the estimated 4,500 Westerners who have been
drawn to join ISIS and other militant groups in Syria? To provide some
answers to that question, New America collected information about 466
individuals from 25 Western countries who have been reported by
credible news sources as having left their home countries to join ISIS
or other Sunni jihadist groups in Syria or Iraq. The Western fighters
drawn to Syria and Iraq represent a new demographic profile, quite
different than that of other Western militants who fought in
Afghanistan in the 1980s or Bosnia in the 1990s.
First, women are represented in unprecedented numbers. One in 7 of
the militants in New America's data set are women. Women were rarely,
if at all, represented in previous jihadist conflicts. While Western
women are not going to fight in the war in Syria, they are playing
supporting roles, often marrying front-line fighters and sometimes
working as a kind of police officer enforcing ISIS's draconian laws.
They are women like Sally Jones, 44, from the United Kingdom, who took
her 10-year-old son to Syria in 2013, and Emilie Konig, 31, one of the
first women to leave for Syria, who left France and her 2 children
behind in 2012 to join her husband there. The U.S. State Department
says both women have encouraged terrorist attacks in their native
countries, and it officially designated both of them terrorists in
September.
Second, the recruits are young. The average age of Western
volunteers drawn to the Syrian jihad is 24. For female recruits, the
average age is 21. Almost a fifth are teenagers, more than a third of
whom are female. New America has documented an astonishing 80 cases of
Western teenagers who have traveled to the war in Syria. More than a
third of these teenagers are girls. Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of
Germany's domestic security agency, said, for instance, in March that 9
female German teens had left for Syria. That same month, ISIS released
a video of a French boy shooting a Palestinian hostage in the forehead.
Third, many have familial ties to jihadism. More than a quarter of
Western fighters have a familial connection to jihad, whether through
relatives who are also fighting in Syria and Iraq, through marriage or
through some link to other jihads or terrorist attacks. For instance
the father of British ISIS recruit Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary is Adel Abdel
Bary, who was convicted in New York for his role in the 1998 U.S.
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Of those with a familial link,
one-third are through marriage, many of them marriages between female
recruits and male fighters conducted after they arrive in Syria. Three-
fifths of Western fighters with familial ties to jihad have a relative
who has also left for Syria. For example, the Deghayes family in the
United Kingdom had 3 sons, ages 16 to 20, fighting in Syria together.
Fourth, the Americans drawn to the Syrian jihad--250 who have tried
or have succeeded in getting to Syria--share the same profile as the
Western fighters overall: Women are well-represented, and the
volunteers are young, and many have family ties to jihad. One in 6 of
the Americans drawn to the Syrian conflict are women. The average age
of the American militants is 25, with a fifth still in their teens.
Almost a fifth of the American militants have a familial connection to
jihad. The American recruits are, perhaps unsurprisingly, particularly
active on-line: Around 9 out of 10 American militants are active in on-
line jihadist circles.
Fifth, for Western militants, the wars engulfing Syria and Iraq
have often proved deadly. Almost half of the male fighters and 6% of
the female recruits have been killed in Syria or Iraq.
Sixth, few of the Western fighters who have traveled to Syria and
Iraq are in government custody. Only one-fifth of Western fighters in
New America's data set are in custody, and more than two-fifths of
individuals are still at large. (As indicated above, around half the
Western militants were killed in the conflicts in Syria or Iraq.)
Seventh, the most popular route to Syria is through Turkey. Almost
half of the Western foreign fighters made their way to Syria or Iraq
via Turkey. Only one of the militants is documented as attempting to
use an alternative route via Lebanon. For the rest of the Western
militants, it's not clear from the public record how they arrived in
Syria.
Eighth, where an affiliation can be determined, the majority of the
Western fighters have joined ISIS: Three-fifths have joined ISIS, while
only a tenth have joined al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, known as al-
Nusra Front, and one-seventh have joined other smaller militant groups.
2. How these Westerners are recruited: Propaganda and motivations.
Who is inspiring these militants to give up their often-comfortable
lives in the West for the rigors of the war zone in Syria? Based on
court records and press reports, New America has identified several
Western militants acting as on-line recruiters. Among them are a number
of Americans. For instance, Abdi Nur, a 20-year-old from Minnesota,
allegedly took on the role of on-line recruiter after leaving for Syria
in the summer of 2014. A complaint filed in November that charged 6
Minnesota men with trying to go to join ISIS accuses Nur of acting as
an on-line recruiter and providing encouragement and advice to the men
via Kik and other social media platforms from Syria. Another is Hoda
Muthana, a 20-year-old American woman from Alabama, was identified by
BuzzFeed as the individual behind the Twitter account Umm Jihad, which
encouraged militants to leave for Syria.
ISIS has disseminated 2 on-line guidebooks to encourage its Western
recruits. In 2015, ISIS published its how-to guides Hijrah and ``How to
Survive in the West.'' Hijrah provided potential fighters with detailed
packing lists--advice on how to get to Turkey and dupe customs
officials into issuing visas for the country; Twitter accounts of
fighters living in Syria who can facilitate their travel; and even
suggestions for recruits to assess their personality strengths and
weaknesses before leaving home to prepare themselves better for jihad.
``How to Survive in the West'' is a guide on how to ``be a secret
agent'' in a Western country, giving readers tips on the making of
Molotov cocktails, bombs and cell phone detonators; hiding weapons in
secret compartments of vehicles, in the same fashion as gangs; and how
to identify and evade police surveillance, even suggesting that readers
watch the Jason Bourne film series for tips on employing evasion
tactics.
What motivates many of these Western fighters to travel to a
dangerous war zone with which most have no prior connection? A review
of both ISIS propaganda and reporting on the individual cases in New
America's data set suggests the answer is a mishmash of motivations
that ISIS has picked up on as part of its recruiting strategy,
including opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, religious
invocations of the spiritual benefit of participating in jihad, the
belief that religious duty requires living under ISIS's so-called
caliphate, anger and alienation from Western society, and for some the
``cool'' factor of participating in a war.
Here are the rationales for joining ISIS that are provided by a
couple of ISIS's alleged American recruits: Abdi Nur, the 20-year-old
Minnesotan, tweeted: ``Jihad Is The Greatest Honor For Man So Come On
And Join Dawla Ya Iqwa (you brothers of the Islamic State]).'' Nur
later explained to his sister: ``If I didn't care I wouldn't have left
but I want jannah (paradise) for all of us.'' Authorities say Chicago
teen Hamzah Khan left a letter for his parents before attempting to
travel to Syria in 2014, explaining that ``there is an obligation to
`migrate' to the `Islamic State.' '' He was charged with material
support of ISIS and has pleaded not guilty.
3. Threat to the United States by ISIS's American recruits. Four
years into the Syrian civil war, little evidence has emerged to support
the notion that returning fighters from Syria pose a great threat to
the United States. In the United States, there has only been one case
of a fighter returning from Syria and allegedly plotting an attack.
Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, 22, of Columbus, Ohio, left for Syria in
April 2014 and fought there before returning home around 2 months
later. The government alleges that a cleric in Syria told Mohamud that
he should return to the United States to conduct an act of terrorism
and that he discussed some kind of plan (with an informant) to kill
American soldiers at a military base in Texas. He has pleaded not
guilty to a charge of providing material support to a terrorist group.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in March, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said that about 40 individuals had
returned from Syria. ``We have since found they went for humanitarian
purposes or some other reason that don't relate to plotting,'' he said.
We identified 23 Americans who actually reached Syria, 46
individuals who attempted or plotted to travel to Syria but were
unsuccessful in doing so, and 14 who provided support to others
fighting or seeking to fight in Syria.
Instead of being a launch pad for attacks at home, Syria turned out
to be a graveyard for the few Americans who made it to the war zone. Of
the 23 individuals who reached Syria, 9 died there. For instance,
Floridian Moner Abu Salha died conducting a suicide bombing in northern
Syria last year, and Douglas McAuthur McCain was killed fighting for
ISIS. Nine of the Americans who reached Syria remain at large, while 5
American fighters who returned to the United States from Syria were
taken into custody.
Rather than being an easy target for ISIS recruits, the United
States benefits from a series of layered defenses that make returning
and plotting a sophisticated attack undetected quite difficult. It
takes more than a plane ticket for a returning fighter to conduct a
sophisticated attack: They also have to gather arms, conduct
surveillance, and carry out the attack undetected. This is difficult as
Muslim communities have often reported suspicious activity and law
enforcement has instituted an aggressive effort using informants and
other investigative tools to prevent such an occurrence. According to
New America's data, Muslim communities and family members have provided
tips in 28 percent of the 330 jihadist terrorism-related cases since 9/
11, and in about 8 percent of cases, other individuals have reported
suspicious activity. Almost half of the 330 individuals accused of
jihadist terrorism-related crimes since 9/11 have been monitored by an
informant.\2\ Even in the case of Moner Abu Salha, which is certainly
not a success story given his return undetected to the United States
after training with the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, when he started to
try to recruit Americans to go to Syria, a tip put him on the
government's radar.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Homegrown Extremism 2001-2015.'' New America. http://
securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/analysis.
\3\ Sterman, David. ``The Traveling Terrorism Fallacy.'' Weekly
Wonk. 9/4/2014. http://weeklywonk.newamerica.net/articles/traveling-
terrorism-fallacy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the threat posed by returning American fighters, it is
worth putting the current Syrian conflict into historical perspective.
The historical comparison most people are aware of is the Afghan war
against the Soviets and the ensuring civil war, which helped launch
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Though an important cautionary tale, much
has changed since then that makes it a weak comparison for how
``blowback'' from Syria might affect the United States.\4\ For example,
on 9/11, there were 16 people on the U.S. ``No-Fly'' list. Today, there
are more than 48,000 people. In 2001, there were 32 Joint Terrorism
Task Force ``fusion centers,'' where multiple law enforcement agencies
work together to chase down leads and build terrorism cases. Now there
are 104 centers.\5\ A decade ago, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, National Counterterrorism Center, Transportation Security
Administration, Northern Command, and Cyber Command didn't exist. In
2014, all of these new post-9/11 institutions make it much harder for
terrorists to operate in the United States. The U.S. intelligence
budget also grew dramatically after 9/11, with Congress giving the
Government substantial resources with which to improve its
counterterrorism capabilities. In 2013, the United States allocated $72
billion to intelligence collection and other covert activities.\6\
Before 9/11, the budget was around one-third of that figure: $26
billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The section below is drawn from Peter Bergen et al. ``2014
Jihadist Terrorism and Other Conventional Threats,'' Bipartisan Policy
Center, September 2014.
\5\ Federal Bureau of Investigation. ``Protecting America from
Terrorist Attack: Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces.'' Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Accessed August 5, 2013. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/
investigate/terrorism/terrorism_jttfs.
\6\ Intelligence Resource Program. ``Intelligence Budget Data.''
Federation of American Scientists. Accessed August 25, 2014. http://
fas.org/irp/budget/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps of most relevance to the issue of returning fighters is
that prior to 9/11, the U.S. law enforcement community demonstrated
little interest in investigating or prosecuting individuals who
traveled abroad to fight in an overseas jihad. Today, the U.S.
Government considers such persons to be a serious concern and tracks
their activities.
A post-9/11 American fighter flow to jihadist groups abroad that
sparked fears but turned out not to be a real threat to the United
States was al-Shabaab's recruitment of American fighters to wage war in
Somalia. According to a review by New America, no American fighter who
fought in the conflict in Somalia returned to plot an attack in the
United States. Instead, about one-third of the individuals known to
have traveled to fight in Somalia died there, either as suicide bombers
or on the battlefield, while others were taken into custody upon their
return.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bergen, Peter and David Sterman. ``ISIS Threat to U.S. Mostly
Hype.'' CNN. 9/5/2014. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/05/opinion/
bergen-sterman-isis-threat-hype/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are, however, worrisome cases of returning militants to the
United States since 9/11 that attempted serious attacks. The United
States' experience with Americans fighting or training in Afghanistan
and Pakistan provides an illustration of what a more serious returnee
threat might look like. Najibullah Zazi, Adis Medunjanin, and Zarein
Ahmedzay, who all grew up in New York City, traveled to Pakistan, where
they ended up receiving training from al-Qaeda, and were sent back to
the United States where they were part of a serious plot to bomb the
New York City subway in the fall of 2009. On May 1, 2010, Connecticut-
based Faisal Shahzad, who was trained in bomb-making techniques in
Pakistan by the Pakistani Taliban, left a car bomb undetected in New
York City's Times Square that failed to properly explode.
Acts of violence by Americans inspired by, but with no direct
connection to the terrorist groups in Syria, pose a more immediate
challenge than attacks by returning fighters from Syria. As FBI
Director James Comey noted in September 2014 while referring to the
December 2013 arrest of Terry Loewen, who was accused of plotting an
attack on Wichita Airport in Kansas after being radicalized on-line:
``We have made it so hard for people to get into this country, bad
guys, but they can enter as a photon and radicalize somebody in
Wichita, Kansas.'' At the time, Comey also noted that ISIS lacked the
capability for a sophisticated attack in the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kendall, Brent and Jay Solomon. ``FBI Cites Online Terror
Recruiting, Training, Damps Subway-Plot Claim.'' Wall Street Journal.
9/25/2014. http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-director-cites-online-
terror-recruiting-training-damps-subway-plot-claim-1411688762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2015, the United States saw its first actual attack
inspired by ISIS along the lines of similar ISIS-inspired attacks in
Ottawa, Copenhagen, and Paris. Two men were killed by police after
opening fire at a contest to draw cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in
Garland, Texas, organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative.
The event featured right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who had
been named on an al-Qaeda hit list. One of shooters, Elton Simpson, had
previously been convicted of making a false statement to the FBI
regarding plans to travel to Somalia. Before conducting the attack
Simpson tweeted his allegiance to ISIS.\9\ Simpson, a 30-year-old
resident of Phoenix, Arizona, who was born in Illinois and converted to
Islam during his youth, was joined in the attack by his roommate Nadir
Soofi, a 34-year-old who was born in Garland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ahmed, Saeed, Ed Lavendera, and Joe Sutton. ``Garland, Texas,
shooting suspect linked himself to ISIS in tweets'' CNN. 5/4/2015.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-
shooting/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shooting in Texas is not a lone case. While the United States
has seen only one possible case of a domestic attack plot by a returned
fighter from Syria, it has seen a number of alleged Syria-related plots
to conduct violence that were inspired by the propaganda put out by
ISIS. For instance, in March, the United States unsealed charges
against Hasan Edmonds, a 22-year-old member of the National Guard, and
his cousin Jonas Edmonds, alleging that Hasan Edmonds had sought to
travel to fight with ISIS and that they had plotted to have Jonas
Edmonds conduct an attack against a military facility. The plot was
monitored by an undercover officer.\10\ They have pleaded not guilty.
In April, the United States charged John T. Booker and Alexander Blair
with an alleged plot to bomb Fort Riley, in Kansas, in support of
ISIS.\11\ The two men were monitored by an informant. They have pleaded
not guilty. The same month, the United States charged two New York City
women, Noelle Velentzas and Asia Siddiqui, in relation to a domestic
attack plot in support of ISIS. The two women were monitored by an
undercover officer. According to the complaint, Siddiqui had regular
contact with members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. When FBI
agents arrested Velentzas and Siddiqui in Queens, they seized propane
tanks, soldering tools, a pressure cooker, fertilizer, and bomb-making
instructions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``US Army National Guard Soldier and his Cousin Arrested for
Conspiring to Support Terrorism (ISIL).'' Department of Justice. 3/26/
15. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-army-national-guard-soldier-and-
his-cousin-arrested-conspiring-support-terrorism-isil.
\11\ ``Second Topeka Man Charged in Connection with Car Bomb
Plot.'' U.S. Attorney's Office. 4/10/15. http://www.fbi.gov/kansascity/
press-releases/2015/second-topeka-man-charged-in-connection-with-car-
bomb-plot; Criminal Complaint, United States v. Blair, No. 15-mj-5040-
KGS (D. Kansas, Apr. 10, 2015).
\12\ ``Two Queens Residents Charged with Conspiracy to Use a Weapon
of Mass Destruction.'' U.S. Attorney's Office. 4/2/15. http://
www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/two-queens-residents-charged-
with-conspiracy-to-use-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction; Letter to Judge
Pohorelsky at 2, United States v. Velentzas, No. 1:15-mj-00303-VVP
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 1, 2015); Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest
Warrant at 3, United States v. Velentzas, No. 1:15-mj-00303-VVP
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Threats to the United States by non-American ISIS recruits. Many
fighters from countries other than the United States have traveled to
fight in Syria and could pose a potential threat to the United States.
So far we have not seen a case of a foreign fighter from another
country traveling to the United States to conduct an attack. However,
the large number of foreign fighters traveling to fight in Syria from
other countries magnifies the potential threat of an infiltration
attack, especially given the high numbers of foreign fighters from
countries that enjoy the Visa Waiver Program with the United States,
such as Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom.
Tracking the many foreign fighters from Western countries who have
gone to Syria and who have returned to the West poses a greater
challenge, given their larger numbers, than tracking the handful of
returning American fighters. With the large numbers of Europeans
traveling to fight in Syria, nations such as France and Germany are
reporting significant strain on their ability to monitor returnees
effectively. In December, Germany's federal prosecutor general, Harald
Range, said of the number of terrorism cases being prosecuted in his
country, ``We are at the limits of our capacity,'' adding that new
cases kept emerging. ``What worries me is the speed with which people
are radicalizing, or being radicalized. We are facing a phenomenon
which needs a broad strategy of prevention.''
Each French individual placed under surveillance requires 25 agents
to maintain round-the-clock monitoring, and the strain on resources
produced by ever-increasing numbers of militants who need to be
monitored was in part behind the failure to maintain surveillance of
the Kouachi brothers, who conducted the attack on the Charlie Hebdo
magazine in Paris earlier this year. It would take many thousands of
agents to monitor each of the more than a 1,000 Frenchmen reportedly
involved in the Syrian war, and France simply doesn't have that kind of
manpower. The fact that a French prosecutor says that one of the Paris
attackers on November 13 was a French national who was known to police
is an indicator of how difficult tracking all of these militants has
proven to be.
5. ISIS expands it reach. ISIS controls territory in Syria and Iraq
that by some estimates is the size of the United Kingdom, and it lords
over millions of people in both countries. The group has also secured
pledges of allegiance from 2 dozen militant organizations from around
the Muslim world, including in the Sinai and Egypt's neighbor Libya,
while around 10 other groups have declared some form of solidarity with
ISIS. The key to ISIS's success is not the group's military strength--
ISIS in Syria and Iraq may number only about 20,000 to 30,000
fighters--but the weaknesses of the regimes where the group is doing
well.
Think of the Sunni militant group ISIS as a pathogen that preys on
weak hosts in the Muslim world. In fact, there something of a law: The
weaker a Muslim state the stronger will be the presence of ISIS or
like-minded groups.
In 2014 ISIS seized huge swaths of Iraq, exploiting the fact that
the country had been in a civil war for more than a decade and the
Iraqi government had pursued a policy of excluding Sunnis from power.
ISIS is one of the most powerful players in Syria because the country
has been embroiled in a civil war since 2011 and the regime of Bashar
al-Assad has imposed a reign of terror on its Sunni population,
including the use of chemical weapons and wide-spread torture. For the
moment, ISIS and the countries allied against it, including the United
States, have come to something of a stalemate in Iraq and Syria.
ISIS also has a significant foothold in Libya because the country
is embroiled in a civil war, which was instigated by the U.S.-led
overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi 4 years ago. (This move
may turn out to be the most significant foreign policy blunder of the
Obama administration, as there was no serious American plan for what
would follow Gadhafi--the same negligence that had characterized George
W. Bush's overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.) ISIS is growing
in Egypt because a military dictator who seized power in a coup leads
the country, and he has brutally quashed all forms of dissent,
including criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood, which has many millions
of members in Egypt and had formed the previous government. It's
fertile soil for ISIS, which had done particularly well in the Sinai,
leading an insurgency there that has killed hundreds.
When ISIS first gained significant ground in Iraq and Syria in
2014, it focused almost entirely on its actions there and encouraged
its overseas followers to join the jihad. Writing in the third issue of
Dabiq, its English-language on-line magazine, an ISIS writer asserted,
``This life of jihad is not possible until you pack and move to the
Khilafah,'' meaning to leave your home and travel to ISIS's areas of
control in Iraq and Syria.
In the past weeks, ISIS has shifted its strategy, attacking on a
large scale outside of Iraq and Syria. The group claimed responsibility
for the downing of the Russian Metrojet carrying 224 passengers and
crew on October 31 in the Sinai in Egypt. Although the investigation of
the crash has not been completed, there is little reason to discount
this claim. On November 12 ISIS suicide bombers killed 43 in a Shia-
dominated area of Beirut, the worst bombing since the Lebanese civil
war ended in 1990. The very next day the team of ISIS militants
attacked at multiple locations in Paris.
At the same time, the U.S.-led coalition has scored two important
tactical victories against ISIS. The first is the reported
assassination of ``Jihadi John,'' the notorious British terrorist who
starred in many of ISIS's beheading videos. U.S. officials now say they
are ``reasonably certain'' that he was killed in a drone strike. An
investigation by the Washington Post found that he was Mohammed Emwazi,
Kuwait-born and London-raised. Jihadi John's death would mean justice
for the man who presided over ISIS's most notorious kidnappings and
murders, which included 4 Americans, 2 British citizens, and 2 Japanese
hostages. It would also show that more than a year after the murder of
American journalist James Foley----the first of Jihadi John's Western
victims to appear in an ISIS video--U.S. intelligence is finally
developing quite reliable intelligence inside Raqqa, ISIS's de facto
capital in Syria, where Jihadi John was targeted in the American drone
strike. However, there is no evidence suggesting that Jihadi John was
an important spiritual leader of the group, as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi is, nor is there any evidence that he played any kind of
important military role for ISIS. Therefore, while Jihadi John's death
would surely be a psychological victory in the war against ISIS, it is
nothing more than that.
The second tactical victory against ISIS will likely have far
greater significance: It is the seizure last week of the town of Sinjar
in Iraq by Kurdish forces. Sinjar sits along the road that connects
Raqqa with ISIS's de facto capital in Iraq, the city of Mosul. The
seizure of Sinjar will help put pressure on ISIS in both Mosul and
Raqqa, as ISIS forces in these cities can no longer easily reinforce
each other.
Neither of these tactical victories are, however, strategic
victories such as would be the capture of Raqqa or of Mosul or of the
other significant Iraqi city held by ISIS, Ramadi. President Obama told
ABC News last week that ISIS is ``contained'' and has not gained ground
in Iraq or Syria, and there has also been progress in stemming the flow
of foreign recruits trying to join the group. The President
acknowledged that the coalition hasn't been able to ``completely
decapitate'' ISIS's leadership.
Does this mean that the coalition against ISIS is locked in a
stalemate with the terrorist army, or has the momentum of the military
campaign started to shift against ISIS? In September, Gen. Martin
Dempsey, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that
the war against ISIS was ``tactically stalemated.'' Indeed, during this
past year ISIS has retreated from the town of Kobani on the Syrian-
Turkish border and it also lost the Iraqi city of Tikrit. Despite these
losses, ISIS during the same time period captured the city of Ramadi in
western Iraq as well as the town of Palmyra in Syria.
As the President noted, the stream of ``foreign fighters'' from
around the Muslim world, which has consistently replenished ISIS's
ranks, has been somewhat reduced. An estimated 30,000 foreign fighter
volunteers have joined ISIS, averaging about 1,000 a month. Turkey,
which had long been criticized by Western countries for allowing
foreign fighters to move through its territory on their way to Syria,
has started to clamp down on that traffic into Syria. Those efforts by
the Turks are paying off, according to ISIS itself. In early 2015, ISIS
posted advice in one of its English-language on-line publications to
would-be foreign fighters, saying, ``It is important to know that the
Turkish intelligence agencies are in no way friends of the Islamic
State [ISIS].'' Also, some 40 countries have also introduced new laws
to prevent the recruitment of fighters to ISIS or have launched
criminal investigations of militants who have joined the group. These
developments are surely having some effect on ISIS's ability to recruit
foreign fighters to its ranks.
Although it has not enjoyed any of the kind of success that ISIS
has, al-Qaeda is also benefiting from the crisis of governance that has
gripped much of the Middle East since the Arab Spring in 2011. The
civil war in Yemen precipitated by the Arab Spring has boosted al-Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula, which is expanding its operations in southern
Yemen. Al-Qaeda is also enjoying something of a comeback in the place
from which it launched the 9/11 strikes: Southern Afghanistan. Earlier
this month U.S. and Afghan forces in Kandahar province destroyed
``probably the largest'' al-Qaeda training camp discovered during the
14-year Afghan War, according to Gen. John Campbell, the U.S. commander
in Afghanistan.
6. How to Defeat ISIS: Twelve Action Items
1. Enlist defectors from ISIS to tell their stories publicly.
Nothing is more powerful than hearing from former members of
the group that ISIS is not creating an Islamist utopia in the
areas it controls, but a hell on earth. The flow of ``foreign
fighters'' to ISIS from around the Muslim world is estimated to
be about 1,000 a month. Reducing that flow is a key to reducing
ISIS manpower.
