[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE GLOBAL TERRORISM LANDSCAPE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-133PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and International
Terrorism
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida Chairman
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
TED LIEU, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
COLIN ALLRED, Texas ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey LEE ZELDIN, New York
DAVID TRONE, Maryland BRIAN Mast, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
JUAN VARGAS, California STEVEN WATKINS, Kansas
Casey Kustin, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Soufan, Ali, Chief Executive Officer, The Soufan Group, Member,
Homeland Security Advisory Council............................. 8
Ramalingam, Vidhya, Founder, Moonshot CVE, Board Member, Life
After Hate..................................................... 22
Roggio, Bill, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of
Democracies.................................................... 36
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 57
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 58
Hearing Attendance............................................... 59
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted from Representative Sherman..... 60
EXAMINING THE GLOBAL TERRORISM LANDSCAPE
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Middle East,
North Africa, and International Terrorism
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in
Room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Trone
(vice-chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Trone [presiding]. Welcome, everyone. The subcommittee
is meeting today to hear testimony examining the global
terrorism landscape. I thank our witnesses for appearing today.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement. This is our first opportunity for this Congress to
take a broader view of the terrorism landscape confronting the
United States and the rest of the world.
It has been 18 years after the attacks on 9/11, and we have
seen some success with our counterterrorism policy. But we have
also watched the universe enlarge with an unsettling number of
terrorist groups and affiliates and offshoots.
In an aggressive policy start under President Obama, and
continuing under President Trump, we have successfully
confronted the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, to liberate the
territory once occupied. However, we must remain vigilant.
Simply because a group no longer controls territory does not
mean ISIS has been defeated.
ISIS fighters have scattered, but they are morphing into an
insurgency in Iraq and Syria, where the group clearly feels
emboldened enough that its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, just
appeared on video for the first time in 5 years to reassert his
authority in the wake of the lost territory.
ISIS is also sowing the seeds of terror elsewhere by
inspiring, guiding, and directing its affiliates and individual
extremists throughout the world. Consider the Easter bombings
in Sri Lanka that killed over 250 people. ISIS has claimed
credit for those attacks. Investigators believe that at least
one of the suicide bombers that traveled to and trained in
Raqqah and others may have traveled to Turkey, Syria, or Iraq.
ISIS clearly has an ability to export terrorism to parts of
the world beyond the Middle East. We cannot let our success in
liberating territory from this group blind us to the
significant challenges that remain. Of course, ISIS is not the
only terrorist group out there. Al-Qaeda remains a potent, if
decentralized, force for spreading fear and violence.
It is incredibly disturbing that ISIS and al-Qaeda often
compete against one another and against Iranian-backed terror
organizations in many of the most fragile contexts worldwide.
This interplay only fuels sectarian violence, radicalizes
populations, and exacerbates intractable conflicts throughout
the Middle East.
No one excels at exploiting regional chaos quite like Iran.
Iran has been on our list of State sponsors for terrorism for
35 years. And, unfortunately, it has only expanded its support
for terrorist organizations over that time.
The congressional Research Service lists the Syrian regime
of Bashar al-Assad, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shia militias in
Iraq, underground groups in Bahrain, and of course Hezbollah
and Hamas, among the beneficiaries of Iran's terror patronage.
Just earlier this month President Trump designated Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist
organization. I do not dispute the threats the IRGC poses, but
I would note the designation may carry consequences in terms of
retaliatory measures against the United States and U.S.
personnel overseas.
We must be clear-eyed about the threats to the United
States and our interests. This includes recognizing a rise in
white nationalist terrorism that threatens democracy and human
rights at home and abroad.
I grieve with the congregants of the Chabad Synagogue in
California, who suffered a tragic attack this weekend. We will
continue to seek justice for the victims of the shooting at the
Tree of Life Synagogue where my daughter was named. We cannot
tolerate such acts of hate inside the United States or against
our close allies like New Zealand where a gunman's killing
spree targeted the faithful visiting two mosques during Friday
prayers just 6 weeks ago.
Far right plots against French President Emmanuel Macron
and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez highlight that
terrorism is indeed diverse. We cannot be lulled into a false
sense of security. We have to be prepared, strong, and agile--
counterterrorism strategy.
The military has a role to play, but almost 2 decades after
9/11 it is clear the problem does not have a military-only
solution. We need to address the underlying risks of terrorism,
and we must ensure that our counterterrorism efforts account
for the complicated politics in regions like the Middle East,
Africa, South and Southeast Asia.
This requires investing in foreign aid and diplomacy, not
cutting the budget for them. I know there is a strong
bipartisan support on this committee for smart policies that
build on both military and non-military assets and holistic
approach.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses with their
views on the threats posed by terrorism today and what the U.S.
can do better to defend our citizens and our interests
worldwide.
I now recognize the ranking member for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Trone, for chairing this
important hearing. Since September 11, 2001, our country has
been engaged in a long and persistent War on Terrorism. It is a
generational battle against those that wish to threaten our way
of life, our church liberties, and our freedoms. They target
innocence simply because of who they are, what they believe,
and the way they live their lives. The tragic attacks this past
Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka that killed at least 253, including
4 Americans, was a stark reminder of terrorism's global reach
and deadly consequences.
Eighteen years ago on that solemn Tuesday morning when the
beating heart of our Nation was attacked by a group of al-Qaeda
terrorists, we could not have possibly imagined the terrorist
landscape today. Today al-Qaeda affiliates stretch from the
western edges of North Africa all the way to Southeast Asia.
Sadly, none of us could even fathom the possibility that
al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch could spin off and form a full-blown
terrorist State the size of Great Britain across Syria and
Iraq.
The inhuman brutality afflicted by ISIS on the people of
Syria and Iraq, including Muslims, Christians, Yasidis, and
others, was a reminder for all of us. We fight this enduring
battle against terrorism and the perverted ideology that
inspires it to protect our families from this kind of evil.
Fortunately, ISIS no longer holds any territory, and its
so-called Caliphate has been delegated to the dustbin of
history. The battle has been won, but the war continues. The
ISIS threat remains.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center, 14,000
ISIS fighters are still in Iraq and Syria. They remain armed
and have continued to carry out attacks. ISIS's dangerous
ideology remains a persistent and pernicious threat to the
world peace, and hundreds of battle-tested foreign fighters
heading home pose new challenges to authorities throughout the
world.
Notably, the conditions that led to the rise of ISIS in
Iraq has not been completely changed, and the resurgence of
ISIS 2.0 is a tragic likelihood. To complicate the landscape
even further, Iran has earned the title of number 1 State
sponsor of terrorism in the world by fostering a network of
Shiite armed groups engaged in terrorism to achieve Tehran's
designs.
Their reach extends throughout the Middle East to countries
like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain, but Iran's
proxies are not limited to the Middle East. Its primary
terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, is deeply entrenched in our own
backyard in Latin America.
If there is one thing the past 18 years have taught us it
is that terrorism is a global threat. It is not just limited to
one country or region. It is an international challenge that
requires international responses. Terrorists thrive while we
turn a blind eye, and they spawn and metastasize in ungoverned
spaces until they are ready enough to reach our shores.
Before 9/11, it was Afghanistan. Today Syria safe havens
abound in areas of Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, the
southern Philippines, and even Colombia. There is no doubt that
the threat has multiplied. Wherever safe havens exist, American
families are at risk. That is why American leadership is
necessary now, more than ever.
