U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

i 

22–457 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–139] 

15 YEARS AFTER 9/11: THE STATE OF THE 

FIGHT AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISM 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

(Vacancy) 

(Vacancy) 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

ALEX GALLO, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, Counsel 

BRITTON BURKETT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

Thornberry, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac,’’ a Representative from Texas, Chairman, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Jenkins, Brian Michael, Senior Advisor to the President of RAND Corporation ........................................................................................................................ 5 

Jeffrey, Hon. James, Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq ................... 3 

Price, LTC Bryan C., USA, Ph.D., Counterterrorism Expert .............................. 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Jenkins, Brian Michael .................................................................................... 49 

Jeffrey, Hon. James .......................................................................................... 39 

Price, LTC Bryan C. ......................................................................................... 63 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 83 

(1) 

15 YEARS AFTER 9/11: THE STATE OF THE FIGHT 

AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 21, 2016. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac’’ 

Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. This meeting will come to order. Today the committee meets to consider ‘‘15 Years After 9/11: The State of the 

Fight Against Islamic Terrorism.’’ 

All of us marked the 15th anniversary last week of the attacks 

of 9/11. That was an opportunity to remember and honor the victims of those attacks. It was also an opportunity to remember and 

honor all of those who have sacrificed to prevent a recurrence of 

9/11. 

But it gives us, I think, not only an opportunity but an obligation 

to look back on these 15 years and look at the state of the fight 

against terrorists, what has worked, what hasn’t. How is the threat 

changing? Are we adaptable to meet the change of the threat? 

My view is that the people in the military, the intelligence community, and law enforcement have done an incredible job to prevent another successful attack on the scale of 9/11. But the rest of 

the story is we have been lucky. Some of the bombs just didn’t go 

off because they weren’t constructed appropriately. 

Just the events of the past few days remind us how this threat 

is changing and how difficult it is to detect it and prevent it as 

well. In my view, we still have not dealt effectively with some of 

the root causes. We have not effectively dealt with the ideology 

that radicalizes people here and around the world. 

And it is essential, moving forward, that we not just try to muddle through, contain, try to prevent a catastrophe, but that we have 

a strategy that will be successful in dealing with the threat as it 

is evolving. 

As you all know, ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] says even 

if it loses its physical caliphate, it will pursue a virtual caliphate. 

One of the questions for us, are we ready to deal militarily and 

otherwise with a virtual caliphate? 

So we face, I think, a number of serious challenges in our responsibility to keep the American people safe. We have some outstanding witnesses to help guide us through those challenges. But 
2 

first I will turn to the ranking member for any comments he would 

like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think this is a very 

appropriate hearing to gauge 15 years later where are we at in 

fighting the groups that attacked us on 9/11 and the ideology that 

is behind it. And I think the chairman laid out fairly well the challenges that we face post-9/11. 

We took a very clear look at it. We had a clear group of folks in 

Al Qaeda that were challenging us. And we went after that network. And then I think we went after that network fairly effectively. 

And I think it was General McChrystal at the time who said, ‘‘It 

takes a network to defeat a network.’’ And we pulled together all 

the different elements of U.S. power, and our allies, with the intelligence, law enforcement, military and built a very sophisticated 

operations center and tracked this group, first, of course, in Afghanistan, and then into Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere and 

have done a successful job of taking out their leadership and then 

minimizing their ability to move forward. 

What we have not been successful at is turning back the ideology. And that is where other groups have popped up. And, you 

know, whether it is Al Qaeda or ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant] or Ansar al-Sharia, or any of, you know, Boko Haram, you 

know, dozens of different groups that adhere to this nihilistic, violent death ideology. That ideology has, quite honestly, spread since 

9/11. There are more people adhering to it now than there were 

then. 

And that is the great threat. And that is what we have seen in 

Europe and here as people not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda or 

ISIL or any of these other groups, but simply pledging allegiance 

and going off and committing violent acts in their name. 

Now in some cases these are people who have bought into the 

ideology, but even more frightening, it now seems like this ideology 

is the last refuge for every sort of violent loser and loner in the 

world. Some of these folks, you go through their history, they 

haven’t had much of a connection to this. They just wanted to act 

out and use this as an excuse to commit violent acts and threaten 

the lives of others. 

So I think the most interesting question for this hearing is, how 

do we turn back that ideology? And this is particularly important 

for our work with the Muslim world on how do we promote the 

more peaceful brand of Islam that the overwhelming majority of 

people in that religion adhere to and work with them to defeat the 

ideology? 

And the last thing I will say is I think that is a challenge because this is what Osama bin Laden wanted. He wanted a war of 

civilizations. He wanted the West versus Islam. And every time we 

take a look at this and, you know, cast a broad net and cast aspersions against the entire Islamic religion, we only empower Al 

Qaeda and ISIL and their message. 
3 

We have to find a way to work with our friends in the Muslim 

world both at home and abroad, to confront this ideology and turn 

it back. 

And, yes, I think we have to continue the military aspect of it 

as well. If there are specific groups plotting and planning against 

us we need to know about them and stop them from carrying out 

those threats. But that is but one piece. 

The larger, and more difficult piece, and what I want to hear 

about is, you know, what is our strategy for rendering the ideology 

neutral? Ultimately that is what won the Cold War for us, is we 

proved that communism was a failed ideology. And not only did the 

Soviet Union collapse, but with the exception of a couple of isolated 

places in the world, communism collapsed. The entire idea behind 

it collapsed. 

And before we are successful in this struggle, the ideology that 

Al Qaeda and others have advanced is what we are going to have 

to defeat and what is ultimately going to have to collapse. And I 

don’t personally have any easy answers for that. Certainly, I know 

some things we should be doing, but I look forward to hearing more 

about how we can approach that. 

And with that I would yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me welcome each of our witnesses. We appreciate you all being with us and the insights that you will deliver. 

We are pleased to welcome Honorable James Jeffrey, who has 

been U.S. Ambassador to both Turkey and Iraq; Brian Jenkins, 

senior advisor to the president of RAND, a frequent witness over 

the years on these topics; and Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Bryan Price, 

who happens to be the director of the Combating Terrorism Center 

at West Point. But he is not here representing the Combating Terrorism Center or the Army. He is here only in his personal capacity 

as an academic and terrorism expert. 

So we again thank you all for being here. Without objection, your 

full written statements will made be part of the record. 

Ambassador Jeffrey, we are pleased to recognize you for any comments you would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES JEFFREY, FORMER U.S. 

AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY AND IRAQ 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member. Thank you very much for holding this hearing on the 

15th anniversary, particularly given the events, as you mentioned, 

in the last week. The fight against Islamic terrorism in its various 

manifestations is both a key element of our national security and 

a central component in the effort to stabilize the larger Middle 

East. 

I would like to touch briefly on where we are and, in response 

to your questions, where we may be going on this campaign in a 

very broad brush. This and the last administration’s combination 

of playing defense, protecting the homeland, and going on the offense, both with military action and in the effort to deal with the 

political roots and psychological and cultural and religious roots of 

terror, all in all is a good model, and we should stick with it. 

Nonetheless, as you have just indicated, there are problems with 

what we have done up to now in our success so far. Homeland de-
4 

fense, all in all, high marks. On military action, directly and with 

partners, the record is mixed. 

The U.S. was slow countering ISIS’s rise, and we didn’t react as 

quickly to events in Syria that have led to a major increase both 

in ISIS as a terrorist threat and in the underlying dysfunctionality 

of the region that feeds terror of all sorts, including terror supported by Iran, which is a major factor that I will touch on in a 

second. 

In terms of the root causes of terrorism, as the ranking member 

said, this is not something that we can do directly. This is something the region has to do itself. And if we try too hard to do it, 

it tends to be counterproductive, as someone who spent 20 years 

in the region. But there is much that we can do, and that is what 

I would like to talk about right now. 

First of all, this is going to take a lot of time. As we all know, 

we are already 15 years into it, and the roots of this problem 

stretch back decades before 2001. The military element, while it 

cannot solve this problem, is critical, both in defending ourselves, 

limiting the expansion of terror, and stopping the creation of new 

ungoverned zones. 

You create an ungoverned zone by one or another breakdown of 

order in the Middle East, and we have more than a half a dozen 

right now. You will get ISIS, Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, 

from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, to the Sinai, to Gaza, to the 

Fatah of Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, on and on. These are breeding grounds for a huge threat, not just to us from terror, but to the 

basic structure of the region. 

Now military operations, this committee and the American people have discussed a lot over the past 15 years. They don’t have 

to be large-scale, costly or high casualty, but we have to thread the 

needle. 

If we try to transform the region, and to some degree we tried 

to do that in the last administration and in this administration 

with the surge in Afghanistan and with Libya, we tend to go too 

far, overshoot the objective, and it doesn’t work out. On the other 

hand, when we pull ourselves back and don’t respond, as I said, as 

we did initially with ISIS, as we have done in Syria, we see the 

problem just morphs. The problem just metastasizes without American presence. 

So you have to thread that needle. Enough military force, but not 

too much to challenge the American people’s patience and sensitivities in the region. 

Those sensitivities are important if we are going to work with 

folks in the region and, in the end, they are responsible for the 

kind of cultures they have, the truces they have among themselves, 

and how they deal with the rest of the world, including us and Europe. 

There is a lot of work to be done. We can help, but only on the 

margins. But there are a few things we need to keep in mind. First 

of all, only a few people in the Middle East really endorse this kind 

of extreme terrorist violence. 

A much larger percent of the population, however, accept views 

of Islam that are orthodox, that are quite strong, that include 

Sharia and basically challenge modernity in some ways. So that 
5 

means that the path we are on is very thin. We have to be sensitive. Sensitivity can go too far. 

One of the things I am concerned about is we seem to avoid 

speaking publicly of this threat as an Islamic terrorist threat. It is 

an Islamic terrorist threat. I am very, very sensitive to not generalizing, as the ranking member said, but if we try to hide this, people 

in the region, Muslims know what is behind this. 

They know this is struggle for the region. And to play this down, 

frankly, doesn’t play very well in our own population or in a population in Europe. And it is very important to keep those people behind us. 

We have to support the governments of the region, recognizing 

that often they are going to be imperfect partners. But it is not just 

that they are partners we have. They are the only basis we can use 

to work against terror, but also partners throughout the region are 

watching how we deal with an Egypt, how we deal with an Iraq, 

how we deal with the leadership, again, however imperfect they 

are. We have to not only say what we are against, but what we are 

for. 

The United States stands, since 100 years, for an international 

order based on certain laws, national sovereignty, national unity, 

peaceful resolution of disputes, and the sanctity of borders. That is 

an important message also in the Middle East, because all of these 

are being challenged by movements close to or supporting terror. 

Finally, our campaign must also focus on Iran. Iran simply is not 

an acceptable partner in the war against terror, despite a recent 

article published in the United States by the Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif to that end. 

The theocratic Iranian regime’s Islamic roots have much in common with Sunni Islamic extremism. It uses terror itself, including 

here in Washington. It has relations with Al Qaeda and Taliban 

elements, and undercuts international order and sovereignty, and 

thus provides a breeding ground for terror of all sorts. 

But in particular, and we saw this in Iraq repeatedly, regional 

states generally view Iran as a greater existential threat than 

Sunni Islamic terror. There is thus a real danger that if the SunniShia conflict now seen in Syria emerges region-wide, our Sunni 

partners could see violent Sunni Islamic movements, not as 

threats, but as allies against Iran. 

Mr. Chairman, I will stop there. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jeffrey can be found in 

the Appendix on page 39.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN MICHAEL JENKINS, SENIOR ADVISOR 

TO THE PRESIDENT OF RAND CORPORATION 

Mr. JENKINS. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, 

members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me 

to address this important issue. Fifteen years of U.S. efforts to destroy the jihadist terrorist enterprise have not led to victory in the 

classic military sense. Such victory may not be achievable in this 

kind of war. 
6 

Instead, our counterterrorist efforts have achieved successes in 

some areas, far less so in others, in what is likely to be an enduring task. On the plus side, our worst fears, as you pointed out, 

have not been realized. There have been no more 9/11s, and none 

of the worst-case scenarios that post-9/11 extrapolations suggested. 

The operational capabilities of Al Qaeda and ISIL remain limited. The vast majority of Muslims express negative views toward 

both jihadist organizations, but even a very low percentage of favorable ratings still represents in actual numbers a large reservoir 

of potential recruits. 

The constellation of jihadist groups is less than it appears to be 

on a map. To be sure, Al Qaeda and ISIL have sought declarations 

of loyalty from local groups across Africa and the Middle East and 

have established a host of affiliates, provinces, and jihadist footholds. 

This is growth by acquisition and branding. These partners share 

a banner, but are focused, for the most part, on local quarrels, 

rather than a global jihad. There is no central command, no joint 

operations. 

ISIL has lost territory and can be defeated as a quasi-state. Al 

Qaeda’s central command has been reduced to exhorting others to 

fight. But these continuing calls on local supporters, terrorist supporters in the West, to take action have thus far, despite the occasional tragic event, have produced only a modest response. However, right now, large volumes of homegrown terrorists and returning foreign fighters pose a significant threat to our allies in Europe. 

In the United States, fortunately, the number of homegrown terrorists remains far less. I believe that Americans are safer now 

than they were on 9/11 in the 15 years since jihadist terrorists. 

Since 9/11, jihadist terrorists have been able to kill fewer than 

100 people in the United States. True, we have been lucky, and 

while every death is a needless tragedy, this is a far better result 

than certainly was feared or expected immediately after 9/11. 

On the minus side, the targets of the American-led campaigns 

have survived intense U.S. counterterrorist efforts. Al Qaeda and 

ISIL have been cornered, not crushed. And we can’t claim to have 

dented their determination. The jihadists have a powerful ideology, 

as both of you have mentioned. It arouses extreme devotion. 

However, that ideology, which we have not yet effectively countered, has, fortunately, gained little traction in most Muslim communities, especially here in the United States. 

Personal crisis is the dominant attribute of most American 

jihadists. ISIL has made more effective use of social media to reach 

a broader audience, but its advertisement of atrocity makes it a 

magnet for marginal and psychologically disturbed individuals. 

The Taliban remains a formidable foe. The continued deployment 

of U.S. forces will be necessary to prevent their comeback. The 

fighting in Syria and Iraq will go on for the foreseeable future. Foreign powers cannot impose peace from the outside. Faced with the 

loss of territory, ISIL will not quit. The leaders of ISIL fought clandestinely for years and will go underground again to continue the 

struggle. 

Syria and Iraq will remain fragile states, sources of continued violence, regional instability. The current partitions are likely to per-
7 

sist. The big problem is going to be that the Sunni areas in both 

countries could become a persistent badlands. 

The world will be dealing with the effluents of these conflicts for 

years to come. Thousands of foreign fighters who have joined ISIL 

cannot survive in an underground campaign. Indeed, the construction of the Islamic State could bring about a spike in terrorist activity by its scattering veterans. 

Refugees pose a long-term challenge. Those going to Europe right 

now include a large proportion of single young men coming from 

violent environments with little education. They already are the 

targets of radicalization. 

The primary threat to the United States will come from the ability of Al Qaeda or ISIL to inspire attacks by self-radicalized individuals here. The United States is now better organized and 

equipped to combat terrorism, but America’s frightened, angry, and 

divided society remains the country’s biggest vulnerability. So after 

15 years, there has been progress, but we are not through it yet. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Colonel Price. 

STATEMENT OF LTC BRYAN C. PRICE, USA, PH.D., 

COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT 

Colonel PRICE. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, 

and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I have been asked to reflect on the state of 

our counterterrorism fight since 9/11 and provide some lessons 

learned over the past 15 years. 

As an Active Duty officer, my testimony is based on my academic 

work and my personal and professional experiences. I am here 

today in my personal capacity, and my testimony should not be 

taken to represent the views of the United States Military Academy, the Army, or the Department of Defense. 

Congressional hearings like this allow us to reflect and critically 

analyze where we are in this conflict. I can tell you that our enemies are doing the same. 

In my written testimony, I highlighted a 50-page, 2008 lessonslearned document, produced by the precursor organization to the 

Islamic State, that shows our enemies are in this for the long haul 

and are serious about learning from their mistakes. My written testimony contains a list of our many counterterrorism successes, as 

you just heard from my fellow panelists, but I want to focus my 

oral testimony on lessons learned for the future. 

To begin, the threat has evolved and metastasized in ways few 

could have predicted after 9/11. Today, the threat posed by jihadist 

terrorism is more geographically diffuse, decentralized, and unpredictable than it was on September 12th, 2001. 

Nobody could have predicted that the greatest terrorist threat to 

the United States 15 years later would not be Al Qaeda, but its 

rival, the Islamic State, which now governs territory inside two 

sovereign nations. This reality should give us pause about the unpredictable nature of the threat and the challenges we face in combating it. 
8 

So what is the best way to conceptualize this threat, moving forward? Unsettling as it may be, one alternative is to view this 

threat not as a war, but as a chronic disease like cancer. In other 

words, it may be worth viewing the fight against jihadism not as 

a national security threat that can be solved, defeated, or vanquished, but as an inevitable fact of modern life that can be managed and contained, but never fully eliminated. 

With that in mind, I offer a few lessons learned in preview of 

counterterrorism efforts in the future. First, in my opinion, I think 

we need to do more in articulating realistic public expectations 

about the threat posed by terrorism and our ability to combat it. 

It is impossible to stop all attacks in a free and open society, and 

not every terrorist attack represents a political failure, nor are they 

existential threats to our national security. 

These subtleties are often lost in the public discourse, which 

leads to unwarranted fear, divisiveness, and knee-jerk decision 

making. Unfortunately, ridding the world of every jihadist is just 

as fanciful as ridding the world of every criminal or racist. Acknowledging this is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of pragmatism. 

Number two, decapitation tactics must be a part of a broader 

strategy. Targeted strikes by unmanned aerial systems are often 

the most lethal and precise methods that counterterrorism officials 

can use without putting American service men and women in danger. But they are not sufficient by themselves to defeat highly capable groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. 

