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

97–977 PDF 2016

RADICALIZATION: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE RISE 

OF TERRORISM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 28, 2015 

Serial No. 114–57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

ART ARTHUR, Staff Director, Subommittee on National Security 

SARAH VANCE, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

RON DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

WILL HURD, Texas 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Member 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 28, 2015 .......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark D. Wallace, Chief Executive Officer, Counter Extremism 

Project, (Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Walter Purdy, President, Terrorism Research Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Dr. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

The Honorable Alberto M. Fernandez, Vice President, Middle East Media 

Research Institute, (Former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

Letter to Chairman DeSantis and Ranking Member Lynch from Anti-Defamation League ........................................................................................................... 28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

RADICALIZATION: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE 

RISE OF TERRORISM 

Wednesday, October 28, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Hice, Hurd, Lynch, 

Lieu and Kelly. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Today, the civilized world faces an unprecedented level of violence fueled by Islamic extremism. Recent reports indicate that 

over 30,000 people from over 100 different countries have traveled 

to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq to wage jihad since 2011. This 

group includes over 4,500 westerners and over 250 Americans who 

have attempted or actually joined Islamic supremacist groups. Both 

Al Qaeda’s global network and ISIS, among several other terrorist 

networks around the world, promote an ideology grounded in Islamic extremism and conquest. 

As the Congressional Research Service has found, these terrorists use Islamist and ideological and/or religious justification for 

the belief in the establishment of a global caliphate, a jurisdiction 

governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph 

via violent means. As the ideology of militant Islam spreads, the 

threat to the U.S. and our allies, such as Israel, persists. Terrorist 

networks like Al Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, as well as extremists, 

clerics, and others, seek to spread this ideology in order to recruit, 

engage sympathizers, and criticize the West. Indeed, this propaganda is playing a role in promoting terrorist attacks in the U.S. 

where many homegrown cases of jihadi terrorism involve the use 

of social media. 

Several sources indicate that there are 90,000 pro-ISIS tweets on 

a daily basis. While others suggest that there may be as many as 

200,000 such tweets. Accounts belonging to other foreign terrorist 

organizations, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s branch in 

Syria, have a total of over 200,000 followers and are thriving. Official Twitter accounts belonging to Jabhat al-Nusra operate much 

like those belonging to ISIS, tweeting similar extremist content. 

ISIS’ use of platforms like Twitter is highly effective. YouTube vidVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

eos depicting violent acts against Westerners are used to incite others to take up arms and wage jihad. 

While foreign fighters travel overseas for training and to make 

other terrorist connections, it’s becoming apparent that Islamic recruits in the United States and other parts of the world who are 

unable to travel to these battlegrounds do not necessarily need to 

do so in order to receive training and inspiration. They can engage 

real time with jihadists on Twitter, watch ISIS’s murderous propaganda on YouTube, view jihadi selfies on Instagram, or read religious justifications for the killing of civilians on Just Paste It. The 

question and answer Web site, ask.fm, has also become a popular 

platform for jihadists. 

Unfortunately, ISIS’s use of social media is believed to be resonating with vulnerable populations, particularly Muslim converts 

and susceptible alienated youth. However, radicalization of Americans cannot be narrowed to any single social or demographic profile. Instead, the Americans who are being radicalized to support 

and fight for Islamic extremists come from all walks of life. Those 

Americans who travel overseas to support terrorist groups can also 

incite others back home and abroad by their actions to conduct attacks and can themselves return back to the U.S. with training to 

complete terrorist attacks. 

The bottom line is that these foreign fighters have been trained 

in combat, have strong ties to terrorist groups, and recruit others 

to join the fight. The U.S. Government has the ability under the 

law to revoke passports on several grounds, including reasons of 

national security. The administration has not indicated they plan 

to utilize immigration controls as other countries have in order to 

stop foreign fighters. Nor is the danger posed to the United States 

by foreign fighters limited to those terrorists and adherents to terrorists groups who are U.S. citizens. In order to enter the United 

States, citizens of most countries must obtain visas issued at overseas embassies and consulates by the State Department. 

In 2014, the State Department issued almost 10 million visas to 

foreigners seeking temporary entry into America and nearly 

500,000 immigrant visas for permanent residence. This process 

plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and 

stopping them from entering the United States. Despite these safeguards, many of the subjects would have been convinced on terrorist charges in the United States since 9/11 are aliens who travel 

to America on visas, including student visas, tourist visas, and 

green cards. This danger is compounded by the large number of 

foreign fighters from visa-waiver countries who do not even need 

a visa to enter our country. 

Federal and State governments as well as communities have 

begun to take action to mitigate the threat of terrorist propaganda 

on social media. However, they have experienced multiple challenges in combatting this threat. The unprecedented speed with 

which people are being radicalized by violent Islamic supremacists 

is difficult to keep up with and is straining the ability of government to monitor and intercept suspects. Jihadists using increasingly secure Web sites and applications, and communicating in 

code with Americans and westerners in the United States present 

even further challenges for law enforcement in tracking, identiVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

fying, and apprehending those who seek to engage in terrorist attacks. 

In order to combat this trend, we must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to do its job. Efforts to counter and 

deter unconventional information warfare must be joined with 

other government agencies’ efforts to deal with the problem of terror on social media. 

I thank our witnesses for their testimony today and look forward 

to examining issues related to the use of social media by terrorists, 

the extent that people are being radicalized, and what can be done 

to combat this growing problem. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for holding this hearing to examine the use of social media by the 

Islamic State and would like to thank today’s witnesses for helping 

the committee with its work. 

As noted by Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, in their recent book, 

ISIS, the State of Terror, the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, 

has been prolific in its ability to exploit a variety of social media 

platforms. According to the authors, jihadists have been making 

slick propaganda for decades. But for a long time, these productions catered to an exclusive audience of potential recruits, never 

making the evening news or creeping into the collective consciousness of the West. However, in stark contrast, ISIL and its online 

supporters, continue to use Twitter, Facebook, WhatsAp, and other 

social networking services to broadcast their terrorist messages to 

a global audience in real time and significantly extend their recruitment, mobilization, and financing efforts beyond the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. 

Last week, the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point, 

again a J.M. Berger report, issued the existence or noticed the existence of over 40,000 accounts actively supporting the Islamic 

State on Twitter, with an estimated 2,000 accounts tweeting in 

English. A majority of these users form the core of the ISIL’s aggressive online recruitment strategy. This strategy is designed to 

introduce recruitment targets to the Islamic State ideology, to 

groom and lavish attention on potential recruits through subsequent communication in private online channels, and directly call 

them to jihad. Ranging from lone-wolf style attacks at home, to migration to the Islamic State. The Islamic State even has a name 

for its most enthusiastic online users, mujtahidun, or the industrious ones. Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger note that these online 

supporters are far more active than their counterparts in Jabhat 

al-Nusra in Syria or Al Shabaab in Somalia in using social media 

tactics to expand their reach. 

The impact of ISIL’s extensive social media presence has already 

been witnessed in the unprecedented flood of foreign fighters to 

Iraq and Syria. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to travel 

with several House and Senate Members in a congressional delegation to the Syrian-Turkish border, an area north of Aleppo. We 

were briefed on the lack of meaningful progress in our train and 

equip program of so-called moderate rebels. We also met with representatives of about a half dozen rebel groups. And the only comVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

mon characteristic between these groups was, one, they all saw 

Bashar al-Assad and his regime as the primary enemy. And, second, the all use WhatsAp as their platform for communication. 