2. Amplify voices such as that of the ISIS opposition group Raqqa
is Being Slaughtered Silently, which routinely posts photos on-
line of bread lines in Raqqa, the de facto capital of ISIS in
northern Syria, and writes about electricity shortages in the
city. This will help to undercut ISIS propaganda that it is a
truly functioning state.
3. Amplify the work of former jihadists like the Canadian Mubin
Shaikh, who intervenes directly with young people on-line who
he sees are being recruited virtually by ISIS.
4. Support the work of clerics such as Imam Mohamed Magid of
Northern Virginia, who has personally convinced a number of
American Muslims seduced by ISIS that what the group is doing
is against Islam.
5. Keep up pressure on social media companies such as Twitter to
enforce their own Terms of Use to take down any ISIS material
that encourages violence. Earlier this year, Twitter quietly
took down 2,000 accounts used by ISIS supporters, but the group
continues to use Twitter and other social media platforms to
propagate its message.
6. Keep up the military campaign against ISIS. The less the ISIS
``caliphate'' exists as a physical entity, the less the group
can claim it is the ``Islamic State'' that it purports to be.
That should involve more U.S. Special Forces on the ground
embedded with Iraqi and other coalition forces and more U.S.
forward air controllers calling in close air support strikes
for those forces.
7. Applaud the work that the Turks have already done to tamp down
the foreign fighter flow through their country to ISIS in
neighboring Syria, and get them to do more.
8. Provide ``off ramps'' to young ISIS recruits with no history of
violence, so that instead of serving long prison terms for
attempting to join ISIS--as they presently do in the United
States--they would instead serve long periods of supervised
probation. This will help families that presently face a hard
choice: If they suspect a young family member is radicalizing
and they go to the FBI, that person can end up in prison for up
to 15 years on charges of attempting to support ISIS; but if
they don't go to the authorities and their child ends up
traveling to Syria, he or she may well end up being killed
there. Providing off-ramps would offer families a way out of
this almost impossible choice.
9. Educate Muslim-American parents about the seductive messages
that ISIS is propagating on-line.
10. Relentlessly hammer home the message that ISIS positions itself
as the defender of Muslims, but its victims are overwhelmingly
fellow Muslims.
11. Build a database of all the foreign fighters who have gone to
Syria to fight for ISIS and Nusra. This is one of the
recommendations of the House Homeland Security Committee's
September 2015 report on foreign fighters in Syria and it is a
very good one. How can you prevent an attack by returning
foreign fighters if you are not cognizant of their names and
links to ISIS? Right now INTERPOL has a list of some 5,000
foreign fighters, but that is simply dwarfed by the estimated
30,000 foreign fighters who have gone to fight in Syria.
12. Stay in Afghanistan beyond 2016. One only has to look at the
debacle that has unfolded in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S.
troops at the end of 2011 to have a preview of what could take
place in an Afghanistan without some kind of residual American
presence. Without American forces in the country, there is a
strong possibility Afghanistan could host a reinvigorated
Taliban allied to a reinvigorated al-Qaeda--not to mention
ISIS, which is also gaining a foothold in the region. This U.S.
military presence in Afghanistan doesn't have to be large, nor
does it need to play a combat role, but U.S. troops should
remain in Afghanistan to advise the Afghan army and provide
intelligence support past 2016.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Bergen.
Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions.
This was a foreign fighter event, the Paris attacks. ISIS
now has demonstrated great capability beyond the caliphate.
Before they were focused on the caliphate itself, now we have
seen three external operations in just a matter of weeks. To
me, it is very disturbing.
The mastermind of the Paris attacks, Mr. Abaaoud, recently
bragged about traveling to and from the conflict zone without
getting caught. Recently he is quoted in Dabiq magazine, which
is the ISIS publication, basically saying, ``I was able to
leave and come despite being chased after--by so many
intelligence agencies. My name and picture are all over the
news, yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations
against them, and leave safely when doing so became
necessary.''
ISIS is blatantly seeking to exploit security gaps into the
West. They are also looking at refugee routes as a pathway for
the jihadists. In fact, ISIS in their own words stated that
they will exploit the refugee process to infiltrate the West.
Indeed, one of the Paris attackers, if not two, we now have
found were exploiting the refugee process to get into Paris to
perpetrate the devastating attacks.
FBI Director Comey recently testified before my committee,
basically saying that we can query our databases until the cows
come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record
of them.
Yesterday, I introduced a bill that will put the brakes on
this Syrian refugee program until the FBI director, the DNI,
and Secretary of Homeland Security can demonstrate to us that
these individuals can be properly vetted and that they do not
pose a threat to this country.
My question, first Mr. Olsen, we are a compassionate Nation
but we also need to protect the lives of Americans. Do you
agree that before any Syrian refugees are brought into this
country that Congress and the American people must be assured
that, first, they can be properly vetted, and, second, do not
pose a National security risk to the United States?
Mr. Olsen. Mr. Chairman, certainly, that proposition is
accurate and true and I agree with it. In other words, the
vetting process that is in place for any individual coming here
through the refugee program needs to be as stringent as
possible and all possible assurances need to be in place that
the person doesn't pose a threat.
I think the longer answer to your question, Mr. Chairman,
is that any process is going to bear some--is going to include
some risk. So it is impossible to eliminate all risk for every
single person coming into this country; that is a fact of any
process like this. But the process that is in place for these
refugees is quite extensive and as you pointed out earlier
during the opening statements, involves multiple layers.
Chairman McCaul. Well, you know, in the briefings we have
had, we have--if you don't have information on the individuals
it is very--and you don't know who they are it is difficult to
vet them. I think we would like better assurances.
General Keane, do you have any thoughts on that?
General Keane. I don't know how the United States of
America can possibly say no to people who are pouring out of
that country, given the horror of what has taken place and
given our contribution to that horror, frankly. When we had
significant opportunities to create some huge momentum against
the Assad regime and for 4-plus years, he has been marauding
over that population, killing 250,000, creating 11 million
displaced. Some of those, obviously, have the opportunity to
come here.
I am absolutely convinced that you are doing the right
thing by pausing and making certain that the Congress takes a
look at the Executive branch's plans and make certain that
there is some--it is reasonable what we are doing in terms of
the vetting process.
We have had 3 million people come here since the 1970s. We
have had a million come here since 9/11, all seeking political
asylum. This is who we are. We can manage this thing. Listen,
some of the voices that are out there about this, are playing
right into ISIS's hands.
When we talk about, let's only take Christians. I mean,
that is a horrific statement. That is playing right into--this
is what ISIS wants. ISIS wants fragmentation between Muslims
and non-Muslims. We have--that is an irresponsible statement to
make. We are a country with Muslims in it.
Why wouldn't we welcome Muslims and others from around the
world like we have always done who are being persecuted? We
didn't care about their religion or their nationality. What we
cared about is they were humans running from suffering and
death. There was a home for people like that in America.
Come on. This is America. I mean, we can do this right. We
are smart enough to figure out how to bring thousands of people
into this country and make sure they are not going to hurt us.
Anyway.
Chairman McCaul. Well, yes. We will continue to have this
refugee crisis until the root problem is resolved. That is the
conflict in Syria. What are your thoughts, General, on the
Article V invocation potential with France, whether--what the
role of NATO could be with respect to Syria? Now with Russia,
in the region, further complicating the issue, how do you see
the path forward?
General Keane. You asked that of me, Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Yes, sir.
General Keane. Okay. I think the NATO issue is largely
France's decision. I don't think we should have an advocacy for
it except to support if they make the case for it.
I mean, clearly, what we have looked at terrorism in the
past and particularly in NATO countries in Europe, it has grown
out of their own countries by their own citizens largely.
What makes this different is that there is the Islamic
State which is motivating, inspiring, and in this particular
case as Dr. Olsen said, may in fact, have been directing it.
That does change it I believe, in terms of Article V. They
certainly have the right to invoke it.
I don't expect much from the Europeans to be quite frank
about this. I mean I think the Europeans have lost national
will. Even the fight for themselves, much less for somebody
else. I think the French will stand up and do what they need to
do.
Just our British friends for example. Just think about
this. The Islamic State has declared itself and it is--the
border between Syria and Iraq does not exist anymore and the
Brits are attacking in Iraq but not attacking in Syria. I mean,
what an absurdity that is. Not going after the enemy that has
declared itself the Islamic State.
I am not hopeful that NATO will do much of anything here,
frankly.
Chairman McCaul. Right. Quick question I have and a short
answer. The administration seems to be taking its eye off the
ball in Syria. Now we are in a mess right now. To what extent
do you think the Iran negotiations had any influence on our
inability to deal with Assad and the Syrian situation?
General Keane. I think they have everything to do with
perpetuating the civil war in Syria. I think it has always been
the elephant in the room. One of the many of the moderate
rebels came here in 2011. That is when they began, when the war
began.
They were seeking assistance and the administration was
saying no. They have met, probably some of you. I mean, they
even met with me. That is how desperate they were.
Then in 2012, remember this. Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus,
and Dempsey recommended to the administration, that we need to
arm the Syrian moderate rebels robustly and train them. The
President said no. That is a competent security team making
that recommendation in my judgment.
In 2013 as a result of crossing the chemical line, the
chemical red line, we did not take the action which we--if we
had taken it, we would have shut down Assad's airpower. What do
we get for that?
Syria still has chemical production capabilities. Syria
still has chemical weapons. There is literally nothing on the
scale that they did have, but we said, they would never get rid
of all of that. I believe those decisions were largely driven
by the Iranian nuclear deal that we did not want to disrupt it.
It is still driving our policy in the Middle East. It is
that decision that has lost the--our allies' confidence in the
region in us. To this day, they are not convinced. Even right
now, as we are speaking, they are not convinced that the United
States of America is serious about going after ISIS. That is
out of their mouths.
That is what they believe. That we are not serious. What
they have seen is the intensity of the U.S. effort for 3 years
has been about trying to establish a strategic alliance with
Iran. The vehicle to do that is a nuclear disarmament, a
nuclear weapons deal.
The price that has caused us is pretty significant.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, General.
Chair recognizes Chairman Royce.
Chairman Royce. But, General, I think there is another
casualty in terms of that deference that the administration is
given. Not just to Iran, but to the Shia-led government in
Baghdad that is so heavily influenced by Iran.
One of the great conundrums here has been our failure to
arm our allies and whether that is the Sunni tribal leaders who
meet with us and ask for that support from us. Or whether it is
the Kurdish leaders, who had an opportunity, on 650-mile front,
30 percent of their battalions are female as you know, fighting
against ISIS.
We have had their foreign minister here 3 times to request
some modicum of ammunition and weaponry that would allow them
in this face-off against ISIS, to have the advantage. Whether
it's artillery, long-range mortars, and high-tech weapons.
You have got women out there on the line in these Peshmerga
units. You have got young Yazidis, without weapons, young men.
We had a Yazidi girl testify before our committee that she was
taken in combat. All the men were killed. They didn't have
weapons. She said, why can't you arm some of the Kurds, some of
the Yazidi men?
She said she herself was taken captive and sold to an
American who was recruited. He sold her 4 years ago to ISIS. He
thought ISIS was invincible. He was watching ISIS on the
internet. He was converted to ISIS's philosophy. He came there
and now he subjects her as a Yazidi because he tells her, you
are an apostate. It is my responsibility under my code to have
you submit to me.
So this is the life they are living in, in a situation
where, as I said before, you went 12 full months while ISIS was
on the march without the United States using that airpower. Now
as the pilots come back to talk to us, they say, three-quarters
of our ordinance.
We can't drop. We can't get clearance, even when we have a
clear target in front of us. I did not understand this strategy
this all. Because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage
and the ability to recruit. So I wanted to ask you about that
subject. Arming the Sunni tribesmen, giving the Kurds the
ability, on the ground, they have 180,000 Peshmerga forces.
They are good fighters.
General Keane. Yes. Well, I obviously have strong feelings
about all of that. It was in my statement. But, I mean, here is
what was so fundamentally flawed in the strategy. I think the
President's decision and his National security team, to work
through local, indigenous forces in Iraq and what is in Syria,
as the main ground force to go after ISIS and take their
caliphate in Iraq and Syria away from them, is sound.
That is a sound strategy. Most of us do not want U.S.
combat brigades taking on that role.
Chairman Royce. Then why not arm them and why not give them
the effective air support?
General Keane. That is what I am trying to answer. So, if
you believe that is the strategy and you are trying to avoid
the very thing that you don't want to do and that is eventually
have to commit U.S. combat brigades. That is what you don't
want do.
But yet you know you have got to defeat ISIS for the sake
of the American people and our interest, then why are we not
all-in on supporting that weak hand that--we know they have a
weak hand. We have got to strengthen that hand. Whatever it
takes to strengthen that hand should have been the policy.
In other words, all the equipment it takes and the best
equipment that we can have to support them. All the weapons and
ammunitions they need. Not 300 trainers, thousands of trainers
to get the output you want. So we get not a few hundred
trained, but tens of thousands trained is what we need as an
effective ground force to deal with these guys.
Certainly the whole bureaucratic nonsense of taking care of
the Kurds and buying into this business of, well, you are going
to have to pass it all through the Baghdad government. Just
muscle the Baghdad government to get out of the way. That is
what we should have done.
The Iranians muscle them everyday and we certainly should
have done that. Now, I have talked to two Kurdish officials
recently. One, KDP and one PUK, all within the last 10 days,
and there has been some improvement in this area. But believe
me, it is still not where it should be.
That is your point. The other thing is on the airpower.
This has been an absurdity from the beginning. The President
personally made a statement that has driven airpower from the
inception. When we agreed that we were going to do airpower and
the military said, this is how it would work, he said, no, I do
not want any civilian causalities in the responses.
But, there are always some civilian causalities. We have
the best capability in the world to protect from civilian
causalities. Better than any nation in the world and we have
the results to prove it. He said, no, you don't understand. I
want no civilian causalities, zero. So that has driven our so-
called rules of engagement to a degree that we have never had
in any previous air campaign from Desert Storm to the present.
That is why you made reference to 75 percent of the
ordinance coming back was a CENTCOM revelation which I think
surprised all of us to that degree, that that ordinance is not
being used. Now, we have a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Smart, and he has got some spine. I think we are going
to get some better results here. Because he is pushing.
He is pushing for a more realistic air campaign and let's
free up some of these restrictions. Believe me, the French are
in there, not using the restrictions we have imposed on our
pilots. The Russians, of course, whose value system is off the
table, they don't care at all about civilians.
So if there is an ISIS or a rebel target in the middle
village, they will take the village down. That was their entire
methodology in Afghanistan, and that is what they did in
Chechnya, and so I am convinced that is what they are doing
here.
But we can do this, Mr. Chairman. We know how to do this.
We can have a very effective devastating air campaign that will
get us results. It will not win the war. But it can certainly
keep ISIS in its holes, take away their tactical initiative,
take away their defense and put them on the offense.
Put so much pressure on them that they are not sending
out--they are not hitting 20,000 media sites per day with 15 to
20 new pictures per day. Why? Because they are worried about
being bombed.
Chairman Royce. General, if I could just respond to your
one observation about the Kurds finally getting some of the
weaponry. I think that is because we got the amendment that I
worked on in the NDAA act, so that the administration is
feeling the pressure on that. But it is still obviously not
being done to the extent that would turn the tide of battle.
Second I would just point out this point on the air
campaign. To have gone 12 months without any ordinance being
dropped on Fallujah, on Ramadi--now I am talking about open
columns on the open desert in pickup trucks with black flags
flying. The concern about not having collateral damage that we
cannot hit those columns as they took 12 major cities across
Syria and Iraq before we even begin after the fall of Mosul to
do anything.
This does not send the message from the administration that
they intend to do anything except contain this problem. That
has to be reversed. ISIS has to be defeated.
General Keane. Listen, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. But
that is a slight exaggeration, what you just said. I just want
to make a statement here for a second.
Listen, months into this campaign we were not permitting
convoys of ISIS with flags rolling down roads. We took those
guys off the roads a long time before that. That was not
happening.
The attack on Ramadi, they brought--they came into Ramadi
largely in civilian vehicles, not even in convoy. They made--
they came down the Euphrates River Valley outside--from Syria.
Ramadi is in the Iraq version of the Euphrates River Valley,
obviously. That is--they infiltrated is the military term we
would use, to create the kind of combat power that they needed.
There are no convoys of ISIS running around the battlefield
today.
Chairman Royce. Not today. But remember, until the Yazidis
were on the mountainside and until they were attacked on that
mountainside, that was the first effective use of airpower or
commitment to use airpower that I saw in this entire endeavor,
despite our efforts continuously to deploy it.
But my time is expired. But thank you very much, general.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Olsen, in response to the Chairman's question, you made
a statement that it is virtually impossible to eliminate all
the risk in a refugee program. Can you talk a little bit about
that?
Mr. Olsen. Sure. Absolutely.
I mean first of all I think the critical point here is that
when it comes to the refugee program, the ones we have used in
the past and certainly what we are applying with regard to
Syrian refugees, there is really no program in the world as
extensive as what the United States does in terms of looking at
the background information, the intelligence, the biographic
information.
It includes interviews of each potential refugee. It
includes biometric--gathering biometric information. The
process itself takes 18 to 24 months all told. Then finally a
decision will be made at that time before anyone is let in.
In terms of the populations that are being considered,
remember that it is the most vulnerable populations in Syria.
It is the women, children, families. From what I have seen in
terms of the individuals let in so far, it is only a very, very
small percentage, a small fraction that are middle-aged--I mean
military-aged men.
I would fully endorse the remarks of General Keane in terms
of who we are as a people and that we can do this in terms of
managing this problem. But to answer your question directly, no
process can eliminate 100 percent every bit of risk associated
with----
Mr. Thompson. Well, that is what I am trying to get to. So
if I said that we would require the FBI director and the
director of national intelligence to certify to Congress that
each individual refugee to be admitted is not a threat to
security of the United States, what would your response to that
be?
Mr. Olsen. Well, I think that any process needs to
include--it needs to be reasonable. In other words, there needs
to be some way of looking at any individual as policymakers and
understand that the process can--must be reasonable in order to
work. So it can't be unequivocal or absolute, it seems to me,
to be an effective process.
Mr. Thompson. General, you raised a point that I had
actually made note of. You said that if we stop the opportunity
of refugees from coming to this country that that would
potentially play into the hands of ISIL. Can you talk a little
bit about that?
General Keane. Yes. ISIS in all their writings, I mean this
has grown in to be a fairly sophisticated organization.
It is actually amazing, just to give you one second on
this. Baghdadi had a relatively small terrorist organization.
He was trying to rebuild what we had defeated, the al-Qaeda in
2008 in Iraq.
Because of the Syrian civil war stalemate, he made the most
significant strategic decision of his movement. That was to
take his Iraqi-based, relatively small terrorist organization
and go to northeast Syria. Because of the stalemated civil war,
and build a terrorist army and be able to recruit and train.
In accomplishment of that, build up supplies, et cetera.
Have the time and introspection, not hiding in the shadows in
Iraq trying to avoid government troops and police. Operating
openly in a vast swath of territory and building a degree of
sophistication. Publishing articles and eventually something
like an annual report that we have seen, it is about that
thick, in color with pictures and the rest of it.
What he advocates is for them to be successful they must
fragment and polarize Muslim and non-Muslims. It is a key
objective for their success to grow the movement and also
isolate Muslims in the world from non-Muslims. They believe
that will leverage them so they can actually grow an enclave in
Europe, as an example, out of that struggle that is taking
place.
So yes, if we make--if we had a policy here now that would
shut down obviously Muslims who are running from the horror of
what is taking place in Syria and shut them down because they
are Muslims or because they may actually be a threat there,
that plays right, right into his hands. They will use that.
They are already--I guarantee you that they have picked up
on some of the statements that have been made in this town in
the last few days. Those things are running all over their
social media nets because it is exactly what they want, the
polarization and fragmentation between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Bergen, do you agree with the general's
analysis of that?
Mr. Bergen. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I have long advocated years ago helping the Free
Syria Army when that proposal was put forward. I supported it.
I put in a bill 3 years ago to do it. I think the fact that we
didn't do it was a major mistake. So I do agree with your
analysis.
But I wanted to ask you, you know reports have shown that
ISIS wants to try to lure the United States into a ground war,
into a war that they can fight. After our experience in Iraq I
am not sure that we are ready for--to get bogged down into
another ground war. It seems that every time we intervene
things seem to wind up worse than they were before.
I never thought we would long for the good old days of
Saddam Hussein, and he was certainly a bad player. But you look
at what is happening now, you wonder if this is any better. I
would think it is not. You can say this thing about
intervention in Libya and the places as well.
So how can we be sure that we just don't get sucked in
again and bogged down in another ground war like Iraq, which I
don't think the American people really want or are ready for?
General Keane. Well, I totally agree with you. I think most
people do, that I am aware of. Those who are even critical of
the administration, there are some, but most analysts are not
calling for, you know, significant ground combat units to go
back into Syria and to go back into Iraq.
Yes, you are right, that would be a plus in terms of what
ISIS would make out of that. They would probably move the
remnants of their organization, you know, to Libya or someplace
else.
But yes, the reality is, is that I think if we are all-in
in supporting the indigenous forces, and if we put the effort
into the political situation with the same intensity and degree
that we did in getting the nuclear deal for 3 years. I mean
that was all-in political effort. If we make that kind of
effort because the political situation in Syria and the
political situation in Iraq actually drive the solutions that
we need, not the military solution, not the military situation.
Military situation is critical. But so is the political
situation. We need to have that level of intensity and that
level of effort to get the kind of political stability we need
for the Sunnis to be able to step up in this fight.
The second thing is, as I suggested in my testimony, our
efforts to support these local indigenous forces has been, in
my judgment, very inadequate. To avoid those ground combat
brigades ever having been used, that is the answer. At least we
have to try what that result gets.
Then if we ever had to put combat brigades in there--as I
said in my statement, I didn't ignore it--we would only do that
in conjunction with an Arab--and if NATO is involved--
coalition, and we would not be the--I don't think we should be
the majority of the force if that took place. It just certainly
would be largely an Arab-Sunni force to be able to take back
these Sunni lands, not the United States combat forces.
They would probably like us to be there if it came to that
situation with them. If there was no other alternative, this
was the only way we could do it, then I would agree to doing
that as a recommendation. But that is the thing that we truly
want to avoid for all the reasons that you suggested. We want
to avoid that. These other options are still available to us to
help us avoid that reality.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I want to get back to the question
about refugees, and I would like to make a statement, and then
ask anyone to comment on it. I think it is important to point
out that Syrian refugees are fleeing precisely the type of
senseless violence that occurred in Paris.
Slamming the door in the face of victims of terrorism I
think would be a betrayal of our values. I believe that we are
deeply committed to safeguarding the American public, just as
we are committed to providing refuge to some of the world's
most vulnerable people.
I don't believe that these goals are mutually exclusive, or
that either has to be pursued at the expense of the other. I
would like anyone who cares to comment on it, please do so.
Mr. Bergen. I couldn't agree with you more, sir. We looked
at every jihadi terrorism case in the United States since 9/11,
of which there are 330. In only two cases is it clear that
refugees were involved, and they were Iraqi refugees who
slipped through a process, which is nothing like the process
that has been described by Director Olsen and Ranking Member
Thompson, which is much, much more rigorous. Of course, we
can't say we are going to just eliminate all risk, because we
don't live in that kind of world.
On the other hand, you know, imagine the argument when the
great wave of Italian immigration came to this country, which
there were millions of people, that we would take no Italians
because there was a tiny, tiny chance that one of them was a
member of the Mafia. This country would be substantially
different. So I endorse everything you have had to say. I think
your analogy about the St. Louis is right on point.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chair recognizes Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
say, though, on the refugee issue, I am saying as somebody who,
in 1993, visited Muslim refugee camps in the Balkans. I
strongly supported the admission of Muslim refugees to this
country at the time. This was not something we as a committee
went looking for. We had the professionals in the field tell us
the concern that they had, that they did not fear that the
vetting was being done sufficiently.
That, I think, is the issue the Chairman is raising, which
I have raised, is that this was not something we went looking
for. We were told by high-ranking people that they believe that
the vetting process was not sufficient. Even though, for
instance, it is more rigorous, as regard to Iraq, it is more
rigorous in method.
But there are far more materials to work with, as far as
the refugees coming from Iraq. It has virtually no database or
materials given with Syria. I think in the last 2 years of
vetting, there has been a total of 2,000 refugees have been
vetted. But the President calling for that number to be
increased to 10,000 in a compressed period of time, if it took
that long to vet 2,000, how can we get 10,000 or more done in a
brief period of time?
That is the concern we have. No one wants to shut the door
on anyone. I understand the gentleman from New York, his
concerns specifically with the United States at St. Louis, what
happened, which was the stain on America's image and legacy.
But having said that, I think there are real issues here.
How they are raised is significant, but I will say that
this is certainly from my perspective, is not in any anti-
Muslim or any anti-refugee issue, which the question of the
extent of the vetting, and the fact that it appears that there
is a rush to judgment by the administration to step up and
advance the vetting process. Again, it was people--even just
over comments of Director Comey, for instance, I think are
significant enough.
But what I would like to do--again, unless somebody wants
to comment on it--I would just like to ask General Keane--let
me thank all of you for your service. It is great to see Matt
Olsen back. He was director of NCTC, it was an absolute
privilege. I was Chairman of the committee at the time, and
being able to work with you, cooperation was absolutely
tremendous. I want to thank you for that. Peter Bergen, we
always read and listen to what you have to say. General Keane,
I just wish you were running the whole operation.