We must work together with all of our friends and partners
throughout the world to protect our values from those that seek
to destroy them. We must not delude ourselves with dreams of
quick strikes and missions accomplished. We must realize that
to gain any measure of success we will have to be in this for
the long haul. We must not make the mistakes of the past and
think that we can run away from problems abroad.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never
forget September 11 and the Global War on Terrorism.
With that, Congressman Trone, I yield back and look forward
to hearing from our witnesses today.
Mr. Trone. I will now recognize members of the subcommittee
for 1-minute opening statements should they wish to make one.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Trone. Mr. Sherman, you are recognized.
Mr. Sherman. A decade ago, I was in this room chairing the
subcommittee that dealt with international terrorism. I suspect
decades from now they will be in this room talking about
international terrorism. That does not mean we have lost, just
because we cannot expunge international terrorism. As long as
we are battling it and keeping it under control, our battles
will not always be like World War II where there is an actual
surrender of our enemies.
The administration has properly designated the Iran
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Press
reports indicate they will soon designate the Muslim
Brotherhood. That will raise some questions because there are
so many organizations in the Muslim world influenced or
inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, including the governments
of Turkey and Qatar.
Venezuela's legal government is being thwarted by Maduro.
Maduro is being aided by Iran.
And, finally, as to crypto currencies, these are the
plastic guns of currency. That is to say, the crypto currency
can be used for some legitimate purpose, but its unique
advantage is to help criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.
And Hamas has on their website how to make donations to Hamas
using Bitcoin. It does America no good to see the dollar lose
power and crypto currencies take their place and facilitate
illegal transactions.
I yield back.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Chabot for 1
minute.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as Mr. Sherman
mentioned, been a long time--had the honor to be a long-time
serving member of this committee, and in fact chaired this
committee when the Embassy attack in Benghazi took place.
About a month prior to that, I had been with our
Ambassador, Ambassador Stevens, for the better part of a day
and a half in Tripoli. And we have made some progress in
fighting terrorism over the years, but as Mr. Sherman said, we
are not there yet, and it is going to take a long, long battle.
And despite ISIS's territorial defeat, and our 18-year
battle against al-Qaeda, both groups are still very dangerous.
They have affiliates throughout the Middle East and Africa and
Asia that threaten our allies and the security and stability of
the respective regions.
Iran also uses terrorism and terrorist proxies as weapons
in its campaign to gain hegemony in the region, destabilize our
allies, and ultimately, in their view, to try to destroy
Israel, which is why the President was right in declaring the
IRGC a terrorist organization.
And, finally, Sri Lanka, on Easter Sunday, the holiest day
of the year for Christians, radical Islamists attacked three
Catholic churches and other targets, the death toll staggering,
hundreds murdered. Sunday masses were canceled this weekend,
and barbaric attacks like this must never happen, and we mourn
with all the families of those innocent souls who died
celebrating Jesus' resurrection.
And I yield back.
Mr. Trone. Without objection, all members may have 5 days
to submit statements, questions, extraneous material for the
record, subject to the length limitation in the rules.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Mr. Ali Soufan is the
chief executive officer of The Soufan Group, as well as a
member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He is a
former FBI supervisory special agent who investigated and
supervised several international terrorism cases, including the
U.S. Embassy bombing in East Africa, the attack on the USS
Cole, and events surrounding 9/11.
At the FBI, Mr. Soufan served on the Joint Terrorism Task
Force, FBI New York office, and received numerous awards and
commendations for his counterterrorism work. Welcome.
Ms. Vidhya Ramalingam is the founder of Moonshot CVE, a
company using technology to disrupt encountered violent
extremism globally. She directs digital projects in over 25
countries and oversees partnerships with tech companies to
respond to violent extremism on their platforms, online
intervention programs, to pull individuals out of violent
movements and automated messaging to disrupt closed extremist
forums.
She has a decade of experience engaging directly with
extremists and previously served as a senior fellow at the
Institute of Strategic Dialogue and a senior research fellow at
the U.S. Institute for Public Policy. Welcome.
Mr. Bill Roggio is a senior fellow at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies and editor of the Foundation's Long War
Journal, which provides original reporting and analysis of
terrorism across the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond.
Previously, Mr. Roggio was embedded, the U.S. Marine Corps,
U.S. Army, and Iraqi forces in Iran, and with the Canadian Army
in Afghanistan, and also served as a signalman and infantryman
in the U.S. Army in the New Jersey National Guard.
Thank you all for being here today. Let us remind the
witnesses, limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Without
objection, your prepared written statements will be made part
of the hearing record.
Thank you so much for being here today. Mr. Soufan, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF ALI SOUFAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE SOUFAN
GROUP, MEMBER, HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. Soufan. Thank you, Vice Chairman Trone, Ranking Member
Wilson, distinguished members. As you will hear from my
statement, I believe that the current geopolitical dynamics in
the Middle East are fueling global terrorism and contributing
to instability throughout the region and beyond.
My statement will address four fundamental issues. First,
we must recognize the resilience of the ideology fueling
transnational terrorist groups and helping them recruit across
the globe.
Second, sectarianism has become the geopolitical currency
of the Middle East, and terrorist organizations have become
experts at exploiting this reality for their own gain.
Third, the Arab Spring has shifted the calculus of
terrorist groups, especially al-Qaeda, which is playing the
long game by focusing on coopting local conflicts to help
achieve its goals and objectives.
Fourth, the war in Syria has exposed the true nature of the
struggle underlying the current rise of militant groups and
non-State actors. After the devastating attacks of 9/11, we
responded swiftly. We have enjoyed numerous tactical victories
since then, yet for all of these successes we have experienced
the strategic failure of truly understanding why the ideology
that organizations like al-Qaeda spread across the world is so
resilient.
Even today the Caliphate may have been defeated in the
physical sense. But the dynamics that allowed the so-called
Islamic State to exist in the first place continue to endure.
Sectarianism has long figured in the modern Middle East
power struggles, but its importance has grown with Iraq's
transition to a Shia-led government and other regional
conflicts, especially in Syria and Yemen.
Unfortunately, sectarianism has become primary tool for
competing States to solidify power and support. Principally, I
am speaking about the struggle for regional hegemony between
Saudi Arabia and Iran, which has prolonged already-bloody
conflicts and lent them a vicious sectarian edge.
Although both Saudi Arabia and Iran heavily employ the
tactic of sectarianism, their strategies are widely different
in both execution and success. My written statement goes into
great detail of these dynamics.
The Arab Spring represented a key moment to the rise of
militant groups and non-State actors. Even bin Laden, just
before his demise, nearly 8 years to the day today, instructed
his organization to move away from strictly targeting the West
and to begin exploiting local power vacuums that followed the
collapse of the various Arab regimes.
With that, bin Laden was able to rewrite the global jihadi
narrative from a regional perspective, a narrative that has
local roots but global aspirations. This local strategy is now
as much a part of the agenda of terrorist groups as are the
acts of terrorism aimed to dismantle the world order led by the
United States.
Of all the Arab Spring revolutions, perhaps the most
complicated is Syria. The war in Syria has exposed the true
nature of the struggle underlying the current instability in
the region. One glance at the Middle East suggests that the
region has reverted to an intercivilizational conflict. Sunnis
fight Shia, Persians battle Arabs, Turks struggle with Kurds.
The war in Syria also caused a refugee crisis without
precedence, which, coupled with the rise of identity politics
in Europe, gave oxygen to another transnational violence
movement that is unfolding in front of our very eyes, radical
right wing terrorism. These two dangerous networks feed off
each other. When a jihadi commits a terrorist attack, it
benefits the right wing terrorist. And when the right wing
terrorist commits an attack, it benefits the jihadi.