As reported in September of 2015 by the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Combatting Terrorism and Foreign Travel, 

nearly 30,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Iraq and Syria in 

2011 to join the Islamic State, including an estimated 250 individuals from the United States who have sought to fight on the side 

of the extremists in ISIL conflict zones. There is also more direct 

evidence of the effect of Islamic State’s online strategy here at 

home. According to the West Point report, at least 60 individuals 

have been arrested in the United States in 2015 for criminal acts 

in support of the Islamic State. Social media has played a role in 

the recruitment or radicalization in almost every single case. 

As ranking member for the Financial Services Committee’s Task 

Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I am well aware that 

ISIL and other terrorist groups are also using social media platforms and applications to coordinate funding for terrorist activity. 

Last year, David Cohen, who was then the undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at Treasury, remarked that constraining the flow of funds to terrorist groups is, ‘‘particularly challenging in an area when social media allows anyone with an Internet connection to set himself up as an international terrorist financier.’’ In particular, we have seen that private funding networks 

are relying on social media to solicit so-called charitable donations 

and inconspicuously connect donors with recipients on the battlefield. In response to the exploitation of social media by ISIL and 

other terrorist groups, Twitter and other service providers have 

slowly, and I must say grudgingly in some cases, begun to take 

some action to suspend terrorism-linked users accounts. This is 

often called a whack-a-mole approach to countering terrorism messaging, as suspended users can simply create new accounts. Jessica 

Stern and other analysts have noted that to a certain extent this 

strategy can prove effective in disrupting for a while and eventually downgrading terrorist social networks. 

In addition, in 2011, the U.S. has established the Center for 

Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at the State Department, which for the past couple years has focused on countering 

ISIL’s propaganda. However, as noted by one of today’s witnesses, 

Ambassador Fernandez, the Center’s budget over 3 years totaled 

the cost of a single Reaper drone, $15 million, and has remained 

the same since 2012. The team of operators and editors working in 

Arabic and English has not exceeded 15 people at any one time. 

The Center has also been operating amidst congressional budget 

constraints and hiring freezes that result at Federal agencies when 

Congress continues to enact short-term funding resolutions instead 

of traditional appropriations bills. We may have some progress in 

that regard as pending. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s clear that we must do more to counter the social media threat posed by the Islamic State and other terrorist 

groups. I look forward to discussing what additional steps we can 

take to strengthen our counterterrorism strategy in this regard, as 

well as support corresponding international, private sector, law enforcement, and community efforts. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of our 

time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for 

any members who would like to submit a written statement. 

Mr. DESANTIS. We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m 

pleased to welcome Ambassador Mark Wallace, chief executive office of the Counter Extremism Project, Mr. Walter Purdy, president 

of the Terrorism Research Center, Mr. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, 

senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, vice-president of the Middle East Media 

Research Institute. Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you could please stand and raise your right 

hands. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you’re about to give 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so 

help you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. Ambassador Wallace, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK D. WALLACE 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DeSantis, 

Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you. It’s obviously my 

great pleasure and honor to appear with my distinguished colleagues on this panel. 

The hijacking and weaponization of social media platforms by extremist groups to radicalize, recruit and plan violent attacks 

against innocent people around the world is a cancer that continues 

to grow largely unabated. Today, there are at least 43,000 active 

pro-ISIS Twitter accounts endlessly amplifying and repeating 

ISIS’s messages of hate and terror. The more than 30,000 people 

who have joined ISIS from around the world is a testament to the 

power of social media. 

On September 11 of this year, CEP, the Counter Extremism 

Project, released profiles of 66 Americans who have joined or allegedly attempted to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, as well 

as other Americans accused of planning attacks on U.S. soil, providing financial assistance to extremist entities, or propagandizing 

on their behalf. These individuals have very different backgrounds 

and experiences. But the one characteristic that they seem to share 

is active participation on social media. In addition, we will soon release profiles on 54 of the most prolific social media propagandists. 

Through #CEPDigitalDistruption, we have identified and reported 

hundreds of extremists to Twitter. And in June, we expanded our 

campaign to include monitoring of Twitter accounts in French, 

Italian, German, and Turkish. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

We respect and honor our American constitutional traditions of 

free speech. Our standard for reporting an account is incitement of 

violence or direct threats. To be clear, we are concerned about various social media platforms. Our focus is on Twitter because it’s effectively the gateway drug where individuals, usually young people, 

are first exposed to propaganda and radical content. It’s, of course, 

an enormously successful platform, Twitter, ubiquitous. In many 

ways, that success has spurred its misuse by online jihadis. We 

wrote three letters to Twitter. But the response we have gotten is 

dismissive to the point of dereliction. Twitter’s attitude can be best 

summarized in a quote provided to Mother Jones magazine by a 

Twitter official. They said ‘‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s 

freedom fighter.’’ I want to repeat that. ‘‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’’ Of course, this statement is insipid 

and unserious, particularly in the context of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and 

many other extremist groups. 

Sally Jones epitomizes Twitter’s failure to act effectively. Jones, 

known on Twitter as Um Hassan Al-Bretani, is a British ISIS operative. In September, Jones issued a kill list of 100 U.S. servicemen. 

She was named an SDN global terrorist and placed on the United 

Nations’ Security Council’s sanctions list. And, yet, in October, 

Jones urged violence on Twitter against Navy Seal Veteran Robert 

O’Neil and Dillard Johnson, a former Army sergeant. If Twitter can 

beef up its policies as it relates to bullying and harassment of 

women, why does it show such dismissiveness when it comes to 

those promoting and glorifying terror. 

We stand ready to work with Congress, the administration, and 

any company, including Twitter, in finding the right mix of remedies that effectively attacks this growing problem, while protecting our values and liberties. We believe there are clear and immediate changes that all social media companies could make. First, 

one of the problems we have encountered is that many social media 

companies place accounts that have been reported into a rolling 

queue. We believe that by giving CEP as well as others like the 

State Department trusted reporting status and opening a direct 

line of communication, we can more easily and swiftly identify and 

remove the most notorious extremists online. 

Second, our campaign relies in part on our stakeholder audience 

also reporting accounts. But the reporting process on Twitter and 

other social media sites is long and cumbersome. Twitter recently 

started its streamlined reporting process for women to report harassment or stalking which is great. But reporting of violent extremists still falls into a catchall category. 

Third, while every organization is different, we believe it’s critical that America’s most important tech companies show a united 

front when it comes to fighting violent extremism. This would include a clear public policy statement that extremist activities will 

not be tolerated. 

Fourth, shine the bright spotlight of transparency in the most extremist, most egregious extremist accounts. This past year, one of 

the most influential social media jihadi, Shami Witness, was exposed and immediately shut down his accounts and stopped operating. We can collectively agree that the most egregious of cyber 

jihadis do not deserve anonymity or the right of free hate and inVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

citement of terror speech through the use of Twitter or any other 

social media platform. 

Fifth, companies should more proactively monitor content. It’s 

one thing to take down, but they should more proactively monitor. 

While no social media company has been able to resolve the problem completely, companies like Google and Facebook are at least 

willing to have a conversation and take steps to address the issue. 

I am convinced that there are strategies that we can bring to 

bear on those who attempt to hijack and weaponize social media 

platforms. The majority of social media companies are U.S. companies. But online misuse has global consequences. It’s time that social media companies like Twitter take responsibility for the global 

implications of their platform and their lack of action. 