On the positive side, I have done research in this, and my research analyzing 207 groups from 1970 to 2008 showed that killing 

or capturing the top leader significantly increased the mortality 

rate of terrorist groups. But timing matters. 

Decapitate a group in the first year of its existence, and it is 

more than eight times more likely to end than groups that have not 

been decapitated. The effect is halved in 10 years and potentially 

nonexistent after 20 years. Decapitating strikes are not a silver 

bullet solution. They must be a part of a broader strategy. 

Three, we should acknowledge that the military will be a critical 

part of any effective CT [counterterrorism] strategy moving forward, but it is only one part, and it may not be the most important 

part for long-term success. 

I have had the privilege of briefing many of our Nation’s top 

counterterrorism officials over the past 4 years, and in these engagements there has been one common refrain. We cannot kill or 

capture our way to victory. Our military is the best in the world 

at taking out terrorists, but long-term success in this conflict lies 

in altering the sociopolitical dynamics in the region. Otherwise, 

this conflict will be without end. 

Four, future CT strategy should do more to leverage publicprivate partnerships in the war of ideas. Lamenting on the slow 

progress that the U.S. was making in this domain, the late Richard 

Holbrooke once asked, ‘‘How can a man in a cave,’’ meaning Osama 

bin Laden, ‘‘out-communicate the world’s leading communication 

society?’’ 

Our difficulty in this domain stems from two inescapable challenges. The first is overcoming the credibility gap that the United 
9 

States has in strategically communicating these issues. Simply put, 

prospective jihadists do not turn to the U.S. Government for career 

advice. 

The second is that government bureaucracy invariably produces 

a slower, more risk-averse and uninspiring approach to countermessaging that does not incentivize creativity, experimentation, or 

risk-taking. One fix for this is more public-private collaboration. 

The government is incentivized to fund such programs, but it 

does not have the credibility to be the primary messenger, and it 

lacks the latest marketing and advertising capabilities. Whereas 

the private sector, to include nongovernmental organizations, often 

has the credibility and the requisite competencies to deliver the 

message, but it is not financially incentivized to do so. 

Last, in my opinion, we need to find more systematic and dedicated means of understanding our enemy and exposing their hypocrisy to the world. The best way to do this is use their own words 

against them. 

These functions can be accomplished with more aggressive efforts 

to declassify captured battlefield documents after they have already 

been exploited for their tactical and operational value and made 

available to academic institutions like the Combating Terrorism 

Center at West Point. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Price can be found in the Appendix on page 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. A lot of things I would like to follow 

up on, but let me just backtrack for a second. You have all touched 

on this, but I will just ask directly. 

Looking back at the first 15 years, what is the most significant 

way that the terrorist threat to us has changed, looking back 15 

years? Looking ahead 15 years, what do you think the most significant change in the terrorist threat to us will be? And then the third 

part of that is are we prepared to deal with that change you see 

coming? 

So what is the most significant way it has changed in the past 

15 years, the biggest way it will change in the next 15, and are we 

ready for that change, I guess. 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Tough questions, Mr. Chairman. I would 

say, over the past 15 years, the thing that is most significant is terrorist movements have been able to exploit the changes and the 

challenges of the broader Middle East very effectively. 

A good example, and the best example perhaps, is the Arab 

Spring. That wasn’t generated by radicals, let alone terrorists, but 

basically people who wanted a better civilization, and in many respects closer to the West, thus seemingly a good idea. 

The result has been, in Syria, parts of Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, 

and on the margins in other countries, a decrease of state authority. And who fills the gap? Terrorist groups. Their ability to exploit 

this underlying set of malignancies in this region is extraordinary. 

And I think that is the lesson at the strategic level I take from 

this, 1,001 things that work and things that don’t. But now getting 

to the second question, what will happen, the risk is not that this 
10 

will just continue, because believe me it will. The risk is that they 

hit a home run. We almost saw that with ISIS, as it consumed a 

third of Syria and a third of Iraq in 2014 and didn’t look like it 

was going to be stopped. 

We can’t have one or two more of those without bringing the 

whole region into a strudel of chaos and dysfunctionality, and then 

it will really morph in ways that we can’t imagine at this point. 

How do we deal with this? 

Again, what the three of us have said. You can’t directly deal 

with the core sociological, religious roots of it, but you can deal 

with the manifestations of it. I would just advocate you have to 

deal aggressively with it. 

And one of the rare things here, I would disagree a bit with Colonel Price, although I think I was saying almost the same thing as 

him, but I would be careful about this idea of the goal of containing 

ISIS or other terrorist movements. In the end, that is what we are 

going to accomplish. 

But if we set out to contain these movements, they will beat us. 

If we set out carefully to destroy them, we will probably succeed 

in containing them. And I think that the history of our relationship 

with ISIS from January 2014 to late 2015 is a good illustration of 

that. 

So we need more aggressive action and willingness to take risks, 

not only in our public message but in our military and diplomatic 

activities. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. I think that the—a couple of significant changes in 

the last 15 years. First of all, the adversary is now broader, more 

diffuse, more complex. A lot of that, as Ambassador Jeffrey has correctly pointed out in my view, is a consequence of the so-called 

Arab Spring. 

That itself is a symptom of a fundamental turmoil that is going 

on in this region, and we have to deal with it. But we are on the 

margins of being able to intervene to change things fundamentally. 

We simply don’t have the resources to do that. 

The other thing that is clear in the last 15 years, is that our adversary here has been the beneficiary of these events. They would 

probably claim of the beneficiaries of God’s will. But they have 

proved to be extraordinarily adaptive, able to morph to meet new 

circumstances. That is much more difficult for us to do. We are reacting. 

With regard to the next 15 years, first of all, I am glad you said 

‘‘the next 15 years’’ because I think we have to realistically think 

of time horizons in those terms. This turmoil that we see now is 

going to go on. I think the ambassador is correct in underscoring 

that state authority in this area has weakened. 

That is clearly the case in Syria and Iraq where power on the 

ground has shifted from national institutions to militias that are 

under foreign or local, not central government, control and rebel 

formations that challenge that. 

That is happening completely across the region. In dealing with 

that and accepting a long-term thing, I think we have to be very, 

very careful about picking our tasks very, very carefully. 
11 

I would agree with the ambassador that we have to destroy the 

Islamic State, so long as that exists. Without any illusions that the 

fight stops if we destroy the Islamic State, it has to be, and I am 

going to sound like the ancient Senator Cato on this, and furthermore, the Islamic State must be destroyed, but it has to be. It continues to be a source of propaganda, an attraction for these fighters. 

And, in addition to destroying it, I think we really do have to try 

to, for those that want to go down and make it their final fight, 

we have to close that ring around them and give them the opportunity to do so. Better to do it there than to deal with tens of thousands of them scattered across the globe. 

In terms of our own actions going forward, there is not going to 

be a single strategy that any of us can determine now that events 

over the next 15 years won’t oblige us to revise and alter as new 

circumstances arise. That is the feature of a long conflict. 

But a couple of principles ought to continue, and that is, since 

it is going to be long, whatever we do, we have to be able to sustain 

it for a long time. So we have to be careful not to overcommit. 

At the same time, what we have learned again and again is prematurely walking away from these things, whether it is in Iraq or 

Yemen or Afghanistan, that just risks a comeback by the adversaries that we have already successfully contained, so—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. 

Colonel Price. 

Colonel PRICE. Mr. Chairman, in terms of answering those questions, I agree they are all three tough questions. In terms of what 

happened in the past, in the past 15 years and what has changed, 

I guess first I should just mention that my discussion of containment earlier does not make me think that we should not go on the 

offensive and attack the Islamic State. 

I guess my fear though is if we focus too much on defeating the 

Islamic State, and if we are unable to do that, what does that mean 

in terms of our counterterrorism credibility moving forward. And 

even I would argue that if you killed every single last member of 

the Islamic State, the ideology that is behind them is not. It is just 

going to mean it is going to be other groups that are going to enter 

the fray. 

In terms of the structural conditions that have changed in the 

past 15 years that I think are most important, I would echo my 

panelist, Mr. Jenkins, when he talks about the geographical diffusion. 

September 12th the threat was largely contained to the AfPak 

[Afghanistan-Pakistan] region and some other pockets. Today it 

stretches from Western Africa all the way through the Middle East, 

the Levant, South and Southeast Asia. And so that is obviously a 

challenge for U.S. counterterrorism. 

The second that has not been mentioned, but you mentioned in 

your opening, sir, was the internet, the virtual caliphate, if you 

will. I think that has really changed the jihadist landscape over the 

past 15 years and is also one of the things that I think presents 

the most challenges to us moving forward. 

The other thing I would argue in terms of the next 15 years that 

poses the greatest challenge is the exploitation of jihadists to ex-
12 

ploit lack of governance or governance issues in places around the 

world. And so those two things have brought a very broad tent. A 

lot of people are gravitating towards that type of ideology. 

How should we fix those or what are the most promising ways 

to fix those moving forward? I think there is promise on the internet side of the house, and I think this goes back to my point earlier 

about public-private partnerships, and I know that our government 

is already working with the private sector to work around some of 

these issues. 

I can tell you that jihadists, particularly online, are very aware 

of the rules and limitations that they have in order to not come on 

the radar. And they are also getting more adept at communicating 

via the dark web. 

And then final challenge is, and this has been echoed by both 

Ambassador Jeffrey and Mr. Jenkins, but going back to the issue 

of lack of governance in these places, I think the United States has 

found it difficult and challenging in order to affect governance in 

other places, particularly when some of these countries are not as 

allied with us like others. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, just two points I want to pursue. I want 

to pursue the ideology piece of it, but before I get there I think, 

you know, part of the problem, and Mr. Jenkins mentioned, you 

know, we can’t leave too soon from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but what I have sort of found, as we have tried to do this, 

that sort of imposing an outcome with our military might, whether 

it is in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya or Syria or wherever we try 

to do it, has not proven to be terribly successful, in large part because of the credibility issue that Colonel Price pointed out. You 

know, having a Western army in a Muslim country, or a Western 

military in a Muslim country just fuels the problem. 

So I guess the first question would be how do we get out of that 

trap? Because it seems like, you know, when you look at the different countries involved, we stay too long, we get out too soon. I 

mean, you can take our state of the three examples of Libya, Syria, 

and Iraq. 

In Iraq we went all-in. You know, we, you know, and we were 

there for a long time and I know a lot of people say, well, we got 

out too soon. You know, I think if we had been there in those numbers for another 10 years, at the end of those 10 years people 

would have been saying we got out too soon. 

So at some point, you know, like I said, Western military might 

is not going to force the outcome we want. And I think Iraq proved 

that even though some may disagree. 

In Libya, we decided, okay, we will go in, we will take out the 

leader but then we will have less of a footprint. We will let the 

locals sort of decide with a little bit of help. That didn’t work out. 

In Syria we said, gee, you know, for a long time, there is really 

not much we can do here. Let’s not make it worse and let’s stay 

out. So basically all three methods have ended in failure. Libya, 

Syria, and Iraq to all varying degrees are not where we want them 

to be in this ideological struggle. So how do we handle that in 

terms of our presence? 
13 

And then the second question is how do we deal with that ideology? How do we make the Muslim world move in the direction? 

And there are some groups out there that embrace modernity, that 

are willing to accept other religions, other viewpoints while pursuing their own. Because that is the ballgame, basically, is that 

there is not a reasonable alternative right now in terms of governance and religion. 

So that gives fertile ground for these, you know, crazy ideologies 

to grow. So those are the two questions. 

And then, Colonel Price, if you could start out, since you sort of 

touched on those in your opening, what is the best approach to 

handling that? 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, sir. So on the first question, I think the way 

we will have to move forward and what we have done since 9/11 

is realize that this is not a unilateral fight. And that it is going to 

require multilateral efforts in order to make the most effective CT 

policy. 

That obviously entails a number of functions, building partner 

capacity, security force assistance, and those types of programs. 

But I don’t think I have a good answer to, say, to come back with 

the perception problem of having the U.S. in those countries. 

On the second one, how to deal with the ideology, this is more 

difficult. And in your opening statement, sir, you mentioned some 

parallels to the Cold War and communism and how we were able 

to defeat that type of ideology. 

So I think the major difference that we are talking about here 

and the threats to the United States in the past century, when we 

were defeating fascism and totalitarianism, we defeated that largely on the battlefield. There was no mistake of who was the victor 

in that fight. 

When you want to talk about defeating the ideology of communism, that was done via a mix of methods to include the military, but I think a lot of people would say that our economic system had a large part in debunking that. There is not a lot of new 

nations popping up today trying to have a communist economic system. 

And so the difference here, though, is when you are talking about 

jihadists, they do not perceive defeat the way other ideologies do. 

And so when we defeat them on the battlefield, the lesson that 

they learn is not that this is a failed ideology. The lesson that they 

take back is that they were not resolved enough, committed enough 

to the cause, and that they see this as being a very long-term fight. 

And the second dynamic which we can’t get around of is the fact 

that as long as the United States enjoys a significant amount of 

power asymmetry over other states but also specifically non-state 

actors, the United States will continue to be a convenient foil for 

non-state actors and jihadists that want to blame the United States 

for all their grievances. And so that is why I am largely so pessimistic about the fight in the long run. 

Mr. SMITH. Thanks. 

Mr. Jenkins, earlier you had mentioned some of those issues. Do 

you want to take a stab at that? 

Mr. JENKINS. You know, I am not sure that being blamed for the 

ills of the world is necessarily new territory for us. I mean, the 
14 

United States is blamed for the world’s problems, blamed for not 

solving the world’s problems, and blamed when it tries to solve the 

world problems. That comes with the status. 

Second point is for those who are really committed to this ideology, it would be nice to think we can bring them back in an ideological struggle. I am somewhat skeptical of that. I think for those 

who are truly committed this is a fight. 

So, you know, and as Colonel Price correctly points out, I don’t 

know how many Nazis were left in Germany in terms of the 

mindset at the end of World War II, but it lacked the military capacity to inflict that on other nations, so it was defeated. 

Insofar as these particular adversaries not accepting that defeat, 

whether they accept it or not, what we want to do is blunt their 

capacity to impose it on others. 

With regard to the various models of U.S. intervention, I don’t 

think under any circumstances, however exquisite our counterinsurgency strategies may be in terms of their sensitivity to local 

populations, U.S. troops in a foreign country killing local people is 

not going to be a winning formula. It may be absolutely necessary 

at times to conduct limited operations, but we want to avoid that 

as much as possible. 

First of all, it is difficult to sustain in terms of American political 

support, but also we accumulate enemies fairly quickly in trying to 

do that. So what this means is it is going to be indirect methods, 

it is going to be working with allies, and it is going to be working 

with local partners. 

Now, that is an imperfect way of doing things. And these coalitions and these things are going to be messy. But that is preferable 

to sending in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of American forces unless we are really prepared to keep them in for the 

next half century and to bear the price of doing that. And I am not 

even sure it would work then. 

Mr. SMITH. I was going to say, I don’t think it would work then 

either. I have taken up quite a bit of time. 

I want to let others get in, so I am sure someone will ask a question later on, Mr. Jeffrey. You can offer your comments on that, but 

I want to let other members ask questions, so I will yield my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Mr. Jenkins, I was 

thinking about your comments. The fact is I am not an isolationist, 

but I am a realist. We are $19.4 trillion in debt. We continue to 

spend billions and billions of dollars in Afghanistan. I don’t know 

what we are getting out of that, quite frankly, except from time to 

time a soldier will lose a leg or get killed, and we keep doing it. 

And I wonder, from you three experts, well, is China concerned 

about jihadist? I don’t think so. And here we are, because of our 

foreign policy that I blame both parties for. Bush taking out Saddam Hussein was a horrible mistake. Then Obama going and taking out Gaddafi was another horrible mistake. 

So here we are, as I think one of you said, and I am going to 

stop in just a second, you said that when we get trapped into a situation—they are my words not yours—that we keep doing the 

same thing. And all we are doing is enhancing those who hate us 

with drone strikes and these other strikes that end up killing inno-
15 

cent people. And then that is what they talk about for the next 100 

years, just like the Pashtuns in Afghanistan who defeated the Russians. 

So what kind of foreign policy do you think makes sense, instead 

of going in this direction of spending billions and billions of dollars 

in a failed policy in Afghanistan, that we will continue to pass bills 

to keep funding it, and then at some point in time, when we hit 

$21 trillion to $22 trillion in debt, which might happen in the next 

2 years, then our whole country is in an economic collapse? 

How do you get, say, a Congress to understand what is the right 

policy versus a policy of keeping to spend, spend, spend, and you 

get nothing but chaos in Afghanistan? 

John Sopko has said that corruption is worse today in Afghanistan than it was 16 years ago. To my comments, would you give 

me a statement in rebuttal or a statement that I am somewhat not 

off track? 

Mr. Ambassador, I will start with you. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. You are not off track, Congressman. Our 

national budget and the deficit are core national security concerns. 

Nonetheless, there are ways to do this over the long term without 

breaking the bank. There are ways to do it over the long term 

without, as Mr. Jenkins rightly said, antagonizing those people because we are in Muslim lands killing their people. 

For example, I did an inventory. We have from Pakistan to 

Egypt, in that region, long-term presence in 13 countries. In each 

country the presence is relatively minimal, but it is serving a good 

purpose over the long term securing things. 

Taken all together, I am sure it is less than the 28,000 troops 

we have in Korea since 1950. And that is probably costing us more 

money than most of what we are doing in the Middle East. 

But we all understand that on the long run it buys us, and it 

buys the region security without getting us, at least up until now, 

in trouble. So that is the only way forward I could point out. 

You try to limit your commitments to be something that is sustainable in terms of the American public, the budget, and casualties, and also not try to provoke people in these regions. And we 

have been successful both in the Middle East and elsewhere in the 

world in doing that. It is not impossible. 

What is impossible and gets to the second question that came up, 

is changing the region. Because of the concerns you raised, Mr. 

Jones, people want to somehow rush in and just end this. We don’t 

want to keep being there for decades, so we try to find a solution. 

We try to get to hearts and minds, and that is where, A, we start 

sending up the bills. 