It is my hope that I have managed to demonstrate that
terrorism does not succeed or fail in a vacuum, and that the
terrorist landscape of today operates at a larger strategic
context. The resilience of the ideology, coupled with
sectarianism and prolonged conflict across the Middle East due
to geopolitical power rivalry, is what has given rise to what
we are witnessing today.
My written statement includes numerous examples of the
talking points I have highlighted here this afternoon, and I
look forward for answering questions from the subcommittee.
Thank you for the privilege and for the opportunity to be here
with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soufan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ramalingam.
STATEMENT OF VIDHYA RAMALINGAM, FOUNDER, MOONSHOT CVE, BOARD
MEMBER, LIFE AFTER HATE
Ms. Ramalingam. Chairman Trone, Ranking Member Wilson,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
My name is Vidhya Ramalingam, and throughout my career I
have worked to understand and deter individuals from white
nationalist extremism and terrorism. Ten years ago, I moved to
Europe to undertake a mission to meet with white nationalism
extremists in Scandinavia. When a white nationalist terrorist
murdered 77 people in Norway, I led the European Union's first
intergovernmental initiative on this form of violence.
Today, I appear before this subcommittee as founder of
Moonshot CVE. Our mission is to end violent extremism globally.
We work regularly with the U.S. State Department to disrupt
encountered terrorist networks online, and my team and I have
supported the Global Coalition Against Daesh, deployed programs
to undermine Boko Haram recruitment in Nigeria, and have worked
to prevent al-Qaeda affiliates from recruiting in Southeast
Asia.
We deliver programs to counter radicalization to white
nationalist terrorism globally. White nationalist terrorism
poses both a domestic and a global terror threat to the United
States and its allies. It is dedicated to the overthrow of
democratic governance and destruction of values intrinsic to
the American way of life.
It is an ideology based on the notion that the white race
is threatened with extinction, the dehumanization of other
races, and conspiracy theories that position particular ethnic
and religious groups as enemies.
Instances of this form of terrorism are increasing across
the globe. Norway saw the deadliest of these attacks in recent
history when a terrorist murdered 77 people in twin attacks on
government buildings and on the island of Utoya in 2011. And in
March this year we saw attacks by a terrorist on two mosques
left 50 people dead in Christchurch, New Zealand.
These movements have encouraged a dangerous strategy of
leaderless resistance where individuals operate independently
from one another and carry out violence to serve white national
extremist interests. This is not dissimilar from the tactics
adopted by ISIS and affiliated groups, which have encouraged
so-called lone wolves to independently carry out low-tech acts
of terror across the globe.
Mirroring ISIS, white nationalist terrorists have adopted
the term ``white jihad'' and have increasingly chosen low-tech
methods of violence, including vehicular attacks.
White nationalist fighters and ideologues increasingly move
across borders. The perpetrator of the New Zealand attack was
an Australian citizen who traveled across borders to carry out
his attack. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has drawn white
national foreign fighters from dozens of countries at an
unprecedented scale.
In the past several years, we have seen these terrorists
themselves become dangerous international ideologues and hate
preachers. Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik and New
Zealand terrorist Brenton Tarrant published their own
manifestos, which served to inspire others to act.
On Saturday, a synagogue in Poway, California, was attacked
by a gunman. A manifesto suspected to have been posted by the
gunman claims that he drew direct inspiration from the New
Zealand attack. This, once again, highlights that the global
white nationalist terrorist threat is directly inspiring
violence here in the United States.
Tarrant also pioneered a new communications tactic--live
streaming a video of his massacre to the world using Facebook
Live. This turned the attack into a powerful piece of digital
propaganda itself, with millions of internet users watching
globally.
The internet did not create this global movement, but it
has supercharged its evolution. Adopting increasing
decentralized structures, these movements may not be as deadly
as ISIS, but they share with it many of its characteristics.
My written testimony includes a range of strategic
priorities to aid the fight against white nationalist
terrorism, and I will mention just a few here. The fight
against terrorism will be significantly enhanced by the
designation of key individuals and groups whom we know to be
behind acts of white nationalist terror as specially designated
global terrorists.
We encourage greater collaboration between governments and
the private sector to move beyond simply content removal and
deliver proactive strategic communications campaigns to counter
the terrorist threat.
We have partnered with Google to repurpose advertising
technology to reach terrorists with content which discredits
these ideologies and offers alternatives. This method has now
been delivered globally, together with governments and the
private sector, including actors, such as the Gen Next
Foundation here in the United States, in the fight against
ISIS.
Today we are working to use this technology to change
behavior of white nationalist terrorists online. We encourage
this subcommittee to see white nationalist terrorism as part of
the full spectrum of terror threats facing the United States
and its allies.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ramalingam follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roggio.
STATEMENT OF BILL ROGGIO, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE
OF DEMOCRACIES
Mr. Roggio. Chairman Trone, Ranking Member Wilson, and
members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today.
The Easter day suicide attacks in Sri Lanka were a stark
reminder that this war is far from over. We face a brutal and
uncaring enemy that is committed to its cause and believes it
is justified in killing civilians in churches and hotels. The
Sri Lankan attacks were claimed by a local group that swore
allegiance to the Islamic State, and it coordinated the release
of its propaganda with the Islamic State. Authorities are now
beginning to unearth international ties between the two.
In this war, we have been too quick to declare our enemies
defeated. In late March, the Trump administration touted the
Islamic State's loss of its last vestige of territory in Syria.
The Islamic State may have gone to ground now, but it has by no
means been defeated.
The Islamic State has been down this path before. After the
U.S. surge in Iraq, its predecessor, the Islamic State in Iraq,
which was an al-Qaeda affiliate, regrouped and warred back to
retake large areas of Iraq and Syria just 3 years later.
This problem is by no means limited to the Trump
administration. The Obama Administration as quick to declare
the defeat of al-Qaeda after killing Osama bin Laden in
Pakistan, yet his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was second in
command on the day of 9/11, remains alive and directs multiple
branches that operate across--operate active insurgencies
across three continents.
The jihadist threat has expanded since 9/11. Prior to 9/11,
al-Qaeda operated openly in Afghanistan, alongside the Taliban,
and had cells and small units scattered across several
countries. Today it manages full-fledged insurgencies in Yemen,
Syria, Northeast and West Africa, and South Asia, including in
Afghanistan where it continues to fight alongside the Taliban.
Some analysts seek to disconnect local jihadist
insurgencies from international terrorist attacks, but this is
a mistake. The local insurgencies in international terrorist
attacks feed off of each other. The insurgencies give foreign
fighters combat experience, training, network, and ideological
reinforcement.
International attacks provide propaganda and entice
Westerners to conduct attacks at home or emigrate to wage
jihad. At least one of the Sri Lankan suicide bombers is known
to have traveled to Syria and likely provided key knowledge to
execute those deadly attacks.
Al-Qaeda used to have a monopoly on the jihad, but no more.
The Islamic State, which rose out of a dispute between al-
Qaeda's cadres in Iraq and Syria, is now in direct competition
with al-Qaeda. These two groups share the same goal: they wish
to reestablish a global Caliphate and impose its harsh version
of Sharia or Islamic law.
Where they differ is how to achieve these goals. The
Islamic State wants its Caliphate now and ruthlessly attacks
any who refuse to swear allegiance to its emir. Al-Qaeda's
approach is far more patient and subtle. It is willing to work
with local Islamist groups and believes the Caliphate should
only be declared when it can be properly defended.