I would respectfully ask that my full remarks be included in the 

record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Ranking 

Member Lynch. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Ambassador Wallace. 

[The statement of Mr. Wallace follows:] 

[Written statements can be found at: https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the rise-ofterrorism/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Purdy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER PURDY 

Mr. PURDY. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

today to testify on this important issue. 

As I was driving down here this morning, I thought back to almost 14 years ago when I sat with an American young man from 

California, who actually was radicalized in California, traveled 

overseas to Pakistan, made his way into Afghanistan where he 

trained in a terrorist training camp. Today, individuals here in the 

United States don’t have to undertake that journey that this individual from California did 14 years ago. Today, anybody with a 

smart phone or a computer can become radicalized online. 

Radicalization today takes so many different forms. There is no 

single pathway for someone becoming radicalized. And, yet, we see 

groups like Al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS all using social media and 

Internet today to act as enablers, providing a medium for these individuals seeking that path of self-radicalization. We see many 

works like Milestones, The Call to Global Jihad by Abu Musab al 

Suri, Constants on the Path of Jihad by Anwar al-Awlaki. These 

constant themes keep coming up in ISIS, al Nusra, and other terrorist social media, seeking to help radicalize these individuals before they go overseas and travel. These works constantly come up. 

And individuals here in the United States that have gone to social 

media sites, like some that you have mentioned in your opening 

statements, have helped to manipulate and motivate these individuals to undertake activities that run the spectrum from raising 

money, providing material support, undertaking to fight jihad here 

in the United States, traveling overseas to enter countries, Turkey, 

Greece, and others on there way to fight in Iraq and Syria, to plotting operations here in the United States. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

Many of these individuals that we see have started that process 

of radicalization by going online, using the Internet. Individuals 

like Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, exchanged dozens of 

emails with his spiritual mentor, Anwar al-Awlaki. American citizens, Awlaki and Adam Gadahn, both radicalized and recruited 

other individuals, sending people to various sites to help develop 

their radicalization. Virtual mentors today have communicated 

with potential recruits and others to deliver their messages to 

these individuals in blogs, Web sites, chatrooms, and forums. 

The use of encrypted communication today, is a barrier in which 

law enforcement has to deal with to try to get to the bottom of this 

very challenging problem. Adam Gadahn, in a propaganda video 

years ago, stated, I advise every brother who wants to work for this 

religion not to undertake any action before taking advantage of the 

wide range of resources available today on the Internet. Whether 

a group like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, or ISIS, they all constantly point 

those individuals, seeking to wage jihad, here in the United States 

or abroad to the Internet. The United States faces various challenges from homegrown violent extremists who have been 

radicalized to launch attacks here in the United States. 

We have seen a growing list of Americans who have traveled to 

fight jihad and support terrorists groups like ISIS overseas. Former 

director of the FBI, speaking about Americans who had gone overseas to fight, stated, it raises the question of whether these young 

men will one day come home. And, if so, what type of things will 

they undertake here. 

Today, any American uses social media to gain any sort of information and an understanding of all kinds of things that are placed 

on the Internet. But these individuals are using this particular 

platform so that they can gain access to jihadi fighters in theater 

and also to help recruit and radicalize potential American fighters. 

The number of American fighters that have taken selfies, created 

digital propaganda of themselves, fuse this particular effort that we 

see. 

Since the Syrian conflict escalated, we have seen over 300 Americans attempt to or travel to or fight in Syria. Individuals like Nicole Mansfield, convert to Islam from Flynt, Michigan. Individuals 

from Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida have all gone and fought 

overseas. An American from Florida, on May 25, 2014, actually 

went and became their first suicide bomber in Syria. He grew up 

in a gated community. This particular social media platform is the 

fire that fuels the radicalization and the challenge that we face. I 

would say one additional thing that we need to understand. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I appreciate it. We’ll do the written comments. 

Your time is up. And we’ll be sure to give you an opportunity in 

the question and answer to expand on that. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Purdy follows:]https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the rise-ofterrorism/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. And, now, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

STATEMENT OF DAVEED GARTENSTEIN–ROSS 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. Thank you, Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. 

What I would like to focus on is the broader view of how social 

media is having an impact on the strategic information environment. Social media is revolutionary in so many ways. And I 

thought both the opening statements and also my colleagues have 

done a very good job of articulating those ways. But, ultimately, it’s 

something which is tried and true in an armed conflict, that is, it’s 

a tool of strategic communication. 

I think in addition to understanding the direct impact of what 

ISIS is doing, we also need to understand how an organization like 

this, which has achieved a technical mastery of this strategic communication tool and also is branded by its over the top violence, we 

need to understand the impact that has on the overall information 

environment. 

Chairman DeSantis, you spoke of the many extremist groups 

today that are operating in Syria and elsewhere and the many extremist groups that use this social media platform. ISIS is much 

more adept at it than others in terms of directly mobilizing people 

to their cause. But other groups also have their communication 

strategies. 

ISIS, of course, was born out of the Al Qaeda organization and 

now challenges it for supremacy over the global jihadist movement. 

In so many ways, ISIS’s rise has harmed Al Qaeda, including stealing away their fighters, stealing away their affiliates. But in other 

ways, it’s actually benefited the Al Qaeda organization. In fact, 

today, Al Qaeda members are speaking openly of the ways in which 

ISIS’s rise has helped them in terms of their communication. 

In the latest issue of al-Risalah, which is an Al Qaeda-affiliated 

magazine published out of Syria, Usama Hamza Australi, who is 

a longtime confederate of the Al Qaeda organization, referred to 

ISIS’s rise as a blessing in disguise. The reason he gave is that previously when people talked about extremism, they talked about 

people, Australi said, who wage jihad as being the extremists. 

Australi said now they know that it’s not people who wage jihad 

that are the extremists, it’s not those who avoid it, who are moderates, rather, he said, ISIS is the extremists and we, Al Qaeda, 

are the moderates. 

Bin Laden recognized before his death that grave damage had 

been done to the Al Qaeda brand through the excesses of ISIS’s 

predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq. He wanted to re-brand Al Qaeda. 

And he wanted to do this so badly, so deeply that he even thought 

about changing the organization’s name. Well, two things have 

given Al Qaeda tremendous opportunities. One of which is the 

awful Sunni-Shia conflict which is racking the region, which has 

shifted strategic priorities and made some Sunni gulf states see Al 

Qaeda as a possible counterbalance against Iran. 

The second thing is the rise of ISIS, which Al Qaeda is able to 

use as a foil. And they’ve done this successfully, much more successfully than we’re now acknowledging and in ways that going to 

cause lasting problems for us. Right now, Al Qaeda is receiving 

state support. This is out in the open. The Jaysh al-Fatah CoaliVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

tion, of which both Al Qaeda Syrian affiliates Jabhat al-Nusra and 

also the other jihadist group, Ahrar al-Sham are leading members. 

Receives open support from Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. In 

Yemen, Al Qaeda is at the forefront of opposing the advance of Arabian-backed Houthis. Right now, Al Qaeda controls territory on the 

ground in Yemen, in Al Mukalla, which is the 5th largest city, and 

also in Aden. In fact, we’re seeing the collapse of the anti-Al Qaeda 

sanctions regime with Mohammed Islambolly, a high-level member 

in the Khorasan Group in Syria, being delisted by the United Nations just 2 days ago. 