Right now, the fight against ISIS, I think over the last year, was 

$7 billion. I think, this committee would know better than I, but 

somewhere around that. We burned through $7 billion in a few 

weeks in Iraq for years, and I was there to watch it. 

So I think that there is a way we can do this. But I realize it 

is hard to persuade people because this is a very, very good question. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here and increasing our understanding. In light of the discus-
16 

sion right now, where would you suggest that resources really be 

focused and directed in a way that perhaps you don’t see them 

being directed today? And could you include with that any additional authorities that you think are required to continue this battle, essentially? 

If I can—Ambassador Jeffrey, you were going on that vein. If you 

want to focus on it a little bit? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Bearing in mind, having just committed 

myself to limit the public’s resources trying—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Understanding that, but where should they be that 

maybe they are not being? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. While I am personally a skeptic about 

working to try to change the mindset in the region about terrorism, 

about extremist philosophies and such, it doesn’t hurt to try because I could be wrong and it isn’t a lot of money. 

So that is one place where we are putting a lot of attention with, 

as you heard so far, limited success, but we might succeed tomorrow. We have done this in other areas, Eastern Europe, for example, successfully. And so perhaps it is worth—it is certainly worth 

trying. 

Secondly, intelligence. That is crucial that we know what is going 

on out there and who is coming at us as soon as possible. That has 

helped us a lot in homeland defense. That is something that is really vital. 

Thirdly, supporting this very limited but effective military force, 

who will not be large, who will not be tasked to change the mindset 

of whole populations, but will be given specific military missions 

that they can do. 

We can take out ISIS in Mosul. We want to do it with partners, 

which is right, but a lot of that will require U.S. leadership, U.S. 

firepower, U.S. combat experience and some people on the ground, 

at least as advisors. That is the kind of thing we have to reinforce 

as well. 

But, again, if the region is all screwed up, there is nothing we 

can do to deal with this popping up of new terrorist movements 

everywhere. So everything we can do diplomatically, politically, 

economically, and militarily to keep the region in the sort of calm 

state that we have been so successful elsewhere in the world, from 

Central and South America to the Balkans, that will help. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Jenkins, can you respond? 

Mr. JENKINS. You know, in all of the questions that have come 

up, thus far, there is an understandable skepticism about what we 

have received in return for the resources that we have invested. 

And that reflects the fact that Americans are pragmatists. If we invest something, we want to know what we get in return and how 

are we doing in this. 

But in this particular case, that skepticism on the part of Congress, I think, is entirely appropriate because in the immediate 

wake of 9/11 the issue was spare no expense. Do whatever we have 

to do to prevent another 9/11. 

It is not which button we will press. We will press every single 

button. One of them has to work. And fortunately, it worked, a 

combination of what we did and luck. 
17 

But now, looking for the long haul, we have become more sensitive to both how much we do and how we go about doing that. 

Part of that is imposed by the terrible costs that we have incurred 

thus far. 

But here, to underscore the ambassador’s remarks, in that if you 

look at the more recent activities, where we have worked together 

with the Kurds or other Arabs in Syria, or we have done more 

things with special forces, or we have done more things with local 

partners, military and nonmilitary, the resources there have been 

a fraction of the terrible price that we have paid, if you look back 

at the previous 15 years, especially the first 10 years after 9/11. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Could I let—Colonel could you just respond quickly then? 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, absolutely. I agree with most of what has 

been said. I mean, in my opinion, the three places to improve. I 

agree, intel is one place where you will always get a great return 

on your investment. The two places—one cost efficient one where 

I think we can make a lot of room is in the informational domain; 

again, I think that public-private partnerships is the way forward 

there. 

The last one is not very cost efficient, but it has to do with improving governance programs, diplomatic and economic programs 

to improve governance in the places that are fostering this violence. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for 

being here. And Ambassador, in particular I want to thank you for 

pointing out that the people of the Middle East really do want to 

live in the 21st century. 

Having had the opportunity to visit from Beirut to Amman to 

Dubai, I explained to my constituents at home that many of these 

countries, cities, look like Hilton Head on steroids. And so they 

really want to really be part of the 21st century. 

And then it is personal to me. All four of my sons have served 

there. My oldest son was field artillery in Iraq. My second son was 

a doctor serving in Baghdad. My third son served Bright Star Signal in Egypt, and my fourth guy was an engineer in Afghanistan 

serving with the local military. And so I am just so hopeful that 

we can back them up. 

But sadly, the legacy of President Obama is a failure by not taking ISIS seriously, by declaring a red line that was not serious, by 

not having a status of forces agreement. To me, he has not learned 

the lesson of 9/11, which was where there is a safe haven, such as 

Afghanistan, that the American families are at risk. 

And we see it even today. I was in New York on Monday and 

thank goodness that there were police officers, there were law enforcement, there were first responders, there were National Guard, 

every 5 feet in a city that shouldn’t be under siege, but they are. 

And I want to make every effort that we can to defeat terrorists 

from overseas. 

And with that in mind, Colonel Price, you have referenced this, 

and that is that we need to counteract the social media of the Is-
18 

lamic terrorists. And how can we do this best, and what is the role 

of the Department of Defense? 

Colonel PRICE. Sir, so obviously I am not here speaking on behalf 

of the Department of Defense, but I can offer some of the academic 

perspectives in terms of what we can do in a social media realm. 

And I think this goes back to the public-private partnerships that 

we can foster in order to do more in this space. 

What is interesting is that, as I mentioned before, the jihadists 

are very adept at skirting around the different ways to both communicate, but to do it in a way that is not always illegal. And so 

I think this will ultimately come down to a policy question that I 

am not really equipped to speak on. 

Mr. WILSON. And for each of you, and it could relate to how we 

address this, and that is, are there legislative authorities that are 

needed to address the specific aspects of countering the cyber 

threats to our country? 

Mr. JENKINS. I don’t know it is a matter of legislative authority. 

I think those authorities are there, and I think we are making 

some progress. A couple of areas that have already been mentioned 

that I think we are not fully exploiting, one is, Colonel Price is absolutely correct. 

There is an extraordinary trove of documents produced by Al 

Qaeda, produced by ISIL, which I don’t know why they are classified. I don’t see that it is our responsibility to maintain our enemies’—protect their secrets. These would be better served in the 

public domain, because I think they would be really instructive. I 

would make those available. 

And I think another thing that is an underutilized resource is we 

have some of these people coming back from this experience. We 

do have—they can be utilized more. I know our tendency is, and 

it is understandable, this is a nation of law, to say, well, we will 

lock them up and put them away and forget about them. 

That is fine, but that is an underutilized resource. And it doesn’t 

make any difference whether we think they are sincere or not, but 

certainly they, not we, represent the most effective voices against 

jihad, against radicalization. 

So among these many hundreds who we have in Europe and 

here, we could utilize them a lot more in terms of their own propaganda against their own side. 

Mr. WILSON. And we look forward to your input. 

And, Ambassador, I want to thank you also. You cited success 

stories. People need to know. I have just returned from a wedding 

in Bogota, Colombia. 

The success of Plan Colombia, just it would have been inconceivable, the thought that anybody would have gone to a wedding and 

feel like they would have been safe. But due to the success of the 

American military, now that dynamic country of 40 million people 

is free and dynamic. So thank you for your service. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Thank you. We diplomats will take some 

credit for Colombia, too, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to comment 

on some of the lessons learned that have been described by the 

panel, all of which are very helpful, some of which, especially Am-
19 

bassador Jeffrey, you talked about our failure to react in a timely 

fashion. 

But I also want to talk about some of those things that we have 

done in the past that have precipitated some of the problems that 

we see today. And perhaps looking forward, some of the actions 

that we can take that could potentially prevent them that may not 

be military in nature. 

And I really appreciate my colleague, Mr. Jones, pointing out 

that 2003, the invasion of Iraq set off a chain of consequences, 

some of them factoring into what we are talking about today. And 

then the decision to remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had some 

very negative consequences, which we are still dealing with today. 

There is an interesting article in addition to the one that Mr. 

Jenkins contributed to in the Atlantic, published in the New York 

Times, written by Scott Anderson, ‘‘How the Arab World Came 

Apart.’’ 

And one of the things that he notes is that in these areas where 

we are concerned about ISIS in Syria, in Iraq, and in Libya, they 

all had something in common, which is that, you know, 100 years 

ago they were creations of the West. They weren’t inherently—you 

know, there was no real Syria. There was no real Libya. There was 

no real Iraq. 

And these artificial political constructions could really only be 

kept together by a strongman. And typically the West would put 

a strongman of the minority tribe or sect in power. And it has produced some of the problems that we see today. 

This lack of coherence, this lack of national identity, this problem 

that despite the fact that we spent $60 billion training and equipping the Iraqi Army, there was no real Iraqi Army and they melted 

in the face of a far more insignificant force in ISIS. 

And so my question is, to expand on the excellent question from 

the chairman, let us look 15 years back, let us look 15 years forward. Could you look 100 years back and 100 years forward with 

me? Is there something we could do to facilitate a different political 

construction in these three countries? 

You know, the shorthand term for this is partition, but that acknowledges that these are not real countries the way that we think 

of countries and acknowledges the sectarian interests, the tribal interests, the familial interests that trump national identity. It may 

be the least bad option of a number of bad options before us. Convince me why it is not worth exploring and pursuing. 

Mr. JENKINS. I think the reality is, as I mentioned in my testimony, that the partitions that we currently see in Syria and Iraq 

are going to persist. I know diplomats have to be optimists. And 

for a variety of reasons we have to remain committed, at least in 

theory, to the territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq. The reality on 

the ground is quite different. 

Without abandoning the notion that we are in the business of 

being the new Sykes-Picot people who will now draw new lines in 

the sand, I do think that it might alter our approach to recognize 

that reality and instead of thinking in terms of broad peace agreements that will encompass the entire nation or governments that 

will be created that will be able to command the loyalty of all citi-
20 

zens within those territories, that we accept the reality and perhaps go for more modest local accommodations. 

That is, instead of one grand peace treaty, a series of small steps 

that are aimed only at limiting—lowering the level of violence and 

allowing some commerce to take place and life to come back to 

something approaching normality, as opposed to going for these 

three-point diplomatic shots that we sometimes try for. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. If I could very quickly, Congressman, I 

agree with everything Mr. Jenkins said, but there are two problems with this that I think we need to consider. 

First of all, other than East Asia, I know of no part of the world 

where you have got countries with each its own ethnic religious 

group by and large, and a little bit Europe. 

What you described in the Middle East is absolutely correct, but 

Sub-Saharan Africa saw the same thing without the same level of 

huge turmoil and generator of terrorism that we see in the Middle 

East. 

And Latin America, again, that was basically one big Spanish set 

of colonies that then broke apart with very similar ethnic and religious backgrounds, but managed to survive as a set of independent 

countries. So that is the first thing. It may be that there is a special problem in the Middle East that we don’t see elsewhere, and 

fixing borders won’t fix that special problem. 

The second thing is, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, supporting the international order, national sovereignty, national 

unity should be our default position because it is what we represent. We can make exceptions to that, as Mr. Jenkins said, and as 

I was involved in in the Balkans where we helped break up countries. 

But one requirement that worked in the Balkans and that hasn’t 

worked in the Middle East is if you are going to do any fiddling 

inside a country, everybody in that region has to be with you. Because if only one is against you, Syria and Iran with Iraq, Pakistan 

with Afghanistan, we know all too well in this room what happens. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant Colonel 

Price, I wanted to follow up on your written testimony where you 

talked about what the United States did after major operations in 

Iraq ceased and our presence there and lack of presence there and 

what led to the current security situation. 

We find ourselves now 5 years after that significantly reduced 

military presence in Iraq. We see what is happening now. I expect 

in the months to come there will be another major offensive, perhaps to retake Mosul. 

The question then becomes what should the U.S. role be to ensure security in Iraq after Mosul is, hopefully, regained from ISIL? 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, sir. So in my testimony I did discuss that a 

little bit. Unfortunately, this problem is not unique to the United 

States, as Ambassador Jeffrey pointed out earlier. Doing this type 

of work and finding leverage in other countries to govern the way 

you would like to govern is extremely difficult. 

One thing I will say, though, is that I believe that if you take 

a look at most of the debates surrounding our campaign against 
21 

the Islamic State today, I would argue that most of those debates 

are centered around the ways and means of attacking them, discussions about boots on the ground and troop levels, rules of engagement, airstrikes, building partner capacity, and so forth. I think 

the real debates need to focus around what happens after. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Colonel PRICE. I think the Islamic State, the last thing I will say 

is that they have created an interesting scenario because they have 

created a lot of enemies in the region. And so I believe that we are 

going to be successful in retaking territory. My concern is what 

happens after, and I would like to see more national debate on 

that. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me ask this. Having visited there—I went up 

to Kurdistan, visited with the Kurds, visited with the government 

in Baghdad—and I use the term ‘‘government’’ loosely, and seeing 

what they are dealing with with Sunnis and Shias in that region 

versus the Kurds up north, the disagreements the Kurds have had 

with this Baghdad government. 

Is the future one that is likely to hold a country that is not like 

we saw Iraq previously, with it having those three areas united as 

one country, would it be potentially divided where you would have 

a Kurdistan, you would have Shia and Sunni regions that would 

be regionalized governments, perhaps operating under some centralized government in Baghdad? 

Give me your perspective about how governance would occur 

after you regain security. Obviously, security has to happen first, 

but give me your idea about what governance would—what you 

think it would look like after that? 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, sir. There is no really easy answer to that 

question, and I would honestly be interested in hearing what Ambassador Jeffrey would have to say on this topic. 

I think the only thing that I will add, and again, this is in my 

own personal opinion, the key question, whether you are talking 

about post-hostilities in Iraq or Syria, the key fundamental governance question is are these states able to provide an alternative and 

credible form of government that is going to be preferable to living 

the jihadist lifestyle? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Colonel PRICE. A very difficult task. I will cede my time to my 

colleague. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Ambassador. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Very quickly, to build on Colonel Price’s 

comments, first of all, government in parentheses, you are absolutely right. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yeah. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. But that is okay. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yeah. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. That is how most of East Asia 40 years 

ago looked, corruption, quasi-dictatorial regimes, army generals 

coming in in Korea. Taiwan was a problem. Thailand is still a problem. But we somehow deal with them. 

The answer to Iraq is it was functioning pretty well in the period 

of time from the end of the surge, 2009 to roughly 2013. Many factors led to the decline of the state, including a lack of attention by 
22 

us, and increasing sectarian thought and actions, particularly by 

the largely Shia Arab government against the Sunni Arabs. The 

Kurds and the Shias kind of worked things out in their own unique 

way. 

But I would say that you could go back to that. You will have 

all of the problems that you hear when you are out there, but you 

have a lot of problems in Egypt. You have a lot of problems elsewhere in the region. It can work. I have seen it work. 

The most important thing, though, the delta, is we have to stay 

in there diplomatically and militarily. That means dealing with 

Iran, because job one for Iran, as soon as the ISIS battle is over, 

is to get our 5,000 people out of there. 

We have to find a way to persuade everyone in Iraq that that is 

a bad idea, and to some degree, to persuade Iran that it is a bad 

idea in the long run for Iran, too. That is a much bigger problem. 

I touched on it in my testimony. But it is going to haunt us as long 

as we are trying to stabilize the region. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Gabbard. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, a followup to Ambassador Jeffrey on that point. Do you think that the very 

closely and intertwined relationship between the Shia government 

in Baghdad and Iran can be so easily supplanted by our 5,000 

troops on the ground in our engagement there? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Absolutely not, Congresswoman. We have 

to live with the fact that Iran will have a great deal of influence 

in Iraq, not just with the largely Shia government and the Shia in 

the south, but frankly, with many of the Kurds in the north. I have 

seen that as well. 

The question is do we want to compete with Iran or turn the 

place over to them? One of the problems with letting the place split 

into its three components is the other two components tend to anchor the Shia south in a sort of independent status. 

If Iran really were in charge, it would have long since picked up 

the phone and said why are you exporting up to 4 million barrels 

of oil a day? This is killing us on oil exports. 

And believe me, those 2 million additional barrels of oil that 

Iran—Iraq is exporting now compared to a decade ago, thanks 

largely to us and international oil companies, that is one of the reasons oil prices are so low. That is good for your American consumers, but it is not good for Iran. 

Iran doesn’t do that because it knows the Iraqis would say no. 

You break that country up, the Shia south is going to have to 

gravitate into Iran’s orbit in a way much more than today. Total 

oil reserves in Iran and the Shia south of Iraq are greater than 

Saudi Arabia’s. 

That is something worth combating, and I think we can stay in 

there, and I think we can push back. But it takes a lot of effort, 

and it is going to take, again, dealing directly with Iran. 

Ms. GABBARD. That is a big conversation that we can get into 

about the three-state possibility for Iraq and the consequence of, as 
23 

Mr. Jenkins mentioned, the reality on the ground, which is that 

this partition, in essence, has already taken place. 

And the vacuum that has been created by the oppression of the 

Sunni tribes and others by the Shia government has allowed 

groups like ISIS to, in fact, come in, which leads me to my question. Much of the testimony today and much of the talk in the 

media, much of the conversation from the administration as well 

as from military leaders on the ground in places like Syria, is their 

mission is to defeat ISIS, period. 

And when we ask questions about what about Al Qaeda? What 

about the group formerly known as al-Nusra? What about these 

other jihadist groups? Why are we not targeting them, or are we 

targeting them? And the answers are really insufficient and really 

speak to the fact that we are not. 

As a result, groups like al-Nusra, now JFS [Jabhat Fateh AlSham], have really integrated themselves deeply within Syrian society right under our noses to the point where if the administration 

is successful in removing Assad, the likelihood is that these groups, 

a.k.a. Al Qaeda, would take over, creating a greater threat, not 

only to the region but to the world. 

Can you speak to the issue of why things have been so completely focused on this group called ISIS rather than recognizing 

the fact that Al Qaeda still has leading terror groups all around the 

world? And why more is not being done, therefore, then to take the 

next step to address defeating the ideology? 