Iran, which alongside Pakistan are the biggest State
sponsors of terrorism, also seeks to establish an Islamic
State. It backs loyal militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and
Yemen. These militias are organized and trained along the same
lines as Hezbollah. The long-term impact of these militias is
still not fully understood, and they have a far greater
recruiting base than Hezbollah had to recruit from inside
Lebanon.
While Iran primarily backs Shia groups, it has openly
battled the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It is not opposed
to forming alliances with Sunni jihadists. Al-Qaeda maintains a
network in Iran, and key leaders shelter there. This secret
deal was documented by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2011 and
several times since.
Pakistan also continues to harbor numerous terrorist groups
and uses them as a tool of its foreign policy. Its support for
the Taliban has been unwavering and is leading us to defeat in
Afghanistan. I would argue that we have already lost
Afghanistan. We are merely attempting to negotiate the terms of
our exit.
Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorist groups that launch
deadly attacks in India. It has paid no price for its perfidy.
As our enemies have expanded their base of operations and
remain committed to the fight, our will has faltered. We seek
to disengage from the battle fronts, giving our enemies easy
victories. This is a long war and commitment is key. If we hope
to end this threat, we must renew our commitment and present a
united front. We must rethink our goals and strategy and
recognize our enemy's goals and strategy.
We have to figure out a way to effectively fight our
enemies, both in the military sphere and the sphere of ideas.
We must continue to combat State sponsors of terror and make
hard decisions about countries such as Pakistan.
We have to work with our allies to figure out what to do
with the numerous detainees captured in Iraq and Syria. There
are thousands of foreign fighters there, and their families,
who are citizens of Western countries. Some remain unrepentant
yet want to return home.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roggio follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now move to member questions under the 5-minute
rule. I will begin, followed by Ranking Member Wilson, and we
will then alternate between the parties. I recognize myself for
5 minutes.
I would like to discuss the interplay between technology
and the terrorist threats. Terrorist groups like ISIS have been
incredibly effective at exploiting online resources to recruit,
radicalize, spread messages and propaganda, plan attacks at
various locations across the globe.
Ms. Ramalingam, how has the use of technology for conduct
of terrorist operations evolved in the last few years? And
then, also, what technology can we use, should we be using, to
beat them at their own game?
Ms. Ramalingam. Thank you, Chairman Trone. That is an
incredibly important question. White nationalist extremists
were early adopters of the internet. They were using online
bulletins going back to the late 1980's and the early 1990's.
But what we have seen is that changes in advancements to social
media availability and technology has allowed them to recruit
and radicalize at unprecedented rates.
What we are seeing is that they are increasingly active not
only on very mainstream, widely used platforms, like Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube, but also on more niche platforms, like
8chan, 4chan, and even using encrypted platforms, like WhatsApp
and Telegram to coordinate amongst them.
We have even seen the use of technology before and during
attacks used to incite others to carry out acts of violence,
and their content remains increasingly accessible. You know, my
company has been tracking the use of Google and Yahoo and Bing
to access terrorist content over the last 7 years, and what we
find is that individuals are consuming white nationalist
extremist content in the West at rates that far exceed those
that are consuming jihadist content on those platforms.
Now, the use of technology can also be used against these
groups. We need to see technology not just as a barrier to
counterterrorism efforts, but we need to work through ways that
we can develop new technology to automate the identification
process of these individuals online, to directly interact with
them online, to offer them alternatives, and that is where
using even publicly available technologies like advertising can
be important, but also to directly intervene online, to try and
disrupt/start conversations with individuals, and get them out
of movements.
Mr. Trone. Mr. Soufan, it is clear that terrorist networks
from across the ideological spectrum are adept at exploding
technology. But many of them use relatively low tech methods to
carry out their lethal attacks. Are we approaching this duality
properly from a counterterrorism standpoint? And then how
should the U.S. Government balance its efforts, prevent these
very different types of events, given our constrained
resources?
Mr. Soufan. Thank you, sir. The jihadists use the same
methods that we heard about that are used also by the white
supremacists. However, I think one of the things that the
jihadis are doing with communicating with each other is
basically the networks that we heard about. Those guys know
each other. Sometimes, as we have seen in Sri Lanka, somebody
went there, probably trained, built a network over there, they
come back and they conduct an attack.
I think overall our law enforcement intelligence agencies
are really doing a phenomenal job in countering this, because
even when the threat went from radicalization and sometimes
individuals self-radicalized themselves online, to mobilization
in a short period of time, we have so many operations where the
FBI and other local and, you know, State authorities have been
successful, especially through the joint terrorism task forces,
in disrupting that.
So I think the intelligence community and the
counterterrorism agencies we have are doing a really good job
in matching the threat, both from a low-tech and a high-tech
level.
Mr. Trone. Ms. Ramalingam, I am also on the Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Europe, and we have been troubled by the riots
of far right nationalism movements in many European countries.
They have had some electoral success lately and succeeded
winning seats in more than a few Parliaments, including just
last week Spain.
What is the likelihood of a government emerging in Europe
that is heavily influenced by the far right political movement
with ties to white nationalist terrorists, and what dangers
could this pose to the U.S. and our allies?
Ms. Ramalingam. So important to mention here that my
organization, Moonshot CVE, works specifically on violent
movements. So we do not actually work on movements that are
operating in the political space. That said, these movements do
not exist in a vacuum.
They feed off of what they hear in mainstream media. They
feed off of the current political situation. And there are
worrying trends in Europe where we are seeing white nationalist
extremist movements and terrorist organizations starting to
form political movements. So we do need to be concerned about
the way that that develops.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. And I recognize Ranking Member Wilson
for his witness questions.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Trone, and thank each of
you for being here today and raising such important issues.
Mr. Roggio, you have been following terrorist groups for
some time now with the Long War Journal. In your opinion, are
the Iranian-backed groups operating in Iraq, such as AAH and
the Badr organization terrorist groups, should the U.S.
designate these groups as--for their terrorist activity?
Mr. Roggio. Yes, absolutely. These--I would argue most of
these groups should be--some actually are. I believe Hezbollah
brigades, and I believe AAH was just added to the list. No? Oh,
OK. There have been two of them. Hezbollah brigades is one of
them.
A lot of these groups have sworn allegiance to Iran's
supreme leader. They have said they would overthrow the Iraqi
government if ordered to do so. They said they wish that its
overall governing organization, the popular mobilization front,
they want it to operate like the IRGC does inside of Iraq.
And so these are a very direct threat to U.S. national
security. They have also--members of these groups or leaders of
these groups have said that they would attack U.S. interests in
the Middle East if ordered to do so, including U.S. troops
inside of Iraq. So they are a direct threat.
I view these groups as just mini-Hezbollahs that are ready
to metastasize into a far greater problem than Hezbollah is
today. And we all know what a great threat Hezbollah is in the
Middle East right now.
Mr. Wilson. And, Ms. Ramalingam, with your social media
background, with the social media platforms, a number of them
have been successful in removing the ability of terrorist
organizations to communicate with each other. What more can be
done?
Ms. Ramalingam. We would urge technology companies and the
government to work together with private sector to move beyond
simply takedowns. There is a huge amount we can do with content
which, first of all, may not be illegal and may not be liable
to be taken down, but also to find individuals. If we remove
their content, that person still exists and they may just
repost it elsewhere or move on to another platform.
What we suggest is the use of creative partnerships between
both the public and the private sector to push strategic
communications efforts which make use of available technology
on many of these platforms to try and undermine the ideologies
of these groups. These are efforts which have really taken
place in the counter-ISIS space, and we now need to mirror
those efforts in the white nationalism space.