But in any event, the day after the French became
involved--this was Saturday, Sunday, when they carried out the
first bombing mission--they took out a command-and-control
center and a training camp. Why, after 15 months of U.S.
bombing, were those two sites still available for the French to
take out on Day 1?
General Keane. Yes, that is a fascinating comment. I can
only speculate. I haven't seen, you know, the targets
themselves. But I would speculate that, don't think of the
training camp being out someplace in the open desert, or don't
think of the headquarters being a major facility with antennas
that are on it. Those things are long gone.
While I am critical of an air campaign, we cannot compare
this air campaign to what we did with Saddam Hussein, who was a
nation state, with all the infrastructure that supports a
nation state, or what we did against Milosevic in the late
1990s, because that was also a nation state with all that
infrastructure.
Islamic State, while they claim to be a nation state, they
do not have the physical infrastructure of a nation state. So
what they have done, and what makes targeting more challenging,
but still doable, is every major node and critical function
that they have, to include the training function, is all done
in and around people, because they know, based on our rules of
engagement, that we will not engage.
While I have not seen the target, I would speculate that
both of those functions, the critical command-and-control node,
as well as the so-called training camp, quote/unquote, was in
and around a fabric of civilian population. I know for a fact
that the headquarters of this organization is decentralized,
and is living in and among civilian populations.
Mr. King. Okay. Accepting those facts, you mentioned before
that CENTCOM reported that 75 percent of the planes return with
their ordinance. If you could set the policy, what percentage
would be coming back with ordinance?
General Keane. Well, I think it would be a small percentage
in my mind. You know, this is an area that gets so much
scrutiny in terms of battle damage assessments. We have got
very good people that do this, got years of experience at it.
Just so everyone can understand, I mean, we have routinely
taken out a target that may be in a facility someplace, and we
don't want the windows to shatter across the street because of
what is taking place in that function. We actually have the
ability to do that.
So we are excellent at this. But this frustration that we
have, we also--not only the concern about civilian casualties
has driven us to unrealistic targeting, is that we lose targets
because the process of getting approval is so layered. You
know, usually, the commanders who have control of the
targeting--they have total release authority, and they delegate
that down to the guys actually fighting the mission.
Now, we have to request approval. So we have got a target
on a road that is moving. We have got to request approval, and
it goes up a couple of layers to shoot at it. If the guy who is
driving this vehicle, or a couple of vehicles, recognizes that
there is a fighter or a drone in the area, he is just going to
drive next to a building someplace, and we are not going to
shoot him. It is that simple.
So we lose targets all the time because of the bureaucratic
process to grant approval for those targets. This is all the
stuff that is buried in a level of detail that appears somewhat
bureaucratic, and it is to a certain degree. But it also
produces the results that we are talking about, why 75 percent
return with their ordinance, and not striking the targets.
I know that General Dunford is pressing hard on this, and I
think there is probably going to be some changes, at least I
hope so.
Mr. King. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chair recognizes Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Terrorists create fear. They seek a wild reaction. It is
time for us to take a deep breath and evaluate all the threats,
not just based on the last 24 hours, but looking at the last
decade. ISIS is not the most dangerous threat, nor the most
evil. I would argue that the Iran-led Shiite alliance is at
least as evil, and is more dangerous.
That alliance of Iran, Assad, Hezbollah, and the Houthi,
they have killed far more Americans than ISIS, whether it be
the Beirut bombing of our Marines decades ago, or the IEDs that
were used against us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and Syria
have both had nuclear programs. Iran and Syria, that is to say
Assad, have killed tens of thousands--well, hundreds of
thousands of innocent people, while ISIS has killed tens of
thousands.
But ISIS has bad taste, and Assad has good taste. ISIS will
glorify in the deaths of 50 people. Assad will barrel-bomb and
kill 1,000 people, and then have a good taste to deny it. It is
said that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. As Netanyahu
mentioned when he spoke to us in the Middle East, ``The enemy
of your enemy may be your enemy.''
Part of our effort against ISIS and in the world is to show
compassion, demonstrate that compassion to our friends in
Europe and the Middle East. Ninety-nine percent of that
compassion at least is helping refugees who are in the Middle
East, where there are millions of people. We have been the most
generous country.
The solution to this problem is not to depopulate Syria of
all but its 15 percent Alawite minority. The solution is to
allow Syrians to live in a reasonable and peaceful country.
While maybe one-tenth of 1 percent of the displaced will come
here as refugees--and that is the big controversy--it is the
rest of Syria that we need to focus on.
Many of us in the Committee on Foreign Affairs have tried
to help those Syrian moderates. For years the administration
wouldn't do it. Then they failed at it.
One element of that failure is that they insisted that
those they arm, swear that they wouldn't wage war against
Assad. What reasonable Syrian wouldn't wage war against Assad?
If I was a Syrian, I would be waging war against Assad. So this
vetting process has gone crazy and has failed.
Of course we focus on the refugees. We may take a few
hundred a month. Let's look at the risks and compare it to the
other risks that we do take. Refugees, yes, have Syrian
passports. Let's look at other passports.
On 9/11 over 3,000 Americans were killed by people with
Saudi passports. Governors around this country are recruiting
Saudi businessmen to come visit and invest in their States.
Since 9/11 the biggest terrorist attack in the United States
was committed by Nadal Malik Hasan who killed 13 Americans. He
was born in the United States and a major in the United States
Army.
In Paris most of those committing these crimes held
European passports. They can come to the United States with a
Visa Waiver Program. Those same Governors have tourist office
in Europe showing them pictures of iconic sites in America they
may want to come and visit.
So we have 320 million Americans here who could be
radicalized. We have got 13 million European visitors who come
here with no vetting. We have a million Middle East, Greater
Middle East visitors who come here with modest vetting. Then we
have a few hundred people who come here after a 2-year vetting
process. Which should we be most concerned about?
General Keane, you pointed out we are not serious about
this war. We are not. In World War II we bombed military
targets. As you point out, we couldn't have a zero civilian
casualty strategy. We bombed oilfields. We are not doing that
to ISIS because we want to recover those oilfields in good
shape. That is absurd.
Certainly the Iraqi government is not serious. It is paying
salaries to people in Mosul. I don't thing General De Gaulle
was dropping money on occupied France to pay salaries of
unemployed French teachers and civil servants.
Of course when $500 million to $800 million of Iraqi
currency was seized, they didn't print new currency because
that would have inconvenienced corrupt politicians in Baghdad.
The Iraqi government was installed by the United States. That
doesn't mean it is not part of the problem. It is a tool of
Iran and an oppressor of Sunnis that recruits for ISIS--that
thereby recruits for ISIS.
The Europeans aren't serious. The Danes have a policy that
when fighters return they have a welcome and watch program.
Obviously certainly because two NATO countries have been
attacked, United States and France in different decades,
Denmark and others ought to have a policy that if you fight for
ISIS or you fight for al-Qaeda, that is a criminal offense.
Finally, we do not study our enemy well, or our adversary
and our potential friends well. We have a State Department with
experts in every kind of law except Islamic law. We take a few
courses at Princeton. We need people who would qualify as
doctorates at Al-Azhar in Cairo. Until we have that kind of
expertise, we will not understand what drives ISIS.
I think I have expired--used up too much of my time. I will
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chair now recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher. I am
sorry. I stand corrected, Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you----
Chairman McCaul. Then Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for your testimony and for your leadership all three of our
distinguished witnesses.
During the conflict in Kosovo I traveled to Stankovic
refugee camp in Macedonia, and then was at McGuire Air Force
Base to welcome some of the 4,400 people brought there from the
United States as refugees.
One of those refugees airlifted to McGuire was Agron
Abdullahu, who was apprehended and sent to jail in 2008 for
supplying guns and ammunitions to the Fort Dix Five, a group of
terrorists who were also sent to prison for plotting to kill
American soldiers at the Fort Dix military installation. This
after being rescued, housed, fed, and welcomed as a refugee
into my home State of New Jersey. Then he worked with these
other radical Islamists.
The 9/11 report, last year's report so ably and expertly
run by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, noted, and I read it.
``Today's Rising Terror Threat and the Danger to the United
States'' points out that the United States remains
unappreciative of emerging threats, and talks about how those
threats have proliferated.
Today in the U.K. Express, Aaron Brown writes a Syrian
operative claims that more than 4,000 covert ISIS terrorists
have already been smuggled into Western nations already, he
says, hidden among the refugees. He also points out that this
is the beginning, not the middle, not the end, the beginning of
a larger plot to carry out attacks.
First question, more than 4,000 covert ISIS terrorists
embedded with refugees. Is that a credible number? Is it more?
Less? What are your thoughts on that?
Second, on October 20 I chaired a hearing on the crisis--I
chair the Helsinki Commission--a very good hearing. We heard
from experts, including the high commissioners, regional
representative for the UNHCR who said the spike of Syrian
refugees coming to Europe this year is mainly due to three
factors, the long-term trends and then the trigger.
One of the long-term trends is loss of hope that there will
ever be an end to the war. Second, the fact that so many
refugee resources have dwindled to next to nothing.
But the trigger, he said, was the lack of humanitarian aid
provided by the international community. And pointed out that
the World Food Program had experienced a 30 percent cut, and
the people then said they would give up. They have abandoned
us. We are going into flight. Of course most of those are young
men, predominantly young men that have left.
In your opinion, is the trigger, was the trigger, does it
continue to be the lack of humanitarian response? Has that been
rectified? What do you think ought to be done to ensure that
those resources are available?
I yield back.
Mr. Olsen. Congressman, on the second question and on the
trigger, I mean certainly the scarcity of humanitarian aid must
be one of the contributing factors. Consider the numbers that
we are talking about. Nine million displaced persons in Syria,
4 million refugees leaving that country. So the numbers are
staggering. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is staggering.
On your first question, the number that you cited of 4,000
potentially embedded, I don't really have a sense of whether
that is a credible number or not. What I would say is that as a
general proposition, as much as we are focusing on the refugee
issue, to me from my vantage point having served at the
National Counterterrorism Center, the more important question
is the foreign fighter one, especially when it comes to the
United States.
Again, we are talking about refugees that would come to the
United States being an 18-month to 2-year proposition. When
right now we know there are in excess of 4,000 Europeans--
Westerners who travel to Syria and who are in--have Western
passports, have the ability to travel within Europe, have a
capability to travel to the United States.
The real risk is the foreign fighter population that Mr.
Bergen talked about. I think that is where intelligence
resources, law enforcement resources need to be placed because
there is a greater degree given the nature of that population.
Look, they went to Syria to fight, most of them with ISIS. That
is where the greater risk is.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I would add you know on the
vetting issue, I am not sure how a database can be created for
people that are coming from places, villages, towns throughout
Syria that we have no way of checking their arguments, their
statements. We know consular affairs people all over the world
they have honed that skill to a remarkable degree of expertise.
But it is still--we are talking about people that if--may be
very well adept at lying, deceiving, and making their way here.
The 4,000 number ought to put an exclamation point about
the pause to make sure that if we are going to accept these
individuals it is done in a way that is absolutely--you never
can say absolute, but to the greatest extent practicable,
ensuring that these people are not allowed into this country.
I say that, Mr. Chairman, as an unabashed believer in
refugee programs. I have written 2 laws to facilitate refugee
protection, including my law created the T visa for trafficking
victims. I do believe strongly, as do Members of my side of the
aisle and both sides of the aisle, in refugee protection. The
Lautenberg amendment was a great effort to ensure that
Southeast Asians, Vietnamese in particular.
Soviet jury was the first issue I worked on going back to
the year 1981 when I first got elected. So my point is the
pause is prudent. I do hope that we can get it right because
again, our first priority is to protect Americans.
Yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me just say as a Member of Congress my greatest
concern is for the safety of Americans at home and abroad. The
recent attacks in Paris have tragically highlighted the need
for all free nations to not just be wary of attackers from
outside our borders, but of course we need to be wary of
attackers within our borders, those home-grown.
Somehow in some of this debate it seems as though
individuals because of the failure of intelligence in France by
the French, by the way. But that is then put on as it is a
failure in intelligence by the President of the United States.
Thus far, knock on wood, the President of the United States has
protected the people of the United States of America because we
have not had that kind of an attack here.
I am thankful to the French now for joining the fight that
we have already been in for a long period of time. I wish they
were doing that earlier. I am thankful and hope that the rest
of our allies join in with us so that we can coordinate
collectively to make sure that we fight our common enemy, ISIL.
So it is not just the United States. I think the job of the
President of the United States as far as leading this concern
is to try to get those who are our allies to contribute their
part to this also.
One of the things that we know that shock and awe and
getting something done and ending a war in 2 to 3 days as we
thought we could do in Iraq does not work. So there is no
short-term anything that we can do.
Now, I have been pleased to be quite honest with you
because I think--the wisdom of the witnesses that we have had
before us and--I have learned a lot just listening to you this
morning. So I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony.
Now, one of the areas that I wanted to just to explore
before I get into dealing with some of the refugees though is
it seems to me as we get involved in this conflict, and this is
why it is complicated because you do have to deal with--first
thing, I think everybody admits that you cannot resolve this
just by the military alone. Is that correct? Military is not
just going to resolve this.
So if we are going to get past the military, then we have
also got to figure out how we do deal with Turkey and Turkey,
of course, has a problem with what--the Kurds who are also
involved in this and that is difficult. Russia who is so
involved with Syria so in some kind of way they are not
irrelevant. We have got to keep--and we have got to figure out
how to deal with them.
Iran since they are all part of that also if we are going
to deal with the Syria crisis because we still have to deal
with the Sunni-Shia issue also if we are going to really try to
resolve the problem in Syria.
The Gulf States, they are surely involved in this also, and
they have to play a role. The European Union, they have to play
a role, and we have got to get them all lined up with all of
their various different interests in this area if we are going
to resolve the conflict in Syria so that we could make sure
that we wipe out the issue of ISIL, none of which can happen
overnight. Which is why the President said I don't have time to
deal with some of this other stuff because I have got to focus
on these difficult issues of trying to figure how to pull this
thing together.
So I ask General Keane, with all of these outside--and, you
know, an honest--America leading and we can't lead by--you
know, we don't have anybody following so you have got to get
the individuals to come and work with you, what roles and how
do you see the Turks playing in this and the Russians playing
in this and the Syrians playing in this and the Gulf States
playing in this, as well as our E.U. partners who are all in
the area and all where there is this immediate threat of ISIL?
Then in the time that I have on this--on other, the other
issue is dealing with, you know--we talk about what I would
like to focus us, when you are talking about vetting because I
understand that if we don't have and we can't vet someone they
are not allowed here. But I think it is more important that the
European Union need to make sure that they have a vetting
process that works and they talk to one another.
You know, we have got a situation here where--in the
brothers in Belgium, the Belgians talked to them and didn't
give the information to the French. So there was a
miscommunication not with our communication and vetting, with
theirs. So if you are talking about how we can help them do
theirs, they not--we can talk about it and so, you know, that
is something that we should be talking about.
So I would like to get your opinion on that in the time
that I have left.
General Keane. Well, you know, when you look at the
problems we are facing with ISIS and Syria and Iraq, and
particularly in Syria, I mean, there can be very thoughtful
arguments made on both sides of what to do with this thing.
When you look at the whole spectrum of it, I mean, it makes
your head hurt, frankly. It is very, very complicated
situation. All that said, there are things that we can do and
we have got to work on pieces of the problem with a sense of
where the strategic outcome should be.
By that I mean the issue really in Syria is the civil war
which must be stopped so we can deal with ISIS. All the Sunnis
that we need to deal with ISIS are fighting the civil war. That
is why the Pentagon's program was so flawed in trying to get
Sunnis to fight only for ISIS.
The CIA program, arming and training the Syrian moderates
which the President can't talk about because it is Classified,
is a very successful program. I can say because reported in an
open press, that the TOW missile systems that they have or have
actually been decisive in stopping the counter offensive that
the Iranians, the Syrians are using, supported by the Russians.
Just as an editorial comment for everybody here, despite
Russian airpower, despite Russian fighters, 34 fighters, 16
helicopters, Russian artillery, Russian rocket artillery,
Syrian regime on the ground, 2,000 to 3,000 Iranians actually
in the fight and planning on leading the fight, that offensive
has stalled. The reason they came to Syria is because they
believe the regime was in a precarious situation.
So what has to take place here is this civil war has got to
stop and the leaders in the region have been telling us this
for a long time, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, they are
all the players. They know that they cannot go after ISIS as
long as that civil war is taking place.
That is how we pull Turkey--they are going to be all-in if
we get this civil war to stop. They have been telling us that
for 3-plus years. That is our frustration in I think the--going
back to the point we have made before that was brought up by a
question that our preoccupation with the nuclear deal actually
prevented us from bringing the help--bringing the civil war in
Syria to a conclusion. That is behind us now.
But the fact is, that is still the issue. So, yes, that is
crucial to what we are doing here. Russia, I mean, we are about
to make a strategic mistake and Putin is a master at this.
Think of this, the only reason why this civil war has been able
to go on for 4 years is because of Iranian support for it and
the Russians' support for it. In the very beginning, many
people in this town were predicting that the Assad regime was
going to fall. Remember that? It was saying just a matter of
weeks or months. What stopped that from happening? Two things.
One, we didn't help the moderates with the weapons that
they wanted so they can continue the momentum, but even more
critical than that was that the Iranians were all-in with their
IRGC, Revolutionary Guard Force of Quds force, Qassem Soleimani
on the ground brought his generals in there; one of them got
killed, put thousands of fighters in there, put Iraqi Shia
militia in there, 3,000 to 5,000, 5,000 Hezbollah. They were
all-in on that. That perpetuated the war. It continued the war.
The Russians all-in perpetuating that war. So this killing
that we are talking about, this horror that has been inflicted
of 250,000 dead and 11 million people displaced, and refugees
running around the world trying to find some escape, no longer
waiting in refugee camps because of a sense of hopelessness
that they have.
The Russians have all that blood on their hands. They
contributed to perpetuating this regime. We are about to get
trapped by Putin. He is a smart guy. He is a thug and he is a
killer but he is savvy. He is about to trap us. He is trapping
us because of the offer of helping with ISIS; yet, he is
responsible for this civil war.
I told you why ISIS is in Syria. They are in Syria because
of the strategic opportunity that the stalemated civil war gave
them to move from a small terrorist organization to this modern
evil thing that we are dealing with is a terrorist army.
Putin made a direct contribution to that. Now, cleverly, he
is trying to say to us, well, look it, I will help you with
your ISIS problem. What he wants to do is have the pressure
taken off of him so that the Alawite regime stays in power;
that is his goal. If it takes--if I can help you with ISIS and
you get off my back about that, that is the direction he is
moving. We are about to get trapped by it.
You know, we should--it is a moral absurdity to work with
Putin over ISIS given that he and the Iranians provided a
denominator for this war to be extended into its fifth year,
and we should not do it and we should not fall prey to that
trap.
So those are some of the things that have to be considered
in this complicated situation.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
General, while I have deep respect for you and we have
known each other for--over the years and paid attention to your
testimony here on various issues, I couldn't disagree with you
more and the number of things--points that you have made today.
But first, let me just note, if ISIL is not being hit by
the administration--I was in Erbil a week ago and I talked to
people on the front lines and there are truckloads of military
supplies on the freeway and are not being hit by the United
States military, by our drones or by military aircraft. I don't
know where you get your information but I can tell you that
information came straight from people on the front lines.
Also, we didn't--we haven't been helping--this
administration also hasn't even been helping our friends. We
haven't been directly supplying to Kurds. We have been hearing
over and over again for the last year we have got to help the
Kurds and this administration has been dragging its feet just
like it dragged its feet try--even to get any type of help to
General al-Sisi who saved his country from being taken over by
the Muslim Brotherhood, and then we--our--this administration
was angry with him for that and actually make Egypt vulnerable
to being taken over by the radical Islamic forces that now
threaten the entire region.
So I don't believe that, no, we are not doing militarily
what needs to be done. But where do we go in terms of what the
issue is today? American citizens, first of all, we say--we
ought to handle--there is a problem at home, there are some
American citizens who have been engaged in terrorist activity
joining these--that is the No. 1 issue that we have heard about
today.
Let us declare that any American citizen who joins any
Islamic terrorist organization that when that person is
arrested--of course, we--they should be arrested immediately
when we find that out--that person should be tried for treason
for joining that organization. Treason is when you join a
company that is out to kill Americans. We need to try--put--
arrest and try any American who joins a terrorist organization
as a traitor and, thus, he should be found guilty or not
guilty, but if found guilty, he should be executed as a
traitor.
In terms of people that we want to bring into our country
in terms of refugee camps, here again, General, I totally
disagree with what you have to say. The bottom line is our
policy should be based on what will make America the most
secure from any type of terrorist attack. Our fellow Americans'
lives are the No. 1 priority, not whether it is going to be
sensitive or not to whether the--how the Islamic people or
radicals or whoever they are in other parts of the world are
going to think about the United States.
Yes, Christians right now, for example, are being targeted
throughout the Middle East, the targets of genocide. For us not
to prioritize, would put us in the same spot that Mr. Eliot
Engel was talking about, in pushing away Jews, because it might
upset the Germans or somebody else if we left Jews in at a time
when they were being targeted by Adolf Hitler.
Well, your policy is well-known. Let's not prioritize these
Christians because it might upset some Muslims some place, is
very equivalent of pushing those Jews right into those death
camps that Eliot Engel just talked about.
If we are going to be serious here, let's No. 1, if
Christians are these people who are the most targeted in that
region and everybody I know says that. They are targeted for
genocide. They should have the priority when we are trying to
give safe haven to people. I don't care if that touches on
somebody's sensitivities overseas.
No. 2, we have to be concerned about the safety of the
people of the United States. If we are going to bring in people
here, at least these Christians wouldn't be potential
terrorists in joining up groups that want to commit genocide
against them.
Finally, let's just say that when we do bring in these--if
we bring in people, we have to be absolutely certain that
nobody is going to be committing acts of violence against the
people of the United States.
I think by prioritizing and saying, ``We are going to put a
hold on this for awhile''--and as far as I am concerned, your
attitude earlier on, General, was frivolous about this--``We
are going to put a hold on it for awhile,'' we are going to
find out what we have to do to ensure that these people coming
into our country don't commit the type of acts against
Americans the way these terrorists did against the French just
a week ago.
That is No. 1. If it means prioritizing and making sure
that we do differentiate and say the Christians who are now the
most vulnerable are going to be the ones who have priority for
safe haven here, let's go for it.
So I am sorry general. I respect you and I know you are a
patriot. I just disagree with you very strongly on these
points.
General Keane. Do I get a chance to respond?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I hope so. Yes, sir.
General Keane. Well, we have this conversation every time
you and I talk here in full view of the American people. We
always start out by, ``I respect you, but--'' and then we get
it.
[Laughter.]
So this is a pattern of behavior between the two of us.
That is okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
General Keane. But listen, I am not defending the
administration here. I am trying to present an alternative
strategy that would be helpful.
But I am saying that when it comes to the Kurds, things
have been improved. Talking to them myself. Are they
satisfactory? No, is what I said.
I am saying that the convoys--those long convoys with flags
waving in the air that we saw on all of our television screens
at the beginning of the conflict, a lot of that has gone away.
Has something possibly slipped through because of some
mission that they--that did detect it or whatever? Sure. But as
a pattern of behavior, that has improved. I am saying the air
campaign is unsatisfactory. I have strong feelings about it.
With the refugees. I don't think anyone of us is
disagreeing with the Chairman's proposal at the outset, which
was, let's bring the Executive branch in. Let's take a look at
their plan and make certain that this plan is reasonable and
will protect the American people.
I think we are all in agreement on that. You are reacting
to my emotion, and this is good, over the fact that we
shouldn't be saying the only people we are going to take in are
Christians.
I mean, there are Christians here who are coming to America
and I suggest they are--certainly, they are welcome. They are
Muslims here, which will make up the majority of it because
that is what the population pool is. Certainly, they should be
welcome as well.
I mean, when we really get down to it, you know, this
process that is taking place that Matt laid out, is obviously
colored by the fact that we know for a fact there could be
terrorists in that group. So it is not like a normal asylum
issue that is coming to the United States where we welcome, on
average, as you know, that Congress sets the ceiling with the
President, is about 70,000 a year.
So is this influx of refugees different from all those
others? Yes. I think we are all saying that. Yes it is. If it
actually got down to it, I think we know women and children and
families probably are less likely to be terrorists if they are
undocumented.
If you have got an undocumented 22-year-old standing in
front of you and you don't have--you don't know who he is or
where he is from, why would you let him in? Just because he
wants to come in? I would assume the process would say, that he
is at risk. We are not going to accept that risk.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But nobody is saying to hold all the
Muslims back.
Mrs. Miller [presiding]. Time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Nobody is saying that.
If the Christians deserve priority, if they are the ones
who are most vulnerable and under genocidal threat and to give
them priority, to say we shouldn't do that--those women and
children, if they are--if they happen to be Christians who we
know are targeted, then we can't give--take that into
consideration? That is being, frankly, heartless towards
Christians in order to curry favor with Muslims, and that is
wrong.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
We are going to move to the next, the gentleman--the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony here
today. You have raised some incredibly important points about
how we start to develop a better strategy for confronting ISIL
going forward.