Mr. JENKINS. I am not sure that we are ignoring Al Qaeda 

around the world. I mean, there are continuing efforts and efforts 

that have achieved the measure of success in reducing the capacity 

of al-Shabaab in Somalia, an Al Qaeda affiliate. 

There is an ongoing campaign, which the United States is supporting, to go after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen. 

And at least with the air campaign some of that has been also directed against Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. 

But you do underscore an issue here, and that is that what used 

to be the, you know, the performing actor formerly known as 

Jabhat al-Nusra has, in fact, become a part of, embedded itself 

deeply in this broader coalition of rebel forces against them. 

And it is extremely difficult and will become more so for us to 

precisely target that component without weakening what is essentially still a U.S.-backed broader rebel effort against Assad. 

All of this comes about because of the fundamental problem. And 

that is, for the Sunni population in Syria, the only avatars they 

have, the only military defenders they have right now are the Islamic State and this coalition of rebel forces dominated by jihadists. 

There is not another force in the area that can protect that Sunni 

population. So we have the dilemma that part of the people we are 

supporting includes a component of the very people we are against. 

Ms. GABBARD. Precisely. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gibson. 
24 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the panelists. 

We heard from you earlier your testimony about how important the 

competition of ideas is. 

And also in some of your testimony you talked about declassification of information. And it caused me to reflect on a very significant experience that I had during the surge. Ambassador Jeffrey, 

you may remember this from Iraq. 

But in the early summer, General McChrystal and the Joint Special Operations Command had captured a high-value target, and in 

his debriefing, essentially exposed the fraudulent nature of Al 

Qaeda in Iraq. 

At that point, they were really trying to say how this was homegrown and there were all kinds of Iraqis that were involved in this. 

And this individual we had captured, he basically said no. It is all 

penetrated. It is all foreign. They have one token that is in the 

lead. 

And I bring it up because General McChrystal, I think, made a 

very courageous and smart decision. He declassified all that information the first week of July and—I think it was about the first 

week of July—and that helped us so much. 

I mean, as the operations officer for everything north of Baghdad, this helped us in Mosul and Khilafah and Baqubah and Tikrit 

because we were able to have engagements and say look. Look 

what has happened. This was right on the cusp of the Sunni Awakening moving from the west over to Diyala Province. And say look, 

these guys are complete frauds. 

And, you know, it really struck me that, you know, he was— 

which is not surprising for General McChrystal, but he was really 

taking on some risk in declassifying this information and using it 

in a way that we were targeting with it. 

And so my question is, you know, looking across now and elevating and thinking about this as a national endeavor, you know, 

what recommendations do you have as far as laws or guidance on 

enhancing our agility to declassify to win this competition of ideas? 

And in your remarks, any specific recommendations you would 

have for either the President and the executive branch or for us 

from the Congress in terms of congressional delegation trips, messaging, hearings that will help on this score. 

Colonel PRICE. Sir, the case that you just mentioned was one 

that we highlight in the Combating Terrorism Center all of the 

time because General McChrystal actually gave those documents to 

the CTC. They were referred to as the Sinjar Documents. And they 

disclosed, like you accurately mentioned, the foreign fighter threat 

that was going. It was not a homegrown threat. 

In fact, when we were able to do that analysis on those documents, we were able to determine that, when you take a look at 

the per capita donors from specific countries, I think everyone had 

assumed that Saudi Arabia was going to be the largest donor at 

that time. And they did—they were number one on the list. 

But another state that was number two was Libya. And when 

you—we were able to parse out that data down to the actual towns 

where these individuals were coming from. Again, as you mentioned, this is 2007. The two highest per capita were Derna and 
25 

Benghazi. And this was well before Benghazi was a household 

name. 

And so when you talk about what systems are available for us 

to do this, there is a joint collaborative program between the Combating Terrorism Center along with U.S. Special Operations Command called the Harmony Program. 

And that was the vehicle by which General McChrystal and others used in order to declassify those. That program is still in function today, and we look forward to getting more declassified documents. 

Mr. GIBSON. How about other thoughts in terms of how we can 

get, you know, more agile and more effective in this domain, this 

competition of ideas? Because, you know, certainly there is a continuum between speed and effectiveness and protection of sources, 

and I get all that. But are there any sort of lessons that you can 

draw out of this that we could really hone in on and be more effective with the whole-of-government approach? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. In my experience, which includes trying to 

supervise parts of that underlying—trying when I was in the White 

House, it is very complicated because there are always two reasons 

why you classify information. 

One is the actual damage that that information might do if it 

came out into the public sector. But as Colonel Price and you just 

indicated, Congressman, in many cases it is advantageous for us to 

have that information out there. 

The second reason, and that is where you get to bureaucracy, 

your role, the role of the executive, is sources and methods. That 

is, it is an innocuous piece of information. It would do good, not bad 

if the American public could read it, if people abroad could read it, 

if you could have access to it freely. 

But people are afraid because, by some algorithm of steps and actions and mathematical formulas, that could somehow reveal how 

we gather information. I am less worried about that, I think, than 

many people are. 

But this is something that you have to discuss with the intelligence committees and the intelligence community because they 

are very ferocious on this, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. But 

if you want to be fast and agile, you need to look into that specifically. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we should. 

Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you don’t paint a 

pretty picture as to how this is going to be resolved in the future. 

Only because, I think, the dynamics in the Middle East are so diverse. We have talked about, you know, in Colombia, in other 

states, we didn’t have the two religious organizations that are the 

largest in that area, the Shia and the Sunnis, at odds with each 

other. 

So how do we ever resolve that issue, which I think, you know, 

is the underlying issue that percolates up through all of this, 

whether it is, you know, tribal? But it really goes back to their, you 

know, you got Iran who the majority is Shia, right? And, you know, 

the rest of the countries in that area, the majority is Sunni. 
26 

So how do we resolve that issue? Is there a resolve? And can we 

play a part in that? And Mr. Ambassador, you have had the ability 

to deal with those over the years. What is your take? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. I have had about 30 years, counting Turkey, in the region and working on the region, and I was just out 

there and talked to the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey 

over the past month. I like the area. It is fascinating, and it doesn’t 

have to be what we see right now. 

And there are times when it hasn’t. For example, the Shia-Sunni 

split and the conflicts that emerged from them, which I was so worried about I put considerable time into it in my written testimony 

as an accelerant for terrorism in this region. 

That is something that while it has been latent before, these people, Sunni and Shia Arabs and other ethnic groups with that split, 

have lived together in relative peace for most of the history of the 

Middle East. 

It is something that can go back together, just like Orthodox and 

Muslims lived in peace in Bosnia and other places in the Balkans 

for centuries. And then bang, in the 1990s, what happened? A 

breakdown in order, an unwillingness of the international community to engage, and the evil forces that are always latent, bubble 

up and become omnipresent. We have that with a vengeance right 

now in the region. 

But again, while we can’t go in and fix it per se, the region itself 

can fix it if given enough time and given enough stability. Our job 

from the outside, and it is not something we can do alone, we need 

to do it with our European friends and our allies and partners in 

the region, is to dampen down the exploitation of this violence and 

insecurity by forces, beginning with terrorist forces, Iran, and at 

times even our own friends who get carried away in responding to 

these threats. 

But that takes a very present United States. Not with whole armies, not with hundreds of billions of dollars a year in expenditures, but the kind of presence that over most of the period since 

the 1970s we have been able to do in the region and with relative 

success. Over the long term, I am optimistic, but I realize it may 

be a hard sell today. 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I mean, we tend to want to force our view of 

government on other governments. And I think, you know, we saw 

that with Saddam Hussein, with, I mean, all the dictators out 

there. And we want to impose what we think is the proper form 

of government. 

And not every country or people are ready for democracy as we 

see it for a number of reasons. And Iran, obviously, you have 

touched on it, Iran is a huge player. 

And I agree with your testimony that we can’t just leave a void 

there and allow Iran to fill that. If we abandon the Middle East, 

what are we going to get? And I think we have seen part of it. 

And Lieutenant Colonel Price, I am very interested, having two 

sons that went to West Point, on your take in regards to what are 

we trying to impart upon our future leaders and our leaders within 

the military as to how we go about this? 

Because we do have the ability militarily to do certain things, 

but I don’t know that—and we have talked about we don’t have the 
27 

will in the United States, nor the money to continue. What is your 

take? 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, so very briefly, sir, one of the reasons why 

the organization that I lead and stood up was for that very reason. 

When I was a cadet, we did not have any type of formal education 

when it came to these types of topics, whether it be terrorism, 

counterterrorism, counterinsurgency. These are complex issues that 

our young American service men and women are facing. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I—you know, my son was a plebe when the 

Twin Towers went down, or he just finished his plebe year. So you 

are right. We didn’t have a whole lot of experience in that. But I 

am sorry to interrupt. 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, sir. So part of this is learning about these 

topics in a more academically rigorous session. The other things 

that we have done is we have enhanced the academy’s overseas 

programs to get more cultural education to our cadets. 

But ultimately, at the end of the day, and this is not specific to 

the U.S. Military Academy or others, but it is teaching our young 

military leaders how to think and not what to think. That is all. 

Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate it. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bridenstine. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ambassador Jeffrey, 

you were our ambassador during the withdrawal from Iraq. You 

were our ambassador to Iraq. I wasn’t in Congress at the time, but 

I was in the military. 

And what we were being told at the time was that there was no 

status of forces agreement ratified by the Iraqi Parliament and 

therefore we had to pull out. That was the talking point that we 

heard over and over again. 

Currently, we have 5,000 troops in Iraq. Did the parliament ratify a status of forces agreement, and if not, how do we have 5,000 

troops there now? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. And that is a good question, Congressman. 

Give me a second to track this back, because I was involved in this 

first in the White House in the Bush administration, and then on 

the field in the Obama administration. 

As part of the—our authorities in Iraq up until 2008 were based 

on a U.N. Security Council resolution. The Iraqi government in 

2008 said this has got to end. 

So President Bush then went in and got a status of forces agreement that gave us immunities for our troops, but the cost of that 

was—to get it through the Iraqi Parliament, and everybody agreed 

that it had to go through the Iraqi Parliament to be legally binding, was we had to put a limit on how long we would stay. 

So that limit was the end of 2011. The Obama administration 

came in, and then after General Austin and I—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So in 2008, it did go through what was—— 

Ambassador JEFFREY. It did go through the parliament. That is 

right, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. It did. Okay. 
28 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Then, in 2010, General Austin and I came 

to Iraq. And soon we said, hey, we don’t want to do a withdrawal 

in 18 months. Let us recommend that we keep troops on. 

We went back and forth with the administration. President 

Obama brought us in and said, okay, we will try to negotiate a new 

status of forces agreement. 

With one exception, all of his advisers and all of them at the top 

two tiers, said, yeah, we have to get one through parliament because the last one went through parliament and, in a democratic 

system, it really won’t have legal—because what you are doing 

with a status of forces agreement is saying Jim—or you as a solider, or you as a soldier, Congresswoman, are exempt from the 

laws of a country. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Right. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. It is not something—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Critically important. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Yeah. It is critically important, but it is 

something that it takes either diplomatic status, which is a treaty, 

or it takes something that has to be legally binding in a state like 

Iraq under that constitution, and that is the parliament. 

So our position was we need a status of forces agreement. In the 

end, the Iraqis said, okay. We can put up with troops in-country, 

but we don’t want to give you a status of forces agreement that will 

go through the parliament because, hey, the Russians didn’t need 

this. Why do you need it? 

And Prime Minister Maliki said, ‘‘I will just sign a document.’’ 

Everybody, with one exception, concluded that that wasn’t acceptable, so we went without the troops at the end of 2011. 

Then in 2014, under very different emergency conditions, the 

President decided that he could live with, essentially—and I 

haven’t seen the document, but I know it exists—an executive 

agreement that our troops will have, to the extent possible, immunities. I don’t know what the language. 

It is pretty threadbare. The difference is when you have an emergency where foreign horrific forces gobble up a third of your country and kill tens of thousands of your citizens, probably we can 

send forces in in an emergency basis without those same legal protections, because the country dramatically needs us. 

In 2011, when the troops left, Congressman, there was almost no 

fighting in-country. People were—Iraqis were not quite sure why 

we wanted to stay on. That was my concern, that we would be harassed by, for example, Sadrist police, extremist judges, and other 

things, and therefore, we needed that protection. Now—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, that is more clarity than I have had on 

that the entire time I have been here. So thank you. That is a 

great answer. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. Thank you. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I want—and I have got just maybe a minute 

left. Colonel Price, how important is human intelligence to winning 

this fight? 

Colonel PRICE. I think it is absolutely critical, and I think that 

it has led to a lot of our counterterrorism successes since 2001. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Real quick, do you know offhand how many 

prisoners, how many ISIS prisoners we have captured? 
29 

Colonel PRICE. No, sir. I wouldn’t be able to answer that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. A couple of months ago, I asked the Secretary 

of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they gave me 

one. Do you know if we have captured any more than that since 

then? 

Colonel PRICE. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Is that important to being able to get human 

intelligence? 

Colonel PRICE. Sir, is your question is that taking prisoners is 

important to—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. That is my question. 

Colonel PRICE [continuing]. Gaining intelligence? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Yes. 

Colonel PRICE. Yes, I think that you can glean information from 

captured terrorists. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. We have had a conversation about hard 

power and soft power. You talked about public-private partnerships. One thing I would like to get on record. Are you familiar 

with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation? 

Colonel PRICE. No, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Anyone else on the panel familiar with it? Can 

you guys talk about whether or not that is important, and if it is 

something we as Members of Congress should be involved in making sure continues? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. It is really good bang for the buck. I have 

dealt with it. It has been a long time. I cannot talk specifics, but 

it is one of the things we sort of smile when we hear about our government doing abroad as opposed to other things that we are a little skeptical about, that are bigger, clumsier, and don’t get money 

out. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. Absolutely. It is extremely useful in providing the 

assurance that we need. Not to put aside insurance, but the assurance that investors need and traders need to make this work. I 

would agree with the ambassador. It is a big bang for the buck. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. That is good to know. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Byrne. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. I 

think I am the end here, so that is the good news for you. 

I want to go to the topic of our allies in the Middle East. I think 

if not explicit, implicit in all of your testimony is we can’t do this 

alone. Now, I am concerned about the relationship that we presently have with our allies. 

Some of us have been over there and talked to our allies. We certainly read things that they have been saying. It seems that they 

are worried that we have gotten too close to Iran at their expense. 

And so I would like for you to speak to this notion that we have 

to pick who we are going to be with. In other words, is it the situation where we can have a relationship with Iran and cause problems thereby with our other allies, our Gulf allies, our Saudi Arabia allies, our Jordanian, Egyptian allies? 
30 

Or can you thread that needle where, yeah, you can have some 

sort of a relationship with Iran and still have that very strong, important, positive relationship with our allies? 

There are some of us that are worried that we are leaving the 

girl we brought to the dance at the dance and going off dancing 

with another girl, and that is not a good thing. Or perhaps a better 

way to say that, we are in a fight and we have left our friends in 

the fight and gone to our adversary in the fight. 

I might also add that I would like, if you can, talk a little bit 

there also about how we are presently treating the president of 

Egypt, Mr. el-Sisi, who has in many ways been very strong in advocating our interests in that region. So if you could speak to our relationships with our allies and whether it is in the right place or 

whether it needs to change? 

Ambassador JEFFREY. If I could start, as I said, I have just been 

in the region, and I have talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu, the 

head of the Israeli opposition, to the king of Saudi Arabia, the 

crown prince, deputy crown prince, and to President Erdogan. 

And everybody is echoing exactly what you are saying, Congressman, that they want more American presence in the region, military, diplomatic, political, obviously economic, but they focus on 

diplomatic. And they want a stronger position against Iran. 

Now I mentioned earlier, both Iran as a source of basically pushing the area more into terror, but also as someone in Iraq and elsewhere we have to deal with. And we do have to deal with it. We 

had to deal with it one or another way on the nuclear account. We 

have to deal with it in its presence in the region. 

But here is where I draw the line. There are countries, however 

flawed, that support the international status quo and want us in 

the region. Egypt is a good example. Turkey is another, however 

difficult. 

Secondly, there are countries that while we may have to deal 

with them on things, ultimately don’t want us there and want a 

different Middle East. That is ISIS. That is Iran. And therefore 

how we deal with them has to be different. 

We had relations with the Soviet Union for 40 years. We did 

agreement after agreement with them. But we never lost sight of 

the fact they and we have totally different visions of the world. 

We and Iran have totally different visions of how the Middle 

East should be shaped up, and lest we forget that, we open the 

door to exactly the kind of problem you have described. 

Mr. JENKINS. Let me underscore that. I think there was a sense 

of perhaps ill-founded euphoria when we signed the deal with Iran 

that this would be the beginning of rapprochement and good relations. 

This was a deal. And the notion of some type of rapprochement, 

and ultimately some even spoke about strategic partnership in the 

region, I think is something that may be decades down the road, 

if ever. It is not clear that the Iranians are interested in that at 

all. 

I think, in terms of dealing with our traditional allies, as flawed 

as they are, in the region, I think we have caused them consternation, not simply because of the arrangement with Iran, but because 
31 

of some of our inconstant behavior as we went through this turbulent Arab Spring, and that caused them to—— 

Mr. BYRNE. The red line, et cetera. 

Mr. JENKINS. Various things, a whole list of things so that the 

notion was, their concern was if they face a threat, an overt, obvious threat, we would probably come and assist them. A more insidious kind of a threat, we would probably give them a lecture on 

human rights and democracy and so on. And so that caused them 

to be greatly concerned. 

Now, I am not saying we ought not to be committed to those 

things of human rights, of democracy, and so on. But we also have 

to accept that these are not values that we can automatically export and impose on others or demand as preconditions for any type 

of relationship. 

And therefore, I think that we have not been as successful as we 

could be in exploiting some of the initiatives that have come out 

of the local partners that we might do, including some of the Gulf 

countries. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you. My time is up, but I hate not to let Colonel Price respond to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Colonel, could you respond to that? 