Mr. Wilson. Well, your efforts are just so appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Ramalingam. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And, Mr. Soufan, with the recent defeat of the
physical Caliphate, how should the United States approach the
ongoing counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Syria to
prevent the success of counterinsurgency and terrorist sleeper
cells by ISIS and its sympathizers?
Mr. Soufan. First of all, sir, we cannot just say we won
and we defeated them. ISIS probably does not exist physically,
but ISIS still has the ability to inspire people around the
world, as we have seen in the recent attacks in Sri Lanka, as
we have seen yesterday in the videotape that was put out by
Baghdadi, and that is the very first figure tape I think in
probably a decade, so--or at least since ISIS--since his speech
in Mosul.
ISIS is going through exactly what al-Qaeda went through
after we swiftly kicked them out of Afghanistan in 2001/2002.
We thought al-Qaeda is done, the Taliban regime collapsed, and
suddenly they shift--they changed from being an organization to
being a message. And that is what ISIS is trying to do today.
They are trying to compete with al-Qaeda in this local
conflict that al-Qaeda has been, you know, operating in, all
the way as you mentioned from the western shores of Africa to
Southeast Asia.
Mr. Wilson. And, Mr. Roggio, earlier this month the Trump
administration designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, IRGC, in its entirety as a foreign terrorist
organization. How would you assess the significance of this
designation, and what impact do you think it will have on the
IRGC's ability to fund proxy groups?
Mr. Roggio. Well, first, it should help limit the IRGC from
operating internationally. Now that the individuals of the
overall group are designated, they should have a much more
difficult time traveling to places like Europe and South
America where they can do fund-raising and conduct other
activities.
I think it was necessary. It has been a long time coming.
The IRG's--one of its suborganizations, Quds Force, has been
designated for some time. The IRGC acts as a terrorist
organization. It sponsors the murder of American soldiers in
the Middle East, and I think the impact of it, as far as
safety--Iran is already our enemy. Iran has killed 603--at
least 603 American soldiers inside of Iraq during U.S. time
there.
So I am not sure how this designation makes Iran even a
greater threat to U.S. soldiers stationed in the Middle East.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you all for being here today very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trone. I now recognize Congressman Allred of Texas.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. This is an important topic, and
I am glad that we are talking about it, and I am hopeful that
we can handle it in a bipartisan, you know, non-partisan
manner.
Mr. Soufan, I wanted to begin with you because in your
written testimony you note that to truly eradicate the
terrorist threat we need to understand the geopolitical
context. And you talk a lot about sectarian conflict, and
particularly the Saudi/Iranian divide, and cold war to a
certain extent.
Obviously, we have a limited influence on Iran. What can we
do, though, the United States, with our leverage we have over
Saudi Arabia to influence that conflict or to mitigate it or to
try and do what we can to steer away from the sectarian
violence we are seeing?
Mr. Soufan. Thank you. That is a very good question, and I
think if you look what is happening in Yemen, what is happening
in Syria, what we mentioned earlier, ISIS was defeated, or the
original ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq, was defeated until
the war in Syria and until sectarianism became a rallying call,
and then ISIS found a livelihood again.
One of the things that we can do is basically work with our
allies in Saudi Arabia to stop the hate rhetoric that is being
sponsored through radical Wahhabi madrassas across the Muslim
world. I mean, the Saudis and some elements in Saudi Arabia use
this Wahhabi radicalism across the Muslim world in order to
limit Iranian influence in Muslim communities.
But, unfortunately, it is--you know, it is firing back on
everyone, to include the Saudis themselves. So I think it
starts with the theology, if you want to call it, or with that
interpretation of the theology that is very foreign to so many
places around the Muslim world.
It was very foreign to Sri Lanka until in the last decade
or so when we started seeing all of these madrassas popping up,
and people coming from the Gulf with coffers of money, building
mosques and building madrassas, and educating people on a
version of Islam that did not exist there before. We have seen
it in Southeast Asia in the 1990's. It resulted in the Bali
bombing and other bombings in Jakarta and with what is
happening in the Philippines with Abu Sayyaf and other groups.
So it started with a theology and with ideology. And then--
and when you are funding other groups to counter Iranian's
groups, like Hezbollah, like Asa'ib Ahl Al Haq, like Harakat
al-Nujaba, like Zaynabiyoun, like Fatimiyoun, like al-Houthis,
all of these groups around the Middle East that Iran has been
recruiting, funding, and training.
When it comes to that, just let's be sure, our allies, that
the money does not go to groups that are connected to al-Qaeda.
Yemen is a perfect example. They were giving a lot of aid to
Abu al-Abbas brigade, which is a Salafi group, and then the
Humvees ended up with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as we
have all seen.
We have seen that in Syria also, and we have seen that in
Iraq, and we have seen that in so many different places. So I
appreciate that, you know, they are trying to counter Iranian
influence, but you cannot be a bull in a china shop while doing
that.
Mr. Allred. Yes. Thank you. I agree with what you are
saying. I see the Arab Spring, as you said, creating new
challenges, but also perhaps new opportunities.
And I am interested, if you could, discuss a little bit
what you have in your testimony about the Arab Spring and some
of the new challenges that it has created for us and where you
think the United States can assist or be useful, because to me,
obviously, the expansion of democracy is our goal, and we want
to see that, but then we have seen in Egypt and in other
countries the way that went.
And so what role can we play, and do you think that we
should be looking to play to influence that?
Mr. Soufan. I think the Arab Spring created huge
opportunities, first for Osama bin Laden and for al-Qaeda,
because they looked at what was happening in the Middle East at
the time. And Osama bin Laden wrote his--as we know from the
documents we recovered from his house, he wrote to his
commanders and he said, ``Everything I told you about just
targeting the United States, forget about it, because we
already defeated the United States. That is why people like
Mubarak and Qaddafi and other dictators are falling in the
Middle East. What we need to do is to actually move from phase
1 to phase 2.''
He means Management of Savagery, which is al-Qaeda's plan,
which we know about. Phase 1, you do terrorism in order to
weaken the order, the States, the international order. Phase 2,
you create a vacuum, and you will not allow anyone else to fill
that vacuum. And because whoever--as bin Laden told them before
the Navy Seals' bullets took him down, whoever is going to fill
that vacuum is going to be the new agent for the Americans in
the region.
Phase 3, you establish the Caliphate. So now what they did
is you have Syria, with their affiliates in Syria. Then you
have all the way what they are doing in Yemen. They have the
Horn of Africa. They have a Sahara region, and imagine when
their plan is to reconnect all of the things together in a
Caliphate.
That is what al-Qaeda is doing, and they have been doing it
under the radar because everybody has been focusing on ISIS.
ISIS, exactly as my colleague said, they decided just because
they hated the leadership of al-Qaeda, personal conflicts that
goes--history, when they were operating in Iraq--they decided
to start the Caliphate immediately, not going through the
phases.
So that is a huge opportunity for Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaeda, and we are seeing it giving fruits in places like Yemen
and places like Libya and places like Mali and places like
Somalia, and so forth.
Now, from our perspective, unfortunately--and that is
something that, you know, I really wish we did not do--is we
have this policy of leading from behind. And I think that
policy made many different countries in the region feel that
they can run the show. And we start seeing this competition
between them and everyone started to figure out their own
sphere of influence in that area, trying to protect this sphere
of influence in that area.
Unfortunately, we did not allow democracy to take roots.