Our own actions have an impact and prevent us from countering 

some of these negative developments. Let’s not lose sight of the fact 

that our actions are communicated acts. When you look at our policies in Syria, which the Oversight Committee also is concerned 

about, one thing that has come up in the past few weeks after Russia started bombing is complaints from officials about how Russia 

was bombing U.S.-backed rebels. 

There’s an amazing article by Ken Dilanian in the Associated 

Press, published on October 10, where he talks about how U.S. officials said that our rebels were gaining ground prior to the Russian 

bombing. When he names where those rebels were gaining ground, 

in Idlib, in Hama, it’s obvious that the people at the forefront were 

Jaysh al-Fatah, the coalition that’s associated with Al Qaeda. I 

wish this were conspiracy theory. I wish that this was hyperbole. 

But U.S. officials are talking about the fact that our rebels are 

helping Al Qaeda make advances on the ground. This is of grave 

concern because it’s ultimately a communicated act. Our actions 

are communicated acts. And if we take actions that are contrary 

to our values and arguably contrary to U.S. law, that can stop us 

from preventing this tremendous shift where Al Qaeda is operating 

much more openly. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gartenstein-Ross follows:]https:// 

oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the 

rise-of-terrorism/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ambassador Fernandez, welcome. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO M. FERNANDEZ 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Ranking Member Lynch, other members, and ladies and gentlemen. It’s a pleasure to be here with you today. 

The ISIS appeal is truly revolutionary. This is a complete package, which includes a strong ideological component, deeply rooted 

in a specific Salafi jihadist reading of the period of formative Islam, 

a political project of building the caliphate state which is seen as 

a going concern and a 21st century appeal to substantive and consequential participation, aimed at youth searching for purpose and 

identity, in a seemingly aimless, empty, and hedonistic world. 

Social media itself is not the heart of the issue. Social media is 

the accelerant. It’s the thing that turbocharges a poisonous and 

powerful message. This appeal that ISIS has, has come closer than 

that of many other Islamic terrorist groups in mainstreaming its 

discussion. Mainstreaming its world view, and has, as other witVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

nesses have said, ignited a terrorist media arms race with other 

groups seeking to match and even try to supercede what the Islamic State is doing. 

The propaganda of ISIS is connected to the reality on the ground. 

The carnage in Syria and the victories in Iraq are eventually what 

led to the declaration of the caliphate. And we saw online support 

spike through the roof in the aftermath of these events. 

What are some of the practical steps that can be taken? Number 

one, we need to realize that military victory is the best way to 

weaken ISIS propaganda appeal. There is a connection between the 

real world and the propaganda. The propaganda gets weakened 

when the reality on the ground changes. 

Number two, as has been said here, there needs to be much better policing of social media. Not all social media companies are the 

same. Facebook has made real progress. But YouTube, Twitter, and 

others lag behind. It’s overdue for Congress and for others to have 

a serious exchange of views, a serious conversation with social 

media companies on the terrorist presence on the Internet and how 

these companies violate terms of services, let alone the question of 

legality. Better policing of the Internet will decrease the number of 

ISIS propagandists and help those who are fighting it be increased. 

There is value in making it inconvenient for them. 

Number two, people are radicalized in clusters as part of a personal relationship either directly or in person online. We know that 

recent converts, 40 percent of ISIS, people who want to join ISIS 

have been recent converts in the United States. And second generation immigrants are particularly at risk. We need to empower domestic and international civil society by both consistent funding 

and training to be on all the time, to be intervening and engaging 

with these lost and questing souls, enlist people who have a talent 

for engagement. 

Third, Syria is important. ISIS seeks to present Syria as a mobilizing factor to mobilize people, to radicalize them, to get them to 

do something. They present a false image of the reality in Syria. 

And there is power in helping the Syrian people, victims of ISIS, 

survivors of ISIS violence, being able to communicate the reality on 

the ground that is often not known by a teenager in Mississippi or 

in California. 

Finally, the last point I would mention is the issue of volume. 

Volume has value. We all know in our personal lives how you may 

see an obscure idea or strange idea be amplified by social media 

because a lot of people are pushing it. It’s incredible to me that to 

this day, the United States, friendly countries in the West and in 

the Middle East are out numbered by the Islamic State. And you 

need volume to make the message more powerful. You need a network to fight a network. 

There have been some small steps taken by the State Department, by friendly governments to begin to do this but we need to 

do a lot more. You need to encourage people and inspire them like 

ISIS does to do propaganda, or you need to rent them. But you 

need to find a way to form loose, open source communities of interest or swarms that can swarm back and push back against the 

ISIS message. It’s not an impossible thing to do. It can be done. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 

We just need to have a little more will and a little more support 

in doing so. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the rise-ofterrorism/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Ambassador Wallace, you talked about how you can be in a queue 

if you report something to social media companies. But I noticed 

there was that incident, it was probably a month, month and a half 

ago, where you had an individual, a deranged individual, film him 

killing a newspaper reporter online. And he was posting that on social media. And that got taken down very quickly. And rightfully 

so. So they actually, they definitely have the capacity to do it. So 

why, what is keeping them from acting with that same swiftness 

when you’re talking about terrorism? 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s obviously the question of the moment in my opinion regarding many of the social 

media companies, particularly Twitter. There’s this notion, and 

perhaps it’s hubris, that we have a right to social media in the 

Constitution, that we have a right to tweet in the Constitution. 

Last time I checked my Constitution, there’s no reference to Twitter. It’s a reference to free speech. 

And for history, throughout our history, we have thoughtfully debated the appropriate limitations on what is legitimate speech and 

what is not legitimate speech. And I hope by this hearing and by 

my colleagues that we have that debate on the nature of some of 

these communications. Twitter does not effectively take down accounts quickly enough or search them out quickly enough when it 

does so in a variety of other areas, whether it’s stalking of women 

or other abuse, like the example that you referenced, child pornography and the like, that’s the first problem. They don’t effectively 

take it down when it’s up. Even when we report it, it’s not taken 

down quickly. 

And the second problem, if I may, is they come back. Congressman Lynch referred to the game of whack-a-mole. I used that in 

a previous testimony. And I agree that whack-a-mole is apt analogy 

except for one point. When you bop one in whack-a-mole, it comes 

back with fewer followers. But look at this example. You have a 

jihadi tweeting that he is having his 100th account suspended with 

similar names. That’s unacceptable. We have to have a debate. We 

have to have a discussion at this committee about how we, if Twitter and the likes of Twitter don’t find ways of solving this problem 

themselves, we need to find a way to help them solve that problem. 

Mr. DESANTIS. There’s this #CEPDigitalDistruption. Can you explain what that means and talk about the work you’re doing to 

combat radicalization propaganda? 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As my colleague Ambassador Fernandez said, we took it upon ourselves to create a 

hashtag to try to report accounts and digitally disrupt, if you will, 

the misuse of online accounts. So we have created a team of young 

people, many of whom are behind me today, and in offices in New 

York and Washington, where we try to report and take down as 

many accounts as we can, effectively engaging in the game of 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

whack-a-mole. And by creating a dynamic online constituency, we 

call on those that support our effort to also report accounts. But we 

need a partner. We need a partner in the likes of Twitter that will 

respond quickly to our work and hopefully the work of others. 

I think Alberto mentioned that we need to have a thousand, he 

didn’t use these words, but a thousand flowers blossom. We should 

do it in private. The government should do it in public. If we all 

report these accounts and create a network to take it down, we can 

be effective. #CEPDigitalDisruption, is our bit in that effort. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Purdy, you mentioned radicalization by people like Anwar al-Awlaki. What tools are used to radicalize individuals that I think that are the most concerning? 