Colonel PRICE. Sir, I wouldn’t have anything to add than what 

the other two panelists have already said. Thank you, though. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador Jeffrey, you don’t have to comment 

on this if you don’t have an opinion, but your conversation with Mr. 

Bridenstine on the Iraq status of forces agreement leads me to 

think about an issue that we have before us now. And that is the 

bill that allows victims of terrorism to sue in court other nations, 

conduct discovery, and so forth. 

The United States has more people in more countries around the 

world than anybody else. And one of the arguments that leads to 

concerns about that is that when you start eroding sovereign immunity, then that is a slippery slope that puts our people in greater danger. 

Do you have an opinion about this? And again, I don’t want—this 

is kind of out of the blue, but if you want to, fine. 

Ambassador JEFFREY. I have a very strong opinion, Mr. Chairman. Normally, I am 90 percent, 10 percent, 70 percent, 30 percent. There are a few issues I am 100 percent on. This is a really 

big mistake. This will open the door, potentially, to legal action 

against Americans by, you know, criminal courts in other—criminal 

in the sense of corrupt—in criminal courts in other countries. 

It will risk the diplomatic immunity that people like me needed 

to work in very difficult countries, communist Bulgaria, for example, in the 1980s. I have seen up close what they were trying to 

do to us and how we wrapped ourselves in that immunity. 

This I cannot—totally apart from the importance of Saudi Arabia 

in the fight against terror and the competition with Iran, against 

any country this would be a mistake. It opens the door to extraordinary threats to Americans of a legal nature around the world. 

Thank you for asking me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, no, I appreciate it. Those are some of my 

concerns as well. 
32 

One thing we hadn’t really talked about today and in my memory was the, you know, dominant shadow overhanging 9/11, and 

that was what if terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? 

We have seen ISIS use chemical weapons. It has been made public that Al Qaeda, among others, have worked on biological sorts 

of weapons. Do any of you have any comments about that prospect, 

how that might change the way we view terrorism, et cetera? 

Mr. JENKINS. I think that any use by terrorists of chemical, biological, radiological, let alone nuclear weapons, would have a profound effect on public psychology. 

I hesitate to call them weapons of mass destruction because I 

think there is a range there. And when we look at what they were 

experimenting or what capacities have, the capacity, while chemical weapons may be more accessible, the capacity would be quite 

limited. 

While radiological is one that is frequently mentioned, the socalled dirty bomb, in looking at that from an operational standpoint, the bomb part, that is the explosion, would be the source of 

casualties far more than the radioactive component, which is likely 

to be very small quantities of radioactive material. 

These are really weapons where the terrorists use them to 

achieve not so much physical effects, but maximum psychological 

effects. 

And so, beyond taking all reasonable measures to try to ensure 

that they don’t have that capacity, ranging from improving security 

as well as intervening in a preemptive fashion to ensure that if we 

have any operational intelligence that they are moving in that direction, we head it off. 

Beyond that, there is a real issue of how we would address such 

an event if it occurred, heaven forbid, and that has a lot to do with 

how we will handle the media, societal resilience. If we look at the 

psychological effects in our saturated media environment that we 

operate in and concerns of what has happened in even ordinary 

conventional attacks, whether it is Orlando or the more recent 

events, one really worries about the kind of frenzy that would be 

fueled if they were to get these weapons. 

So I am less concerned about the physical aspects of it than the 

psychological impact, which is what terror is all about. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. No. It’s a great point. Which I guess leads 

me to my last question, Colonel Price. Optimistic scenarios say that 

Iraqi military with our help clears ISIS out of Mosul in Iraq. 

It is hard for me to see how they get cleared out of Syria in the 

foreseeable future, but as I mentioned at the beginning, ISIS itself 

says, okay, we may lose our physical caliphate, but we are going 

to remain in the virtual caliphate. 

Can you comment on that? Does that mean a diminished danger? 

Just how big a deal is that if ISIS continues on in a virtual sense 

and are we equipped to deal with that? I mean, you have talked 

about the public-private partnerships to fight the ideology, but talk 

a little about a virtual caliphate. 

Colonel PRICE. Sir, and this goes back to my earlier points regarding the difficulties and challenge of saying that you are going 

to destroy the Islamic State. While you can remove their military 
33 

capability, their ability to inspire and potentially direct attacks 

with those that are outside of the theater of combat operations 

poses a significant threat to others. 

As Mr. Jenkins also alluded to earlier, the pathways of radicalization are extremely complex. And so this is an area where I think 

that academics will need to do a better job of providing more policyrelevant specific recommendations to bodies like this in that regard. 

The danger posed with the advent of the internet now is that 

there is no geographic limitations to where this threat can reside. 

And so those are the challenges that I see moving forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you all very much. Helpful and yet 

challenging, and I think that is kind of what the country faces 

going ahead. But thank you all for being here. With that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

(39) 

15 YEARS 9-11: OF AGAINST 

ISLAMIC TERRORISM 

Hearing Before the House Armed Services Committee, 

September 21,2016 

James F. Jeffrey, Washington Institute for Near East Policy 

SUMMARY 

I wish to thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss 

this extraordinarily important issue. 

The fight against Islamic terrorism in its various 

manifestations is both a key element in our national security, 

and a central component in the effort to stabilize the broader 

Middle East. While America may face greater strategic threats, 

the direct impact of large scale terrorist attack with loss of life 

in America, and the danger terrorism poses for the still 

critically-important Middle East, warrant priority attention. 

The Administration's combination of homeland defense, 

military action and political support for the region's own 

efforts against the sources of terrorism is generally sensible 

and has had some success. Any final victory will require much 

more time, continued military pressure, close cooperation with 

partners, support for a regional order that rejects terror, and 

special attention to Iran's malignant role as both a supporter of 

terror and "accelerant" for Sunni extremism. 
40 

THE SITUATION 

On the first element of our post 9/11 counter-terrorism policy, 

securing the homeland, the United States has been successful 

stopping attacks prepared outside the U.S. and limiting those 

launched by home-grown terrorists. 

On the second element, combating terrorist movements with 

military force, directly and with partners, the record is mixed. 

With the exception of ISIS and Hezbollah, radical Islamic 

terrorist movements do not hold strategic territory, although 

they have presence in 'ungoverned areas,' from Western 

Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan through Iraq, Syria, Yemen, 

Sinai, Libya, Somalia and North Africa south of Algeria. 

The U.S. was slow countering ISIS' rise, and at times hesitant 

bringing necessary force against it. That campaign is gaining 

ground slowly, but events from refugee flows to the recent 

erroneous U.S. strikes on Syrian troops demonstrate that as 

long as ISIS operates as a state it can further destabilize the 

region. But as seen in the U.S.-led Coalition's operations, 

defeating a terrorist group on the battleground undercuts 

recruiting just as terrorist military success encourages it. 

On the third element, countering the root causes of terrorism, 

the U.S. has had less success. Most analysts and the 

Administration understand that this is not primarily a job for 

the outside world. Islamic terror is both a component, 

however marginal, of the Islamic world, and a major 

contributor to the dysfunctionalities within that world that fuel 

terrorist sentiment. 

The current high levels of terror in the pursuit of political goals 

is a function of the crisis within Middle Eastern Islamic 

civilization. This crisis has antecedents that stretch back 

centuries, and gained strength with the collapse of the Ottoman 
41 

Empire. For 60 years thereafter the region witnessed a 

struggle between models for governance, from traditional 

royalty to modern military or party dictatorships, to Islamic 

movements. Beginning in 1979, with the founding of the 

Iranian Islamic Republic and the seizure of the Mecca Grand 

Mosque, and later the rise of the Tali ban and al Qaeda, Violent 

Islamic movements challenged both individual states and the 

principle of modernity with its integration of the Middle East 

into the global system. 

The underlying strength of these movements was manifest 

with the "Arab Spring" in 2011. Despite a decade of counterterrorist success after 9/11, the Arab Spring movements, while 

themselves not instigated by violent extremists, by collapsing 

four military-party dictatorships, in Libya, Syria, Egypt and 

Yemen, opened the door not to moderate governance but to 

Islamic terrorist movements. 

In addition, this revolt of populations throughout the Middle 

East, especially in Sunni Arab regimes, empowered Iran and its 

brand of Islamic extremism. As both a state and a pan-regional 

religious movement with a history of using terror, Iran poses a 

special challenge. As a state with whom we must deal 

diplomatically, and with an internal struggle between 

moderate and extremist elements we erroneously think we can 

influence, we often tolerate its use of violence, including an 

attempt to bomb a Washington restaurant in 2011 and attacks 

by Iranian surrogates from Lebanon to Azerbaijan and 

Bulgaria. 

Thus, until these societies establish truces within themselves, 

and with the outside world, based on political, economic, social 

and theological visions purified of violent extremism, terrorism 

in some form will continue. 
42 

ONE WAY FORWARD 

These three elements are a useful platform upon which the 

next Administration could build. The first, homeland defense, 

is essential. The second and third represent the offense, the 

second direct and primarily military, the third ultimately 

political, working with entities in the region to dry up sources 

of Islamic terror. Information and intelligence operations 

compliment these military and political campaigns. 

The military element, while it cannot solve this problem, is 

critical both in defending ourselves and limiting the expansion 

of Islamic terror and the creation of new 'ungoverned 

territories.' As such it complements the political effort to 

eradicate root causes of terrorist violence. 

The latter is not our job from the outside, but one for states, 

societies and peoples in the Middle East to resolve. The United 

States and our European allies can influence that outcome 

through military and political action, but can also exacerbate 

grievances and inadvertently open the way to more terror. 

Thus America cannot do this political/sociological job on its 

own, but only support partners on the margins. Sympathy for 

Sunni violent extremists in the region according to polls is very 

low; but support for political Islam, Sharia codes and generally 

a bigger role for Orthodox Islam is widespread, and this 

increases ambiguity in the face of terror and limits willingness 

to speak out. Consequently, counter-terror efforts by our 

friends are often indirect, limited, locally-crafted and slow to 

produce results. But patience, and cultural sensitivity, are 

necessary. 
43 

This sensitivity has limits. The Administration's unwillingness 

usually to speak publicly of this threat as "Islamic" is a mistake. 

Muslims understand the nature of this threat including its 

Islamic roots. We will not make enemies calling a truth true; 

failure to do so out of political correctness erodes support for 

balanced responses to terrorism among Western populations. 

But we cannot generalize, linking entire Muslim populations 

with terrorists. The former are our actual or potential allies. 

We will not win without them. 

Supporting imperfect partners in this struggle is often 

complicated. As in Egypt today we share the fight frequently 

with governments some of whose actions encourage terrorist 

recruitment. While this requires balancing, the first principle--

as America's actions are judged by other partners throughout 

the region-is to emphasize cooperation, not criticism. 

More generally, America can help rollback support for terror 

by explaining not just what we are against but what we are for. 

Aside from supporting partners, this must include 

undergirding the international order based on state 

sovereignty, non-recourse to violence, collective security and 

international law. 

America's military offensive against terror should be directed 

in particular to advance this order in the Middle East, where it 

faces multiple stresses. Thus we should have acted sooner 

against ISIS in 2014 as it gained territory and an army, and 

should have never contemplated a military withdrawal from 

Afghanistan. This military component might be less crucial 

than the region's own development of antibodies against 

Islamic terror, but military operations can give the region the 

time needed to do so. These operations need not be largescale, costly or high casualty, but must long continue with clear 
44 

victory elusive. 

Finally, our military and political campaign against Islamic 

terror must focus on Iran as well as Sunni groups. It is not an 

acceptable partner in the war against terror. First, the 

theocratic regime's Islamic roots have much in common with 

Sunni Islamic extremism. It and its surrogates use terror 

themselves, and it has had relations with al Qaeda and Taliban 

elements. In either its Islamic or Persian xenophobic guise it 

undercuts international order and state sovereignty. 

Furthermore regional states generally see it as a more 

existential threat than Sunni Islamic terror. There is thus a real 

danger that, if we are not resolute containing Iran, and if the 

Sunni-Shia conflict now seen in Syria emerges region-wide, our 

Sunni partners could see violent Sunni Islamic movements not 

as threats, but as allies against Iran. 
45 

The Honorable James Jeffrey 

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey is the Philip Solondz distinguished fellow at The Washington 

Institute where he focuses on U.S. diplomatic and military strategy in the Middle East, 

with emphasis on Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. 

One of the nation's most senior diplomats, Ambassador Jeffrey has held a series of highly 

sensitive posts in Washington D.C. and abroad. In addition to his service as ambassador in 

Ankara and Baghdad, he served as assistant to the president and deputy national security 

advisor in the George W. Bush administration, with a special focus on Iran. He previously 

served as principal deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the 

Department of State, where his responsibilities included leading the Iran policy team and 

coordinating public diplomacy. Earlier appointments included service as senior advisor on 

Iraq to the secretary of state; charge d'affaires and deputy chief of mission in Baghdad; 

deputy chief of mission in Ankara; and ambassador to Albania. 

A former infantry officer in the U.S. Army, Ambassador Jeffrey served in Gern1any and 

Vietnam from 1969 to 1976. 
46 

DISCLOSURE FORM FOR WITNESSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

INSTRUCTION TO WITNESSES: Rule 11, clause 2(g)(5), of the Rules of the U.S. 

House of Representatives for the 114'1 Congress requires nongovernmental witnesses 

appearing before House committees to include in their written statements a curriculum 

vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source of any federal contracts or grants 

(including subcontracts and subgrants), or contracts or payments originating with a 

foreign government, received during the cmTent and two previous calendar years either 

by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter 

of the hearing. This form is intended to assist witnesses appearing before the House 

Committee on Armed Services in complying with the House rule. Please note that a copy 

of these statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the witness's personal privacy 

(including home address and phone number) will be made publicly available in electronic 

fonn not later than one day after the witness's appearance before the committee. 

Witnesses may list additional grants, contracts, or payments on additional sheets, if 

necessary. 

Witness name: James F. Jeffrey 

Capacity in which appearing: (check one) 

®Individual 

QRepresentative 

If appearing in a representative capacity, name of the company, association or other 

entity being represented:----------------------

Federal Contract or Grant Information: If you or the entity you represent before the 

Committee on Armed Services has contracts (including subcontracts) or grants (including 

sub grants) with the federal government, please provide the following information: 

2016 

Federal gran!/ Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract grant ~ 

~--

··- .. ,_._ 

' --- I 

I 
47 

2015 

-------------,,--------------------------- ---------~·--::---:--------, 

Federal grant; Federal agency Dollar value Subject :-a"cnotntract or contract 5 .. 

r-----------------+---------~------------~-t--------------------~-t--~---------------

1--------+----------l-------------l------------------

! 

2014 

Federal grant; Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract grant 

--~-------

Foreign Government Contract or Payment Information: If you or the entity you 

represent before the Conunittee on Armed Services has contracts or payments originating 

from a foreign government, please provide the following information: 

2016 

Foreign contrad/ Foreign government Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment payment 

----

-~ 

~-

2 
48 

2015 

Foreign 

government 

Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment 

-----~··--·-~·--~~ -~·---·--.. ---~+--------+---------1 

f----------------·--·--j---------·-·----il---··---·-·----1 

'-------------'-----------·-----·-.L---------------· 

2014 

Foreign contract/ Foreign Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment government payment 

~ 
49 

Fifteen Years After 9/11 

A Preliminary Balance Sheet 

Brian Michael Jenkins 

CT-458 

Testimony presented before the House Armed Services Committee on September 21, 2016. 
50 

For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT458.html 

Testimonies 

RAND testimonies record testimony presented or submitted by RAND associates to federal, 

state, or local legislative committees; government-appointed commissions and panels; and 

private review and oversight bodies. 

Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 

© Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation 

RAND® is a registered trademark. 

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights 

This document and trademark( s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of 

RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of 

this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal 

use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Pennission is required from RAND to 

reproduce, or reuse in another fonn, any of its research documents for commercial use. for 

information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit 

www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. 

www.rand.org 
51 

Fifieen Years After 9111: A Preliminary Balance Sheet 

Testimony of Brian Michael Jenkins 1 

The RAND Corporation2 

Before the Committee on Armed Services 

United States House of Representatives 

September 21,2016 

Fifteen years of U.S. efforts to destroy the jihadist teJTorist enterprise have not led to 

victory in the classic military sense. Indeed, such victory may not be achievable in this 

kind of war. Instead, there have been both successes and failures in what will likely be an 

enduring task. 

Measuring progress in iJTegular warfare without front lines is always difficult. The diverse 

dimensions and multiple fronts of the continuing U.S. campaign against terrorists inspired by 

jihadist ideologies make doing so an exceptional challenge. 

In long wars, there are invariably events that, although external to the immediate conflict, can 

alter the contest and change strategic calculations.3 Indeed, such events have affected U.S. 

strategy and altered its path in the war on teJTor since September II, 200 L Some of the events 

are a result of U.S. policy, such as the decision to invade Iraq, the overthrow ofMuammar 

Qaddafi in Libya, and the decision to withdraw from Iraq. Others include the global economic 

crisis, the still-continuing political upheaval that spread across North Africa and the Middle East, 

and the emergence of a more aggressive Russia, all of which complicated U.S. efforts against the 

jihadists. And while the basic goal of destroying the terrorist enterprise of al Qaeda, its affiliates, 

and its successors remains unchanged, U.S. objectives have also been redefined. 

A thorough appreciation of the current situation requires assessing progress in different 

fields of action and different geographic theaters. A close examination of each of these aspects 

1 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this testimony are the author's alone and should not be interpreted as 

representing those of the RAND Corporation or any of the sponsors of its research. 7 

-The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make 

communities throughout the world safer and more secure. healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit. 

nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. 

3 The assessment presented in this testimony draws from the analysis in Brian Michael Jenkins, "'Fifteen Years On, 

Where Are We in the ·war on Terror'?'' CTC Sentinel, West Point, N.Y.: Combating Terrorism Center, September 

7, 2016. As of September 19,2016: 

https://www.etc.usma.edu/posts/fiftcen-ycars-on-where-are-wc-in-the-war-on-terror 
52 

suggests a complicated balance sheet. In some areas, counterterrorism efforts have been 

successful; in other areas, less so. And for every plus or minus entry, there is a "however." 