Clearly it is a significant National security threat and
challenge and we have got our work cut out for us to turn this
situation around because right now I don't assess we are
winning this war against ISIL and we have got to develop a much
more effective strategy than what we have right now. My fear is
it is going to get worse before it gets better.
General Keane, in your testimony, you referenced that one
of ISIL's major thrusts is the far abroad, enclosed. However,
until very recently, ISIL seemed content to focus on inspiring
attacks rather than directing them.
So, for the panel, why the change? Is this the result of
the maturing of ISIL? The end of the beginning as Mr. Bergen
had described it? Or is it a response to external pressures
like ISIL's stalled efforts at expansion in the whole knot?
General Keane. All of this they have written about from the
beginning in terms of their intent in the far abroad to
fragment and polarize the population there by acts of terror.
Act of violence. They certainly--they actually welcome an over-
reaction by police forces. That will certainly aggravate and
alienate the Muslim population even more.
As you know, in some of these countries, Muslims lived in
enclaves and they are not assimilated into society the way they
are in the United States in America just based on meritocracy.
This has always been part of the plan. ISIS is still a
young organization. I mean, Baghdadi moved into Syria in 2012.
He spent most of that year consolidating the territory that he
had and recruiting and training an organization.
Then in 2014, he devoted a large part of his effort to the
invasion into Iraq. He had 2 years to build that force and did
that very successfully. And he has consolidated that territory
in Iraq and also in Syria, largely on the Sunni lands. He
surrendered the territory that the Kurds owned. Mainly because
the Kurds had the where with all to take it back from him and
he is not making any moves to retake that territory.
Because the territory that he does have in both of those
countries gives him the base that he needs to grow the
organization and these affiliates that he has. In some of these
countries, he is providing direct resources, he is providing
training assistance in those countries, something he couldn't
do give the invasion in Iraq and the other activities that it
was--surrounding, building his organization.
So I think it--yes, it has to do as you suggested, with the
maturing of the organization. It is--I think it should be
revealing to all of us, despite the fact that we may have taken
a town in Iraq like a Tikrit or like Baiji or Sinjar or we took
a town in Syria like Kobani.
It is not that strategically important to ISIS for them to
be able to do what? To expand into that orange area and to be
very disruptive in that yellow area which is where we are now
with this organization. So they are defending in Iraq and
Syria. I believe, successfully, although they have surrendered
territory.
But now, they are making an expansion of ISIS and it is
growing. That is done because they are comfortable. They are
comfortable with this caliphate and--that they have and they
are comfortable with the base of their operations in Syria to
be able to project that kind of power.
So we have ISIS right in the face of us, is growing as a
global organization. It has a global strategy and we are seeing
the execution of it. They have a lot more plans than what we
are seeing.
I think also, the comment about the French intelligence. I
just wanted to--the challenge is that, you know, Peter and Matt
bring out here, is real. We saw that with the French. Think of
this. I mean, they knew there was an attack coming. They have
had three attacks this year. Charlie Hebdo, the train attack,
and now this one.
They were ready. They weren't in a defense crouch. They
were in an offensive crouch. They were looking for everything.
They have intelligence reach that many of our intelligence
agencies do not have in terms of trampling on civil liberties a
bit. They have a more aggressive policy in doing that.
So, even with that, even with knowing something else was
coming, ISIS was able to man what we call in the military
operational security. They were able to plan that operation,
put the logistics in place to support it, do the reconnaissance
necessary to put that operation together.
Not a large organization to be sure, but build a cell that
has the capability to do that and execute the operation.
I mean, they did fail. Their two primary targets were, No.
1, the concert, No. 2, the stadium. They wanted to get in the
stadium with three bombers, and the security system did not let
that happen, so they blew themselves up outside. Thank God that
didn't happen. That was the only failure I think they had.
But that--it just shows you how difficult this is when
there is not a lot of communication from al-Qaeda central to a
decentralized organization, like we have had in the past. I
don't believe we are going to find, when the French unravels
all of this, that there was a lot of communication with ISIS
central in Raqqa and this network cell. They were able to
maintain that kind of operational security.
I don't think--when we unravel it, probably the French did
about as well as they could under the circumstances. They were
all-in watching for this thing, and still could not detect it.
We should learn something from that. I am sure Director Comey
is taking notes on all of it. He obviously has a lot of
concerns about it.
Mr. Langevin. That operational security is very troubling.
I hope as we peel back the onion in doing the investigation,
that we are going to find out how we missed this, or they
missed that, and how we can learn from that going forward.
I am troubled, of course, by the technological challenges
of going dark, that Director Comey has spoken about, with
encryption technology. We have clearly got to get that right
balancing privacy and civil liberties. But when you have
probable cause with a court order, how do we gain access to
those indications so we can better protect ourselves going
forward? I know my time is expired.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
First of all--and the Chair will now recognize herself, my
turn in the queue here.
But first of all, just to comment about the truck convoys,
particularly those that are coming out of Eastern Syria, taking
the crude oil out, talking about the money for the terrorists,
just on Sunday, there was an attack, a very effective attack on
some of those truck convoys.
I would just point out, because the Air Force has been
misguided, in my opinion, on trying to retire the A-10
aircraft--attack aircraft. There have been a number of us that
have been pushing back very hard on that. We have been
successful so far. I would just point out that the aircraft is
being utilized very effectively in theater, are A-10s that are
taking those truck convoys out.
I also would like to make a comment. I don't know that I
have a question, but--I do have a question, but not on this
issue, in regards to the refugees. Because I have sat here this
morning, I have listened to a lot of comments about American
compassion, and how we need to be more compassionate, and we
can't possibly put a pause on this program.
I would just remind, talking about American compassion, the
story of two brothers that came to this country, refugees. They
came with their families to escape their homeland, the ravages
of their homeland. Cute little boys, just darling little boys.
They couldn't have possibly been a threat to the United States.
They couldn't be anybody that would, you know, would look at
radicalization, or what have you. They were here, they were
reaping the awards at the American taxpayer dollars. They were
here as we were supporting them.
They were here due to the compassion, taking advantage of
the compassion of the American people. How did they repay us
for those dollars and that support and that compassion? They
placed two pressure-cooker bombs at the end of the Boston
Marathon, and blew up innocents there, including an 8-year-old
boy who was blown to bits. So I would just mention that,
talking about American compassion.
I also think, regarding the refugees, as we look, I was
very interested to hear about the average age of the fighters,
foreign fighters, et cetera. But really, as I sort-of look at
the media, looking at all of these refugees who are leaving
Syria--and believe me, I have compassion--but for the young
people that are leaving their homeland, literally, isn't
America enabling what should be there, an age group, a
demographic that should be in Syria, hopefully in a safe area,
a safe zone, paid for by compassionate countries, including the
Saudis and the Gulf states, et cetera, to leave them there?
That is the demographic that should be in that country to
help protect their own homeland. Instead of that, we are
helping to get them to leave that. So I think that we certainly
should have a pause on the refugee program. I also will just
make one other note on that.
Back in January, myself, Chairman McCaul, and Peter King,
sent a letter to Susan Rice, in which we said--I will just read
one--we said, ``The resettlement of a high number--such a high
number of Syrian refugees raises serious National security
concerns.'' We said, ``We are concerned about the possibility
of groups like ISIS and ISIL exploiting the refugee
resettlement process to mask the deployment of operatives into
the West.''
Then we got a response in February from the administration
basically patting us on the head saying, ``Don't worry about
that. We have got it covered. We have a very extensive rigorous
system,'' they said, ``multilayered, biometric, and biographic
screening,'' which is obviously impossible. I don't know how
you are going to have biographic and biometric screening
available to do. Without objection, I will place those 2
letters into the record.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by Hon. Candice S. Miller
January 28, 2015.
The Honorable Susan Rice,
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, The White
House.
Dear Dr. Rice: It is our understanding that the State Department
plans to accelerate its efforts to admit Syrian refugees into the
United States. In December, Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richard
stated that she expected admissions from Syria ``to surge in 2015 and
beyond,'' and we have since received reports that the Department is
planning to accept tens of thousands of Syrian refugees by the end of
2016.
The resettlement of such a high number of Syrian refugees raises
serious National security concerns. The United States has a proud
history of welcoming refugees from all over the world; however, the
Syrian conflict is a special case. Syria is currently home to the
largest convergence of Islamist terrorists in world history, surpassing
even the Afghanistan conflict in the 1980s. The country has become a
safe haven for tens of thousands of extremist fighters, including more
than 20,000 foreign fighters who have flocked to the region. Many of
these militant fanatics are committed to attacking the United States
and its allies and have declared their intent to do so.
Screening these refugees is not a task to be taken lightly. As we
saw with previous Iraqi refugees--some of whom were initially admitted
to the United States and subsequently found to have ties to al-Qaeda--
the lack of a thorough security screening process can result in
individuals with terrorist ties exploiting the refugee program to
resettle in the U.S. homeland. Such failures in the initial vetting
process ultimately become a substantial burden to our law enforcement
agencies, which are then responsible for ensuring admitted individuals
do not pose a threat to our country.
We are concerned about the possibility of groups like the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) exploiting the refugee resettlement
process to mask the deployment of operatives into the West. Already we
have seen signs that extremists may be working to take advantage of
refugee routes into Europe and elsewhere, and we must assiduously avoid
exposing ourselves to the same vulnerabilities. The continued civil war
and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to
acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments
on specific refugees, which is why extra caution is necessary.
The United States has historically taken a leading role in refugee
resettlement and humanitarian protections. But we cannot allow the
refugee process to become a backdoor for jihadists. Accordingly, our
Committee wants to make sure the Administration is weighing the Syrian
resettlement question with the utmost concern for the safety of the
American people and the long-term security of the U.S. Homeland. Please
provide the Committee with a detailed description of the number of
Syrian refugees the United States expects to resettle, the timeline for
resettlement over the next two years, and an overview of how the
interagency will enhance security measures within the vetting process.
We fmiher request that you direct the relevant interagency parties
involved with this issue, including those copied on this letter, to
brief the Committee and its Members at their earliest availability.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
Peter T. King,
Chairman, Subcommitee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Candice S. Miller,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Hon. Candice S. Miller
February 24, 2015.
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives,
United States Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of January 28 to
National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding the Administration's
program to admit Syrian refugees to the United States. We have been
asked to reply on her behalf.
First, we appreciate your recognition of our nation's proud history
of welcoming refugees from all over the world. The U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan
Congressional support and your leadership will be vital to continuing
this record.
For decades, U.S. communities have welcomed refugees fleeing the
world's most dangerous and desperate situations. The U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program has provided a new start to more than three million
vulnerable refugees in the period since 1975, unlocking human potential
that might otherwise have been squandered. President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry are determined to ensure that this life-saving
and life-changing program meets the highest security standards,
including in the admission of Syrian refugees.
Reports of the intended admission of tens of thousands of Syrian
refugees by the end of 2016 are incorrect. The United States
anticipates admitting 1,000-2,000 Syrian refugees for permanent
resettlement in Fiscal Year 2015 and a somewhat higher number, though
still in the low thousands, in Fiscal Year 2016. Throughout, our
emphasis will be on the most vulnerable--particularly female-headed
households, children, survivors of torture, and those with severe
medical conditions.
In light of the nearly four million Syrian refugees currently
hosted in neighboring countries, these figures represent a very modest
but still important contribution to the global effort to address this
crisis. The refugee population we focus on often has special needs,
which can heighten the burden on host countries. U.S. leadership has
also been instrumental in securing commitments from 25 other states to
consider resettling Syrian refugees.
As Administration officials have testified before yours and other
Congressional committees, the security screening of refugee applicants
for U.S. admissions is an utmost priority. Every refugee under
consideration for U.S. admission undergoes rigorous, multi-layered
biometric and biographic screening involving multiple intelligence,
security and law enforcement agencies, including the National
Counterterrorism Center, FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, Department
of Homeland Security and Department of Defense, to ensure that those
admitted are not known to pose a threat to our country. Indeed,
applicants to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program are currently subject
to more security checks than any other category of traveler to the
United States.@
The Administration has taken a number of steps in recent years to
further intensify refugee screening, significantly informed by the
long-standing program for Iraqi refugees, as discussed in your letter.
Our Syrian screening effort has greatly benefited from the lessons of
the Iraqi admissions experience and, mindful of the particular
conditions of the Syria crisis, Syrians will undergo additional
screenings, the details of which we are happy to share in a classified
setting.
Since 2009, the Administration has provided numerous refugee
security screening briefings and we stand ready to provide additional
briefings at your convenience.
Thank you for your leadership on this matter, which is both vital
to the security of the homeland as well as instrumental to our nation's
continued humanitarian leadership.
Sincerely,
Julia Frifield,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Mrs. Miller. My question to the witnesses is regarding the
Visa Waiver Program, of which I have a bill, and I am hopeful
that we are going to take that up as soon as we can. I actually
chair the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. We have
had numerous hearings about the Visa Waiver Program, and
whether or not, with the 38 countries that are currently
participating, and if they are not to our comfort zone and our
degree of confidence, really giving us, through the information
protocols, the information, the traveler information that we
think we need, then we can think about who these countries are.
We set it up in 1986 because we wanted to expedite tourism.
Well, this is not 1986. As you think really about the outer
ring of border security now, and the kinds of things we should
be doing, whether that is preclearance, or certainly with Visa
Waiver, 38 countries--France, Germany, Belgium, et cetera--I
mean, that in my mind is even a bigger concern, way bigger
concern, than the refugees, really, because you see that you
have a huge--a much higher proportion of foreign fighters that
are coming back into these countries in Europe before they come
into America.
So I just would like to ask the witnesses what they think
about our current Visa Waiver Program, and what we need to
secure America.
Mr. Olsen. So absolutely, this is an area for Congressional
oversight. How does this program work? Is the information being
shared under the program as it was intended to be? I agree with
you wholeheartedly, as I said earlier.
The issue, from the perspective, I think, of U.S. National
security and homeland security, should be more focused on the
foreign fighter population than on the refugee. The foreign
fighter population, they have already demonstrated a
commitment, right, to go to Syria and fight, 4,000-plus from
Western Europe, or at least from the West. Many of those from
these Visa Waiver countries.
Now, I think it is important to find out, as you know, the
Visa Waiver Program is not a free pass. There is an information
vetting that takes place. The question is, are the protocols,
as you point out, followed? Is that information being shared
between the United States and these countries? So it is a
potential vulnerability, and I think an appropriate area for
the oversight of your committee.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Anyone else before we----
General Keane. I agree with Matt. I mean, times have
changed. We need to review. It makes sense for the Congress to
dig into it.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am a member, a co-chair of the French Caucus, and I want
to use this opportunity to again underscore the heartbreak all
of us have with their losses. It is just made us more resolute,
these committees, to move forward, and also say that the spirit
of Boston strong--is Paris strong right here in this Congress.
I am also Members of both of these, I am a Member of both
of these committees, and have seen that the work we do, the
bipartisan work that we do in both committees, has been
constructed in the past, and will be constructed in the future.
I saw in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing that the work
this committee did resulted in changes that have made our
country more secure.
Along those lines, a small group of us did go to look at
the issue of foreign terrorist fighters and their travel just a
few months ago. We went to France, we met with the officials
there who are indeed very well-skilled and aggressive. But we
met with Belgian officials, we met with NATO officials, we met
with people from Berlin, and we met with officials from the
Istanbul airport, as well as going to Iraq.
We released the report today along those lines that I think
is very important. But I am going to focus on one area of that
report, because of the time limits of this hearing. You know,
we are looking at so many issues that are daunting, seemingly
overwhelming in this fight against terrorism and ISIS.
But there is one area that I think that we can move on
immediately, and have immediate safeguards, not just globally,
but here in the United States as well, and that is the issue
that is highlighted in the report, the series of issues. I will
just name a few of them. But one of them clearly is the delay
in dealing with the issue of air safety and air travel.
Passenger name records, this has been languishing in the
European Union now for a couple of years.
What we do routinely to cross-reference lists of passengers
against potential terrorists, they are not doing in a
comprehensive way at all in Europe, where there is such an open
portal. The report even states its most alarming failure of
European states is to screen their own citizens against
terrorist watch lists.
Another area is their lack of information sharing that we
saw that really is another weakness, not just globally, but
back here at home. It was termed as ad hoc, intermittent,
incomplete. It detailed a weak and patchwork system that
exists, dealing with Interpol, sharing that information that is
so vital.
Then dealing with their border issues, which is another
issue that came about, has been highlighted in the tragedy of
Paris, is the lack of external border security in Europe, and
how they are not dealing with that. It reveals border guards
reportedly screen only 30 percent of E.U. passports for fraud
when citizens go in and go out of the Schengen zone.
So looking at these issues, and looking at the lack of
security there, and things that can be corrected, things we do
here in the United States and other countries, I want you to
talk, if you could, about the risk that these gaps really
present, not only to Europe, not only globally, but here in the
United States as well, if you could.
Mr. Olsen. Well, I really couldn't agree more. I haven't
had a chance to review the committee's report, but those issues
that you identified--the air safety, information sharing,
external border control--these are issues that we have dealt
with in the United States, certainly since 9/11. Huge
investment in all these areas. Coming from the National
Counterterrorism Center, our jobs largely revolved around
pulling data together. Sharing that information. Enabling the
watchlisting to take place with regard to transportation safety
and airline safety.
We have worked closely, I know over the last several years,
with our European partners to try to instill the importance of
adopting some of these best practices. I think there is still
lagging behind as you suggest. I also would suggest that this
does create a vulnerability. Not just obviously in Europe but
also here in the United States because of the ease of travel
between Europe and the United States. So it is something that
we need to redouble our efforts on in working with our European
allies.
Mr. Keating. Yes, Mr. Bergen.
Mr. Bergen. Another kind is, what happened to Sharm el-
Sheikh? I mean, clearly it was an airport worker who got the
bomb on the plane and there are 200 airports around the world
where there are U.S.-bound flights. You know, the people
working these airports are not being screened appropriately. I
will give you one concrete example.
A British Airways employee was in touch with Anwar al-
Awlaki, the leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen, in 2011 was planning
to get a bomb on an American plane. Luckily he was arrested.
But you can assume that there are other cases out there,
airport employees in some of these 200 airports who have some
animus against the United States or could be bribed or in
someway induced to put a bomb on a plane.
So Sharm el-Sheikh demonstrates a huge gap that needs to be
closed.
Mr. Keating. General.
General Keane. It is really beyond my expertise Mr.
Congressman. I am not dodging the question. I just--all I have
been giving you is opinion.
Mr. Keating. Yes. I think honestly, I will close with what
you are saying. I don't think you need a great deal of
expertise on these series of issues. It is common sense. These
delays and lack of moving forward presents great risks here at
home as well. If we are going to work as a coalition we have to
work together.
There are, to be fair, there are European countries, like
France, that are sharing information, dealing with this. But we
are only strong as our weakest link. I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. Thank you. Mr. Olsen. In 2011, Chairman King
held a series of hearings on the radicalization of Muslim
Americans. The committee released several findings, including,
``There is a need to confront the Islamist ideology driving
radicalization. There is not enough Muslim-American community
cooperation with law enforcement. The terrorist threat to
military is on the rise. Political correctness continues to
stifle the military's ability to counter the threat.''
What steps, if any, has the administration taken in regards
to these findings and in your opinion, are these issues still
evident today in the radicalization of Americans?
Mr. Olsen. The challenge that we face with ISIS now, in
terms of its propaganda and its really unprecedented use of
social media platforms to mobilize, recruit, radicalize young
people in the United States. It highlights the challenge that
you identify in your question. How does the United States--what
has the United States been able to do to help counter that
message in order to really----
Mr. Marino. But has the administration?
Mr. Olsen. Absolutely. So, over the last several years, and
we were part of this effort at the National Counterterrorism
Center, working closely with the FBI, working with the
Department of Homeland Security and the State Department,
taking a number of steps to counter this message.
But, one of the key parts of it is to work closely with
neighborhoods and communities to make sure that they have the
information to inform their own families about the way--about
the dangers of on-line radicalization.
Train police officers to identify the signs of
radicalization so when they see an individual who may be moving
in that direction, these local police departments. Remember,
out of--in the United States the vast majority of our people on
the front line are not the FBI agents but the local police
departments and firefighters are going to be the first to see
someone going down as fast as--putting money into training
these individuals.
But the problem, more to your question, is one that is
ultimately is going to require neighborhoods, communities to
solve, right? We are talking about working with Muslim
communities, not making them part of the problem. So that has
to be a big part of the solution.
Mr. Marino. I agree with you on all that but is the
administration doing that?
Mr. Olsen. Yes.
Mr. Marino. Is it doing it to an efficient level?
Mr. Olsen. I think it--I think part of the--I think it is--
I think it could do more and I think part of the problem is
resources.
Mr. Marino. All right. General, I am going to skip right to
the ``but'' part, okay? Let's cut to the chase here. The
President does not want to be responsible for civilian deaths.
He has had opportunities to arm Iraqis and Syrian men but chose
not to.
He constantly says ISIS is contained. Now, unless I am not
grasping something here, the President has turned his back on
this disaster. Do you truly believe that one person, i.e. the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, can influence the President to
change his position and reverse his policies when his inept
foreign policy advisers have controlled the President since Day
1?
General Keane. I honestly don't know. Obviously we have
been frustrated with this policy and dealing with ISIS from the
outset. I am absolutely convinced that the decision was made to
provide the minimum amount of resources. I think that the
President and the team around him was making a bet that this
thing would not really get worse. They never used the word
contain. They used the word degrade and then destroy and they
changed that to defeat which is a better military term than
destroy.
I think they were just hoping that their minimal policies
of involvement here would keep a lid on this thing.
Mr. Marino. Okay.
General Keane. But it hasn't and that is the reality of it.
Now, your question is: Given what has taken place, will the
President make substantive change to get a decisive result? I
doubt it, to be frank.
Mr. Marino. I do too. I am going to get to my next question
here on state really. I agree with Chairman McCaul on stopping
the refugees from coming into the country at this point. But
nevertheless and I agree with the Chairwoman wholeheartedly. If
that comes to be, why would we not stop men, physically healthy
men, from 18 years of age to 50, to say, you go back. You
defend your country. Now, we have to make some changes as far
as what we suppply them with before we have Americans do it.
Can you give me a response?
Anyone on that? Do you have an opinion about that?
General Keane. Well, I do believe that, at least when it
pertains to Syria, when I saw a lot of the--who was part of the
migration. I am assuming a certain percentage of that is
Syrian. You know, all the films that we have all seen. I think
the expats who were trying to determine what that pool is. I
think Syrians represent about a 30 percent of it. There are a
lot of young people there.
I do know for a fact because we tracked the Syrian
military. The Syrian military used to be about 220,000. Now, it
is about a 100,000. They have a high desertion rate. They have
low morale. Their equipment isn't very good. So, some of those
young people are--don't want to join the Syrian military and
they are leaving because they want a better way of life.
I would rather have them join the Syrian opposition for us
to deal with that. Going back to the basic question, we have
said this before. I mean, if we have a documented youngster in
front of us and he is part of this pool that we are looking at
and we have no evidence that would assure us that he is not
involved somehow, then I don't know why we would take him.
I mean, I will leave that up to the experts that are
dealing with it. But on the surface of it, just using some
common sense, I think that is the kind of common sense we have
to have in working through this thing.
Mr. Marino. Yes, but times have changed at this point. We
just cannot have our doors open under these circumstances. I
would rather protect Americans before anybody else. With that,
I yield back.
Thank you Chairman.
Mrs. Miller. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you Madam Chair and thank the Chairman
and the Ranking Members for calling this very timely hearing. I
thank the witnesses for their very useful testimony.
I want to begin with--you know, I think, I appreciate the
witnesses and in particular your attention to our refugee
policy and how it reflects our values and frankly what a change
in that policy would mean in terms of ISIS's ability to recruit
and to continue to engage in terror around the world.
So I want to first ask whether or not any of the witnesses
think there are improvements or adjustments that should be made
to the existing, sort-of new policy that you mentioned Mr.
Olsen.
Are there things that we should do in addition to this very
comprehensive vetting, multi-agency, multi-layered process that
you think are worth considering at this point?
Mr. Olsen. You know, I don't know of anything off-hand to
be perfectly frank. I--you know, I think--I assume that the
professionals that are responsible for this program are doing
everything that they think is prudent.
The one issue and this has been highlighted before and it
actually cuts against the program, which is the lack of
intelligence in some case, about these individuals. That is an
issue. As you look at somebody, if you don't have good
intelligence coming out of Syria, it is going to be harder to
make some of these judgments.
So, the one thing I would say in response to your question
is, if we--the more we can do to collect intelligence, the
better our vetting process is going to be.
Mr. Cicilline. Anyone else?
Mr. Bergen. Yes. I mean, an observation here. We have taken
2,200 refugees. I have seen reports that 2 percent of them were
military aged males, so that is 44 people. Given the far how
desperate these people are, could you imagine a situation where
you gave people who did come in some form of probationary
release and some sort of supervised level of supervision that
most refugees don't have.
I mean, I think people are desperate to come here and they
would basically agree to that if that was something that was
seen as desirable. But the point is that very few military-aged
males are being lead in under this program.