Mr. PURDY. I think the tools that we constantly see people using 

on social media are videos and also referring individuals to books 

and others individuals who can help in that radicalization process. 

You know, 14 years ago when that kid from California was going 

down that pathway of radicalization, he had to go and sit with 

somebody out there in California not in a mosque but after mosque. 

Today, these individuals, anybody with a phone can now go online and they’re directed to particular sites where they can watch 

videos. They can actually be tweeting with somebody that’s in 

Syria today who is sending them back pictures and look at what 

we are doing today. And especially for young people who ISIS is 

targeting, and they are targeting young individuals. If we look at 

the people, the individuals who have been locked up the last year, 

you know, the individuals are clearly, there are certain themes, 

they’re all very young, they’re disenfranchised in one way or another. 

Last night, I just happened to, in speaking to a group, I had a 

girl come up and speak to me. And she said I was a student with 

Zachary Chesser in Falls Church, Virginia, I went to high school 

with him. And these are some things that I remember about this. 

And this individual kind of what changed as this young woman 

knew him, kind of that radicalization process. She said all of a sudden, he started growing a beard. All of a sudden, he started not 

hanging out with kids and individuals, that almost self-cloistering 

of this one individual, and then changing and not wanting anything 

to do with females or other Westerners. 

And we have seen that from Mohammad Sidique Khan in London with the July 2005 bombers that, again, self-radicalized themselves, being able to go online and go to particular sites where they 

can acquire this information. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. My time is expired. I now recognize the 

ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I want to thank you again, members of 

the panel, for your wonderful testimony. 

The struggle in dealing with some of the platforms, whether it 

be Twitter or WhatsAp or Facebook, and I acknowledge that there’s 

variable response rates from those different organizations. The 

problem we have is that we have to try to balance national security. And we all agree that ISIL is out there and is an immediate 

threat. We also have to try to balance that against the rights of 

free speech that people have. And that’s been a struggle here. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

But in reality, Ambassador Wallace, your group has been out 

there, you’re engaged in some, you’re doing some good work, and 

you’re reporting on some of these efforts over the top. Where do you 

draw the line? I mean, where do you, you know, it’s, you know, Mr. 

Purdy, you mentioned, Milestones by Qutb, you know, which was 

written probably back in the 1950s, maybe even earlier. I’m not 

sure if I’m right on that. But it’s a piece of literature that, you 

know, has led to the radicalization of some groups. But people 

might argue that has value elsewhere in Islam. 

Where do you draw the line where, you know, some postings are 

a threat and you need to take them down? And are the things that 

we are seeing now an easy call? Or do we get into this debate? 

Some of these people are clearly, you know, they’re putting videos 

on there of executions, things like that, which is an easy call I 

would imagine. What are the, you know, how does your organization do some of its greatest work in terms of forcing, you know, 

these platforms to take down some of this stuff? 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Congresswoman. Look, I think that 

the analysis and this debate that you just framed very eloquently, 

is a debate that we have had in other contexts before. We have, at 

times in our history, weighed free speech versus a challenge that 

we think is against the law or a challenge to our society. And there 

are a whole realm of areas of speech that we have said is wrong 

and we prohibited it. I think the mere fact that we’re having this 

discussion is advancing the ball. I would just hope that we could 

invigorate an even bigger discussion about that debate because 

whatever comes of it will be better than we have now in my opinion. 

But look, I think that the analysis for us is relatively simple. If 

I were to send a hunting knife to ISIS, I think all of you would say 

Wallace, you’re providing material support to ISIS because that 

hunting knife could be used for dastardly things. And a hunting 

knife is pretty benign. So, ultimately, it’s really a material support 

analysis. And we feel that if an online propagandist is recruiting, 

I think material support is seeking financial support, material support, is calling to act on behalf of a terrorist group, that’s material 

support. I think the propaganda sometimes can be a closer call. But 

I think we should have the debate. I personally believe if you are 

a Twitter person and putting out boatloads of propaganda on behalf 

of the specially designated national ISIS, I think that that should 

be prohibited speech. And I think we should have the debate on 

that. 

And so I think the analysis is already found in our law. It’s a 

question of expanding upon it and ensuring that we implement 

that in the context of social media. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. That’s helpful. Anybody else want to take a 

crack at that? I have another follow-up question in terms of, you 

know, how we actually accomplish this. There are two models that, 

and the testimony here this morning, one is sort of a cyber battalion where we would have a government screening process of, you 

know, taking these down and looking at them. 

The other is, has also been raised by testimony this morning, 

which is, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom where you have 

private society, individuals out there reporting, so that we use that 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

force multiplier, if you will, of just people online, if you see something, report it, and then have others take action on that. Is there 

a preference? 

I realize the scope of this is pretty large. But is there a preferred 

approach as to having government do it versus calling on individuals citizens to be more vigilant? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross? Doctor? 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. Sir, I think you can do both. And I think 

it’s best if you have both functioning at once. 

The main thing that I would argue for both government and also 

civil society activists is that when you look at what ISIS has done 

online, it’s very innovative. And often our own efforts aren’t as innovative and aren’t as strategic. 

In terms of strategy, and I think Ambassador Fernandez did a 

good job in his testimony of highlighting some areas of vulnerability for ISIS. I mean, there’s a group that is so invested in its 

brutality, in its, what I call its winner’s message in my testimony, 

that once chinks are put in this armor, once there are clear areas 

in which they’re failing and not living up to this image of strength, 

then they actually very much are in danger of a brand reversal. 

I would suggest that one thing we can look to in terms of bodies 

of literature is literature being put out by people in the, who do 

academic work on business. They’re very much an organization 

that has a certain brand. And it’s a brand that’s working now but 

it won’t always work. 

The second thing I’ll say in terms of innovativeness, we have 

talked about taking down their accounts individually. And that has 

a disruptive effect. But, ultimately, they’re in an online environment. We actually have the capability to literally map every single 

member of a distribution network, every single account, and take 

them all down at once, as opposed to reporting them individually. 

That’s thinking innovatively. Let’s not take them down one at a 

time, let’s take them all down. 

And Twitter is willing to take down these accounts. They don’t 

have a good algorithm to take them down. But these accounts are 

violating their terms of service. And so I think that there’s an area 

in which either from the governmental angle or from a civil society 

angle, one can help to map these networks, and you’ll have a much 

more disruptive effect if you take down the whole network as opposed to one note at a time. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognized Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, many 

people today, both liberal and conservative, say that the original 

decision to go into Iraq in 2002 was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of this country. William Buckley, for instance, 

said similar words to that shortly before he passed away. George 

Will wrote a column saying that the neoconservatives, who were 

the strongest advocates of our war, were really the most—very misnamed people, he said actually they were the most radical people 

in this city. And the more we read about this, the worse it seems 

to get. 

Just yesterday, for instance, I read that the New York Times had 

written that most of the leadership of ISIS and most of its soldiers 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

were former members of the Iraqi Army and that we made a mistake when we followed our policy of de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army shortly after we started that second war 

in Iraq. Do you gentlemen think the New York Times was correct? 

Are most of the leadership of ISIS former Iraqi military people? 

Anybody? Yes, sir. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I’m happy to take that. Yes, sir, it seems like 

the majority of the leadership are, if you talk about sheer numbers, 

have a connection with the Iraqi Army at some point. There was 

Islamization process that occurred ini the last years of Saddam 

Hussein where the Baathist ideology of the government was, they 

allowed Islamists to flourish. 