For example, under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, this is the
only time since the time of the pharaohs that they actually had
some kind of a democratic forum.
Remember, the John Stewart of Egypt making fun of Morsi all
the time. But immediately after, you know, there was two or 3
months, and then there was an election in Egypt. They did not
allow this election to happen because then you will have civil
society, and definitely the Muslim Brotherhood will lose in the
ballot box.
Unfortunately, we did not support democracy. We did not
support the movement that is happening across the Middle East,
and we paid greatly for it today. That started with our
engagement in Libya and Syria, and we continue to have the same
strategy, unfortunately, around the Middle East, supporting
dictatorships against the people.
Mr. Allred. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Mast of Florida.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you
all for your testimony today.
Ms. Ramalingam, I want to go back to something that
Representative Wilson prompted where you spoke about the need
for some of those technology companies to crack down. Just as a
quick followup on that, which technology companies are you
speaking of specifically?
Ms. Ramalingam. Thank you, sir. The technologies that I am
speaking about span Facebook, Google, and all of the main
social media platforms that are used widely. Those platforms
have taken action. It is important that since 2017 those
platforms have taken action against white national extremism in
different forms.
What I would love to see from those technology companies is
more efforts to move beyond simply takedowns and encourage
partnerships with other private sector entities, organizations
that are actively trying to undermine these groups
independently, as well as governments, to form public-private
partnerships to make this more sustainable and to make the
fight against white nationalist extremism go beyond simply
removing content, because if you remove the content the person
who sits behind it does not disappear.
Mr. Mast. Thank you. I was just curious which companies you
were talking about specifically.
Mr. Soufan, thank you for being here. As we spoke a little
bit before, I have read some of your work, several times,
enjoyed it. I want to talk a little bit about what you just
spoke about, about al-Qaeda stringing together different events
and activities going on throughout the Middle East and kind of
juxtapose that to what is going on with Iran and Hezbollah.
You could always almost say, are they in competition for
what they want to do throughout the region? In looking back on
some of your history, right, the Cole bombing, the Khobar
Towers, 9/11, Bali nightclub, things that you have played a
role in, you were looking at al-Qaeda before most people had
heard the term or the name al-Qaeda before.
So I have a couple of questions in those veins. Number 1,
are there entities out there that are on your radar that we are
not thinking about right now? That would be a question for you.
And then, as we think about the way things have changed
since 9/11 in terms of human intelligence, geospatial
intelligence, signal intelligence, cyber intelligence,
certainly financial intelligence--I mean, that has been one of
the big changes since 9/11--does that change the way that we go
out there and address this fight when you look at the long-term
approach that Iran and Hezbollah has to colonizing the Middle
East versus those individual attacks that often prompt nation-
building for decades on end?
Because of this change in intelligence-gathering, should
there be a change in the way that we go out there and address
our War on Terror?
Mr. Soufan. Thank you, sir. As when it comes to Iran, I
think Iran's policy in the region is very--their strategy I
think in the region is very sophisticated, and I think we
will--we will not do ourselves any favors if we underestimate
that strategy and contain it only within the framework of
terrorism.
I think a lot of the groups that work for Iran today are
groups that are not listed as terrorist organizations. They are
involved in the political games in places like Iraq, in places
like Lebanon. They are part of the government. They are part
of----
Mr. Mast. Specifically, while we are talking about it, we
would love to hear the names. I am sure everybody would love to
hear names.
Mr. Soufan. Sure. Like, for example, if you want to look
into Iraq, you will have in places like we mentioned the Badr
Organization, Asa'ib Ahl Al Haq, Harakat al-Nujaba, all groups
that work under Qassem Soleimani, under Al-Quds Force, but some
of them have even members of the Iraqi Parliament, and Iraq is
considered an ally country for us.
So they are engaging on many different levels. They have a
group that we correctly declared as terrorist organizations. So
they are engaged in trying to get all of these militants that
they have been working with them in Iraq and other places and
trying to make them more political, and they are progressively
succeeding in doing so.
So this is a very dangerous area. A lot of these other
groups that Iran work with and we did not declare, we need to
focus on these organizations, because these organizations, in
case of any kind of conflict, rest assured they will do
whatever Al-Quds Force and Qassem Soleimani want them to do.
So this is something that we have not been focusing on, and
I think we need to focus on it, and we need to look at it
within the bigger geopolitical context of what is happening.
So Iran's involvement is happening on many different
levels. Security and terrorism is only one of it. They have a
lot of other things that they are doing in their own form of
nation-building. They kind of became experts in creating a
formula that actually corrupt the government from inside with
building relationships between militants, between the
government, and between elements in the army.
And we have seen that in Yemen with what happened with Ali
Abdullah Saleh and the Houthis. We have seen that in Lebanon
with Hezbollah, and we have seen that also in Iraq with Hashd
al-Sha'bi and the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government. So that
is something that we definitely need to keep in mind in order
to basically have a forecast of our relationship in the region
overall.
As for the other terrorist groups that I have been focusing
on, I think all of the affiliates of al-Qaeda--al-Qaeda I
believe is strategically--is still way more dangerous than
ISIS. And what I think that might--we might see, I think we
might see members of ISIS rejoining their mother organization
if Al-Baghdadi is not in the picture.
We might see new leadership appearing in the Salafi jihadi
movement that might have the ability to reunify the Salafi
jihadi movement, especially Hamza bin Laden, bin Laden's son,
who did not criticize ISIS a lot--at all actually.
Ayman al-Zawahiri criticizes ISIS. Hamza only talks about
that ISIS and al-Qaeda are all followers of his dad. I think
this is something that we have to worry about, and I believe
that State Department have been paying attention to this,
because they recently, just like about a month or so ago,
declared Hamza bin Laden as, you know, they put an award out
for his capture or any information about him.
So I think we might start seeing this kind of unification
between entities of ISIS and between the mother organization
al-Qaeda. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago, al-Qaeda and Yemen start
putting audio--videotapes of members of ISIS who came and
joined al-Qaeda again, and they were making fun of ISIS and the
Caliphate and the fact that it is--you know, the title is
expanding and remaining, which is--obviously, it is not
expanding or remaining in their point of view.
So a lot of the things, we need to figure out the threat,
not as it is today, but how it might be tomorrow and what are
the entities on the Shia side and the Sunni side that might
create a problem for us and for our national security interests
in the region tomorrow.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Soufan.
Mr. Soufan. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch [presiding]. Thanks. I thank the gentleman from
Florida. My apologies for my late arrival, and I recognize Mr.
Malinowski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Soufan, I wanted to ask you to discuss some of the
similarities between the jihadi Salafi groups like al-Qaeda and
ISIS and the new threat or growing threat of white extremist
terrorist groups. I mean, superficially, they are different.
One claims to fight for a twisted form of Islam; the other
attacks mosques.
But would it be fair to say, would you agree that in fact
in their world view, in their prejudices, in their desire to
create ethnically pure States, in some of their conspiracy
theories they are actually quite similar?
Mr. Soufan. Absolutely. There are glaring similarities
between them. As you mentioned, sir, the whole issue about
declaring or fighting for pure States, or pure societies, also
taking advantage of the social and the cultural and the
political divisions in the societies in order to make
themselves more relevant and more mainstream, and the same time
their use of social media, now we start seeing also
transnational connections and manifestos that is being written
by everyone who commits a terrorist attack on the right wing
side or the--you know, the white supremacist side, which is
very similar to the martyrdom video or the martyrdom statement
from the jihadi side.