By the way, when there has been a deadly jihadist terrorist
attack in the United States, it is by an American citizen or
resident. The Soni brothers came to this country as refugees 14
years before they did the attack and they were--one was an
American citizen and one was an American resident. So we should
keep that in perspective.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
General Keane. I don't have anything to add to that.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, general. In part of the briefing
materials that we received from the committee, it reveals that
there are 40 Americans that have returned home to the United
States after traveling to Syria and engaging with or pledging
allegiance to jihadist groups. But that only 5 had been
arrested.
I am curious to hear. If you could give us some assessments
to why that is. Is simply engaging with a jihadist group.
Shouldn't that, if it is not already, be a crime? If it is
sufficient to DOJ, the additional authority. Does Congress need
to take some action? Why is that those individuals that have
gone to Syria returned after engaging or pledging allegiance to
jihadist groups are not?
Mr. Bergen. That is a slight misunderstanding, sir. The 40
that have returned, as Director Clapper said in March publicly,
that many of them had gone for humanitarian purposes. Anybody
that has been determined to be associated with a jihadi group,
and that includes groups other than ISIS, has been arrested.
Mr. Cicilline. All of them?
Mr. Bergen. Except in one exception. There was one--there
was a Floridian, a guy called Mohammad Abu-Salha. He worked for
al-Qaeda. He came here. He lived in this country. He went back
to Syria and conducted a suicide attack.
There is one other person associated with ISIS who had some
plot potentially to attack a military base in Texas. He has
also been arrested.
So the 40 number is people who came back, most of whom were
just there for humanitarian purposes.
Mr. Cicilline. I think people would be very interested to
hear, as we learn that these individuals in France were at
least identified, or some of them were known or identified to
authorities there, but either were lost or were not tracked.
Can you in this sort of a setting provide some assurance as to
what individuals who come back from Syria that are of interest
to the U.S. Government are either tracked or closely monitored
in the way that maybe did not occur in France?
Mr. Olsen. My understanding is that the FBI, and I have
seen this first-hand, devotes an enormous amount of resources
to tracking an individual they can identify who has traveled,
tracking them through surveillance, through electronic
surveillance, through other means.
What I think has--and the French are quite good at
counterterrorism. The difference really is numbers. The
European services are essentially overwhelmed by the numbers.
They don't have the level of resources placed into their
counterterrorism efforts as we do in the United States.
But the number of foreign fighters returning when you think
of is just a different scale. It is a different order of
magnitude. Four thousand plus versus 200 or so here who have
left. So that just creates a very different situation.
Mr. Cicilline. General, I just have a couple of seconds
left. If you could just expand a little bit upon the argument
you made about our refusal--our change in policy with respect
to refugees fleeing the violence in the Syrian civil war, how
that might actually advance the cause of ISIS and provide them
with an opportunity to recruit and to use that on social media.
Could you explain a little bit of that?
General Keane. Yes. You mean the--I mean if we just
summarily rejected them?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
General Keane. Yes. Certainly.
What that does is provides them--it falls right into their
sweet spot in terms of the argument that they are making that
Muslims are being alienated, that they have just grievances
against the host countries that they are living in. These are
the people that they are seeking to bring to the movement, to
radicalize them, to provide them with some inspiration to, as
mostly second-generation youngsters, to do something about
their life, to have a sense of purpose, to address the
grievances in a radicalized, violent way.
These things will happen without--whether we say yes or no
to this policy change or not. But all it would do, in my mind,
because it is America and everything we say and do gets known
pretty quickly around the world, that they would just--they
would exploit it. They would say see, even America, they have
this problem you know with Muslims.
I am pretty confident that that is not what we are going to
do. The people in this room that I think are on the right path
you know to let's take a look and make sure, given we have a
change in the circumstance, that we do believe that people may
in fact be infiltrating the refugees. Let's put together a
program that is prudent and reasonable to safeguard the
American people. I think we can do that.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank the Chair and I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Olsen, in your opinion, why is Saudi Arabia not taking
any of these refugees?
Mr. Olsen. I don't have a view on that. I don't know----
Mr. Salmon. Anybody?
Mr. Olsen. I don't know that they are or not----
Mr. Salmon. I think it is just quite odd, given the fact
that they have so much vested interest in the outcome of this
conflict that they are refusing to take any refugees. Does
anybody have an opinion on that?
General Keane. Yes. I agree with you. I mean just in asking
the question you are troubled by it. I think all of us are
troubled by it.
Here is one of the things that has happened. I mean the 4
million refugees that currently exist in the region, they are
in Lebanon. They are in Turkey and they are in Jordan. Those
countries are all burdened by this.
Mr. Salmon. Agree.
General Keane. One of the things we can do is leverage
Saudi Arabia and other countries to at a minimum to help
increase the support, the financial support for that.
What has happened and I think you can appreciate this. I
mean, many here have been to refugee camps and you understand
the challenge of living in a refugee camp. When it gets to be
4-plus years and you don't see an end to the conflict that is
in your country, there is this sense of hopelessness.
I think once it was established that there really was an
alternative life someplace else, not a temporary one, a
complete life reversal. They realized that when some
exfiltrated into Europe then those floodgates opened.
We have lost a lot of our influence with our Sunni allies
in the region over this nuclear deal. We have two issues. No.
1, what that did. No. 2, in terms of losing leverage with them.
Second, they don't believe that we are prosecuting this war
properly.
Mr. Salmon. Right.
General Keane. That is the second reason.
Let me give you another example of how far this has gone.
There are four countries that are buying arms from Russia now.
I talked to 2 of the officials in those 4 countries.
This is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Egypt. In Egypt
the Russians actually have training assisters working against
ISIS helping them do it, a role that we have traditionally had
for now for 30 years.
So I asked the officials, why are you buying Russian
equipment? Do you have some fascination about Russian
equipment? I sort-of knew what the answer was, but I wanted him
to tell me.
He said no, we normally buy American. We normally buy
selected European equipment. We are buying Russian equipment
not because we want the equipment, but because we want the
relationship.
Mr. Salmon. You know I agree----
General Keane. So that is what has happened to us. This,
the influence we had in that region among those Sunni states
was considerable. They do not find us reliable.
They actually do not trust us, and that is a difficult word
to say. But that is a word that they use. We don't have the
leverage to do some of the things that we want them to do
humanitarian-wise.
Mr. Salmon. I agree that I think a lot of it is because we
bungled this thing from the get-go in the region with ISIS. I
have 3 questions, general. I am going to address them all to
you and I am going to get them out there.
First of all, by not going all-in, as you have suggested--
and by the way, I agree exactly with you that the Congress
needs to weigh in a lot more on this issue and that we should
address an AUMF. I agree with you on both counts.
By not going all-in to win, are we making the 50 troops
that are committed to the region more vulnerable? That is my
first question.
The second one, are you convinced that the administration
is utilizing senior military leaders' best advice on this
strategy?
Then finally, are we losing a valuable asset by bombing
ISIS individuals and targets instead of capturing ISIS
leadership in order to gain intelligence?
Those are my 3 questions.
General Keane. Yes. In terms of our soft guys you are
talking about in Syria, no, I think they will be fine. Not to--
not a risk associated with that.
I don't know what is happening and why we made this
announcement. These guys have been there doing this kind of
work for some time. Maybe we just want to take credit for
something that in the past had been Classified, but obviously
it is no longer.
They have had some impact on the Syrian Kurds and on the
small group of Sunni Arabs that are in that area. They were
instrumental in helping to take back that territory.
If I had a map here, if you look at the border from the
Euphrates River Valley where it enters from Turkey into Syria
all the way to the Iraq border, that border is now cleaned of
ISIS. That is obviously Kurdish territory.
Our people that were there helped to facilitate that and
the planning in how to do that, and also facilitated the use of
air power. That air power is much more effective.
They are very good at taking care of themselves and I am
confident they will be okay. What we need is a lot more.
Obviously that number is a very small number, regardless of
what the mission is.
In terms of capturing, this is something we did routinely
in Iraq and Afghanistan. You know the night that bin Laden went
down in Pakistan I think we had 8 to 9 hits that night in
Pakistan, which were usually routine, to go in and first and
foremost always in Afghanistan, and we do the same thing in
Iraq, is to try to capture.
If we couldn't capture then because there was a threat you
know to the people that were conducting the attack, then they
had to kill. But in most of those operations we got so good at
it that on 85 percent of those operations in the last couple of
years of it no shots were ever fired because we were able to
achieve so much surprise.
What that does for us, it was an explosion of intelligence
value because you are talking about leaders. They have huge
value. What they have on them, but more importantly what we can
get from their head when we start talking to them. It was
incredibly valuable to us.
Largely we are not doing that here. I think it is the--I
think they have some of the--we got to take the gloves off of
it. I think they are shackled because of the increased risk of
the operation, et cetera.
But that is a very important part of what our--what we
should be dealing with. High-value targets, is the term that we
use to describe that. We should get back to capturing more than
we kill.
The problem we have here, and I think you know it, is the
administration has held back our Special Operation Forces from
doing operations where they are on the ground routinely doing
these kind of missions. So to capture somebody you got to be in
the building to capture them.
If you know there are bad guys in a building then you can
use a drone to kill them. That is what we are doing. Or if they
are in a car, we are hitting them with a drone. That has become
the preferable way to deal with a high-value target in Syria or
Iraq. That was not the preferable way we dealt with it in
Afghanistan or Iraq when we were there the first time. The way
we dealt with it is to try to capture them. That should change.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As with everyone on
this committee, and throughout the country, our thoughts and
prayers go to the victims of these heinous attacks in Paris.
But it is that reminder that we are in this long conflict and
war against terror. This is--make no underestimation--this is a
long haul fighting against these terrorists who want to hurt us
and want to kill us.
My question is going to be directed to Mr. Bergen. You
know, this is much more than just a traditional ground war,
ground operation. This is counterintelligence,
counterterrorism. We can, and have been, successful killing
ISIS fighters in Syria. I believe the number is we have killed
over 10,000 fighters.
But the problem is we are losing the recruitment war. We
are losing the propaganda war. It is my belief--and I brought
this up in committee previously--that they are using the tools
of the internet, social media, et cetera, to recruit foreigners
to continue to replace these individuals. If we don't win that
battle on the front, we can kill them in Syria, but if they can
continue to replace these fighters, that is a bigger threat.
Because once they are there, if they are U.S. citizens, if they
are European citizens, it is a very time-consuming, difficult
task to prevent them from coming back.
Mr. Bergen, what would your recommendations be, your
assessment on that propaganda war, on whether we are doing
enough on the front end to prevent these recruits, so we don't
have to fight them on the back end?
Mr. Bergen. I agree with that assessment, because estimates
of 10,000 fighters being killed, and the estimates of 1,000
foreign fighters coming in every month, I mean, sort of a
stalemate in terms of recruitment.
You know, I think one thing that is useful is social
pressure on social media companies. So every social media
company--a lot of these immature companies, recently born, they
tend to have--they don't want the Government telling them what
to do, kind of an ideological frame.
We have seen the Facebook was quite effective in enforcing
its own terms of use. The terms of use of these companies are--
you can't put material on your site that solicits for acts of
violence. So all they have to do is enforce their own terms of
use. We saw Twitter was initially reluctant, and now is
beginning to do that.
So, you know, it is not just the government by fiat saying
you have got to do that, it is also just sort of social
pressure. That will be pretty effective, because if the violent
and Jihadi content doesn't exist, then it is not going to
incite people to be recruited. So I think there is something to
be said. Hearings like this, does it make this kind of clear
that this is something that these companies should be doing?
Then there--then it becomes a harder issue with this
question. ISIS is telling people to use TOR, which is the
darknet. It is instructing people to use Android phones, which
are the most secure phones. It is instructing the U.K.--
WhatsApp and these other encrypted anonymized applications.
How do you deal with that? I just don't know. It is such an
observation, but it is happening. Once we have identified the
problem, then we can start having a conversation about what to
do with it. But even if the United States Government said all
these companies should basically allow a back door, that
doesn't--there is an application called Telegram which is based
in Germany. ISIS is using that very heavily.
So even if we do say to all tech companies, ``You have to
put a back door in,'' that doesn't prevent other companies
around the world from just going ahead and doing their own
thing.
Mr. Bera. Well, Mr. Bergen, you have identified some of the
challenges that we have. So we know what we are facing, we know
the challenges, and we know places where we are losing, and
they are winning on this recruitment war. We have to double
down. There is an urgency of now, because we can fight them
over there, and we should fight them over there, and kill them
over there, and keep them over there in Syria.
But they are also using these tools of communication to
recruit individuals who want to harm us right here. If we are
not using everything with our means to prevent that, we are
going to be attacked, and that is a problem. That is a concern
I have with the administration, that we are not doing enough on
that front.
General Keane, you would agree with the assessment that
this is a long-term engagement. This is a long-term battle
against terror that is not a traditional ground campaign.
Anyone who thinks this is a traditional ground war, where we
are going to send 50,000 troops in, is mistaken.
General Keane. I agree with this. I mean, I think we are
involved in a multigenerational struggle with radical Islam. I
think it dominates--it will dominate the first half of this
century, much like communist ideology dominated the latter part
of the 20th Century.
You know, what is sad, in my judgment, is that--and
frustrating--you know, we are 14 years from 9/11, and we have
never had a comprehensive strategy to deal with the entire
rubric of what radical Islam is. It is far too long after 9/11
to still, through two Presidents, a Republican and Democratic
one, that we have not formed the kind of political and military
alliances that we did to deal with communist ideology. We
should have regional global alliances to deal with this.
In terms of the long-term nature of radical Islam, its
ideology, et cetera, this is not something we can do from
America. This is the people who are dealing with this directly
have to be a part of all of that. ISIS, however, and what it
represents in Syria and Iraq, that is a problem we can handle
much more in the near term.
There will be another ISIS to be sure if we don't do the
big issue. But that is something that we can deal with, and
should deal with, and move with a sense of urgency, and a sense
of resolve and commitment to do that. Don't get trapped into
the fact that--and I believe this is an error the President has
made--that, well, this is going to take multi-years to solve.
The fact of the matter, think of it this way: ISIS is--what
differentiates ISIS from any other terrorist organization we
have dealt with, is that they own territory. From that
territory, they are able to do all these other things that we
are concerned about. But the fact that they own territory is
also their greatest vulnerability. Owning territory for ISIS is
no different than Germans owning territory, the Japanese, the
Koreans. You can physically take it away from them.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. The Chair will advise, before I
recognize the next Member, we are going to be voting in about
10 minutes, and we still have several people to ask questions
here, so if we could stay to the 5-minute rule as closely as we
can. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Madam Chair. The 9/11 Commission
report, which I talk about often, usually carry it with me to
Homeland Security meetings, that report, and those
recommendations, the Congress, they made it very clear. By the
way, Congress passed those recommendations, and the President
signed them. I think we have ignored a lot of those
recommendations that were in there.
But it made it very clear that terrorists want two things;
they want to enter the United States, and they want to be able
to remain there until they carry out their mission. They are
not going to hesitate to take advantage of any distinct
weaknesses that we have in our immigration system to get here,
which is why I have always called for a full implementation of
the biometric entry and exit, which was a recommendation in
that report, so that we know not only who came into the
country, but we know whether or not they have left or not.
This committee and Homeland, we have heard from National
security experts who have testified that we have no ability to
screen individuals in Syria. We have no credible partners.
There is no system in place to gather credible evidence.
We also have to look into fixing our Visa Waiver Program.
There are 38 countries that are members of the Visa Waiver
Program. Citizens of those 38 countries can visit for up to 90
days. They don't have to obtain a visa. They don't have to
undergo an in-person interview. Again, remembering that
terrorists want to enter, and then they want to be able to
stay.
Couple this with the visa overstay situation. I see that we
have a real problem. Nearly 50 percent of people who are in the
country illegally, they can cross a border illegally. They come
on a visa and disappear. We can't find them.
The Islamic State has promised to attack us. They said
American blood is the best blood, and that they will taste it
soon. I believe them. So given that we don't know who they are,
we can't screen them properly, we know that one of the Paris
attackers came in as a refugee, so we believe, and that the
President is insisting on admitting 10,000 more Syrian
refugees, I would like each of you to answer, how can we be
assured and assure the American people that there won't be ISIS
fighters hidden among the refugees coming into this country?
How do we separate salt from sugar?
I understand the refugee program is a great program to
bring people here. But how do we separate the salt from the
sugar? How do we reassure the American people, without a
screening process in place in Syria? General Keane.
General Keane. Well, I think Director Olsen gave us the
best explanation of that entire process. You may not have been
here for that, but he took us through what that is; an 18-month
process of screening, which gives you, I think, reasonable
assurances that someone is not here for the wrong reason, but
doesn't give you perfect assurances. That, I think, is likely
impossible.
Mr. Barletta. Excuse me. But isn't it different in Syria
than it is in other--where are the records? Assad is not going
to share any information with us. So the screening process in
Syria, I wasn't here for that, so maybe you can enlighten me.
Would the process be the same in Syria as it is somewhere else,
when we don't have a credible system in place? We don't have a
partner in place to share information. Where would we be
getting the records from?
Mr. Olsen. Yes. Well, the process is the same. In fact, the
process has been augmented since--over the last several years.
We have learned a lot from the process of vetting Iraqi
refugees. So the process now does include all the database
checks from the intelligence community, the FBI, the Department
of Defense. It includes interviews, actual in-person
interviews. It includes the collection of biometric----
Mr. Barletta. Nobody is going to admit in an interview that
they are associated with ISIS. So that is not----
Mr. Olsen. Some of the--you know, from what I have seen,
some of the best trained State Department and Homeland Security
professionals are involved exactly in this program. So they are
trained to really make a discerning judgment about somebody
based on the answers they give. As General Keane said,
certainly, somebody who has got no background, no records, no
documentation----
Mr. Barletta. If they committed a crime there in Syria,
where would those--where would we get the records from?
Mr. Olsen. So there is--one--I mean obviously you do raise
a point about the challenge of underlying information. So there
isn't as much information, for example, about someone seeking
refugee status out of Syria than from any other country.
Mr. Barletta. So it is much too risky. It is much more--
there is much more risk because we have had 4 National security
experts, two from the FBI, tell us that we don't have a system
in place there. It is very difficult to get information,
records, and to really know who these people are.
So my question goes back to how do you separate the salt
from the sugar? I don't doubt that many of the people that we
are going to let in are going to be good people. But I am
worried about the salt part.
Mr. Olsen. Yes. Well, the way you do that is through a very
rigorous process, the process that I laid out----
Mr. Barletta. But if the process is flawed, how do we
assure the American people that they don't have to worry?
Mr. Olsen. You know, I think as General Keane said, and as
I said earlier, there is no process that is going to be 100%
guaranteed. So there is always going to be some degree of risk.
What you want to do is adopt a process that mitigates that risk
to the extent that it is practicable.
Again, it is an area, obviously with appropriate
oversight----
Mr. Barletta. I think until we fix that process there I
think the American people right now aren't comfortable. They
are not comfortable with hearing well, we are pretty good, but
we don't have all the information.
We are asking them to trust us that we are not going to see
here in America what they saw in Paris. Quite honestly, I don't
feel good myself. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have 3 questions. I
think that it would make most sense to direct these to Peter
Bergen since some of it is drawn from his testimony, or having
read his written statement.
First is I find it ironic that not just here at this
hearing, but in the mass media, for instance Friday, so much
focus has been on the 2,200 refugees that were coming from
Syria when actually it seems to me that the much more acute
problem is the problem of home-grown terrorism in Europe. These
are in the overwhelming majority.
While we don't have all the evidence, the overwhelming
majority of those who perpetrated the attacks in Paris were
European passport holders, primarily French and Belgian. This
is not the first time.
This is it seems to me, an acute problem that I don't know
what the answer is when you are talking about citizens who have
the full rights of citizenship of Euro countries. Yet because
of either ancestry or familial ties, feel the compulsion to go
down the direction they have had.
So I would just ask Mr. Bergen what your recommendations
are on how we deal with this problem. Then I will transition
more to how it affects the United States in a moment.
Mr. Bergen. I think your assessment of the problem is
correct. I mean you only have to think back to Richard Reid,
the so-called shoe bomber, who was a British citizen, who tried
to blow up an American plane flying between Paris and Miami a
few months after 9/11.
So you know I mean I am not an expert on the Visa Waiver
Program. I know that DHS has tightened up the requirements for
people who are in the Visa Waiver Program, and there is a lot
more porting of information. But clearly that is a potential
problem.
But on the other hand, you don't--you know we benefit, we,
the United States, benefit tremendously from having tourists
from around the West coming here and business people coming
here and being able to travel easily ourselves to these
countries without ourselves encountering a very elaborate visa
kind of process.
Mr. Boyle. Your answer reflects the same sort of tension
and challenge that I find within myself in trying to deal with
this enormous problem.
The second is, and it is related to this. We have also
focused, and I say we, not just Congress, but as a society we
have focused a great deal on the challenge of those who have
left America, become radicalized, gone to Syria to fight and
might come back to our shores. Again, I find that the much more
challenging issue.
I think the FBI Director Comey even has talked about this.
I think the much more, again, acute problem is those who are
loosely affiliated with jihadi groups who become self-
radicalized here in the United States and then go about and
act.
I read--to quote specifically from your testimony, ``acts
of violence by Americans inspired by both no direct connection
to the terrorist groups in Syria pose a more immediate
challenge than attacks by returning fighters from Syria.'' So I
was wondering if you could expand upon that.
Mr. Bergen. I am not going to abjure my own testimony. But
you know I mean--you know it is useful to look at the Somali-
Americans who went to Somalia. They are mostly from Minnesota.
There was a great concern they would come back and they
would do something in the United States, and none of them did.
The reason for that is half of them got killed over there
because a very dangerous war, and some of them committed
suicide and suicide attacks.
So I think your--we should--the focus in fact is--I mean we
saw in Garland, Texas people who were inspired by ISIS who had
some direct communication over Twitter with ISIS fighters. We
have seen you know a number of these cases. There were some--
they also have a natural ceiling because they tend to be lone
wolves. Lone wolves have--you know it is not a huge network as
we saw in Paris.
Mr. Boyle. Right.
Mr. Bergen. You know, there is a certain kind of ceiling to
what they can do. But it is a real concern.
Mr. Boyle. Then finally having--while being one of the
younger Members of Congress, I am old enough that have very
vivid memories from being here and working in the private
sector during
9/11, and also being here the following year when we had the
D.C. sniper.
While 9/11 had the, obviously the psychological impact and
is still remembered vividly today, in terms of changing the
behavior of ordinary Americans' lives, actually the D.C.
sniper, just two individuals with a truck and a shotgun, ended
up affecting the normal lives of suburban residents of this
area to a much greater extent than 9/11 did. So my primary
worry continues to be these soft targets that are essentially
low-tech, low-imagination, but much more difficult to protect.
With that, I will yield back.
Mrs. Miller. We thank the gentleman for his question. The
witnesses can answer for the record. In the interest of time,
since the vote has been called, the Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chair.
General, I appreciate the map here. It is very informative.
From the map it doesn't appear like we have ISIS contained very
much.
Quickly--a couple of quick questions. I will stay within
our time period. What type of planning, logistics,
communications, C3I would it have taken to plan and execute the
Paris attack for ISIS?
It appears to me it is much more than just a lone-wolf
attack that we usually see from like a CVE radicalization
locally. I mean how much logistics and planning and training
did that attack, in your opinion, take?
General Keane. Yes. Well, certainly it begins with somebody
who is in charge. Then target selection based on
reconnaissance. How much time is it that they--do they want to
incur, certainly. There is obviously also some training
involved. People have to know how to use the weapons that they
have.
Most significantly I think what was--what we saw there for
the first time was the introduction of suicide vests. I mean I
think the French police will determine you know how that was
done, who made those bombs that turned that into a suicide
vest, which is a skill set all of its own.
So obviously there is a lot of planning that took place in
here and coordination. They tried to do these attacks you know
near simultaneous. That is a level of detail also to do
something like that.
It is, as I mentioned before, very significant that they
were able to maintain operational superior OPSEC, as we call
it. Particularly when they--you knew the French police and
intelligence services were expecting something at the two
previous attacks.
Mr. Loudermilk. So there was an element of command and
control, training, logistic----
General Keane. All of that. All of the elements of actually
a much larger campaign are there in a very small way, but all
in a very critical way to be able to do that.
All of these people, I mean they obviously have lives that
they are trying to live as well. I would assume some of them
had jobs or whatever. They had you know connections to others.
The operational security that they are maintaining and doing is
a very big thing, the biggest thing they are ever going to do
in their life, which is going to be the end of their life.
Mr. Loudermilk. So you--really----
General Keane. Yet they didn't--if they shared it with
somebody, they also were part of the operational security. So
they had a certain amount of discipline about themselves to be
able to do this.
You know a Major Hasan is one thing at, you know at Fort
Hood. And----
Mr. Loudermilk. More of a lone wolf, radicalized local----
General Keane. This is a----
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. On himself.
General Keane. This is a cell----
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. Right.
General Keane [continuing]. That worked together as a team
that I am sure some members had various functions that they had
to perform, and put together you know a complex operation which
is what this was.
Mr. Loudermilk. It took operatives in country that were
skilled, trained----
General Keane. I don't know where they got their training.
We will leave that to the French intelligence services. I am
sure they will get all of this at some point. It will be
revealed to us in terms--because they have captured some
people.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
General Keane. I think we will understand a lot more about
it than we know today. But the basic elements had to be there
for this operation to be successful.