Moreover, the situation continues to be dynamic. 

On the plus side, the United States' worst fears have not been realized. There have been no 

more attacks on the scale of 9/11 and none of the worst-case scenarios that post-9/11 

extrapolations suggested. The 9111 attacks now appear to be a statistical outlier, not a forerunner 

of further escalation. Terrorists have not used weapons of mass destruction, as many expected 

they would do. The degradation of al Qaeda's operational capabilities reflects a massive U.S. 

intelligence etTort coupled with increasingly sophisticated military strategies, particularly special 

operations:1 

Contrary to the inflated rhetoric of some in government, the operational capabilities of al 

Qaeda and the Islamic State remain limited.5 Both enterprises are beneficiaries of fortune (they 

would argue, of"God's will"). They are successful opportunists. Much of their military 

successes in Syria and Iraq reflected the collapse of those governments' forces, notal Qaeda's or 

the Islamic State's military prowess. 

Neither a! Qacda nor the Islamic State has become a mass movement. The vast majority of 

Muslims express negative views ofjihadist organizations,6 but a significant minority express 

favorable views ofal Qaeda and, more recently, of the Islamic State. However, while the 

percentage of favorable ratings for the terrorists is generally low, it still represents large numbers 

of people--a deep reservoir of support. 

The constellation ofjihadist groups is not as meaningful as it appears to be. Competing for 

endorsements, al Qaeda and the Islamic State have attracted declarations of loyalty from local 

groups across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and have established a host of affiliates, 

provinces, and jihadist footholds. This is growth by acquisition and branding. A lot of it is public 

relations. Many of these groups are the products of long-standing local grievances and conflicts 

that would continue if there were no al Qaeda or Islamic State. Some groups are organizational 

assertions that represent only a handful of militants. The militants share a banner but are, for the 

most part, focused on local quarrels rather than a global jihad, and most of their violence is 

directed at local regimes and populations. There is no central command. There are no joint 

operations. The groups operate autonomously. In many cases, their connections are tenuous, 

although, with time, they could evolve into something more connected. 

4 Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, "ISIS Detainee's Information Led to 2 U.S. Airstrikes, Officials Say," New York 

Times, March 9, 20!6. 

5 The organization's name transliterates from Arabic as ai-Dawlah al-Islamiyah ti ai-'Iraq wa al-Sham (abbreviated 

as Da'ish or DAESB). In the West, it is commonly referred to as the Islamic State oflraq and the Levant (ISII.). the 

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (both abbreviated as ISIS). or simply as the 

Islamic State. Arguments abound as to which is the most accurate translation, but here f refer to the group as the 

Islamic State. 

6 See "Muslim Publics Share Concerns About Extremist Groups." Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 

September I 0. 20 !3; and Jacob Poushtcr. "In Nations with Significant Muslim Populations, Much Disdain for ISIS,'' 

Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. November 17.2015. 

2 
53 

Like all terrorists, jihadis can kill, destroy, disrupt, alarm, and oblige governments to divert 

vast resources to secure against their attacks, but terrorists still seem unable to translate their 

attacks into permanent political gain. 

The Islamic State is losing territory, and as a quasi-state entity controlling land and people, it 

can be defeated. With coalition air support and other external assistance, government forces in 

Iraq and U.S.-backed Kurdish and Arab fighters in Syria have been able to retake territory held 

by the Islamic State. Progress is slow, though faster than many analysts initially anticipated. 

Meanwhile, al Qaeda Central's command has been reduced to exhorting others to fight. 

The Islamic State has made very effective use of social media to reach a broader audience, 

although its advertisement of atrocity as evidence of its authenticity appears to have been a 

magnet for marginal and psychologically disturbed individuals. Jihadist ideology has become a 

conveyer of individual discontents. 

Continuing calls on local terrorist supporters in the West to take action have thus far 

produced only a meager response. Measured against other recent terrorist campaigns, the level of 

violence has been low. During the eight years of the Algerian War, more than 5,000 people were 

killed in France.7 More than 3,600 died during the Irish Republican Army's terrorist campaign.8 

More than 1,000 were killed during the Basque separatists' stmggle in Spain.9 With larger 

volumes of homegrown terrorists and returning foreign fighters, Europe faces a greater threat 

than the United States docs. Recent terrorist attacks there have also provoked a backlash, which 

right-wing extremists have exploited, raising the specter of civil strife. 

In the United States, the number of homegrown terrorists remains a fraction of the number 

seen in Europe. All of the recent Islamic State-inspired attacks and plots uncovered in the United 

States have been the products of a single individual or a tiny conspiracy with no direct 

connections to any organization. Nonetheless, these attacks create alann. 

But Americans are safer now than they were on 9/11. In the 15 years since those attacks, 

jihadist terrorists have been able to kill fewer than 100 people in the United States. While every 

death is a needless tragedy, this is a far better result than many feared or expected immediately 

after 9/11. And more than half of those deaths were the result of the violence in an Orlando, 

Florida, nightclub in June 2016, which many analysts see more as a mass shooting by a disturbed 

killer than as a true tetTorist attack. The Secretary of Homeland Security has warned that more 

Orlando-type terrorist attacks are possible, but even so, the loss from such events would be 

orders of magnitude below the prospects of another 9/11-scale attack. 

7 This includes casualties from violence between Algerian militants inside France, as well as from terrorist attacks 

on French targets. See Helen Chapin Metz, ed., Algeria: A Country Study. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 1994. 

8 Seamus Kelters, "Violence in the Troubles," BBC, February 2013. 

9 According to the Global Terrorism Database, 1,047 known fatalities resulted from the Basque separatist struggle in 

Spain between December 1970 and September 2014. See National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and 

Responses to Terrorism, Global Terrorism Database, web tool, College Park, Md.: University of Maryland. June 

2016. 

3 
54 

Despite the difficulty of detecting lone offenders and tiny conspiracies, federal authorities 

and local police have uncovered and thwarted about 90 percent ofthe jihadist terrorist plots. 10 

Some, however, will succeed. 

On the minus side, the targets of the American campaign have survived U.S. 

counterteiTorism efforts. AI Qaeda has survived intense U.S.-led campaigns for 15 years, and 

now the Islamic State has survived them for two years. AI Qacda and the Islamic State have been 

cornered, not crushed. No victory is final. These organizations have proven resilient and 

adaptive. They have morphed to meet new circumstances and exploit new opportunities, and 

they will continue to do so. 

The United States cannot yet claim to have dented the determination of the jihadis to 

continue their armed struggle. They derive benefit from commitment, regardless of immediate 

outcomes, which they believe remain in God's hands. Furthermore, they believe that they will 

prevail in the long run because they are on the side of God and their enemies are not. 

The jihadis have a powerful ideology that arouses extreme emotion and devotion. Observers 

cannot deny its appeal, especially to persons predisposed by other collective grievances or 

personal problems. The United States has not yet proved able to effectively combat this 

narrative, and, realistically, may not be able to do so. But on the plus side, the low numbers of 

U.S. casualties suggest that the ideology has gained little traction in America's Muslim 

communities. Personal crisis is the dominant attribute of America's jihadis. 

The Taliban has been driven from power in Afghanistan, but it remains a formidable foe and 

will not be tamed. The continued deployment of U.S. forces will be necessary to prevent both the 

Taliban from regaining control of much of Afghanistan and al Qaeda from making a comeback 

by riding the Taliban's coattails. 

The United States has come to realize that getting out of a conflict and region is difficult. 

American withdrawals in the wake of terrorist and military disasters in Lebanon and Somalia led 

to the perception by Osama bin Laden that the United States would fold easily if hit hard, and 

this perception encouraged the 9/11 attacks. What many regard as a premature withdrawal from 

Iraq and the abandonment of Libya following the overthrow ofQaddafi arguably contributed to 

the current bloody cont1icts in those countries. Following what appeared to be the successful 

containment of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the United States turned its attention away 

from Yemen to other matters, only to see a comeback by that group. Does America's homeland 

security demand open-ended military engagements in the neverending turbulence of North 

Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia? 

The fighting in Syria and Iraq will go on for the foreseeable future. Foreign powers have 

much at stake, but they have conflicting agendas and cannot impose peace from the outside. For 

local belligerents, the contests have become existential. 

Faced with loss of its territory, the Islamic State will not quit. A long insurgency is likely to 

follow. The leaders of the Islamic State fought clandestinely for years in Iraq and could go 

underground again to continue the struggle. They could relocate to another jihadist stronghold, 

creating a mobile Islamic State. Or they could try to carry out some sort of dramatic attack that 

10 See Jenkins. 2016. 

4 
55 

alters perceptions or changes the dynamics of the conflict. The declining Islamic State has 

become the launching pad of an international terrorist campaign. 

Syria and Iraq will remain fragile states, arenas of international competition, and sources of 

regional instability and continued violence. Current partitions are likely to persist. National 

institutions have eroded. Power on the ground has shifted to militias under local or foreign 

control and to the rebel formations. Neither government can restore authority throughout its 

national territory. The Shia and Kurdish portions of Iraq and the Alawite-dominated bastion in 

western Syria may be economically viable, but the poorer and less-populated Sunni areas of both 

countries cutTently dominated by the rebels and the Islamic State could become persistent 

badlands. 

The world will be dealing with the effluents of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq for years to 

come. The tens of thousands of foreign fighters who have joined the Islamic State and other 

jihadist groups have no future under Iraqi or Syrian government authority and cannot survive in 

an underground campaign. They will likely migrate to other jihadist fmmations, try to establish 

new jihadist fronts, or return home----some traumatized, some disillusioned, but some determined 

to continue their armed struggles. Again, the destruction of the Islamic State could bring about a 

spike in terrorist activity by its veterans worldwide. 

Europe is particularly vulnerable for a variety ofreasons, including continuing radicalization 

efforts that, until recently, have been left unattended for decades and that have produced large 

volumes of homegrown extremists and foreign fighters who are now retuming; under-resourced 

intelligence services and police departments; porous borders coupled with persistent obstacles to 

information-sharing; and, as a consequence of recent events, a rise in xenophobic and extremist 

right-wing political movements. 

Refugees will pose a long-term challenge to society and security. Syria's brutal 

counterinsurgency strategy has generated huge refugee flows. The refugees will not be able to 

return for the foreseeable future and are thus permanently displaced. However, given their 

volume, they also cannot be easily absorbed by neighboring countries with small populations and 

delicate sectarian balances. Migrants and at least some foreign fighters have exploited the 

refugee flow to Europe. Most of the refugees will build new homes, but the refugee flow 

includes a large proportion of single young men, always a problematic demographic and 

especially so coming from violent environments and having little education. These men will not 

easily find work or assimilate. They are the targets of radicalization. 

The United States faces a multi-tiered threat. While the threat of large-scale attacks by 

terrorist teams infiltrating the country seems to have diminished, authorities still confront the 

problem of returning foreign fighters--although the numbers are far less than those in Europe, 

and retuming Americanjihadis will not have a local underground to provide them with hideouts 

and assistance. The primary threat will come from the ability of al Qaeda and the Islamic State to 

inspire attacks by self-radicalized individuals, as well as emotionally disturbed persons seeking 

attention by associating themselves with a terrorist cause. 

The United States is better organized and equipped to combat terrorism than it was on 9/ II, 

but its citizens remain fearful. The United States' frightened, angry, and divided society remains 

the country's biggest vulnerability. Progress in degrading al Qaeda's capabilities or dismantling 

5 
56 

the Islamic State is almost completely divorced from popular perceptions. Rather than appealing 

to traditional American values of courage, self-reliance, and sense of community, the current 

political system incentivizes stoking fear. 

So, after 15 years, a lot has changed in the fight against terrorism, progress has been made, 

and Americans are safer. But the fight is not over yet. The threat continues. 

6 
57 

Brian Michael Jenkins 

Senior Adviser to the RAND President 

Santa Monica Office 

Education 

M.A. in history, University of California, Los Angeles; B.A. in fine arts, University of California, 

Los Angeles 

Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation and 

author of numerous books, reports, and articles on terrorism-related topics, including Will 

Terrorists Go Nuclear? (2008, Prometheus Books). He formerly served as chair of the 

Political Science Department at RAND. On the occasion of the I 0-year anniversary of 

9/11, Jenkins initiated a RAND effort to take stock of America's policy reactions and give 

thoughtful consideration to future strategy. That effort is presented in The Long Shadow of 

9/11: America's Response to Terrorism (Brian Michael Jenkins and John Paul Godges, 

eds., 20 II). 

Commissioned in the infantry, Jenkins became a paratrooper and a captain in the Green 

Berets. He is a decorated combat veteran, having served in the Seventh Special Forces 

Group in the Dominican Republic and with the Fifth Special Forces Group in Vietnam. He 

returned to Vietnam as a member of the Long Range Planning Task Group and received 

the Department of the Army's highest award for his service. 

In 1996, President Clinton appointed Jenkins to the White House Commission on Aviation 

Safety and Security. From 1999 to 2000, he served as adviser to the National Commission 

on Terrorism and in 2000 was appointed to the U.S. Comptroller General's Advisory 

Board. He is a research associate at the Mineta Transportation Institute, where he directs 

the continuing research on protecting surface transportation against terrorist attacks. 
58 

DISCLOSURE FOR.t'\-1 FOR WITNESSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

U.S. }lOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

INSTRUCTION TO WITNESSES: Rule 11, clause 2(g)(5), of the Rules of the U.S. 

House of Representatives for the ll4'h Congress requires nongovernmental witnesses 

appearing before House committees to include in their written statements a curriculum 

vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source of any federal contracts or grants 

(including subcontracts and subgrants), or contracts or payments originating with a 

foreign government, received during the current and two previous calendar years either 

by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter 

of the hearing. This form is intended to assist witnesses appearing before the House 

Committee on Armed Services in complying with the House rule. Please note that a copy 

of these statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the witness's personal privacy 

(including home address and phone number) will be made publicly available in electronic 

fonn not later than one day after the witness's appearance before the committee. 

Witnesses may list additional grants, contracts, or payments on additional sheets, if 

necessary. 

Witness name: Brian Jenkins 

Capacity in which appearing: (check one) 

Qlndividual 

@.Representative 

If appearing in a 1·epresentative capacity, name of the company, association or other 

entity being represented: ...!.R..!.!A:llN~D...!C~o~r-"p~o:wrail.!t.!l.io!J..n!..-____________ _ 

Federal Contract or Grant Information: If you or the entity you represent before the 

Committee on Armed Services has contracts (including subcontracts) or grants (including 

subgrants) with the federal government please provide the following information: 

2016 

Federal gran!( Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract gr~t 

Contract Office of the Secretary of Defense $53,568,731 NDRI 
59 

2015 

2014 

Foreign Government Contract or Payment Information: If you or the entity you 

represent before the Committee on Armed Services has contracts or payments originating 

from a foreign government, please provide the following information: 

2016 

Foreign contraclf Dollar value Subject of contract or 't>' 

Please see attachment p~~l!!_"""""""""" 

2 
60 

2015 

Foreign contract/ Foreign Dollar value Subject of contract or 

Please See Attachment 

I 

I 

2014 

Foreign contract/ Foreign Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment 

Please see attachment 

3 
61 

Federal Contract or Grant Information 

This testimony was done under the auspices of RAND's National Defense Research 

Institute (NDRI). 

The RAND Corporation is an independent, non-profit organization that perfonns research 

and analysis. During the time period in question (FY2014 through FY2016), RAND has 

had contracts and grants with various agencies of the federal government to perform 

research and analysis. Research has been performed for the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Justice, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of 

Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, 

the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and New York, the Intelligence Community, the 

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Social Security Administration, and 

the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. RAND has contracts with 

the Department of Defense to operate three federally funded research and development 

centers (FFRDC): PROJECT AIR FORCE for the U.S. Air Force; Arroyo Center for the 

U.S. Army; and National Defense Research Institute for the Department of Defense. 

Foreign Government Contract or Payment Information 

FY2016 

Foreign 

Contract I Payment 

Contract 

Contract 

Contract 

Contract 

Contract 

Contract 

Foreign Government 

Commonwealth of 

Australia 

Jinan Water 

Resources BureauPeoples Republic of 

China 

Japan 

South Korea 

United Arab 

Emirates 

Kurdistan Regional 

Government 

Subject of contract or 

Do ar Value payment 

$1,521,072 ! Research 

$.~.?..?~652 Research 

$207,700 Research 

.$_2~~040 Research 

$3,155,000 Research 

$2,714,789 Research 
62 

FY15 

Foreign 

FY14 

Foreign 

Contract/Payment Foreign Government 

~()ntract______ Australia 

~ommoow,hh of 

Contract apan 

nstituto De 

Contract 

I Nutricion De Centra 

I America y_~anama 

Contract Israel 

Kurdistan Regional 

Contract Government 

Contract Mongolia 

Subject of contract or 

Subject of contract or 

Dollar Value payment 

$3,923,158 Research 

$190!.000 Research 

i 

$16,300 Research 

$59,175 Research 

$3,040,001 Research 

$750,0Q()_ Research 
63 

Prepared testimony to the House Armed Services Committee 

15 Years after 9-11: The State of the Fight Against Islamic Terrorism 

LTC Bryan C. Price, Ph.D. 

September 21,2016 

1 
64 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee, I would like to 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 

l have been asked to assess and reflect on the state of our counterterrorism fight since 9-11, 

provide some lessons learned over the past 15 years, and identify gaps and opportunities that can 

help us moving forward. As an active duty ot1icer, I should note that my testimony is based on 

my academic work and my personal and professional experiences. My testimony should not be 

taken to represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Military Academy, the Army, or the 

Department of Defense. 