But what causes ISIS to succeed I contend are three elements. 

One is the one you mentioned, absolutely Iraq. Two, Syria. And, 

three, the rise of social media. When ISIS does its propaganda in 

2013, 2014, it’s not telling people to go fight in Iraq. It’s telling people to go fight in Syria because the Muslims are being killed in 

Syria. 

So, yes, the leadership of ISIS is overwhelmingly Iraqi with a 

strong former military component. But the message that they use, 

first was about Syria and after June of 2014 is about the caliphate. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me say this, I know some of us are wanting, 

some people will want us to go in a big way back into Syria. Yet, 

General Petraeus testified a couple of weeks ago at a Senate hearing that Putin’s foreign reserves are less than $200 billion total. 

And I saw the 60 Minutes report this past Sunday night about ISIS 

and it said in that report, and I have the transcript here, that 

we’re spending $10 million a day, in our bombing campaign, which 

has been going on for 14 months, that’s $300 million a month. Apparently over the 14 or 15 months we have been doing this, we 

have spent about $4.5 to $5 billion on this so far. 

Yet, the military man said that ISIS has been able to replace its 

bed with new recruits. So the estimated number of enemy figures 

remains unchanged, 20 to 30,000 last year, 20 to 30,000 this year. 

David Martin, the CBS correspondent, said so as long as they can 

keep bringing fighters in there, are you just shoveling sand against 

the tide? And then he ended up his report saying this, he said some 

25,000 American bombs have been dropped so far, all the firepower 

and technology of a superpower, even supersonic stealth aircraft directed against an enemy in pickup trucks intent on dragging the 

Middle East back to the Middle Ages. 

I think at some point, since we are over $18 trillion in debt, at 

some point, somebody is going to have to start showing some 

progress as far as I’m concerned. And you can do anything to ISIS, 

the worst punishment that you can come up with. But, on the other 

hand, we can’t just keep throwing billions and billions and billions 

of dollars and not showing any progress. And, in fact, some people 

think it’s helping to radicalize or even help recruit troops for ISIS. 

At some point, these people in the Middle East are going to have 

to start fighting their own wars because we can’t afford to just keep 

pouring billions or even trillions down these Middle Eastern rat 

holes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Representative 

Duncan that we’re wasting taxpayer funds by bombing in Syria. I 

have seen no good results from that. In fact, you’ve seen more Syrians flee. And that sort of goes to my question to you, Ambassador 

Fernandez, which, I agree with you, that you say that social media 

is not the cause of radicalization, it’s an accelerant. And really the 

problem is the message. Don’t you think the U.S. bombing in Syria 

actually gives a lot of propaganda to ISIL and ISIS? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, sir. If you look at the propaganda, 

actually U.S. bombing of Syria is not a major element in ISIS propaganda. It’s occasionally featured. It’s not a big element in the 

propaganda. The number one element in the propaganda is about 

building this paradise on Earth, building the caliphate. Come and 

join us, come and emigrate, let’s build the beautiful future, you 

know, like communists or Nazis talk about the beautiful future 

that you’re building. 

But if you look at the propaganda, they talk about America, the 

head of the snake. They talk about destroying America. But very 

few of their videos actually show U.S. bombing. That’s just not 

there. There are a handful. But considering the thousands of videos 

that they produce, it’s a tiny part of what they show. 

Mr. LIEU. So they don’t talk about U.S. attacking them or killing 

them? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. They talk about the U.S. in general. In other 

words, for caliphate jihadist groups, the U.S. is the enemy. The 

U.S. is the new Rome. And they were saying that before we started 

bombing them. And if we stop tomorrow, they would continue to 

say that. 

Mr. LIEU. All right. So their message is more about building the 

caliphate there? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. And conquering the world, yes. 

Mr. LIEU. And do they say conquer the world? Or they just want 

their ISIL area? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Well, they want their ISIL area obviously to 

start out with. But the new five dinar gold coin that ISIS issues, 

on the back it has a map of the world. 

And when the ISIS spokesman explained why the ISIS gold 

dinar has the map of the world, they said because that is the place 

that the rule of the law has to take place. And he says specifically 

it means three places, Constantinople, Istanbul of the Islamic 

prophecy, Rome, and America. Those are the three ones that they 

talk about. Obviously, this is rhetoric but this is what they say. 

Mr. LIEU. Okay. And your view is U.S. bombs in Syria isn’t really 

affecting their propaganda? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. It’s not a major element of it. It’s there. But it 

would rank really low in the top themes that they use. It’s not a 

primary theme in their propaganda. 

Mr. LIEU. And does their leadership sort of get upset when their 

folks get killed by U.S. bombs? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. They don’t tend to talk about that. So actually 

it does. Because, obviously, if your message is [speaking foreign 

language], the Islamic State is here to stay and growing. And why 

is it growing? Because God’s permission is that it is to grow. Anything that shows them as losers, anything that shows them as 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

going backwards is problematic with them. So when a person is 

killed, obviously, they say this person is a martyr. But they don’t 

usually play up that such and such a person was killed by the 

Americans. 

Mr. LIEU. Great. Thank you. And then, Ambassador Wallace, 

thank you for your public service. I think some of the things you 

said I do find alarming. I do not believe that the U.S. Government 

should be prohibiting speech based on content. And if you had the 

Government sort of refereeing what is propaganda or not, it becomes very problematic because if we’re going to start shutting 

down a Twitter account because someone says I support ISIL, then 

what happens if someone says, you know, I support Assad? Sort of 

a brutal dictator. 

Or what if someone says I support the Ku Klux Klan? At some 

point, how does the Government determine what message it’s going 

to shut down and what they’re not? And I’m all for what you do 

and what the private sector does and what non-profits do. I just believe that Government ought not be sitting there deciding what 

content to shut down or not. And even if we did, I believe the U.S. 

Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional. 

And so with that, I’ll let you have a chance to answer that. And 

then I’ll yield back. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Congressman Lieu. First of all, I think 

we would be remiss in saying that it’s American bombs. The President has done a very capable job, in my opinion, of establishing an 

Arab coalition that is bombing ISIS. And some of the horrible 

deaths that we have seen of soldiers in theater have been nonAmericans, such as the Jordanian pilot that was shot down and 

killed. So let’s be clear, there are Arab bombs that are going in 

there as well as American bombs. 

Look, on your point, I think there are a lot of lawyers in the 

room. I suffer that affliction as well. I don’t think this is as controversial as you think. We’re having a thoughtful discussion about 

it. We have had this thoughtful debate for years about all sorts of 

speech. And we have concluded some speech is not acceptable. For 

example, the Ku Klux Klan, I don’t mean to pick on any particular 

horribly obnoxious group that is entitled to speak freely in the 

United States, but they get to say I’m a member of the Ku Klux 

Klan if they want to. That’s not what we’re talking about here. We 

have litigated and have an entire body of law that says some 

speech is legitimate, some is not. 

I’ve offered a framework under the material support area of what 

speech should not be legitimate and should be prohibited in the 

context of terrorism. And I think that, for example, just saying 

look, ISIS, maybe they stand for some good things, I think that 

that’s a much closer call than saying please go out and kill for 

ISIS, please go out and give money to ISIS, please go out and give 

your life to ISIS. That should be prohibited speech. That’s what is 

dominating the Internet. That’s where there are tens of thousands 

of accounts. And I think we can thoughtfully have this debate on 

Capitol Hill. And your opinion is absolutely, even though I disagree 

with it, a legitimate opinion. And let’s have that debate. And let’s 

figure out where we draw the line. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

We have done it many times in the course of our law, from stalking women to abuse to screaming fire in a crowded theater, to child 

pornography. Let’s have it in the context of terrorism. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel, for 

being here today. Very interesting and informative, and I appreciate the expertise that you bring to the table. 