Mr. Loudermilk. But the question I want to get to is
because of the resources it took, the command-and-control
element, the training, the coordination, and everything.
You go back to the onset of World War II, we saw an
expansion by Japan until Jimmy Doolittle went in and he bombed
Tokyo, which caused the Japanese to be concerned about their
own territory. They were retracted. They weren't able to link
up with the Nazis.
Would we see the same thing happen if we were causing ISIS
to be busy defending its own territory, would we see a
retraction to where they have to realign their resources to
take care of their own back home?
General Keane. Well, I mean the logic of that is
compelling. I would say yes, that is true.
I mean to do that I think our strategy gave--has bought
time for ISIS. I think that is why that map is revealing in
terms of that has always been there, now they are executing it.
Despite the fact that we said we were going--we intended to
defeat them.
The other thing is, and it is an important point to
understand, the United States and the powers of the world are
standing up against this organization and saying we are going
to defeat it. They are standing right there in the face of all
of that and defying it and are successfully executing their
global strategy out of defiance in the face of that.
What that gets in terms of additional recruiting is
significant because of this sense of invincibility they are
portraying to the world, and the sense of destiny that they
have about themselves. That the people who already are having
identity problems and grievance issues and a sense of isolation
and wanting to do something purposeful and meaningful in their
life, albeit as misguided as they are, are attracted to
something like this.
They can communicate with it on a regular basis. They can
understand what it is thinking, what it is trying to accomplish
almost daily.
Every single day they put out 15 to 20 graphic photos that
are very well done. This is daily. Plus all the narrative that
goes with what they are trying to do. If you are plugged into
ISIS or have some interest in it, you can--you get a daily
pollution of what it is about.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Because a vote has been called, and it is my understanding
it is only 1 vote, we are going to take a brief recess.
Chairman McCaul will be returning, as well as the witnesses,
probably in about 20-30 minutes at the outside.
So it is my understanding, as I say, a vote has been called
on the House floor. Without objection, the committee stands in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Katko [presiding]. The committees will now come to
order and we will now hear from Mr. Deutch, from Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thanks to our
witnesses for being here and committing such a good part of the
day to this important work. I am--I haven't been here for the
whole hearing, but I want to walk through some concerns I have
based on what I have heard today.
The vile attacks that struck Paris cause us--the immediate
reaction to these terror attacks is fear. It is appropriate and
it makes sense. When my constituents call the office and their
immediate reaction is, to want to know what the Government is
doing to keep us safe, they are right to feel that way.
When they know that there are--that one of the people
involved, one of the attackers, one of the terrorists looks
like he may have been a Syrian refugee, I understand that their
initial thought is that we--is that that same thing could
happen here.
I understand why there would be a need to want to
reevaluate the program and we should. But we have to be
thoughtful about this. So much of what has gone on in this
debate is not up to what Congress should be doing.
The fact is, when we are trying to look at a program, a
refugee program that--I know some of this we have gone through
already, where the U.N. High Commission for Refugees refers
people to the United States. If it is in the United States,
then they are vetted by the Counterterrorism Center and the
FBI's Terrorist Screening Center and State and Defense and
Homeland Security and fingerprints and biometrics and all the
rest.
It is a very extensive process, but people are right if
they are concerned, that they want to be sure that it is
perfect. So, yes, I think it is appropriate for us to pause.
But, here is what we should remember. Here is what seemingly
missing from this whole debate.
The fact is, we have heard it takes 18 to 24 months. So,
what is it that we should be looking at? The United States has
admitted 1,800 Syrian refugees. The administration says that
half of those are children. A quarter are adults over 60. Two
percent are single males of combat age.
So, instead of trying to score political points and filing
bills that would shut down our country to refugees, which is
inconsistent with the values of the nation that we live in and
we have heard that from both sides. Instead of moving forward
and engaging in a big political debate about legislation and
how to do this.
Let's acknowledge that there is a system in place. Let's
acknowledge that it is exhausted. Let's also acknowledge that
it deserves to be reviewed. So, let's start by taking the 2
percent of the single males of combat age and look at every one
of those cases and let us have the benefit of the input from
all the people who have done the screening to determine whether
it has been done correctly instead of saying--that some of the
things that have been said that are so inconsistent with who we
are.
Look, the fact is, it doesn't matter for the Syrians in
Syria who are fleeing their country because they are either the
victims of--or they fear being the victims of barrel bombs or
chlorine gas from Assad or they fear being raped or murdered by
ISIS.
In either case, they are refugees and we have always opened
our country to people who are fleeing. So let's figure out how
to do this in a rational way.
Let's acknowledge that people are afraid but then let's not
make this a political point. Let's figure out how to do
something that is actually consistent with who we are as
Americans. All we keep hearing is, there is no database, there
is no database.
That is true. There is not going to be a database in Syria.
So does that mean that we stop taking refugees forever if they
come from--if they are fleeing Syria? Cause that is what--that
seems to be the only solution that I have heard from so many of
my friends on the other side.
One of my colleagues said that these are people--excuse
me--that the interviews are fine, except these are people who
are adept at lying and deceiving. Well you know what? Let's
start again by looking at single males that we are worried
about.
But let's acknowledge that a 5-year-old kid and his mother
who are fleeing, perhaps having lost their father, that we are
not going to go into that thinking, ``Well, unless there is a
database that can show that this innocent child isn't somehow
involved with terrorism, they can't come into our country.''
That is absurd.
Let's figure out what we can do together, and let's stop
making this the huge political battle that has been developing
since Paris. We owe more than that, I think, to the American
people.
I would just ask our witnesses if--since we have already
heard--I think all three of you have talked about what happens
when fear wins. There was a quote in my local newspaper. When
we allow ourselves to be frightened to the point of wanting to
seal our borders, rejecting compassion, turning away vulnerable
children whose homes have been destroyed, then the terrorists
are succeeding because we are letting them.
So what steps should we be taking now to both acknowledge
that people are afraid, understandably, but that the answer is
not to shut down our borders. Finally, when we talk about
focusing on Syrian refugees, let's remember that if we really
want to shut down our borders, the only way to do that, if we
are going to go after the same people who committed these
attacks in Paris, then that means closed--stopping flights from
Brussels, and Paris, and London, and other places where foreign
nationals have gone off to Syria and returned. Of course, we
are not going to do that.
Is there--and I am almost out of time, but can someone
speak to the problem that Congress seems to have, where this
has become this huge partisan fight, when it is really about
keeping us safe, and being true to our values, both of which we
are able to do simultaneously?
General Keane. Well, I will take a stab. I mean, I clearly
think obviously, most of us believe we are facing a crisis
dealing with ISIS. I have always found dealing with any kind of
crisis, that you need people around you that have good
judgment, tempered, they are measured, but they also have a
sense of trying to get the best results in a crisis.
When you are dealing with something like this, there is
such a tendency to overreact to it. A huge overreaction would
be start sending combat brigades into Syria or Iraq. That is a
significant overreaction, but some people will reach for that,
because they are confident that will truly make a difference.
So you try to find something that is going to make a
difference.
Then ISIS actually wants an overreaction. That is another
thing. They want it in Europe, and they will take it any place
they can get it; particularly, anything that will fragment the
Muslim and non-Muslim population, and polarize it.
Then the other thing is you have a tendency to get
defensive. We close in. We don't want to over-police and
trample people's civil liberties. We don't want to all of a
sudden start shutting down our borders in ways that don't make
any sense for America. We certainly want to continue a refugee
program that makes sense to us for decades. But given the
circumstances here, I think the Congress appears, in my
judgment, to be taking prudent measures to look at that, and to
put in place a process to sort of make some sense.
At the end of the day, I think you have got it about right.
I mean, we have got a 19-, 22-year-old youngster standing in
front of us in that process, and we have no evidence one way or
the other to support anybody's conclusion. It is likely that
youngster probably doesn't get in. That is the reality of it.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. Ms. McSally.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
for your endurance today as we are addressing this really
important topic. I was in the military for 26 years, flew the
A-10, and been on all ends of the targeting process. Let me
just say, and that includes from my own airplane, commanding a
squadron, but also in leadership positions in the initial air
war in Afghanistan, and then Iraq in 2003.
I have been very critical, General Keane, as you, of the
anemic air campaign we have been doing, and the rules of
engagement, and tying our pilots' hands, where we are not
allowing them to hit a target because there may be one civilian
casualty, when we are clearly in compliance with the law of
armed conflict. Then we go back with our bombs, and then we
allow ISIS to reign terror on tens of thousands of civilians.
That doesn't make any sense.
We are just now starting to hit the fuel trucks, with A-
10s, by the way, the airplane that the administration was
trying to mothball. But we are dropping leaflets first, because
we are concerned the truck drivers might get hurt. But a
million dollars a day are coming to fund their terrorist
activities on civilian people. This has just turned all logic
on its head.
So I have been very critical, like you. We need to step up
the air campaign. We have got to unleash American airpower, and
we have got to kick their--we have got to destroy and defeat
ISIS in Iraq and Syria. That was just my first comment.
I have been serving on the task force that Chairman McCaul
designated. Mr. Katko was our Chair. We worked over 6 months.
We identified 32 findings, 50 recommendations across the board.
This is a very complex issue. The risks are very high, and much
of your testimony identified them.
They are very broad. We have got the risk of people that
would be flowing from Visa Waiver countries, 4,500 or so
potentially coming easily into America to potentially be a
threat. We have got the threat of the home-grown extremists. We
have got investigations of 50 States because of the very
sophisticated social media campaign.
We have got the potential for individuals to come through
illegally with fraudulent documents, you know, that are ISIS
operatives, or potentially over our border. We also have
potential for them to infiltrate the refugee program. These are
just a few of the ways that they could reach out and really
attack on American soil.
So given those broad categories, could we just hear from
all of your perspectives, which do you think is the most urgent
and high-risk threat to us in the homeland of all those
categories right now, starting with General Keane?
General Keane. I don't think it is the infiltration of the
refugee program. I clearly believe it is ISIS motivating and
inspiring people in our country to take action against our
country. I think the evidence of what has happened in the past
already supports that.
Ms. McSally. Great, thanks. Mr. Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. I agree with General Keane. In fact, if there is
one risk of the focus on the refugee program, is it takes the
eye off the more significant risk, which is inspired attacks
here, which we have seen, and the possibility of more
significant attacks, like what we saw in Paris, occurring here,
because potentially an operative is able to get here and--but
these attacks, as coordinated and synchronized, and to a
degree, complex as Paris was, it is not that hard, particularly
when you--conduct--particularly when you consider the
vulnerability of the targets----
Ms. McSally. Mr. Bergen, any additions?
Mr. Bergen. I concur. I think the insider threat, I mean,
if you want to kill a lot of people, the best way to do that is
put a bomb on a plane. So that is a vulnerability factor.
Ms. McSally. I agree. Thanks for, you know, concurring with
that. I think we as a body need to be addressing all of these
threats. You know, we are addressing maybe one of them this
week. But this is--we have got to address all of these threats,
because countering that violent extremism, and making sure we
are closing other gaps and loopholes is very important, in
addition to our military campaign.
My next question is, if we do step up our air campaign in
Iraq and Syria, if we do actually squeeze ISIS in the territory
that they own, as we look at their near area of influence in
the rest of the region, what areas do you think--I mean, I
think Sinai and potentially Libya would become their next
destination of choice for expanding their operations and
training individuals. That is my perspective. But I really want
to hear from all of you where you think the next threat may be.
General Keane. In my view, it would clearly be Libya. They
have three different organizations, all ISIS-affiliated
organizations in Libya. There is also not really an effective
host country security situation in Libya. I mean, while at
Sinai obviously had tremendous impact in being able to blow up
a Russian airliner, there is an effective security force in
Egypt that is pushing against that, that capability.
In Libya, there is nobody pushing against ISIS's
capability. So I think that is really fertile ground. They have
put people on the ground there to assist them because of that
potential.
Ms. McSally. Great, thanks. Mr. Olsen, I assume you concur?
Mr. Olsen. I agree. You can really map the growth of ISIS
to those areas where there is a lack of governance. The four
countries which are essentially failed states--Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, and Libya--are places where we have seen ISIS make--and
other groups----
Ms. McSally. Great, thanks. My time is over, but I do want
to say, Mr. Bergen, I look forward to talking to you off-line
about the recruitment of girls and women. I appreciate the
statistics in your report related to this unprecedented
phenomena. We have young girls and women that are somehow--
think they are going to go find the men of their dreams, and
instead, they are subjected to seventh-century sharia, Allah,
sexual slavery, gang rape, and everything that goes with that.
It is very much something I want to continue to figure out how
we can try and stop here. So I appreciate your comments on
that, and we will talk more off-line. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Ms. McSally. We are all shocked to
hear you mention A-10 in your questioning here today. The Chair
now will hear from Ms. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel for your patience today. I know it has been a long
morning, and lack of food, and a little bit of stress. I very
much appreciate you sharing your knowledge with all of us.
I would like to get your input, General Keane. As you know,
the United States has joined the French in bombing ISIS in
Syria. In your opinion, is an air campaign like this an
effective strategy for dealing with the threats that we have?
General Keane. Air campaign clearly has a role to play.
Normally what an air campaign to do, if it is effective and you
are able to have good targeting, you begin to contain an
adversary. You begin to take DIF. We call it in the military,
``freedom of movement.'' You begin to take away their tactical
and operational initiative. But you can't defeat them with
that.
Mrs. Torres. Do you think U.S. ground forces are necessary
in order to----
General Keane. I don't think U.S. ground combat brigades
are necessary at this point. There may be at some future point,
and I hope it doesn't come to that. But I do think we need U.S.
training and advisors, air controllers on the ground, and I do
believe there is an absolute role, a critical role for special
operation forces on a limited basis to conduct some large-scale
raids where they have good intelligence.
This would be combat, but it would be very limited combat.
It would be in and out, lasting maybe a few hours at the most,
maybe a day.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, general. Time is--I do have one
more question. I would like for you to comment. Recent incident
in Afghanistan in October, where U.S. forces unfortunately hit
a hospital that was run by Doctors Without Borders.
Is that collateral damage? Is that something that could be
avoided? Just your opinion, sir, on that.
General Keane. Well, we have got to wait for the
investigation. But clearly it is a significant mistake. We
don't target hospitals. But obviously somebody targeted that
building, whether they knew it was a hospital or not. There was
some potential justification for it.
We don't know the answer to that. But that, in my judgment,
was a significant mistake. We will get to the bottom of it. The
American people will know about it. Certainly the organization
itself deserves to get all the truth, as do the Afghan people.
We have made mistakes like this before in Afghanistan where
we have hit the wrong target. We have always, and I have
watched this closely, been very transparent in getting to the
bottom of it and revealing exactly what we did right and what
we did wrong in this case. And----
Mrs. Torres. Is that lack of intelligence on the ground?
General Keane. Say it again?
Mrs. Torres. Is that due to a lack of intelligence on the
ground?
General Keane. No. It was a--it is more complicated than
that. This is a very dynamic situation. They were in firefights
for hours dealing with that. Radio transmissions are going back
and forth, where are they, what are we going to do about it?
People are making very quick, dynamic decisions on what to deal
with it.
So it is not a case where people are sitting back trying to
figure out what is the intelligence. These are people who are
actually in a fight----
Mrs. Torres. I apologize for interrupting you again----
General Keane. That is okay.
Mrs. Torres. I have a question for Mr. Olsen.
Secretary Johnson and other National security leaders are
very concerned about the possibility of an attack by someone in
the United States. I am more concerned about the copycat
individual that is out there.
Our local law enforcement work very closely with our
communities, and are truly the first responders and our first
line of defense when it comes to protecting us from a domestic
attack. How does the NCTC, which is the primary organization in
the Federal Government for integrating and analyzing terrorism
intelligence, work with our local law enforcement to make sure
that they get the intelligence, Classified intelligence that
they need to protect us?
Mr. Olsen. Okay. So there are a number of ways in which the
Federal Government, NCTC being a key component, but including
the FBI and DHS work with local law enforcement. Much of those
relationships are relationships that the FBI and DHS are on the
front lines of working with police departments around the
country.
But one way is fusion centers. Fusion centers that can
handle Classified information that are in many cities around
the country that have both Federal law enforcement also local
law enforcement as part of those fusion centers.
There are products that are put out that are Classified
that are designed specifically for local law enforcement. So
they identify issues that local law enforcement particularly
will confront. Then there are Unclassified products as well
that NCTC puts out.
So there are number of ways. It is a continuing challenge
to make sure that local law enforcement has the information
tools to understand information that is typically coming from
overseas and is often Classified. So it is a continuing
challenge.
Mrs. Torres. It is a continuing challenge, and is equally
important for the people in the intelligence community to
understand our diverse communities.
Thank you all very much. I am out of time. I will yield
back my time.
Mr. Katko. Chair recognizes Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your persistence.
I have got two short narratives. One is to build on what
Chairman Royce said about the procession or the convoy of the
trucks that we saw on the news over and over again.
I just hope if we see that again the immediate picture
after that. This is dependent on the media, is a scorched line
there where they are not moving with our vehicles. I think that
would do well for the American people to see that.
The other thing is the talk about keeping Muslims out. This
is not about keeping Muslims out. It is about keeping
terrorists out.
You know being in a Constitutional free republic like we
have, we respect religious freedom. That is something we always
have to you know, remind the homeland, that if we believe in
our Constitution, we believe in freedom of religion. We just
want to make sure the people coming over here are who they say
they are.
With that, have any of you seen any coordination yet of any
of the groups like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, all ganging up
together or coming together as a single force? Or do you
anticipate that? Gen. Keane?
General Keane. Clearly there is--certainly is potential for
that.
What has happened certainly is this fundamental
disagreement between al-Qaeda and ISIS. It centers around
actually how they deal with people.
Jabhat al-Nusra, who is a Syrian-based al-Qaeda
organization, is fighting in Syria actually, largely has the
support of the people that in the area that they are fighting
because of their reach-out programs to that. You know they are
not brutalizing, terrorizing, intimidating the people as ISIS
does. That was part of the reason for the breakup.
But listen, they are both radical Islamist organizations.
We always have to be concerned and have a watchful eye about
it. They do have common objectives. Certainly it is within
anybody's reason that at certain times they could get together
for near-term objectives.
Certainly ISIS is opposed to the Assad regime and is
fighting it at times. So is Jabhat al-Nusra.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
General Keane. They have a common objective there. But they
are not fighting and coordinating their activities together.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I just see this as it escalates that they
come together because they say you know what, we don't have
anything to lose and we need to join forces.
Mr. Olsen, you were saying how that so many of the
recruiting tools are over the internet. What can be done to
shut down their social media in those areas? I mean if we know
they are doing that, can we shut it down?
Can we pinpoint where it is coming from and just say I--if
we shut this down I know they are going to go round and find
somewhere else. But if we can keep pinpointing stuff like that,
is that a possibility?
Mr. Olsen. I think there are probably 2 things to consider.
One is really going after the source of the information, so
going after the communication centers that are in places like
Syria, in Raqqa, for example, where the media is produced.
So, airstrikes, military action to take out those
locations, take out the individuals who are responsible for the
media. That is probably the most direct way.
The other mechanism Mr. Bergen talked about of going to the
companies that are these platforms and asking them to enforce
their terms of service.
Mr. Yoho. Do you need any assistance from us in that to
where we can put more pressure on them?
Mr. Olsen. I think that is largely a matter of just the
outreach that needs to take place.
Now, I would say that what we have seen over the last
couple years since the Snowden leaks is that we have seen less
cooperation and less dialogue and collaboration between the
Federal Government and our technology community. I suspect,
from what I am hearing, that that inhibits some of that sort of
interaction that would lead to a more effective response.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Thank you.
General Keane, you were talking about marginalizing Russia
and Syria. Without going to war, how do we do that? Through
diplomacy, or how would you marginalize them?
General Keane. Well, the reality is first of all, don't get
trapped by them in terms of the negotiations that they are
making right now. No. 2, we should not be pushed around by
them. I mean----
Mr. Yoho. I agree.
General Keane [continuing]. Quite frankly Russia is sitting
there with an inferior military by comparison to us that
brought very selective capability with them, which is very
good. They are getting a lot out of a little. But right from
the beginning we should have told them look, we are going to
fly wherever we want, when we want. You want to avoid
confrontation, stay out of our way.
The first time they bombed Syrian moderates who our Central
Intelligence Agency trained, and they are carrying our
weapons----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
General Keane [continuing]. We should have cratered that
airfield with those--where those----
Mr. Yoho. I agree. I think it was a bad misstep on our end.
General Keane. I mean this is--these are the kind of
things, some of these are relics from the Cold War to be
certain. Not cratering an airfield, but you know being muscular
with the Russians certainly is.
I think we just take the wrong approach with them from the
beginning. I believed for a long time that Mr. Putin is inside
our President's head. I think he believes the President is
fearful of escalation and confrontation. Most of the time will
back away as a result of it.
Mr. Yoho. I am out of time. I appreciate your indulgence.
Thank you.
Mr. Katko. Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I thank the respective Chairs
and Ranking Members for holding this hearing. I thank the
witnesses for the important contribution that you have made.
I am reminded of a long ago phrase used by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt that the only thing that we have to fear is fear
itself. Without taking that in a strictly interpretive view for
the 21st Century, recognizing and being empathetic to where we
are today for many Americans and others around the world who
are frightened by this phenomenon called Daesh, ISIL, or ISIS.
I do think that we have the responsibility to act swiftly and
forcibly without fear that garners recklessness in our
determination.
So I would like to pose a series of questions. I would like
to make this statement. All of the witnesses I have great
respect for.
I think just as there were many of us who disagreed with
the Iraq War and its value, there are those who disagree with
President Obama's approach. But respectfully I would say that
we are again dealing with a crisis and a phenomenon that has
not been dealt with in decades before. Wars have been fought
with nations.
So I think that the President has taken what he has been
given and his view of protecting the American people, and has
done it well. Can we now look into the future and build upon
it? Yes we can. My forms of question will be along those lines.
Mr. Bergen, let me thank you for your constant presence and
information. I would simply ask with respect to the Daesh
whether or not this rounded perspective, something that I am
very concerned about, foreign fighters is part of stopping
this. Having anyone from our country, 250 have already left,
blocking that. Cut off access to the financing.
Disrupt and expose the messaging of ISIS. I didn't know I
was ever going to applaud hackers, but I understand we have got
a group that is out trying to expose them. I applaud them.
Stabilize the vulnerable communities that have been liberated
by ISIL.
What do you think about those elements complementing,
taking the fight to ISIS?
Mr. Bergen. I mean, those are all very good approaches
because the military--I mean as we have discussed already, ISIS
is one of the big messages we are victorious and impacting them
militarily is very important. But if you don't impact the
foreign fighter flow going into Syria, if you don't impact the
radicalization of people inside the United States who never go
to Syria, who are simply radicalized by ISIS propaganda, you
are only addressing half the problem.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We can do that collaboratively. If France
has called for a National effort to take the fight to them, we
can also work with our allies on the foreign fighters, the
finance, et cetera.
Let me ask General Keane, if you would, I think I heard
that you offered a commentary on this question of refugees.
Frankly, we have got 55 million--or 55, the number that was
here that I just saw, we have a horrific global refugee crisis,
60 million people displaced across the globe.
What does this say about America if we begin to
precipitously, without thought, block refugees, in particular,
Syria, that mostly are women and children, and the vulnerable,
does that give ISIS another message about the United States,
and counters our own values of being strong, taking the fight
to them, and maybe daring them to do as they are doing?
General Keane. Well, yes. If that was the action we were
taking, you know, we would be playing right into ISIS's hands.
They want to polarize Muslims and non-Muslims, and take
advantage of that, and increase people's sense of alienation.
That is certainly what they are about.
But all of us--I don't want to speak for them--but we have
said it multiple times here, that we do support the action that
the Chairman is speaking of, and that is because of the
uniqueness of what has taken place here, and the possible
danger of infiltration with these refugees that are coming to
us, we are not saying they shouldn't come, we are saying we
should make certain that we put in place a process that will
ensure us as best we can that there is no legitimate
infiltration there, knowing full well that the best process we
put in place could never be perfect.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We also know that it takes 18 to 24 months
before they come in under the present process, and it is
certainly something we should review. Can I just ask you this
question, can ISIS be destroyed?
General Keane. Oh, yes, most definitely. Radical Islam, as
a movement, is probably going to be generational, but we don't
have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that, or an
appropriate alliance, I think, to meet the challenge.
But in the near term, dealing with ISIS, yes, most
definitely. The greatest vulnerability they have is the fact
that they own territory. When you start taking that territory
away from them, you start to break down these other things that
they are doing, in terms of their affiliations, and also what
they are doing in Europe, and their desire to come to the
United States to undermine the governments that are supporting
the effort against them, and also to polarize the populations.
You start to take all that capability and messaging away
from them, by taking away the territory which, in a sense, is
destroying them, militarily, we prefer the term ``defeat.'' It
is a better term than ``destroy,'' because ISIS likely will
never go away in the sense that they can--they started from a
relatively small terrorist organization inside Iraq operating
in the shadows. If we take their territory away from them, and
break down their infrastructure, they would likely return to
something like that, which is considerably more manageable,
frankly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We can do that with the collaboration of
our European neighbors, who I think themselves have awakened to
the heinousness of what ISIS is all about; France, for example,
doing the air war that my colleague talked about intensely,
obviously, because they have been penetrated on their own soil.