Congressional hearings like this provide a venue to critically analyze our counterterrorism efforts 

and in doing so, allow us to double-down on what we are doing well and identity ways to fix our 

mistakes. I can tell you that our enemies are doing the same. In 2008, U.S. forces captured a 

document produced by the Islamic State of Iraq (lSI), the precursor to the organization that today 

calls itself the Islamic State. At the time, lSI was suffering major setbacks and on the run, forced 

to retreat from major population centers and into the deserts in westem and northwestern Iraq 

and eastern Syria. The captured document is about 50 pages in length and analyzes in impressive 

detail the mistakes the group had made up to that point and more importantly, how best to correct 

them in the future. 1 This is particularly telling for two major reasons. First, even though lSI was 

experiencing its darkest hours, it was still thinking and planning how to improve its tactics, 

techniques, and procedures in the future. Islamic State members and supporters arc in this fight 

for the long-term, and it is important that we understand that. Second, it shows the group is a 

leaming organization that does not rest on its laurels or meekly accept defeat; it invests in 

consistent improvement and learning from the mistakes of its predecessors. 

Nature and evolution of the threat 

The threat posed by jihadist ten·orism has metastasized in ways few could have predicted after 9-

11. Prior to 9-11, al-Qa ·ida enjoyed a safe haven with the Tali ban in Afghanistan with few 

constraints on their freedom of movement and ability to plan spectacular attacks. With the 

exception of a few other jihadist groups in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the jihadist 

1 Harmony Document, NMEC-2007 -612449, ''An Analysis of the State of lSI," accessible at ctc.usma.edu. 

2 
65 

landscape was largely dominated by al-Qa'ida and geographically centered in the AfghanistanPakistan region. The group succeeded in conducting three strategic attacks against the United 

States in a span of three years: the 1998 attacks on our East African embassies in Kenya and 

Tanzania; the attack in 2000 against the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen; and, of course, the attacks of 

September 11, 200!. 

Today, the threat posed by jihadist terrorism is more geographically diffuse, decentralized, and 

unpredictable than it was on September 12, 200!. At the time, nobody could have predicted that 

the greatest terrorist threat to the United States 15 years later would not be al-Qa'ida, but its rival 

and once satellite group, the Islamic State. The span of jihadist influence now ranges from West 

Africa through the Levant to South and Southeast Asia, from Mali to Manila. In addition, attacks 

inspired and directed by the Islamic State by homegrown violent extremists and returning foreign 

fighters fi·om Syria and Iraq threaten the security of the United States, Canada, and Western 

Europe. The Islamic State continues to hold territory in Syria and Iraq, while al-Qa 'ida is one of 

the main players on the Syrian battlefield, resurgent in its old stomping grounds in the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan region. 2 In addition to fending otT spectacular 9-11-style attacks, the 

United States now must cope with a steady stream ofless sophisticated attacks aimed at stoking 

fear and mobilizing more individuals to the cause. 

Our national strategy documents for combating terrorism have conceptualized the threat in 

different ways over the years. The 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism declared that 

the "enemy is terrorism."3 Three years later, the next counterterrorism strategy framed the 

principal enemy in a different fashion, this time as "a transnational movement of extremist 

organizations, networks, and individuals- and their state and non-state supporters."4 The 2011 

National Strategy for Counterterrorism featured yet another conceptualization of the threat. It 

contradicted previous strategies, making "it clear that [the United States was] not at war with the 

2 Bill Raggio, "U.S. Adds al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, Leader to Terrorism List," Long War Journal, June 30, 

2016. 

3 White House, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, D.C. (February 2003). p. 1. 4 White House, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, D.C. (September 2006), p. 5. 

3 
66 

tactic of terrorism" or an amorphous transnational movement. Instead, this strategy focused U.S. 

counterterrorism efforts against a specific organization- al-Qa'ida. 5 

As other scholars have articulated, terrorism is a tactic, so declaring the tactic of terrorism as the 

enemy provided a lack of clarity in terms of the ends we were seeking.6 Narrowing the focus in 

2006 to a "transnational movement of extremist organizations" provided more speciticity, but it 

gave too much credit to an amorphous, non-monolithic jihadist threat. Pinning the 

counterterrorism rose squarely on ai-Qa ·ida in 201 I provided more focus on the most dangerous 

organization, but it underestimated the fact that the terrorist threat is dynamic and evolving. In 

my opinion, that narrow definition ran the risk of downplaying new and emerging threats. The 

Islamic State is just the latest case in point. 

What is the best way to conceptualize the threat moving forward? Since 9-11, the United States 

has conceptualized the conflict as a war e.g. the war on terror; the war against violent 

extremism; and the war against al Qaeda, its adherents, and its affiliates. This is, after all, how 

the United States has conceptualized other major security threats in the past century, whether 

they were the Axis Powers or the Axis of Evil. The threat posed by jihadist terrorism, however, 

is different. First, despite the fear that terrorism can evoke, it is not an existential threat like the 

ones we faced in World War II or in the nuclear-primed Cold War. Second, notwithstanding our 

desire and capability of reducing the threat posed by these groups, victory in this fight against 

jihad ism will not look like victory in previous wars. There will be no US.S. Missouri-like 

ceremony with groups like the Islamic State or al-Qa'ida unconditionally sun·endering to 

coalition forces. Moving forward, unsettling as it may be, another way of conceptualizing the 

threat posed by jihadist terrorism would be not as a war, but as a chronic disease like cancer. In 

this light, the fight against radical jihadism is not a national security threat that can be solved, 

defeated, or vanquished, but one that is an inevitable facet of modern life that can be managed 

and contained, but never fully eliminated. 

5 White House, National Strategy for Counterterrorism, Washington, D.C. (June 2011), pp. 2-3. 

6 See, for example, Eugene Robinson, "A Team in Need of a Plan," Washington Post, December 2, 2008, A21. 

4 
67 

Successes 

Before turning to the lessons learned over the past 15 years, it is important to acknowledge some 

important countetierrorism successes. The most important accomplishment, which cannot be 

overstated, is that U.S. counterterrorism efforts have preventedjihadists from successfully 

executing another strategic, large-scale attack against the homeland. Terrorist attacks like those 

that took place in Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando are certainly tragic, but they 

do not represent the threat to our security and way oflifc that the 9-11 attacks did. 

Second, the post-9-11 era has seen a successful investment in important kinetic elements of our 

countetierrorism eiTorts. No other country can match the U.S.'s operational and intelligence 

capabilities to identify, track down, and remove terrorists fi'om the battlefield. Such a success can 

be seen as a double-edged sword, as one could argue that our prowess in this area is one of the 

reasons policymakers have tended to conceptualize this conflict as a war, and why the military is 

routinely emphasized over other elements of national power in combating terrorism. 

Third, U.S. counterterrorism has dramatically improved its non-kinetic tools to fight jihadist 

terrorism in other areas, including the tools of counter-threat finance and diplomatic sanctions 

that freeze terrorist assets and inhibit their ability to travel abroad. 7 These tools have proven 

effective in weakening the infrastructure of terrorist groups and making it harder for them to take 

advantage of the benefits of globalization. 

Finally, intergovernmental and intragovernmental counterterrorism coordination has improved 

significantly since 9-11. The government has taken positive steps toward breaking down 

organizational stovepipes in the counterterrorism fight, and information is shared more freely 

within the intelligence community. While better than it was, the challenge of working across 

deeply ingrained organizational cultures and bureaucratic politics is I ikely to remain a persistent 

issue. Additionally, a realization that the United States could not win this conflict unilaterally has 

led to enhanced cooperation and coordination with partner countries. Programs in security force 

assistance, building partner capacity, and intelligence sharing with key partners have become, 

7 See, for example, Juan C. Zarate, Treasury's War (New York: Public Affairs, 2013). 

5 
68 

and will continue to be, integral components of any U.S. counterterrorism strategy moving 

forward. 

The critical question, then, is whether these improvements now make us safe from jihadist 

terrorism. The answer is not binary. These tools have undeniably made us safer, but Americans 

will likely never be completely safe from terrorism, at least for the foreseeable future. That said, 

we as a country can continue to mitigate the risk posed by terrorism by continuing to learn and 

evolve in response to the threat. With that in mind, the following section highlights a few of the 

lessons learned in the past 15 years that warrant consideration for improving U.S. 

counterterrorism efforts moving forward. 

Lessons Learned 

1. Understanding the importance of clearly defining our strategic objective(s) 

In cralling any elTective strategy, policymakers must identify the ends, ways, and means needed 

to achieve a particular objective. Strategic ends represent what one hopes to ultimately achieve. 

Strategic ways represent how one operates to achieve that goal, and the means are the resources 

one uses to execute the strategy. Perhaps the most important of these components are the ends. 

Without identifYing ends that are achievable, realistic, and easy to understand, it really does not 

matter how great the ways and means are. As Sun Tzu said, "Strategy without tactics is the 

slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."8 

In my professional opinion, the attacks of9-ll came as such a strategic surprise to the United 

States that, in our understandable urgency to respond quickly, we never really took the time to 

debate what our strategic ends in this conflict should be. Faced with a new and poorly 

understood threat, we collectively (government, academia, media, polity) focused more on 

debating the ways and means than on any strategic end in the fight against jihadism. Debates 

about our strategic ways and means were and remain commonplace, including arguments about 

the efficacy of preemptive strikes to stave off terrorist threats, the use of drones, detention and 

immigration policies, and non-kinetic programs to counter violent extremism. Yet there is very 

8 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Samuel B. Griffith, trans. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963). 

6 
69 

little debate that addresses the most important questions for a counterterrorism strategy: what is 

our counterterrorism strategy designed to achieve? What does success look like? What does 

progress look like? Debating ways and means is important, but having a clear vision of our 

strategic end is even more important. 

2. Understanding the importance of proper expectation management regarding our ability 

to combat the jihadist threat 

The United States has faced several serious security challenges in its history, and it has always 

found a way to overcome them. Some may view this cun·ent conllict as being no diJTerent than 

fighting totalitarianism or communism, but it is different in important ways. Regardless, calling 

it a war can·ies with it certain implications. As my fellow panelist Brian Michael Jenkins wrote 

in the ere Sentinel, it is likely that the "use of the term 'war' created unrealistic expectations" in 

the current conllict withjihadist terrorism. 9 The United States has been focused on combating 

the threat since 9-11, spending massive amounts of blood and treasure in the process, yet some 

debate whether we are any closer to "winning" this conllict. 10 

The threat posed by jihadists to U.S. security and that of our allies will endure for the foreseeable 

future, and likely for several generations. Individual groups like al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State 

will ebb and llow. 11 They may be greatly weakened or marginalized, like al-Qa 'ida was in 2011, 

but successor groups will undoubtedly emerge, especially if there is no change to the sociopolitical dynamics that foster this kind of political violence around the world. Unfortunately, as 

the United States and other nations have discovered, finding ways to change those dynamics 

effectively is extremely challenging. 

Moving forward, policymakers may consider redefining our counterterrorism goals accordingly. 

For example, when the United States publicly identifies defeat of groups like al-Qa ·ida or the 

Islamic State as its policy objective, and then fails to achieve this standard, it provides our 

9 Brian Michael Jenkins, "Fifteen Years On: Where Are We in the War on Terror?" ere Sentinel9:9 (September 

2016), pp 7-12. 10 Audrey Kurth Cronin, "The 'War on Terrorism': What Does It Mean to Win?" Journal of Strategic Studies 37:2 

(2014), pp. 174-197; Philip H. Gordon, "Can the War on Terror Be Won?" Foreign Affairs (November/December 

2007), pp. 53-66. 11 Audrey Kurth Cronin, "How al Qaeda Ends," International Security 31:1 (Summer 2006}, p. 48. 

7 
70 

enemies with ammunition to recruit and fundraise. I believe that declaring defeat as the ultimate 

goal may appeal to the country's sense of pride and match the war paradigm that has been 

constructed, but every day the Islamic State or al-Qa'ida exists hurts America's credibility and 

strengthens that of its enemies. 

We should be relentless in learning more about how to prevent attacks from occurring and 

improve our response to them when they inevitably occur, but the government plays an 

important role in creating realistic public expectations. No politician wants to appear weak on 

terrorism by publicly acknowledging that future tenwist attacks are inevitable, particularly in an 

open and free society, but they are inevitable. On the other hand, the public needs to understand 

that not every terrorist attack is a political failure, nor is it an existential threat to our national 

security. These subtleties are often lost in the public discourse, which leads to unwarranted fear, 

divisiveness, and knee-jerk decision-making. 

3. Making decapitation tactics a part of a broader strategy 

One of the defining features of U.S. counterterrorism since 9-11 has been the military's ability to 

identify, track down, and target individual terrorists on the battlefield, a task that is often done by 

unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Decapitation tactics, especially those that result in the lethal 

targeting of individual terrorists, have been a controversial component of U.S. counterterrorism 

strategy for a number reasons. 

In addition to making legal and constitutional arguments against the use of such strikes, as well 

as expressing the humanitarian concerns regarding collateral damage, critics of so-called 

decapitation strikes argue that they are inefTective and potentially counterproductive in our 

counterterrorism efforts. 12 They argue that killing terrorist leaders creates a martyr effect that 

increases recruiting and resources for the terrorist group, not to mention deep-seeded resentment 

towards the United States in the affected population. 

12 Jenna Jordan, "When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation," Security Studies 18:4 

(2009). 

8 
71 

In my own research on the subject, I focused on one of the many questions regarding this 

approach: does killing or capturing the group's leader affect the long-term survivability of the 

organization? The short answer is that it does. In an analysis of 207 groups from 1970-2008, 

killing or capturing the top terrorist leader signiticantly increased the mortality rate of terrorist 

groups. 13 The long answer is that the efficacy of such decapitation efforts are nuanced. Timing 

matters. Terrorist groups that lose their leader to kill or capture in their tirst year of existence are 

more than eight times more likely to end than groups who have not been decapitated. If 

leadership decapitation occurs I 0 years into the group's lifecycle, however, effect of decapitation 

is reduced by half. If decapitation occurs 20 years after the group has formed, then killing or 

capturing the leader may have no effect on the group's mortality (see figure bclow). 14 Al-Qa'ida 

is well over 20 years old, and the organizational roots of the Islamic State date back to 2003, 

meaning that decapitation strikes against these groups will have less of an effect on their 

mortality rates than younger groups. It is also important to emphasize that few groups 

catastrophically collapse following decapitation. Only 30% of decapitated groups in my dataset 

ended within two years of losing their leader. 15 Policymakers may ultimately decide that the 

benefits of these tactics outweigh their costs, but it is critical to recognize the tradeoffs involved. 

Figure 2. Effect of Decapitation over Time on the Hazard Ratio of Terrorist Group Survival 

\ 

\ 

~ \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ " \ 

'~\'',,,, ~ ~~ 

: ~~--------,--~--- 0 w w m ~ 

years of existence 

--- hazard ratio 

95% confidence interval 

50 ' 

13 Bryan C. Price, "Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism," 

International Security 36:4 (Spring 2012), pp. 9-46. 

14 1bid. 15 Price, "Targeting Top Terrorists," p. 43. 

9 
72 

What docs this mean for the future of targeted killings and those conducted by unmanned aerial 

systems? Regardless of where one stands in the various debates surrounding this tactic, there are 

several lessons we should learn from their use over the past 15 years. 

UAS strikes are often the preferred counterterrorism tool for a number of reasons. Successful 

strikes provide tangible effects that both the terrorists and our citizens can see and measure. They 

provide time and maneuver space for the United States and its allies to employ other elements of 

national power, like diplomacy and governance-improving measures. They force terrorist groups 

to spend resources to protect their leaders and operational security. They are oilenthe most lethal 

and precise methods counterterrorism officials can use without putting American servicemen and 

women in danger. 

UAS strikes, however, have important limitations. They are not a silver-bullet solution to the 

terrorist problem. They arc not sufficient by themselves to defeat highly capable groups like aiQa'ida and the Islamic State. In my opinion, if we make UAS strikes a cornerstone of our 

counterterrorism strategy moving forward without seriously investing in other areas, we can 

expect to experience similar levels of terrorist violence, if not more. Another caveat to note is 

that these strikes have been traditionally conducted in remote regions like the Federally 

Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan or in failed or failing states like Yemen, Somalia, and 

Syria. It is hard to conceptualize how these strikes can be conducted against terrorists operating 

in tully functional states, urban areas, and mega-cities. 

4. Acknowledging that the military is a part of any effective counterterrorism strategy, but 

it is only one part, and it may not be the most important part for long-term success 

One ofthe most significant lessons we can learn from the past 15 years is that on its own, the 

military is a necessary but not a sufficient component in the fight against jihadist terrorism. l 

have had the privilege ofbrieling many of our nation's top countetierrorism officials for the past 

four years, including those tasked with leading forces at the proverbial tip of the counterterrorism 

spear. In these engagements, there has been one common retrain. It is best encapsulated in the 

10 
73 

words of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said in 2008 that "we cannot kill or 

capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism. 16 

An oH-repeated critique of the war in Iraq was that the United States paid too little attention to 

what would happen aHer major hostilities ended. 17 If media attention is used to evaluate where 

the emphasis resides in employing elements of national power, then critics could argue we may 

be making the same mistake in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In other 

words, there is no shortage of debate over troop levels, rules of engagement, and military 

strategy, but very little discussion focuses on how the United States intends to shape political 

conditions on the ground once the Islamic State is pushed out ofthe territory that it now controls. 

In my opinion, recent history in Iraq is proofthat failure to address these socio-political concerns 

can oHcn result in other, potentially more capable jihadist groups entering the ftay. 

An emphasis on military solutions is also aided by the fact that scholarly work on other, nonkinetic means to combat jihadist terrorism has produced mixed results and few policy-relevant 

solutions. The pathways to radicalization are varied and complex, and efforts to find effective 

ways to identif'y at-risk segments of the population and interdict those who have become 

radicalized are problematic. With that said, more can be done by academics and policymakers to 

understand radicalization and ways to prevent it. There is not just a need for this type of work, 

but a demand for it. In his book The Great War of Our Time, former CIA Deputy Director and 

current CTC Senior Fellow Michael Morell wrote, "For every hour that I spent in the Situation 

Room talking about counter-radicalization, I spent a thousand hours talking about dealing with 

young men who had already become radicalized." 18 

This ratio is not unique to the United States, but it is illustrative of the reactive rather than 

proactive approach many liberal democracies take in combating terrorism. While there will 

undoubtedly be ways to improve how we respond to and react to terrorists aJler they radicalize 

and become violent, we still have a long way to go in learning how to prevent individuals from 

16 Ann Scott Tyson, "Gates Warns of Militarized Policy," Washington Post, July 16, 2008. 17 See for example Daniel Byman, "An Autopsy of the Iraq Debacle: Policy Failure or a Bridge Too Far," Security 

Studies 17 (2008), pp. 599·643. 18 Michael Morell, The Great War of Our Time (New York: Twelve, 2015), p. 319. 