We also--I think we start seeing that transnational
network, there is a travel pattern that is reminding me very
much so with the travel pattern that we have seen early on, at
least in the late 1980's and early 1990's with the jihadi
movement when they used to go to Afghanistan to fight against
the Soviets in Afghanistan or the Communist regime in
Afghanistan, and now we see a similar kind of travel pattern in
going to Ukraine.
Lots of them are going to East Ukraine, but also some of
them are going to West Ukraine, so there is a lot of
overlapping similarities.
Mr. Malinowski. So it is transnational, and yet it is
correct to say that we are not sharing intelligence with our
allies about the white supremacist groups and the way that we
are or have consistently shared intelligence on ISIS and al-
Qaeda.
Mr. Soufan. Yes. I think we are very limited in what we can
do because we do not have them declared as terrorist
organizations, and this makes it very complicated. I mean, we
can--I do not think legally we can have the authority--I do not
think the intelligence agency--let's put it this way----
Mr. Malinowski. Well, the FBI.
Mr. Soufan [continuing]. The authorities.
Mr. Malinowski. Would the FBI have the authority to share
with its counterparts?
Mr. Soufan. I think if there is criminal cases that is
related and connected to other criminal cases that is happening
in allies' countries, maybe there is an opportunity. But I do
not think we do it on the--I know we do not do it on the same
level that we do it with the Salafi jihadis and with other type
of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Malinowski. Understood. Well, the threat is obviously
growing. By any measure, the number of attacks of all kinds by
the white extremist groups has been increasing. Just one
statistic. There was a 60 percent--about a 60 percent increase
in anti-Semitic attacks in the United States just between 2016
and 2017.
Is this because suddenly in 1 year there were 60 percent
more anti-Semites in the United States? Or is there something
in the atmosphere which is emboldening these people? And I
would maybe pose this question to you, Ms. Ramalingam.
Ms. Ramalingam. Thank you. Yes. We have seen evidence that
the threat is growing, not just here in the United States but
globally, and there are a number of factors which will play
into that, one of which is reporting is actually increasing,
reporting of these sorts of incidences, which will play into
that growth.
But even when it comes to terrorism attacks beyond just
simply hate crime perpetrated by individuals connected to these
movements, we see on a global scale, the Global Terrorism Index
has cited that in the 13 years prior to 2014 there were 20
attacks that took place. In the 3 years prior to 2017, there
were 61 attacks that took place. So that is not just about
increased reporting. That is about increased capacity of
violence from these groups.
Now, the nature of these movements has changed over the
past several decades. They have taken an increasingly
decentralized approach to organizing. It is no longer simply
about fixed terrorist organizations or terrorist cells that are
developing.
We are looking at loosely affiliated networks of
individuals who choose to carry out acts of violence
independently. That poses greater challenges, both for law
enforcement and intelligence agencies, to actually identify and
disrupt those individuals before they carry out their attack,
and that is playing into that trend.
Mr. Malinowski. Is it not also a factor that in the past
virtually every authoritative voice in our society would have
been telling these people that they are alone in their
delusions, but now some of their ideas are being echoed by
politicians, by leaders in our society, the idea of a, you
know, deep State that is conspiring against the people, the
idea of immigrants invading us from every single side? I mean,
they are hearing things from high up that reflect some of their
own delusions and conspiracy theories. Do you think that that
is a factor?
Ms. Ramalingam. As I mentioned, these movements do not
operate in a vacuum. The words and actions of political leaders
do matter. What the U.S. can do right now to indicate that it
is taking a stance against white nationalist terrorism is add
white nationalist terrorist perpetrators to the list of
specially designated global terrorists.
That will indicate not only to potential perpetrators but
also to wider communities that this issue is being taken as
seriously as it should be.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here. Again, my
apologies. I just want to start by saying I just got back on a
trip--from a trip with Chairman Albio Sires to Colombia where
we had a meeting with--a good meeting with President Duque,
went to Cucuta, saw the humanitarian crisis at the border and
the suffering of the Venezuelan people wrought by the Maduro
regime.
We talked to families who travel hours--hours with their
children to give them one meal, to be able to give them one
meal per day. And we saw the humanitarian resources from the
United States, from the United Nations, from other nations
around the world, that are sitting in warehouses across a
bridge that has been blocked by Maduro because he has chosen to
prevent the suffering that he has wrought from being alleviated
in his country and by not allowing those resources to be
delivered.
As we walked across the other bridge in Cucata, Venezuelans
were coming and going throughout the day to try to get a meal,
and they shouted out to us pleading for the support of the
United States.
So I only mention that as we watch closely what happens in
Venezuela now as the Venezuelan people try to restore democracy
in their country, as we told President Duque, we offer support
to the Colombians, the Lima Group, and nations around the world
as Interim President Guaido works to restore democracy in the
Nation of Venezuela.
I want to turn back to this hearing and the purpose of your
being here. It has been 18 years since the terrorist--almost 18
years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the focus of
U.S. foreign policy shifting toward greater power competition.
But the transition occurs as the U.S. still faces these threats
from a disparate array of jihadist, Iranian-sponsored, and
white nationalist terror groups.
The recent defeat of ISIS's territorial Caliphate is a
noteworthy milestone, but the ideology, as you have spoken
about throughout this hearing, remains active around the world.
It is demonstrated by two events that occurred yesterday,
first, the revelations that at one--that one of the suicide
bombers in the horrific Easter attacks in Sri Lanka trained
with ISIS in Syria, and that as many as four of the terrorists
involved in the attacks may have traveled to Turkey, Syria, and
Iraq, where they have--it is believed they have contacted ISIS
operatives--had contacted ISIS operatives.
Second, ISIS released a video showing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The video is the first appearance in nearly 5 years, as he
urged his followers to fight on, despite the recent losses by
the group. And both events demonstrate that while ISIS's
physical Caliphate is destroyed, they continue to have a
network of supporters around the world who are trained by ISIS
operatives and loyal to the organization's cause.
Most importantly, these individuals seek to launch attacks
against individual--innocent civilians. Furthermore, the
challenge of Iranian-backed groups persist, threatening U.S.
interest in military personnel as well as our allies and
partners in the Middle East and around the world.
The transnational threat posed by white nationals terrorism
is clearly growing, as exemplified by the horrific attacks in
Christchurch, at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and
just days ago at the Chabad of Poway, just north of San Diego.
Understanding these motivations and threats will inform
future subcommittee hearings and help members consider
legislation to improve our U.S. counterterrorism policy, and a
greater comprehension of these threats will help fulfill our
duty to help keep the American people safe. That is the reason
that we held this hearing.
And my greatest regret in being late is that the reports I
have gotten from all of my colleagues is that all of our
witnesses have been terrific, and we are grateful to you.
I just had two questions. Ms. Ramalingam, in your written
testimony, you claim that development of new technology is
required to help process and analyze data to better understand
and keep pace with the evolving tactics of white nationalist
extremist individuals and groups online.
Given Mr. Soufan's acknowledgment in his exchange with Mr.
Malinowski about the shortfall in cooperation among nations of
the world in addressing the white nationalist threat, what type
of technology would support these efforts? Would this
technology help assist nations to cooperate with one another to
combat it? And what can Congress do to help catalyze those
efforts?
Ms. Ramalingam. Thank you, Chairman. We absolutely do need
new technology to fight this particular threat. As these
movements are shifting to decentralized networks of individuals
on the dark corners of the internet, we need technology which
can automate the identification process, automate geolocation
processes, automate risk assessments of those individuals on
the basis of the digital footprint that they are leaving us,
indicating that they are getting involved.