But I do believe you are saying that you take the fight to
them, but you are not saying boots on the ground.
General Keane. I am not saying we need to have conventional
combat brigades on the ground. We could eventually need that,
as well as Arab units to participate as well. But I don't see
that in the near term. I think we have to be all-in to support
the local indigenous forces in a way that we have not been all-
in, frankly, and that is largely what my testimony was about.
Now is the time to be all-in supporting them. There is
significant capability that we can provide them that we are not
providing them now, that we believe will make a difference. We
don't know for sure, but we believe it will make a difference.
We never truly exercised that option to the degree that many of
us felt it should have been.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I would be--I thank you for
the testimony. I would like to offer these items into the
record at this time, and let me thank you for this hearing. The
point that I want to make is I submit this testimony--these
statements, rather--is that I really think that these should be
on-going discussions.
We can't have on-going hearings, but I think our committees
should continue to have on-going discussions, because I think
we should be on alert, on point, and continue to find a
solution for what seems to be a growing epidemic of terrorism
attacking innocent civilians around the world, and it must be
stopped.
Let me submit to the record resettling refugees and
maintaining security are not mutually exclusive. This includes
the statement about 60 million displaced persons, and then the
statement from the Syrian-American Council, I am asking
unanimous consent; and a statement from the Coalition of
Syrian-American Humanitarian organization, and a statement from
the RAND Corporation.* Ask unanimous consent, put these in the
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The RAND document has been retained in committee files and is
available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT443.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Katko. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submitted For the Record by Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
resettling refugees and maintaining security are not mutually exclusive
By Mark Hetfield, HIAS, November 12, 2015.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/259864-
resettling-refugees-and-maintaining-security-are-not
We are now confronting the most horrific global refugee crisis
since the Second World War, with 60 million people displaced across the
globe. In October alone, almost 219,000 people arrived in Europe in
search of safety--roughly the same number for all of last year. Twenty
percent of those displaced are Syrian, fleeing a conflict that has
already taken more than 240,000 lives. Although the U.S. has provided
$4.5 billion in assistance since the crisis began, it has underutilized
the Refugees Admissions Program as a tool to respond to the most
vulnerable victims of the conflict.
This program was originally intended to serve as a rescue
mechanism, to bring refugees out of danger to a place where they can
live in freedom with dignity. Today, however, it generally takes over
18 months for a refugee to be resettled to the U.S. once he or she is
accepted for processing. In particular, the length of the security
clearance process has limited the United States' ability to use
resettlement, a key humanitarian tool, to respond to this crisis
effectively. Rather than showing leadership in resolving this crisis,
the United States has essentially told Germany, Sweden, Lebanon,
Turkey, and Jordan that the problem is theirs to solve.
Additionally, some policy makers in Washington have become fixated
on protecting America by offering resettlement to even fewer refugees.
Some assert that the clearance process for refugees, particularly
Syrians, is inadequate and risks admitting terrorists. This belief
lacks a fundamental understanding of the current system, which subjects
every refugee applicant to extensive security checks, rechecks, and
intensive interviewing by Homeland Security officers, often stranding
very vulnerable refugees who pose no threat at all to the United States
in the process.
It doesn't have to be this way. Over the years, the United States
has admitted millions of refugees who came from countries with
governments or powerful opposition groups that were ideologically
opposed to the American way of life. As is the case with today's
refugee crisis, the refugees considered for resettlement then were not
terrorists--in fact, they were fleeing terror. Refugees fleeing Syria
today are leaving Syria for the most part because they refused to fight
for Assad or join ISIS.
In order to confirm this on a case-by-case basis, the United States
has extensive security measures in place to distinguish between those
fleeing violence and those seeking to commit it. Before refugees arrive
in the United States, they must pass multiple security screenings.
United Nations and U.S. government staff interview refugee applicants
multiple times, in person. Refugee applicants are fingerprinted and
photographed, and their biometric data and biographic details are
processed through the systems of several U.S. government agencies.
If the refugee clears all safety checks, trained immigration
officers from the Department of Homeland Security travel abroad to
conduct detailed, in-person interviews. DHS also has the power of
discretionary denial, which means that even if a case clears all
security checks, the interviewing officer can deny the case based on
the interview alone. Additionally, refugees must be medically cleared
to travel so they do not pose a health risk to U.S. citizens.
I have been working in the refugee resettlement field for more than
20 years, and the process today is more intense than I have ever seen
it. Refugees are subjected to far more scrutiny than any other
population entering the U.S., such as the millions of tourists,
business people and students who enter the country each year. As U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres recently noted, if
someone wanted to do the U.S. harm, ``the most stupid thing would be to
apply for resettlement,'' because the verification process is so
incredibly thorough.
Security is something the program has always taken seriously, and
rightly so. What is too often lost in the rhetoric around refugees
these days, however, is that safety isn't only a concern for those of
us who already live here. Less than 1 percent of all refugees are ever
resettled to third countries like the U.S. and Canada. The vast
majority will spend their lives in the countries and camps to which
they initially fled. Only the most vulnerable are even considered for a
shot at permanent resettlement.
When refugees are referred to the U.S., it is because they are not
safe where they are. Our government has designated these individuals as
the most desperately in need of protection. It is a cruel irony that
these same people are also the ones being falsely cited by some
political leaders as the people we need to be protected from. If we
abandon our proud tradition of welcoming refugees now, we are
abandoning not only a legacy of moral leadership but real human beings
who are seeking safety and protection.
The goal of our refugee resettlement program is to offer refuge to
those seeking freedom from terror and tyranny. Security is an important
part of the process, but so is compassion. We need both, in equal
measure.
______
Submitted For the Record by Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
Statement of the Syrian American Council
May 21, 2015
Chairman King, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the
Subcommittee: The Syrian American Council is the largest and oldest
Syrian American community organization in the United States. Founded in
2005 in Burr Ridge, Illinois, SAC is a multi-ethnic, multi-
confessional, nonpartisan organization that incorporates all segments
of the Syrian American community. Our activities include community
organizing, youth empowerment, media outreach, advocacy, and support
for prodemocracy activists in Syria. SAC has 23 local chapters Nation-
wide.
SAC is honored to submit this statement for the record to the
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. Significant
communities of Syrian Americans exist in many areas of the United
States, including New York, Texas, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Ohio. Their income levels are above the median for
American citizens and many of them provide jobs and livelihoods for
other Americans in their locale. Older community members have found in
America a democratic haven from political persecution, while our youth
have grown up here and consider American culture their own.
As a young Christian growing up in Damascus, I personally was
blessed to have experienced the wonders and beauty of the holiday
season in my beloved Syria. The memories of festivities throughout the
Damascus old city, the carolers, the beautifully lit Christmas trees,
the nativity mangers, and the churches filled with celebrants will stay
with me forever. Each year, I take the time to describe my experience
to friends and family in my home town of Orlando, Florida so they will
understand the inherent tolerance and diversity of the Syrian people.
That inherent tolerance and diversity is now under attack.
The Syrian American community shares your dismay at the rise of the
so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and at the urgent
home-grown terror threat that has resulted from this rise. We are also
painfully aware that ISIS has exploited the crisis in Syria to turn our
ancestral homeland into a locus for recruitment. ISIS has severely
impeded our ability to get help to ordinary Syrians in need. At times,
Syrian Americans have been forced into hasty exits from their
humanitarian work inside Syria after finding out that ISIS had marked
them for death.
We consider ISIS our enemies, and as such, we are keen to help
Congress and the U.S. Government as they work to stop these extremists.
SAC has already partnered with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security to organize community
briefings for Syrian Americans. In addition, staff members of the SAC
have briefed senior White House officials on ISIS activities inside
Syria. We encourage a robust Congressional debate on how ISIS can be
stopped both at home and abroad.
Along these lines, it is important to note that Syrian immigrants
to the United States are in no way the leading demographic of foreign
fighters joining ISIS. Out of over 150 U.S. nationals who have
successfully joined or attempted to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq, we
know of only 1 potential case involving a Syrian American (who is not
charged with having joined ISIS). By contrast, many U.S.-born citizens
have joined ISIS, including citizens with no ancestry from majority-
Muslim countries. Clearly, barring vulnerable Syrian refugees from
entering America will not address this vast majority of cases.
America is a Nation of immigrants and always has been. Each year,
the United States admits some 70,000 refugees as new citizens, and the
Syrian refugee crisis is far and away the worst refugee crisis in the
world today. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio
Guterres has referred to the Syrian refugee crisis as ``the worst
humanitarian disaster since the end of the Cold War.'' Furthermore, the
majority of Syrian refugees up for resettlement are not fighting-age
males, but innocent women and children seeking to flee the vicious
conflict. They live in horrible conditions, and every winter, multiple
child refugees die for lack of heating and winter clothing. Many
refugees even have family members or close friends and associates
within the Syrian American community who are ready to care for them.
To bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in the United States now,
when their need is so great and when there is no real evidence that
they are a terror threat, would be to actively and explicitly
discriminate against them--against us--simply for being Syrian. We as
Syrian Americans encourage our Congress Members to support the fight
against ISIS and defend our country against home-grown terrorism
without contributing to the demonization of the entire Syrian
community.
______
Submitted For the Record by Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
Statement of the Syrian Community Network (Chicago, IL); Syrian
American Medical Society; Karam Foundation; Syria Relief and
Development; Syrian Expatriates Organization; Watan USA; Rahma Relief
Foundation; Hope for Syria
We write to you as a group of non-political Syrian American-led
humanitarian organizations that provide multi-sector relief inside of
Syria, to refugees and host countries in the region, and to Syrian
refugees in the United States. Our efforts together help millions of
Syrians, both those who remain in Syria and those displaced as
refugees. Our programs cover the full range of humanitarian sectors,
including community services, education, food and non-food items,
health, protection, water/sanitation/hygiene, and women's empowerment.
In addition to emergency relief, our organizations have established
development projects that promote sustainable living and lay the
groundwork for voluntary refugee return, such as building schools,
facilitating jobs and skills training, and helping to establish
bakeries and flour mills. Together, we support over 100 health
facilities and almost 1,000 medical staff inside of Syria who operate
under the principle of medical neutrality and risk their lives to save
others. Our organizations prioritize education, psychosocial support,
and community healing. We've been fortunate to have leading
Congressional officials visit our field programs to see their impact on
Syrian refugees, and we've had the opportunity to advocate for
humanitarian support for Syria and Syrian refugees at the highest
levels of U.S. Government, from President Obama to Secretary Jeh
Johnson to leaders of the House and Senate.
We further represent a constituency of Syrian Americans,
humanitarian allies, and local volunteers throughout the United States,
from Texas to New York. As the crisis has become increasingly
protracted, our organizations have begun to work with local resettled
Syrian refugees in the United States, coordinating with volunteers,
refugee agencies, and civic and religious organizations to ensure that
Syrian refugees are welcomed and assisted in their transition. Our
built-in networks of Syrian American and partner communities have been
invaluable in these transitions.
We are humbled to submit this statement to the House Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence on admitting
Syrian refugees. As you know, the United Nations estimates that about 4
million people have fled Syria and 7.6 million others are internally
displaced. Over 230,000 Syrians have been killed since 2011. As Mr.
Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
said recently: ``The Syrian war unleashed the worst humanitarian crisis
of our time.''
The enormous flow of refugees has created a strain on host
countries in the region, which are forced to deal with extreme economic
pressures, overcrowded hospitals, shortages of basic public services,
and growing resentment among host communities. The regional dynamics of
Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, which have taken on the majority of the
refugee burden, have been altered over the last few years. The conflict
in Syria has led to a regional crisis, and the sheer numbers of
refugees and lack of support for host communities threaten the
stability of these countries. However, as Anne Richard, the Assistant
Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the
Department of State, said: `` . . . These very real burdens must pale
in comparison to the daily struggles of Syrians themselves. Imagine
losing practically everything--your loved ones, your home, your
profession, and your dignity.''
We commend the United States Government for taking a leadership
role to stand for these vulnerable refugees and to offer them a glimpse
of hope. Throughout history, the United States has always taken a
leadership role in assisting vulnerable refugees. The United States has
accepted the majority of all UNHCR referrals from around the world. In
2013, United States reached its goal of resettling nearly 70,000
refugees from nearly 70 countries. Now, the United States has put forth
invaluable efforts to resettle vulnerable Syrian refugees.
We have worked closely with our partners at the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program, coordinated by the Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration at the Department of State and the Department of Homeland
Security, along the way. We commend their meticulous and exemplary
work. All Syrian refugee profiles being actively considered for
resettlement are reviewed thoroughly by the U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program with support and leadership from the White House and security
vetting agencies. These Syrians go through extensive security
background checks. The majority of Syrian refugees being considered for
resettlement are among the most vulnerable populations of women and
children seeking to flee the effects of conflict. With assistance from
the International Organization for Migration, they are provided with
medical exams and logistics for transportation before coming to the
United States.
Once Syrian refugees arrive, our groups work alongside a network of
resettlement agencies, non-profits, churches and mosques, civic
organizations, and local volunteers to welcome them. These U.S. groups
work in 180 communities across the country to ensure refugees have
access to work, education, opportunities to improve their English, and
what they and their families need to be comfortable and have a happy
and healthy future.
The Syrian Community Network is a prime example of a volunteer-led
organization working closely with resettled Syrian families to ease
their transition, focusing particularly on the Chicago area. The Syrian
Community Network works with 10 families that have been resettled
through various agencies. One family in particular stands out as an
upcoming success story. Resettled in Chicago in January of 2015, Mayada
is a single mother with 6 children ranging between the ages of 4 and
19. Her 2 oldest children, Zeyd and Zeynab, hold steady jobs and help
to pay rent, all while they attend ESL classes at the local community
college. The 4 younger children--Wedad, Zakaria, Shahed, and Shaima--
have been performing remarkably in school, exceeding expectations. They
all dream of graduating college and becoming doctors, teachers,
computer engineers, and so much more. The youngest daughter, Shaima,
decided that she wants to be a photojournalist after a Chicago
journalist interviewed her. Just recently, Wedad, who will be in ninth
grade in the fall, was accepted into the ``Girl Forward'' summer
program designed for bright adolescent refugee girls in the city of
Chicago. Syrians are known to have an entrepreneurial spirit and, given
the opportunity, Syrian refugees will become the next American success
story.
We strongly urge the Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Counterterrorism and Intelligence to support their counterparts at the
Department of State and Department of Homeland Security as they work to
further increase resettlement numbers for vulnerable Syrian refugees in
2015 and beyond. The families and individuals being considered for
resettlement face dire protection challenges and often need specialized
care. Among those being considered are victims of torture, women at
risk, persons with disabilities, LGBTQ persons facing risk, women-
headed households, and those facing acute security threats. To prohibit
Syrian refugees from the option of U.S. resettlement because of the
presence of ISIL and other extremist groups in Syria, and not based on
thorough U.S.-led security checks and humanitarian needs assessments,
discounts the commendable work of the Department of Homeland Security
and Department of State and amounts to blatant discrimination based on
nationality. The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and
Intelligence should work to further ensure sufficient staffing and
capacity for security vetting agencies to increase their ability to
conduct thorough and quick security checks.
Our organizations function as implementing partners for many of the
major INGOs and UN agencies in Syria and coordinate with the U.S.
agencies taking the lead refugee resettlement here at home. Our
talented staff and volunteers have been the backbone of crisis relief
for Syria and have a comprehensive understanding of the changing
situation on the ground. From seeing the trends of displacement in
Syria and the region first-hand, we think that it is essential for the
United States to take a leading role in Syrian refugee resettlement for
the protection of Syria's vulnerable refugees, for the stability and
security of the region, and for the relevance of the United States as a
humanitarian and global leader. We strongly encourage the Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence to work with
relevant U.S. departments and the administration to ensure that
vulnerable Syrian refugees continue to have the hope of resettlement
and a brighter future.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Mr. Katko. The Chair recognizes Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all three of you
for being here. You have been very kind to stay as long as you
have, and your endurance is to be admired.
I am one who believes, as I think most of us do, that the
No. 1 responsibility of our Federal Government is to protect
our citizens. I want to ask each of you, at this point in the
vetting process that we have, do you feel that that process is
at a point, because of the deterioration between the
communication in Syria and in America right now, that that
vetting process is at a point where we can feel comfortable
that refugees who are coming into this country are not coming
in here to hurt us or to harm us? General.
General Keane. Well, I don't know all the details of the
vetting process. I am not trying to dodge the question. I rely
on Director Olsen, who knows a lot more about it than I do, and
I respect his judgment. I am comfortable with the agencies that
are involved in this, and the spotlight it has, certainly the
Congressional concern, the concern of Governors, the concern of
American people. I think the attention on this will be
considerable.
So I am pretty comfortable that no one is going to enter
the country without getting huge scrutiny. Certainly, any young
male that is coming into this country as a result of this
process is likely coming with some pretty good documentation
and references that he is who he says he is. So yes.
As we have said, all of us have said more than once, no
system is perfect, and we can never guarantee that is not going
to be the case, that there could possibly be some infiltration.
Maybe the infiltration is actually a woman. But yes, overall, I
am comfortable in the direction that we are--and I think the
Congress is doing the right thing, asking the Executive branch,
``Bring this thing up here, and let us take a close look at it.
Make us comfortable.''
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. That is the point I want to make.
You spoke just a little while ago about crisis management, and
how we had to be prudent, and how we had to use caution, but to
take action as well.
That is why I do believe that a pause at this time to make
sure that our vetting process is the best that it can possibly
be, especially after the fact that we know that one of the
attackers in Paris got through as a refugee. We know that ISIL
has said, made clear, ``We are going to try to do that. We are
going to try to go through the refugee process and get into
America, and infiltrate America.''
I think it would be wrong of us, and I think we would be
falling down on our duty if we did not at least look at this,
and if we did not pause, and make sure that we had the best
process in place that we could possibly have in place. Mr.
Olsen, any comments on that?
Mr. Olsen. No, I am comfortable with the level of effort
put behind this process, and the way it is set up. It is as
good as it can be, practicably. Again, as we have said a number
of times, obviously not perfect, but it also--you know, not
allowing refugees in has its own risks, right. So there is
always going to be a balancing here that needs to take place.
So obviously, it is an area of more appropriate oversight by
the committee.
Mr. Carter. Right. Mr. Bergen.
Mr. Bergen. I don't have anything to add to what has
already been said. I think it is a very robust process.
Mr. Carter. Well, again, we are a Nation of immigrants. We
are a humanitarian Nation. We understand our position in the
world, the leadership position. But at the same time, our No. 1
priority is to take care of our citizens, and we have to keep
that in mind.
That is why I am supportive of what the Majority party in
the House is trying to put forward right now, and that is to
have a pause, and to make sure that we have the very best
process in place that we can, for the vetting process in place
that we can at this time.
So I thank all of you again for your service, and for being
here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel for being so patient with our schedule today. This is a
very thought-provoking conversation. Let me just start by
saying, General Keane, thank you for the words you shared
earlier in this hearing, reminding us all about what it means
to be an American, what that is we have, and the need to resist
simple answers, especially the simple answer of bigotry.
It seems to me that if you want to help ISIS recruit, some
of the statements that have been attributed to some candidates
for the National office are the perfect advertisement for that
recruitment; ``Muslims, don't let any of them in,'' ``We have
got to close all the mosques,'' ``This is a clash of
cultures.''
My God. Why not write copy ads for ISIS while you are at
it? What a recruiting assist those inflammatory and incendiary
words are. In my opinion, they do not represent the values of
America.
You know, we had a sad and tragic episode in our history,
and it was in response to something that happened in our
country, Pearl Harbor. It is almost universally seen in
retrospect as one of the most shameful episodes in American
history, when our reaction to the sneak attack by the Japanese
government on Pearl Harbor was to intern Japanese-Americans in
camps, because they could not be trusted. They were a fifth
column. The Supreme Court upheld it shamefully and regretfully,
but only in retrospect.
We didn't live up to our values. We didn't live up to our
own ideals as a country, even though the risk was real, it was
demonstrable. There were spotters in Hawaii. There probably
were some fifth columnists. But the reaction was not something
commensurate with the threat, and certainly not something
consistent with our values.
It is easy right now to pander. It is easy right now to
play to fears. You want to have a pause on refugees. People
fleeing the very violence we are trying to stop.
Well, why stop there? Why not--let's have a pause on all
immigration because who knows who might be in their numbers,
much bigger than refugee numbers.
While we are at it, student visas, tourists. God only knows
how many people could sneak in as tourists. Let's pause on all
of that.
You could make a case for it. Wouldn't be very consistent
with who we are as an open society. I am not sure it is a
practical solution to a very real problem and a set of real
concerns and fears.
We as elected officials, it seems to me, have a
responsibility to calm fears. To call Americans to confidence
and to the values Gen. Keane referred to earlier in this
hearing. Not to exploit those fears. Not to build upon them.
Not to demonize any group of human beings, however popular it
might be at the moment to do so.
I wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman, because you know we all
look for easy answers. All of us, I guess, are open to the
temptation to exploit something at the moment. But it doesn't
serve us well. That is not our finest moment. That is not, as
Lincoln said, appealing to the better angels of our Nation.
Any of you are welcome to comment.
Mr. Olsen. One comment I would add, and I think follows up
on your remarks, as counterterrorism professionals you look for
opportunities to align your limited resources on targeted ways
of going after individuals, not sort of broadly precluding, for
example, all refugees or the examples you gave.
One example, and I know the committee has previously
considered this, is that there are fewer than 1,000 Americans
on the No-Fly List that can't get on an airplane. There is no
restriction now in law for those individuals to purchase guns.
The gun laws preclude people who are prior felons and other
categories of people to not be able to buy guns. But somebody
who is on the No-Fly List can be stopped from getting on an
airplane, turn around and go buy a gun. Stopped from getting on
an airplane because they are believed, known, or suspected to
be a terrorist, and they can buy a gun.
So this is an area that it would be more targeted to
consider looking at individuals who can be--who can do
something about who are already on a watch list, already on the
highest level of watch listing, that is the No-Fly List. So as
you look at opportunities to take steps that would be more
targeted and would be better at going after people we already
know or suspect are terrorists, that would be one thing I would
recommend.
Mr. Bergen. I think that is a brilliant point.
General Keane. I agree with the sentiments that are here. I
mean I always said to myself you know after what happened to
the French if I was running the meeting in the White House I
would have said listen, I want us to look through the prism.
This is 127 dead Americans and 300 wounded.
Then how do we approach this crisis and do what is
necessary to fix our strategy in terms of what is working and
what is not working? Also let's remind ourselves that we are
not going to overreact and we are not going to hunker down in
this country and get defensive.
I really think that is what leadership does. It helps to
face coldly a crisis that needs action applied to it. At the
same time, it takes people's fear away.
So we are right in the middle of this in trying to support
our strategy. I think we are trying to be honest that there is
really some significant shortfalls that need to be fixed. At
the same time we have to stay true to our values in America and
what this great country stands for.
Mr. Connolly. Well said, general. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul [presiding]. If I can just say to Mr.
Connolly as well, this committee had a bipartisan task force
report that I am very proud of. We worked on it in a bipartisan
way. Mr. Katko chaired it.
We came up with 25 key recommendations and findings,
including legislative recommendations that the Speaker's
National Security Task Force I serve on, we intend, when we
come back after Thanksgiving, to move that legislation forward
that addresses security gaps both here and in Europe.
The idea that the Europeans, if you are an E.U. citizen
will not screen you past a watch list to me really opens--
Europe is wide open until they close that gap. I think we can
all agree as Republicans and Democrats.
I think the European parliament agrees they just need to
change that because 8 individuals were arrested at the Istanbul
airport today that could have flown in if they were French
national citizens.
So anyway, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Just want
to let him know that there is still some bipartisanship left in
this Congress.
With that, I recognize Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. I appreciate all the witnesses being here.
Last night I had the opportunity to hold a telephone town
hall with the people of the Fourth Congressional District of
Texas, which I am privileged to represent. Now, I had over
8,000 people on the call at one point in time. Of that 8,000 I
had more than 300 people submit questions in the queue that
they wanted to ask me.
None of that was out of the ordinary. I have done a number
of these town hall meetings before and the participation level
and folks submitting questions is something that I am used to.
But what was not typical was the uniformity of the
questions that I received last night and the lack of diversity
with respect to those questions. Because for the first time out
of those more than 300 questions, not a single person wanted to
ask me a question about Obamacare or about $18 trillion of debt
or about Government overreach and the EPA or climate change.
I had 300 questions about ISIS and Syrian refugees, and
only ISIS and Syrian refugees. There is no hyperbole in that
statement at all because trust me, I wanted to answer questions
about Obamacare.
But I really think that that speaks to and highlights the
depth and the gravity of the concern that Americans have about
what we are facing right now. So many of the folks that I
talked with really expressed a fear that maybe we were in some
sort of a tipping point in American history, so many expressed
that they felt a tremendous void in leadership from our
President on this issue.
You know I had to agree with them because as you all know
sitting here that my constituents know and you know that this
was a President that mocked ISIS as the junior varsity that
then told us they were on the run. Then told us or admitted
that he had no strategy. Then told us right before the Paris
attacks that they were contained, and now most recently is
lecturing all of us that this is simply a setback and that a
change in strategy here would be a mistake.