Mr. Purdy, let me begin with you. Can you describe for me a little bit about the program, the Mirror Image? I understand that it’s 

something that allows law enforcement to walk in the shoes of terrorists or something to that effect. Could you describe that a little 

further, please? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, the Mirror Image Training to Combat Terrorism 

is a program that we designed almost 14 years ago to allow law 

enforcement, military, and intelligence to step into the shoes of a 

terrorist cell or a network. And the idea behind that was what Sun 

Tzu said, you know, if you know the enemy and you know yourself, 

you’re going to be able to defeat them. And so what we came up 

with after a series of interviews with some individuals, we thought 

that would be a good training format to get people to understand, 

first and foremost, what is it that these terrorists are trying to do. 

One of the things I think we have to do a better job is getting 

people to understand what terrorist organizations are trying to do, 

when they put a communication online. So through Mirror Image, 

we would take a group of usually 40, 50 people, and for a week to 

2 weeks, we would show them by having them become the terrorists. 

So FBI, law enforcement, military, military intelligence, intelligence folks, so that they could then actually have done this. Usually they’re working against these individuals, but it’s been quite 

eye-opening for these individuals to see it from the other side. 

There’s a lot of great lessons that can be learned by reading what 

they’re putting out, by doing the types of things that they do, and 

trying to get people to understand that mentality so as they combat 

these individuals, they’ll have a greater understanding and hopefully be able to deal with the situation. 

Mr. HICE. So I take it then from your answer, that you believe 

this has been quite beneficial? 

Mr. PURDY. I have had military individuals tell me that when 

they went to Iraq, that training saved lives. I’ve had law enforcement individuals say what we learned in your program enabled us 

to not only understand the terrorists, but to be somewhat predictive in what a terrorist was attempting to do, so yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. Very good. Let me transition over to you, Mr. 

Gartenstein-Ross. What do you think at the end of the day is actually attracting people to ISIS caliphate? 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. I think there’s multiple things attracting 

people to the ISIS caliphate, and I think it’s somewhat different 

based upon personality and region. ISIS actually has on some of 

their web pages a different interface that you receive depending 

upon where you’re from. So if you’re looking at them and you’re a 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

westerner, for some of their pages you’ll get a different page than 

if you’re visiting from the Middle East. 

There’s two major themes in their propaganda, though, that I 

would point to, even though there are many things that draw people to them. One theme is their strength. And as I said, they’re extraordinarily brutal, but they’re okay with that because their brutality, beheading people, burning people alive, this is a sign that 

they’re winning. This is a sign of how strong they are. That’s one 

element that’s very strong in their propaganda. 

A second element, and Charlie Winter writes about this for the 

Quilliam Foundation quite well, a British-based think tank, is that 

they’re building a state. Ambassador Fernandez referred to that. 

That’s the second aspect of their propaganda, both destruction and 

also creation. I think both of those are vulnerable to disruption. On 

the one hand, we were talking a bit about whether the bombing 

campaign has accomplished anything or not. Right now ISIS is 

fighting a ten-front war. And if you look at the past couple of 

months, they’ve experienced one loss after another. One of their 

biggest gains this year, Ramadi is under a lot of pressure, and the 

odds are that they will lose it within the next, say, 8 to 10 months. 

Mr. HICE. If you don’t mind, let me interrupt. I’ve only got about 

a minute left, and just open up a question to each of you. Do any 

of you know what the objectives are of our current administration 

in terms of their national strategy for countering violent extremism? 

So I take it from that that no one knows what our strategy is? 

Mr. WALLACE. The President in his global summit did identify 

two areas he was focusing on. We might disagree with the parameters of that, but he focused on training youth around the world 

to promote tolerance and counterextremist ideology at a young person’s level and generation. 

Mr. HICE. Promote tolerance, to extremism? 

Mr. WALLACE. You asked a question about what they’re doing. 

I’m not taking sides here, sir. I’m giving you—— 

Mr. HICE. No. I’m just asking is that what you’re saying? 

Mr. WALLACE. I’m saying that’s what I understand that the 

President’s agenda is. I’m giving you an answer to your question. 

I’m not in the administration, sir. I’m retired. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired. It’s amazing to me that we virtually have no understanding 

of our own administration’s strategy to deal with this, and what we 

do hear of what we believe is quite alarming. With that I yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Chairman. Ambassador Wallace, good to 

see you again. It’s been a while since we served together in New 

York City. One of my first questions to you, sir, you mentioned the 

individual that had opened and closed a hundred accounts on Twitter by a different name. What are you proposing that Twitter do 

about it? 

Mr. WALLACE. Good to see you, Congressman, and thank you for 

allowing me to appear before you as well. Look, there was a classic 

example—I’m sure some of my colleagues remember Mujahideen 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Miski, who was one of the most influential and prolific online 

Jihadis. He was a Somali-American, ostensibly tweeting from Somalia, we believe Iraq, ostensibly killed in a drone strike a couple 

months ago, I think guys? He was incredibly prolific and kept coming back. I don’t remember his handle, but it was Mujahideen 

Miski 1, take him down; Mujahideen Miski 2, take him down. And 

it would rely on people reporting his reappearance on Twitter. I 

think that—— 

Mr. HURD. But them taking it down, isn’t that a success? 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, only after reporting. I think where Twitter 

was failing to act is that if he was coming back with a similar handle, it shouldn’t have had to go through the fairly elaborate timeconsuming reporting process. Twitter should have said, ah, Miski 

2 is up; let’s make sure he goes down. Miski 3 is up, and take him 

down. And I think that’s one of the issues with Twitter that they 

are not actively policing in an appropriate manner terrorist content 

on their site. 

Mr. HURD. So when your organization gets this kind of information, do you share it directly with Twitter? Do you share it with 

Department of Homeland Security? Do you share it with the FBI? 

Who do you share it with? 

Mr. WALLACE. We certainly share it with Twitter, and we go 

through a reporting process with Twitter that is somewhat cumbersome. 

One of the things we have called for, I have called for in this testimony and in previous testimony, is that trusted reporting status, 

which would be an accelerated reporting status, be granted to organizations like ours, the State Department, some of my colleagues 

on this panel, so that it doesn’t fall into the really lengthy queue, 

if you will, of reporting on Twitter. Twitter has not yet taken that 

action. We think that’s a problem. 

Mr. HURD. And earlier, I just want to make sure I’m clear. Were 

you intimating that social media companies are providing material 

support to terrorists? 

Mr. WALLACE. I’m intimating that we should have that debate, 

and I’m glad that you asked the question, and I’m honored to provide the answer. 

Mr. HURD. So when I was chasing al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the back alleys, they would do things called night letters. They would write a letter, leave it on a doorstep. Were we intimating that the companies that produce pens and pencils and 

paper are providing material support to terrorists? 