What my company has done over the past few years is we have
invested heavily in the development of this sort of technology.
It relies on us building data bases of risk indicators, well
into the millions of text, that are being shared by these
groups, phraseology that they use, propaganda that they share,
memes, photos, everything we can use online to identify them.
What we need to do is facilitate more public-private
partnerships to advance this technology, bring in the tech
community so that we are taking advantage of advancements in
artificial intelligence technology, to bring this into the
fight. And what I would also suggest is that we move not only
toward removal of that content but how we can take advantage of
just how brazen these groups are in the online space to try and
find them before they perpetrate attacks.
Mr. Deutch. Right. Just give me an example of that.
Ms. Ramalingam. An example is Brenton Tarrant. In the
moments before he carried out his attack, including 2 days
before his attack, had started posting not only on Twitter,
including images of his weapons with references to his heroes,
of terrorists across the world, who had previously carried out
similar attacks. He posted that on Twitter. In the moments
before his attack, he was posting on 8chan that he was
intending to carry out his attack.
There were a slew of posts which followed from individuals
around the world supporting him, encouraging him, and
congratulating him on carrying out those acts of violence. And
then in the weeks that followed, my organization has tracked
individuals across the globe that have sought to consume
propaganda that came directly from Brenton Tarrant as well as
his affiliates across the globe.
Technology can help us identify those individuals and to
interact with them.
Mr. Deutch. What happens with that information now? What
happens when someone Tweets something like that? What happens
when they make those postings on 8chan?
Ms. Ramalingam. Well, technology companies are getting
better at identifying this content, but they are not there yet.
And the greatest example of that was just how efficiently
Brenton Tarrant was able to live stream his attack, the entire
massacre.
Facebook took down millions of copies of that video in the
24 hours that followed the attack, but we are still not there,
obviously, to identify that content quickly. But there are
movements to make this happen. We just need more of it.
Mr. Deutch. And just one last point on this. So for all of
the people who have posted their support of what he had done,
you are suggesting that using advanced technology to identify
not just someone who praises the horrific terror act that he
carried out, but likely there are other indicators, too, that
should be--that are out there and that could readily be
gathered using technology.
Ms. Ramalingam. Yes. Absolutely. A lot of this work needs
to take place in the preventative space. This is the pre-
criminal space before somebody actually carries out an attack.
If they are indicating affiliation or glorification of the
violence, we can automate the identification process for that
individual and try and interact with them to try and get them
out.
Mr. Deutch. All right. Thanks. And, Mr. Wilson, if I may
ask one more. Thanks.
Mr. Wilson. Hey, we are glad to have you back.
Mr. Deutch. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Soufan, in 2008, Britain designated Hezbollah's
military wing as a terror organization, which diverged from the
position--the official position of the EU. It was not until
mid-July 2013, so 5 years later, that the EU adopted a similar
position, and only following claims of the link between
Hezbollah and the Burgas, Bulgaria, bus attack.
British government recently announced the blacklisting of
Hezbollah's political wing, thereby designating the entire
organization in its entirety as a terrorist organization,
thereby essentially treating a terrorist organization as a
terrorist organization.
What impact will this have on Hezbollah? And how effective
will the designation--their designation be if the EU does not
follow suit?
And then, I will also just put out there now for you to add
when you are finished, go ahead and comment on the response
that people point to the government of Lebanon and say, ``We
can't do it because of Hezbollah's position in that
government.''
Mr. Soufan. Well, this is what the EU and this is what the
British claimed for a long period of time because Hezbollah is
member of the Parliament, member of the government, and they
are engaging with Lebanon on a government level, and there is
U.N. troops on--you know, some of them are Europeans on the
border. And if you start dealing with all of the entities of
Hezbollah's terrorist organization, then it creates legal
complications for them to deal with. This is their excuse.
But, you know, Hezbollah is Hezbollah, and the political
leadership of Hezbollah and the military leadership at
Hezbollah both fall under the leader of Hezbollah, Nasrallah,
who is the leader of Hezbollah.
So I think this is one of the things that we have seen the
UK finally recognizing. As you mentioned, a terrorist
organization is a terrorist organization, but I think it will
be probably more complicated for the EU to do that because of
actually what you correctly mentioned--their engagement with
the government of Lebanon.
I think eventually it needs to be done, because if you
consider that organization as a terrorist organization, you
cannot consider the people who are defending and speaking
politically for the organization to be individuals who are not
connected to a terrorist organization. I think the logic does
not flow here with this.
Mr. Deutch. Well, and just, finally, the argument that
there is a legal complication that may exist when you do that,
is there a strict line between the two separate entities
legally that prevents anyone who is in the--what the EU would
refer to as the humanitarian wing, the political wing of
Hezbollah, and the terrorist wing, is there--what is the legal
distinction there? As they worry about legal complications,
what are the legal distinctions between the two?
Mr. Soufan. Absolutely not. You know, we do not know of any
distinctions between both. Hezbollah is an organization that is
very popular among big segments of the society. That is why
they are voted into the Parliament. And I think in order to--
for some countries in the West to deal with that situation,
they figure out, OK, you know, there is a big division--
difference between the political element and the military
element.
But I think both of them are under the leadership of the
same individual, both of them under the leadership of the same,
you know, command, politically and militarily. And when there
are elections in Lebanon, the person who put out the agenda of
Hezbollah and put out who are the candidates of Hezbollah is
actually the head of the military of Hezbollah also, who is
Hassan Nasrallah, the head of both the military and--so there
is no difference.
This is some, you know, lawyers coming up with a way of how
to deal with an organization when it is listed as a terrorist
organization. And we came up earlier today, I think with
Congressman Mast, we were talking about different groups that
us in the United States, we have a problem with that.
We did not declare them as terrorist organizations in Iraq,
even though we know that they operate under al-Quds Force, and
we know that they are involved in the war in Syria, and we know
that they are trained and work closely with Hezbollah. And we
did not declare them as terrorist organizations because they
have people in the Parliament, in Iraq, because they are part
of the political process in Iraq, too.
Mr. Deutch. Finally, what will the designation--what will
the designation mean? If the EU followed suit and acknowledged
that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, what would that
mean for Hezbollah financing? What would that mean for
Hezbollah terror operations?
Mr. Soufan. Honestly, I do not know if Hezbollah have money
in the EU or have money in Europe. They get all their money
from Iran and from different operations and criminal activities
in Latin America and other places.
But I think one of the things that it--while it can limit
the travel of so many members and leaders of Hezbollah, who are
actually traveling sometimes to Europe as part of the Lebanese
government or part of being members of the Lebanese Parliament,
it will limit the engagement between European political leaders
and between Hezbollah.
For example, many of the negotiations for hostages, you
know, between Israel and between Hezbollah went through Germany
because the Germans were involved in negotiating with the group
because they did not consider it as a terrorist organization at
the time.
So it will definitely impact them, and it might impact
their fund-raising capabilities in Europe. But I am not
familiar that they are doing it publicly; they are probably
doing it covertly.
Mr. Deutch. OK. I appreciate it. Again, my apologies for my
delay, but I am most grateful for the three of you, and Mr.
Wilson, my ranking member.
Thanks to the witnesses, and to all of our members who have
been here throughout the day. Thank you for your excellent
testimony.
Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions. So we would just ask that the witnesses respond to
their questions in writing, and my request to our colleagues is
that any witness questions for the hearing be submitted to the
subcommittee clerk within 5 business days.
And with that, and without objection, this subcommittee
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]