Bottom line is my constituents don't believe in the
leadership that the President is providing. They don't trust
him to provide it. In that void they are asking me and other
Members of Congress to lead on this issue. So I want to talk
about how we can do that.
I want to start with you, General Keane. In your remarks
you talk about ISIS having three major thrusts: Defending Syria
and Iraq. They want to use their headquarters in Syria to
expand the near abroad. They want to use their influence in the
far abroad.
So, I wanted to talk to you about how we can limit their
success in those regards. I know one of the things that you
have talked about today is to step up our military activities
in Syria.
But if we have a President that won't act, I don't know--
maybe I am missing--passing an AUMF, if a President won't use
it, how is that going to help us? What can we do in the absence
of a President that won't go along with the coalition in this
regard?
General Keane. Well, the President is the commander-in-
chief and foreign policy is largely his lane. He doesn't need
much legislative approval to do what he wants to do, and that
is the trust that we have in the President of the United
States. I think it has served us well you know since the
development of the republic itself.
So I don't have any problems with the powers that the
President has. I just happen to disagree with him on this, as
do others.
I think we will probably see some more incremental change.
Some modest improvement to what we already have been doing. We
have been watching this for 15-odd months now, this incremental
change that will take place. But I don't think that in and of
itself is likely to be decisive because it is probably still
going to be something far removed from being sufficient. I
think that is the path that I believe we are on.
So I am not optimistic that given what happened in Paris
and given its implications to the United States, and even given
the denominator that I suggested, that we look at it through
the prism this happened to us. What actions would we take as a
result of it happening to us is the prism that I think we
should use.
So I am not optimistic that we are going to get the kind of
resources and commitment on the military side. Nor am I
optimistic on the political side, which is every bit as
important as the military side here in terms of Sunni
participation in Iraq and ending the civil war in Syria.
Being in bed with the Russians is not going to end the
civil war because the Russians will insist, as will the
Iranians on an Alawite regime staying in power. As long as
there is an Alawite regime, regardless of Assad, put him aside,
then you are going to have the rebels fighting.
They will continue to fight because they are not, after
250,000 dead and most of their communities and neighborhoods
destroyed, going to take a deal like that and leave those
butchers in power. So that permeates the civil war.
We need the kind of intensity on this--on both of these
issues in Iraq politically and also in Syria that we had for
the nuclear development deal. That kind of political and
diplomatic intensity, that kind of commitment and resolve to
getting an answer, to getting a solution here, and I frankly
don't see that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, General. My time is expired, but
if the Chairman will indulge me, I would like to follow up on--
from a military standpoint. Don't misunderstand me. I am not
advocating that we commit U.S. combat brigades. I know that you
are not either because that is what your testimony says. But
you do say--but if necessary at some future date, it should be
part of a regional Arab and NATO coalition.
I want to ask you, what would be the signs to you that we
have reached that point?
General Keane. Answer that now? Yes. Well, the sign that we
have reached that point is we have not disrupted ISIS in terms
of their global strategy. They are still executing that global
strategy. People in different cities are being killed as a
result of it, possibly God forbid an attack in the United
States. That strategy is unfolding right before our eyes.
Then I think that the nations of the world would recognize
that we are going to have to do something here because what we
are doing is not satisfactory. But I actually believe, with no
degree of certainty, but if we actually put the right
resources, both military and politically, behind what is taking
place in Iraq and Syria, there is a chance for this strategy to
actually work without having to commit U.S. brigade combat
organizations to do that on any sizable scale.
Most people who look at this problem are not suggesting
that we should do any repeat of what we have done in Iraq, or
even what we have done in Afghanistan. Even those who believe
that now is the time to commit some form of combat brigades to
it, are all advocating something modest. I am not in that
position yet, but I could get there.
I just want to see us give the current strategy a chance to
work, but with all the resources applied to it. We have never
done that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, general.
Director Olsen and Mr. Bergen, thank you both for being
here as well. I wish I had time to ask you questions. I don't,
but you have all been generous with your time today with all of
us, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the Chairman's
indulgence.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I have questions for you
all. We will see how far I get with those. I probably won't get
there.
General Keane, is this threat Islamic?
General Keane. Yes. It is--radical Islam is centered in a
religious-based ideology, where religion is central to their
belief system.
Mr. Perry. I would agree with you. Just some people can't
seem to come to that conclusion. I have come to the same one as
you have. I know this is kind of rhetorical, but are they at
war with us?
General Keane. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Perry. Absolutely.
Do you see this, since you say it is Islamic, and I agree
that it is, is this only ISIS? I mean, while we have been
sitting here, and I have been sitting here a while as you have,
but I just wrote down ``ISIS, al-Qaeda, Nusra, al-Shabaab,
Haqqani, Abu Sayyef, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, AQAP, AQIM,
Khorasan.'' I mean, we get rid of ISIS, we have got a whole
list here is coming right after them, right?
General Keane. No, I totally agree with that. That is why I
have been frustrated for a long time, going back to President
Bush's administration, that we focused on the sanctuary that
was supporting al-Qaeda, but we should have focused also--that
was the right thing to do. Don't make a mistake about that. But
we also should have focused broadly on radical Islam as an
ideology and as a movement, and how do we organize our efforts
against that entire movement?
Because what you don't want to get into, and I think we are
on the path of this, is as one of these radical Islamic groups
grows up and it becomes a threat to us and we go after it, and
then 3 or 4 years later we are dealing with another one. We
have never had the collective strategy and alliances to deal
with the much larger issue that we are dealing with.
Mr. Perry. Do you think the--because many people say this--
the United States created this phenomena, this issue?
General Keane. No, that is absolute rubbish.
Mr. Perry. Well, I agree with you. So, let me ask you this,
because I have heard some things in the committee here. I have
changed my questioning based on some of the testimony. I keep
hearing: How do we keep us safe and be true to our values?
Listen, we are a compassionate people. I am the product of
legal immigration.
Then kind of keeping with that theme, you know, people act
like we are trying to separate the Muslim and non-Muslim
population, not understanding that we accept and agree that,
look, there are probably a couple hundred million Shia Muslims
that are considered apostates by these people, right? They are
Muslims, right?
So--but isn't it reasonable to say that the world that we
grew up in has changed; that when my grandparents immigrated to
the United States, there was no radical Islam. I mean, to speak
of, right? I mean, there was Wahhabism and Salafism and those
type of things, but not in the context that we currently see
it.
So, to act like everything has been the same since the
United States has been here, and we just need to continue this
policy or these policies without considering the changes, the
geopolitical changes, the theological changes occurring in the
world, is incredibly myopic, I think. Would you agree with that
at all? Or do you--is that a part of the calculation? Shouldn't
it be?
General Keane. Well, I mean, I think, you know--to think
what you are getting at is we have been dealing with radical
Islam since they took the World Trade Center down in 1993.
Mr. Perry. But this is recent history.
General Keane. Now we have been dealing with it rather
dramatically since--for 14 years since 9/11. We have been
taking in refugees--what?--70,000-plus a year during all of
that.
Mr. Perry. Right.
General Keane. Peter would tell us if any of those ever
committed an act of violence, a terrorist act in the United
States. I am not sure there has been any. He could tell us if
there has. So, I think we have had in place decent processes.
We have focused on this. I think we can do that. I think we can
do both here.
I mean, stay true to our values as Americans and what we
stand for in the world in terms of our generosity in helping
other people. We are also--there is no country on earth that
has ever sent its young people armed to put down evil in the
world to the degree that America has done as well. That is the
most significant generosity that America has expressed to the
world in terms of stabilizing the world out there and putting
down the thugs and the killers in the world.
Doing that at the expense of our youth and the expense of
our sacrifice to do that.
Mr. Perry. I don't question that, General Keane, at all.
But, you know, I hear that one of my esteemed colleagues said
that, you know, we need to trust the Government. They are
saying that they are doing the best they can. They are doing
all they can. This is a robust vetting process. We look at the
metrics that only so many of these have come in at this age and
this sex and whatever over the course of time.
But understand, you know, just like my colleague here, Mr.
Ratcliffe said, the American people are--it is okay and it is
understandable and you shouldn't be considered a bigot because
you fear what you see happening.
With all due respect to the administration, as Mr.
Ratcliffe pointed out, that called these folks the ``J.V.
team'' and said they were on the run. Then admitted that he had
no strategy and calls, you know, a hundred people dead in
France a setback.
Oh, well, heaven forbid, and forgive the citizens of the
United States for being concerned. Heaven forbid.
One last question, if you will indulge me, and I have got a
thousand here. But we seem to hear from the administration that
there is only one option here. Our option is to do our part to
take as many of these refugees as we can within the confines of
the law.
Why can't there be--and has there been consideration of an
option of a safe zone that is administered by the United
Nations with our participation, with the participation of Gulf
country allies like Saudi Arabia, who have been--I understand
they don't trust us, nor have we given them any reason to
recently.
But why can't that be an option instead of having all these
people exfiltrate into Europe and the United States, to stay in
that region of the world, and at the end of the day maybe it is
less expensive for us in the cost of dollars and lives, and is
that something that could be done?
General Keane. Well, in my testimony, I do think we should
have safe zones near the Jordanian and Turkish border that
would hold some of the people that may not have the opportunity
to leave the country or connected to family that is still in
the country. We can protect them. I think we can do that with
an international force on the ground, and also protect them in,
you know, from the air as well.
So I think that is a course of action. But I think what you
have to recognize is that millions of people have been in these
refugee camps for years and the tremendous emotional and
psychological pressure on any family unit that is experiencing
something like that. I think people go to refugee camps in the
hope that this is a very temporary situation, and eventually
they will be able to go back home. That is what they want to
do.
But after 4-plus years of war and rolling into the fifth
year, and looking--when they look at it, they don't see any
progress. They don't see any end in sight. So I think now what
we have, just from a Syrian perspective, which only makes up 30
or 40 percent of these migrating refugees in Europe, there is
just an absolute sense of hopelessness and desperation not to
ever go back to Syria likely until years later.
In other words, they are running to a new life because they
have been pushed to that act of desperation and they have come
to the----
Mr. Perry. I understand, general. I am sure they never--
they plan on never going back once they----
General Keane. You know, we would have to talk to them, but
I mean, I think their actions are speaking louder than words.
They are just literally leaving everything behind to hope to
have a new life. That is what political asylum and refugees
coming to this America has always been about. We have always
been willing to take--not everyone, but a certain percentage of
people who are running as a result of desperation.
We give them the opportunity to have that new life here.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The Chair recognizes Mr. Zeldin.
Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on some of the comments and interplay
between Mr. Bergen and--all three of you, as a matter of fact--
and Mr. Keating earlier. They were talking about some of the
findings in our Foreign Fighter Task Force, which I chaired,
and especially with respect to some of the findings about some
of the security gaps in Europe.
I can tell you, when we went there, the Chairman went on a
CODEL with myself and several others from the task force,
Republicans and Democrats. We first went to Israel to get their
perspective, and then went on the front lines in Baghdad. Then
we went to Turkey, and then Western Europe--Berlin and then
Brussels and France.
When we got to Western Europe, it was--it became patently
obvious that the security gaps were quite significant compared
to what we do in the United States. As a matter of fact,
quietly on the side, the intelligence officials would
acknowledge to us that those security gaps were significant and
they were borderline leaving the door open for something to
happen.
It happened in Paris. Quite frankly, it was to none of our
surprises that event happened there, as tragic as it may be
because of what we saw when we over there. So, you know, we are
very concerned about that and the findings and the report, I
encourage you to take a look at them because I think they
mirror what happened in Paris.
The problem I have with that, is that it makes our homeland
less safe. Particularly with respect to the Visa Waiver
Program. If we don't know if someone is broken bad in Western
Europe and then they get it, you know, and the Western
Europeans don't know it, it is easy for some of those people to
come to the United States. That is a great concern of mine.
So then overlay with that, my work on the Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, which I
chair, and, the things we found out about domestic airlines and
security of domestic airports. That greatest fear seems to be
manifested in what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh.
When you have inside employees who look like they helped
facilitate the bombing.
That is a great concern of mine--domestically, as well, and
I wanted you to comment on that. I will not that in several
incidents in the United States in the last couple of years,
which highlight my concern--one being an individual carrying
guns from Atlanta to La Guardia. Did it about approximately 10
times. Well over 100 guns. Loaded in a backpack, because an
employee in Atlanta brought them into the security area and
gave them to him.
Then you have drug trafficking case, and they were
introducing a bill in Congress that showed--not only did they--
were smuggling vast amounts of drugs through employee access
point, but one of them offered to bring a bomb through.
So, the threat is real here, and it has certainly
manifested itself overseas with respect to airline security.
So, regarding airline security, all of you could comment on
your concerns about the airline--situation overseas regarding
employees, in particular. Whether it is really that much better
here.
The Sharm el-Sheikh, I understand, is a situation--even
Western Europe. Because the fact of the matter is, employees at
airports around the world get far less screening than
passengers that are coming there to visit the airport. So, if
anyone wants to comment on that, please.
Mr. Bergen. I think that vulnerability is--I mentioned
earlier the British Airways employee who was trying to get a
bomb on a plane who was in touch with the head of al-Qaeda and
Yemen, the Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. I will add to that, a
Heathrow employee who was in touch with a self-described member
of al-Qaeda who was getting this guy information about the
security environment at Heathrow.
So, I mean, this is not an abstract concern at all. We have
seen these cases. I think that--we probably have a better
situation in this country. I know DHS in June said that there
were going to be more randomized screening of airport
employees. Less access to secure areas for people who shouldn't
be there.
I don't know if those are being implemented, but clearly,
that is a start.
Mr. Katko. Mr. Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. Yes, I generally agree. It is a--and I
appreciate the committee's work on identifying the
vulnerabilities.
We saw these, in particular the one with information
sharing when I was at NCTC, and how difficult it would be for--
and we saw examples of this, even with Germany and Belgium, and
France. I believe over a year ago.
Where, you know, the Germans had some information, and they
didn't share it with the Belgians. Didn't share it with the
French. As easy it is to move around Europe, sharing
information about individuals who are suspected of traveling to
Syria is absolutely critical.
Mr. Katko. I just, to follow up on that. I heard, was
earlier this week, perhaps, that France and the United States
enhanced their information-sharing agreement and it was hailed
as a significant event. To me, it is piecemeal, it is ad hoc,
it is intermittent like was mentioned before. Until we get some
sort of a comprehensive information sharing system, we are
really not--we are really just flying blind. That is what makes
me nervous.
That coupled with the fact--the ease of getting into the
United States, and the lack of real security with respect to
employees at airports, to me, is really a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Keane, do you have anything you want to add?
General Keane. Well, the only thing I would add is that it
is interesting that the terrorists have never given up on the
use of an airplane as a weapon for them.
They have been absolutely persistent about that, and to
break down whatever security barriers that we have. I think,
what we have to recognize is that they are going to continue to
do this, and we just have to make certain that we just have the
best security barriers out there for--they are not giving up on
it.
Mr. Katko. Yes, and the fact that ISIS, now getting into
the game, trying to take down airlines, and perhaps
successfully, in the MetroJet incident, really is a game-
changer. I think it should be viewed as such. Because it is not
just one group trying to do it. It is definitely--ISIS.
The way they are radicalizing people over the internet and
trying to get people to break bad without even coming over to
Syria--that is a--compounds that concern for me.
You have a million people in United States flying--working
at airports--close to a million people. You just need one guy
or one woman to break bad, and you have got a real problem.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Chair recognizes Mr. Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. I would like to thank Chairman McCaul, Chairman
Royce for putting together this hearing today. Obviously, very
timely with what happened last week. But their leadership on
this issue for a long time is very much appreciated by my
constituents.
I would also like to thank all of our witnesses for being
here as well. I know that you have been answering a lot of
questions over the course of the last several hours, and a lot
of our people back home are paying attention to what you have
to say, and your time here is very valuable, so thank you.
I personally believe that the best humanitarian victory
that we can provide is to defeat ISIS overseas. I would like to
get your thoughts on the humanitarian victories that can be
pursued, that maybe we are not pursuing now where the refugees
currently are in the Middle East.
So if you can address that first. I know--there is a lot of
focus here about, you know, what to do to be good citizens of
the world and--in bringing these individuals to the United
States. I would like to get more of your thoughts and ideas on
what we could do to provide that assistance abroad, rather than
here.
Mr. Bergen. You know, there is a very good piece in foreign
affairs this month by a couple of specialists in refugees--
most, as we have already indicated, most of these refugees are
in Jordan and in Turkey. You know, Jordan is--you know, doesn't
have a particularly strong economy. So, I mean, your--if these
people are just going to be condemned to the refugee camps that
General Keane has described without a chance of working, that
is really a big problem.
So, aid to the countries that are taking these refugees, to
get these refugees to actually have a job, I think is quite
important and probably wouldn't be a great deal of money.
Particularly if you are trying to persuade them not to come as
a flood into Europe and the West.
Mr. Olsen. I was going to say exactly the same thing as Mr.
Bergen. I mean the numbers are what is so difficult here--4
million-plus Syrian refugees have left the country.
The vast majority are in countries around the region--
Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon. Countries that, particularly with
respect to Jordan and Turkey, we need to be helping us in this
fight. Countries that will potentially face destabilization
because of the enormous numbers. So, we need to work with them
directly in helping them with the refugee problem.
The 10,000 that the United States is talking about taking
is really a very small and, thinking about this process
process, a relatively manageable number compared to what is
being faced in the region and also in Europe.
General Keane. You know, some of this is really challenging
because the conditions in the region at large. Beyond Syria and
the brutality of the killing that has taken place there. But
throughout the region, you know, to include Africa, I mean,
there are serious issues there in the lack of much-needed
political reform, social injustice, and lack of equal economic
opportunity that, in fact, drive people to a sense of
desperation.
They drive them--it drives them into the streets to
demonstrate against a government that is denying them all of
that and it--and at some point it also drives them away from
the region as well. And take--accept all the risk that it means
to put your family, you know, on a raft and cross a major body
of water. What an extraordinary act of desperation that this.
So you give a sense of the seriousness of those problems in
the region. But the nations in the region also have to change
here, because they are driving some of these conditions. So
that is the one thing. That is a long-term strategy and
unfortunately, we have lost our leverage with a number of these
countries in the region because of this nuclear deal that we
have been involved in for 3-plus years.
We don't have the political leverage we had in the past.
Yes, not only should some of these countries change the
conditions that they need, and that is a longer-term thing, but
it is critical to keep people at home providing economic
opportunity and social justice. But it--given the crisis, given
the humanitarian crisis that exists right now, there are a
number of countries in the region, or even coming close to what
they could do to help with this crisis. You know, to ease some
of the burden that Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon feel who
really are the repository of the ones that are coming out of
Syria to reassure.
We are not leveraging that to the point where we are
getting some real results out of it. After all, these countries
do have finances that can help with it. If they didn't--even if
we can't persuade them to build--accept the people in their own
country. They do have finances that can help the situation, and
that is not happening.
So, your instincts are right. There is a lot we can do in
the region to be sure that are driving this, but also, what is
happening in the region is related to radical Islam, as well.
That is why you need a comprehensive strategy to deal with
this. Because at that aspect of making basic and fundamental
reform in terms of political reform, social justice, and
economic opportunity, that is a long-term strategy that you
need.
That is beyond the immediate crisis.
Mr. Zeldin. Well, I thank you, general. Thank you to all
the witnesses, again, for answering all the questions over the
course of this hearing. I personally, as I stated earlier,
believe that the No. 1 humanitarian victory that we can provide
for those in that region is to do everything in our power,
working with some newly-motivated countries across the world--
specifically the French, the Germans, the British, the
Russians, who are now motivated as well to defeat the threat.
To annihilate the threat.
They are not contained. They are not the J.V. squad.
Everything else as far as improving the conditions on the
ground is impossible without us eliminating the threat.
Again, Chairman McCaul who is still here, who has been an
active, vocal presence and leader, and I am so grateful he is
Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, and he is doing a
lot to ensure that my constituents, as well, are being heard.
As well as constituents in his district from coast to coast.
So thank you again, Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you, and I know your New York
constituents, that means a lot for me to hear that from you. I
agree, until this crisis is resolved, we are going to continue
to have a refugee crisis and problem. It would be nice if maybe
some of the Sunni Arab nations or Gulf states could help
finance some of this mess, would take in some of the refugees.
But today, they are taking zero.
I know this will be heard hopefully across international
boundaries, but they have the wherewithal. They are Sunni
Arabs, after all, fleeing Assad and ISIS. Why aren't they
taking them? Instead, they are fleeing to Europe and to the
United States. A refugee means that they want to return to
their homeland. They are not going to return once they go to
Europe and the United States.
So I would implore those nations to maybe change their way
of thinking and take these refugees and be responsible in that
effort. I can think of no better place that has the wherewithal
to house them, to take them, and to finance it. Then when the
conflict, if we can ever get it resolved, they can return back
to their homes.
I know the gentlelady from Texas wants to be recognized for
a closing statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, part of my closing statement
will be thanking General Keane, we have been together before on
a number of issues; and Mr. Olsen, I almost thought Congressman
Olsen was here, but a different Olsen that is here. Thank you
so very much. Peter Bergen, thank you again all of you, your
constant input into the process of what America is all about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank you. I thank
Mr. Royce. I thank Mr. Engel and Mr. Thompson. To reinforce the
bipartisanship of this committee, meaning the Committee on
Homeland Security, and certainly I have seen it with the
courtesies extended to me on Foreign Affairs.
But let me add these points, concluding points to the
record, if I might. First of all, I want every measure of
security and every documentation necessary to protect the
American people. We may have a difference of opinion dealing
with refugees and the threat that they pose. I just put 2 or 3
numbers into the record for our reflection.
I think the Chairman noted it. Turkey has taken 1.9 million
refugees; Lebanon, 1.4 million refugees. Obviously, they are in
the neighborhood. Egypt has taken 132,000; Germany, 98,000;
Sweden, 64,000; France, 66,700; Jordan, 629,000. Anybody that
has been to the camps in Jordan recognizes the burden that they
have had.
I want us to protect ourselves by smart legislation. I have
introduced the No Fly For Foreign Terrorists. I believe that
the documentation that we use should be vetted and screened to
make sure that we keep those who go to the fight out of the
United States. I think that is the intent behind what we do
tomorrow, or what there is intended to do tomorrow.
My only concern is as we go forward, I believe we are going
to find common ground. I want the American people to know that
we are not operating out of fear. I take the words of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt very seriously: There is nothing to fear but
fear itself. We must look them in the eye. Those who are evil,
we must rid ourselves of the evilness. There are many groups.
I have been a strong opponent to Boko Haram and the
heinousness as they spread across North Africa. But let's do it
smart.
So let me finish on these points. No. 1, I have been, as
Mr. Katko, the Chairperson of the airport--of the
Transportation Security Committee. There is no greater danger,
I believe, than our exposed airports. Let me qualify that by
saying we have come a long way since 9/11.
But I do believe that one of the things that this committee
will hopefully raise up--Mr. Katko has been a strong supporter
of this--is every measure a person that comes on the airport as
an employee or comes to the backside of the airport or the
front side of the airport, is screened extensively, that we
know every single person that is going on the ingress and
egress of the airport.
I think that is crucial, and I think the Egyptian
catastrophe with Russia, who has finally acknowledged that it
was a bomb, would be the case.
Second and third, and I will be closing, intelligence. I
think with restraint, there was obvious intelligence of what
happened last Friday. We have got to share as it is possible
our intelligence. I want to applaud our intelligence community.
People must recognize the intelligence and act on it when it
comes to their attention.
Finally, I want to say that as we speak about this issue, I
take issue with the definition or the utilization of radical
Islam. I think it is radical Jihad. I think there are persons
who have abused the faith. Make it very clear, and I hope that
our friends who are of the faith, as many of us would stand
against any abuse or misuse of any faith that we are in, that
would be used for violence, that we stand against it. But we do
more harm, I think, if we characterize a religion.
So Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to be in
this hearing, but more importantly let us understand what
refugees are, fleeing for their life. Let us understand that we
live with Muslims in this country, some who have died on the
battlefield. Let me say that I think now we can collaboratively
work with allies such as France, but many others, including the
Arab states, must stand up to the multiple threats and take the
fight to them as the United States works with them.
No President is perfect on their assessment of
international terror, which is the new fight that we have, or
National security. But we can be as perfect as we possibly can,
using the skills and tools and the democratic values that have
been so precious to this Nation.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me, and I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. We thank the witnesses for your
perseverance, your strength, getting through the hours of
testimony. I just got word that Mr. Abaaoud is confirmed dead,
so that is a good day in the war against the terrorists, and
hopefully this will end in our lifetime.
Mr. Bergen, I must say you have been very patient sitting
there, and I know that the other witnesses have been able to
respond to a lot of questions. I want to give you the last
word, to close out the hearing.
Mr. Bergen. I would say that there has been a lot of
consensus amongst the Members here, except perhaps Dana
Rohrabacher who I think is often an outlier. There seems to be
a lot of consensus that there is a robust system in place, but
that there needs to be, you know, it just needs maybe a little
bit of a hard look just to make sure it is as robust as it can
be.
You know, I am very privileged and honored to have been
asked to be part of this.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Again, my thanks to all the witnesses. The
record is open for 10 days if Members have additional
questions.
Thank you so much for being here, all three of you.
Without objection, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]
[all]