11 
74 

radicalizing, or to de-radicalize those who have already gone down that path. If there is not more 

attention given to the prevention side to jihadism, we will likely see little progress in our 

counterterrorism efforts. 

5. Leveraging public-private partnerships in the war of ideas 

Just as the United States cannot unilaterally defeat jihadist groups, the government is illequipped to unilaterally fight the war of ideas. The Islamic State recognized from the outset the 

importance of this domain, and they have devoted significant resources to a building a 

propaganda campaign that is unmatched by previous jihadist groups. The group is also adept at 

manipulating and taking advantage of the terms of use policies of popular communication 

platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, that private sector companies have created. The United 

States, on the other hand, has not been able to match the size, scope, and influence of the Islamic 

State in its counter-messaging campaign, a dynamic that has existed in our efforts to combat 

jihadism since 9-11. Commenting on this gap in October of2001, Richard Holbrooke lamented, 

"how can a man in a cave [Usama bin Ladin] outcommunicate the world's leading 

communications society'?" 19 

It was not until a decade later that the United States stood up the Counterterrorism Strategic 

Communications Center (CSCC) in the State Department to compete overtly with jihadists 

online, and even then, critics argued it was undermanned, underfunded, and too bureaucratically 

hamstrung to make a serious difference. The establishment of the Global Engagement Center 

earlier this year was an attempt to address some of these limitations. Time will tell if it has more 

success than CSCC, but it faces similar challenges. 

The first challenge is overcoming the credibility gap that the United States has in strategically 

communicating to Muslim populations around the world. U.S. government attempts to persuade 

jihadist fence-sitters that they are at risk of following a perve1ted interpretation oflslam typically 

fall on deaf ears. Additionally, it should not come as a surprise that prospective jihadists do not 

turn to the U.S. State Department for career advice. 

19 Richard Hoi brooke, "Get the Message Out," Washington Post, October 28, 2001. 

12 
75 

The second challenge is that the rules and regulations associated with government messaging and 

counter-messaging programs are not conducive to speed or creativity, which are both critical 

components of effectively competing in today's technology-driven society. Additionally, these 

efforts lag behind the private sector when it comes to cutting-edge technology. The result is a 

risk-averse, slow, and uninspiring approach to counter-messaging that does not incentivize 

creativity, experimentation, or risk-taking. 

One fix for this is more public-private collaboration. The government is incentivized to fund 

such programs, but it does not have the credibility to be the primary messenger and it lacks the 

latest marketing and advertising capabilities. On the other hand, the private sector, to include 

non-governmental organizations, often has the credibility and the requisite competencies, but it is 

not financially incentivized to pursue such endeavors. A public-private collaboration seems to be 

a logical solution to this problem. To provide one relevant anecdote, in 2015 1 asked Pete Favat, 

the creative force behind the spectacularly effective Truth® anti-smoking campaign, to speak at 

a counterterrorism conference about the war of ideas. When attendees saw the obvious parallels 

and similar challenges between advertising that attempts to make teenage smoking "uncool" and 

our counterteJTorism challenge of producing messaging that can make jihad "uncool" in similar 

demographic audiences, a member asked Favat why he had not worked with the government 

beforc.20 "Nobody ever asked me," he said. 

It could be argued that jihadist organizations may always enjoy the upper hand when it comes to 

their media campaigns, but future counterterrorism strategies should do more in leveraging 

public-private partnerships to improve how we fight in this domain. 

6. Understanding the enemy and exposing their hypocrisy through their own words 

Finally, another component that should be included in any counterterrorism strategy moving 

forward is a dedicated, robust, and systematic effort to understand jihadist groups using primary 

source materials. This includes more declassification of captured documents produced by jihadist 

groups after they have been exploited for their tactical and operational value. There are several 

20 Pete Favat and Bryan C. Price, "The Truth Campaign and the War of Ideas," CTC Sentine/8:7 (July 2015), pp. 9-12 

13 
76 

organizations that study such materials and produce research that not only helps policymakers 

understand the fight and make better policy, but helps educate the public as welL 

Despite the best attempts by al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State to portray their organizations and 

their followers as being morally pure and pious, internal documents produced by these groups 

reveal their true nature. These documents uncover the hypocrisy that pervades these 

organizations by exposing rampant corruption, bureaucratic infighting, and backroom deals that 

show leaders routinely compromise their jihadi values. 

The Combating Terrorism Center's Harmony Program serves as one successful modeL The 

Hannony Program is a collaborative efTort between the Combating Terrorism Center at West 

Point and O.S. Special Operations Command that declassifies captured battlefield documents and 

makes them publicly available so that researchers can analyze them. This type of crowd-sourcing 

expands the capabilities of the govemment by attracting scholars from all over the world, and it 

ultimately increases our collective understanding ofjihadist groups, their histories, and 

trajectories. This type of research also attracts the attention of our enemies, including top terrorist 

leaders. ln a letter obtained during the Abbottabad raid and subsequently released by the Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence, Usama bin Laden wrote, "Please send all that is issued 

by the combating terrorism center of the American military."21 

21 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl/english2/Request%20for%20Documents%20from%20CTC.pdf 

14 
77 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Price 

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Price is the Director of the Combating Terrorism Center and an 

Academy Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military 

Academy at West Point. He is a former aviator and FA 59 strategist who has served in a 

variety of command and staff positions in operational assignments to include deployments 

to both Iraq and Afghanistan. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in History from the 

United States Military Academy, a Master of Arts in International Relations from St. 

Mary's University, and a Master of Arts and Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford 

University. His research interests include the organizational behavior of terrorist groups, 

counterterrorism policy, and the effects ofleadership decapitation against terrorist 

organizations. He has taught courses on terrorism, counterterrorism, international relations, 

foreign policy, and U.S. national security. LTC Price is also a Visiting Assistant Professor 

in the Department of Political Science at Rider University 
78 

DISCLOSURE FORM FOR WITNESSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

INSTRUCTION TO WITNESSES: Rule 11, clause 2(g)(5), of the Rules ofthe U.S. 

House of Representatives for the 1141

h Congress requires nongovernmental witnesses 

appearing before House committees to include in their written statements a curriculum 

vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source of any federal contracts or grants 

(including subcontracts and subgrants ), or contracts or payments originating with a 

foreign government, received during the current and two previous calendar years either 

by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter 

of the hearing. This form is intended to assist witnesses appearing before the House 

Committee on Arrned Services in complying with the !louse rule. Please note that a copy 

of these statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the witness's personal privacy 

(including home address and phone number) will be made publicly available in electronic 

form not later than one day after the witness's appearance before the committee. 

Witnesses may list additional grants, contracts, or payments on additional sheets, if 

necessary. 

Witness name: Bryan C. Price 

Capacity in which appearing: (check one) 

@Individual 

QRepresentative 

If appearing in a representative capacity, name of the company, association or other 

entity being represented:------------------------

Federal Contract or Grant Information: lfyou or the entity you represent before the 

Committee on Armed Services has contracts (including subcontracts) or grants (including 

subgrants) with the federal government, please provide the following information: 

2016 

Federal grant/ Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract grant 
79 

2015 

Federal grant/ Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract grant 

"''''" ····-· ,, ~""" """"" """ '" occ, Department of Defense - OSD Policy $79,503 Research on FTO and 13224 designations 

2014 

Federal grant/ Federal agency Dollar value Subject of contract or 

contract grant 

Foreign Government Contract or Payment Information: If you or the entity you 

represent before the Committee on Armed Services has contracts or payments originating 

from a foreign government, please provide the following information: 

2016 

Foreign contract/ Foreign government Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment payment 

--------- ------···-- ------------· 

---------- ----------

2 
80 

2015 

Foreign contract/ Foreign Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment government payment 

--------"--"-"------- --------

2014 

Foreign contract/ Foreign Dollar value Subject of contract or 

payment government payment 

3 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

(83) 

1 Counting terrorist plots can be tricky. In my own research, I have identified more than 80 

cases in which individuals in the United States, generally motivated by jihadist ideology, plotted 

terrorist attacks. These were in various states of maturity from half-baked ideas to actual attacks. An earlier list of these cases can be in Brian Michael Jenkins, Stray Dogs and Virtual 

Armies: Radicalization and Recruitment to Jihadist Terrorism in the United States since 9/11. 

Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 2011. 

The Heritage Foundation has published a chronology of 60 jihadist terrorist plots to carry out 

attacks in the United States since 9/11. Jessica Zuckerman, Steven Bucci, and James J. 

Carafano, 60 Terrorist Plots since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Counterterrorism. Washington 

DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2013. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terror 

ist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism. See also: David Inserra, ‘‘An 

Interactive Timeline of Islamist Terror Plots since 9/11. TheDailySignal, September 10, 2015. 

As of December 31, 2016, the list totals 91 cases. http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/10/a-timeline 

-of-73-islamist-terror-plots-since-911/. 

Obviously, these lists overlap. I would exclude from the Heritage chronology attempts like 

that of the Shoe bomber, the Underwear Bomber and other plots against U.S.-bound aircraft 

or trains where the plotting was done outside of the United States along with several other 

cases. Ultimately, these are judgment calls. Adding or excluding a case does not change the 

overall remarkable record of federal and local investigators in thwarting terrorist plots. With 

Continued 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. As we look back to the state of our national security 15 years ago, 

I believe that we are safer from the type of orchestrated attack that shocked us all 

on September 11, 2001. However, I am concerned that we have not plugged some 

of the security gaps that still threaten us today—gaps that led to the attacks in San 

Bernardino and Orlando, for example—and I worry that the progress of those who 

wish to do us harm has outpaced our ability to defend against nontraditional 

threats. Do you believe that we as a government and as a nation have adjusted over 

the past 15 years—militarily, politically, and mentally—so that we can make more 

rational and effective decisions to mitigate the evolving threats before us? 

Mr. JEFFREY. [No answer was available at the time of printing.] 

Mr. LANGEVIN. As we look back to the state of our national security 15 years ago, 

I believe that we are safer from the type of orchestrated attack that shocked us all 

on September 11, 2001. However, I am concerned that we have not plugged some 

of the security gaps that still threaten us today—gaps that led to the attacks in San 

Bernardino and Orlando, for example—and I worry that the progress of those who 

wish to do us harm has outpaced our ability to defend against nontraditional 

threats. Do you believe that we as a government and as a nation have adjusted over 

the past 15 years—militarily, politically, and mentally—so that we can make more 

rational and effective decisions to mitigate the evolving threats before us? 

Mr. JENKINS. I would agree with you that the United States is safer now from 

the type of orchestrated terrorist attack that we suffered on September 11, 2001. 

Over the past 15 years, through its military and intelligence efforts, the United 

States has made progress both in degrading al Qaeda’s operational capabilities and 

in creating a more hostile operating environment for terrorists. U.S. authorities 

have a much greater chance now of detecting and disrupting terrorist plots directed 

from abroad. 

The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) created new challenges, both in the Middle East and domestically, but the current military campaigns in Iraq and Syria are reducing ISIL’s territory and its operational capabilities. However, we have to anticipate that the defeat of ISIL on the ground could 

lead to a surge in terrorist attacks worldwide as foreign fighters scatter to other 

jihadist fronts or bring their violence home. We also have to recognize that the fall 

of ISIL does not mean the end of the contest—it will move underground, with perhaps greater incentive to export violence. The terrorist threat will continue. 

While further improvements can still be made in domestic intelligence, the United 

States has expanded its collection effort and has improved information-sharing within the federal government and between the federal government and state and local 

authorities. As a result, authorities have uncovered and thwarted more than 80 percent of the known domestic terrorist plots inspired from abroad since 2001.1 Without 
84 

these exclusions, my own list runs to 82 jihadist plots. Of these, 69 (or 84 percent) were uncovered and thwarted by the authorities. In the remaining 14 cases, the plotters were able to carry 

out an attempt, although these attempts were not all successful. Six of the attacks resulted in 

fatalities, not counting the attacker. Seven cases resulted in injuries. In the remaining case, the 

plotter’s bomb failed to explode. 2 Ibid. The attacks included above resulted in a total of 89 fatalities; 49 were killed in the 

Orlando attack and 14 in San Bernardino—a total of 63 (or 70.8 percent of the total. 3 ‘‘Terrorism in the United States,’’ Gallup, 2016. 

asserting that every single one of these plots would have led to a deadly attack had 

authorities not intervened, it is nonetheless a remarkable achievement. 

One hundred percent prevention is unrealistic. Further terrorist attacks will 

occur. It is important to keep in mind that the death toll from those that have occurred thus far is only a tiny fraction of the total volume of ordinary criminal violence in the United States. And, together, just two jihadist terrorist attacks (in San 

Bernardino and Orlando) account for 71 percent of the total number of fatalities 

caused by such attacks in the United States since 9/11.2

You describe these in your question as ‘‘nontraditional threats,’’ and in a way, 

these attacks—along with others, like the shooting in Chattanooga—depart from the 

previously presumed patterns of radicalization. 

Like most of the previous plots, the attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando involved a single individual or a tiny conspiracy (a husband and wife). The perpetrators of those attacks claimed allegiance to ISIL, which, in turn, claimed responsibility but played no active role beyond inspiration. Authorities also uncovered al 

Qaeda propaganda, suggesting that the specific group affiliation was not very important to the killers. 

The biographies of the Chattanooga and Orlando shooters reveal mental health 

issues, records of substance abuse, histories of aggression—these were deeply troubled individuals. Violent jihadist ideology reinforced, channeled, and justified their 

aggressive tendencies but ought not to be seen as the sole source of their inspiration. A complex skein of motives propelled the shooters to action, and it is difficult 

to weight the contribution of each. Even without a jihadist accelerant, these shooters still might have killed. 

Such attacks are not easily prevented. Violent ideologies will continue to inspire 

violent behavior. Counter-radicalization programs are worth considering, as long as 

they don’t lead to government attempts to patrol ideologies and dictate personal beliefs. And as we have often seen in the United States, violent behavior may occur 

without ideological reinforcement. The mental health problems that were present in 

some of the recent terrorist attacks indicate that, in a sense, the terrorists are not 

that far from the other shooters who have appeared in our society. 

Intelligence agencies are never omniscient, even in police states. Firearms are 

available, and crude explosive devices can be improvised. Instructions are available 

on the Internet, but decades ago, similar instruction manuals were readily available 

at any library or bookstore, and terrorists then built better bombs than they do now. 

Have we as a government and as a nation adjusted over the past 15 years—militarily, politically, and mentally—so that we can make more rational and effective 

decisions to mitigate the evolving threats? 

I believe we have, militarily and politically. Mentally, in my view, we have not. 

American society is obsessed with security. Our only question is, Are we safer now? 

That is the perspective of victimhood. It reflects fear and apprehension. According 

to recent public opinion polls3, Americans today fear terrorist attacks as much as 

they did immediately after 9/11. Yet the data show that the terrorist threat has 

been diminished, if not eliminated, and the level of risk to individual citizens is minuscule. 

We have to accept that countering terrorism will be an enduring task, but we 

need not cower in fear of defeat or domination by Islamic radicals. Instead of fueling 

fear or overpromising security, we should call upon the traditional American attributes of being tough-minded, showing true grit, and sticking together in the face 

of threats. Our common defense will come, as it always has, from our collective courage. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. As we look back to the state of our national security 15 years ago, 

I believe that we are safer from the type of orchestrated attack that shocked us all 

on September 11, 2001. However, I am concerned that we have not plugged some 

of the security gaps that still threaten us today—gaps that led to the attacks in San 

Bernardino and Orlando, for example—and I worry that the progress of those who 

wish to do us harm has outpaced our ability to defend against nontraditional 

threats. Do you believe that we as a government and as a nation have adjusted over 
85 

the past 15 years—militarily, politically, and mentally—so that we can make more 

rational and effective decisions to mitigate the evolving threats before us? 

Colonel PRICE. Unfortunately, as long as we choose to live in a free society where 

civil liberties like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures exist, 

terrorists will always have an upper hand. With that said, I believe our government 

has made great strides over the past 15 years to improve our ability to mitigate 

these nontraditional threats. Although it is always possible to improve how we collect, analyze, and act on intelligence and employ military means to mitigate the 

threat, the two largest growth areas for improving our counterterrorism efforts, in 

my opinion, lie in governance and public resilience. Speaking to the former, the 

same socio-political dynamics which helped give rise to the resurgence of the Islamic 

State and other jihadists groups in the region are very much still in play. One of 

the critical lessons learned over the past 15 years, in my opinion, is that our (e.g. 

U.S. and the West more broadly) ability to affect those socio-political dynamics in 

other countries has been and continues to be significantly limited. Additionally, the 

government can do more to educate the public on the terrorist threat currently facing the United States today. If our civil liberties are to remain status quo, we can 

reasonably expect to see more low-level, unsophisticated attacks conducted by those 

inspired by jihadist narratives, such as the attacks in San Bernardino, Orlando, 

New Jersey/New York, and more recently, Ohio State in the months and years 

ahead. In addition to investing more in countering violent extremism (CVE) programs, the government should invest in ways the United States can assist other 

countries in the region to offer more credible and alternative government structures 

than that of the Islamic State. Rhetoric is not enough. Improvements to our military 

CT efforts will only be seen on the margins, while improvements in governance and 

public resiliency should be major growth areas for U.S. CT moving forward. While 

we are safer from another catastrophic attack like the one we suffered on 9/11, due 

in large part to the improvements we have made across the board in our counterterrorism efforts, we are certainly not safe from the jihadist threat. I would not agree 

with the statement that our enemies have outpaced our ability to defend against 

nontraditional threats. I would offer, however, that our constitutional rights make 

it harder to defend against terrorism, a point that I do not believe is articulated 

very well to the public. 

Æ