Mr. WALLACE. I’ve learned over the years never to throw back a 

question to a Congressman asking you a question, but I’m really 

tempted to do it here. What about a Kalashnikov? What about a 

hunting knife? I think that our debate has to say—we have debated in other contexts—maybe a pencil isn’t material support, but 

is a hunting knife, is an AK, is an RPG—— 

Mr. HURD. I would say that providing an account on a social 

media site is not material support. I don’t think that’s anywhere 

close to material support, and if these organizations are not providing taking these things down, they are working closely with the 

Department of Homeland Security, so, you know, I have to echo the 

concerns of the gentleman from California about talking about, you 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

know, yes, it’s good to have a conversation about legitimate speech, 

but I think we also need to be careful. You’re not a law enforcement organization. You’re not an intelligence organization. The information that you’re getting is valuable and should be shared, but 

saying that that’s the only game in town is a little scary. 

Changing gears, there is a Professor visiting from Spain at GW, 

Dr. Javier Lesaca, who has done some very interesting work on 

analyzing the social media campaigns of ISIS. They do four campaigns a day. They are promoting it in about 49 different languages. My question is, who’s out there that is countering this ideology? And Ambassador, I think it was you. Actually it was, Mr. 

Gartenstein-Ross. You mentioned about some of these failures of 

ISIS. They talk about we have this great functioning land. Well, 

it’s not really that much. They encourage young men to come to 

ISIS to fight the infidel, but you’re more likely to get a bomb 

dropped on your head or a bullet in your chest than you are to find 

excitement in Syria. 

This is not just for the Federal Government to get that message 

out. It’s going to be organizations. It’s going to be our Sunni Arab 

partners in the region. Who is out there actually countering that 

narrative and getting that message out? 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. First of all, let me say, sir, that I agree 

with that entirely; that it’s not just a job for the Federal Government. You have a variety of centers which are out there. A new one 

just opened up in the United Arab Emirates in Doha, which is a 

joint project of the United States and the Emirates. There is also 

a communication center which has opened in Nigeria. So I think 

there are some interesting innovations that are occurring to try to 

get the U.S. to work with local partners. 

Secondly, there are civil society organizations, such as the one 

that I mentioned before, the Quilliam Foundation, which really 

makes an effort to try to push out messages that are counter to extremism. I think some of the more effective ones highlight the bad 

experiences of defectors, people who had gone over to fight with the 

Islamic State and found that life was not all they will thought it 

was cracked up to be. I think that those are both important. 

A third thing I would mention is that tech companies, in fact, are 

starting to get interested in this problem set. If you look at, and 

this has been reported openly, Google/YouTube has helped to finance content providers, including in the United States, people 

from the American Muslim community who have messages that are 

quite contrary to ISIS’ message. 

I will highlight one final thing, which is one problem I have 

noted in the past, is that ISIS is very good at creating facts, fabricating facts. It makes itself look stronger than it actually is. One 

area where I think the U.S. Government can play a very good role, 

is contacting media companies with fact sheets in order to counteract ISIS’ exaggerations. Things like when they convinced CNN, 

BBC and others that they controlled the City of Derna in Libya, 

which they never did. Being able to quickly reach out to media contacts and say you’ve reported this. ISIS has fabricated this fact. It’s 

untrue. Would be helpful in just making sure that the mainstream 

media doesn’t end up echoing ISIS’ propaganda. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. Thank you, sir. I apologize for going over 

time, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. We just have so many people in the queue. You 

know so, I appreciate it I know Steve and I are going to have some 

more questions, so we will go another round if the other members 

are inclined. 

We have been talking about, and rightfully so, about the propaganda about this global caliphate, and it’s a Sunni caliphate, but 

I’ve noted that Ayatollah Khamenei will tweet different things. And 

so, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, what is the use of social media from the 

Shi’ite extremism side? Iran is establishing a de facto Shi’ite caliphate from Afghanistan border to the Mediterranei Sea. Are we 

seeing the same type of techniques being used with groups like 

Hezbollah and other Shi’ite-type militias in maybe Yemen or these 

places? 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. Yes. We’re seeing similar efforts on the 

Shia side. Most of the U.S.’ focus is on Sunni extremism Groups. 

An analyst who I think has done the best work on this is Phillip 

Smyth, S-m-y-t-h, who wrote a monograph earlier this year published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and he 

has looked extensively at the Shia side. They also do mobilize people through social media. They also have Shia foreign fighters who 

have gone to Syria, and it presents a similar set of concerns. 

The final thing I’ll mention there is similar to ISIS, they also are 

committing grave atrocities in the theater. While they have different goals than ISIS, it also is something which definitely is running counter to U.S. strategic interests and is causing a major humanitarian problem. 

Mr. DESANTIS. How has the social media affected terrorism by 

Palestinians against Israelis? You look at the intifada at the beginning of the last decade, yeah, we had the Internet and stuff, but 

you didn’t have Twitter. You didn’t have a lot of this stuff. Now I 

know that there’s some significant problems that are going on. Are 

we seeing evidence that some of the Palestinian terrorists are using 

social media? 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. Definitely. There’s a few ways in which 

social media has a direct impact on the current nascent intifada 

that’s occurring. One is it’s a remarkable mobilizing tool, a tool 

that can get people out, and you can have a campaign that’s organized via social media. People can organize much more quickly 

than they could previously. 

The second thing, one thing that is occurring in this conflict is 

people will be out there, for example, throwing rocks with a cell 

phone, and they’ll be taking photos of what’s happening to them in 

order to try to make sure that they capture the moment, and it 

gets disseminated right away via social media. So it is a tool that 

is at the center of how people are tactically thinking about this current conflict. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yeah. Great. And then when someone gets killed, 

I know some of the headlines in the New York Times will say 

somebody was killed by a rock. They won’t say how or what. But 

anyway, that’s not a discussion for today. 

I’m going to yield to Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to move out a little bit from the tactical discussion we have been having about social media, and really look at this from a long-term strategy perspective, if we could for a minute. I spent a lot of time on this 

issue. I’m one of the few that have actually gone in and talked to 

Assad. It was a few years ago. 

The paradox here, and I’ve also met with all the major rebel 

groups, and I just have to say that this idea, this fiction of a moderate Syrian rebel group, I just don’t see it, not in the terms of 

moderate in which we in this country regard it. The rebel groups 

are all Islamic. Oddly enough, Assad—and he needs to go. No question about it. There’s a consensus around that, except for Russia, 

and Iran and Hezbollah—ironically he provides protection to religious minorities. And the people that we’re trying to help, and I’ve 

met with them in refugee camps in Gaziantep and Istanbul, and 

they’re Islamists, and they want to create an Islamic republic, and 

to various degrees they want to you push an Islamic model on the 

population there. So it provides a real dilemma for us. 

I heard some testimony yesterday from Secretary of Defense Ash 

Carter and also our new head of the Joint Chiefs General Dunford. 

They were talking about Sergeant Wheeler, who had been killed recently—God bless him and his family—they were talking about the 

possibility of putting boots on the ground to some extent for various 

purposes. And, you know, if you go back to what Petraeus talked 

about in Iraq in terms of the surge, and giving the Iraqis an opportunity there, his counterinsurgency program, which was very successful until we handed off our responsibility, that was the weak 

link in his program, in the program. I see it as the weak link in 

any program that we have with Syria. 

When you look at Syria, let’s just say that Assad goes, either by 

negotiation or by force, who do we hand off to? And I’m not saying 

that rhetorically. I’m asking you who do we hand off to? Because 

I met with all the players there, and I mean, I don’t think anyone 

is there, of any significant strength that we could say, okay, we 

have killed the bad guys, if that’s what we say, or we have taken 

out Assad. Here you go. I don’t see anybody in the region now who 

could actually step in and do that job. 

So if you’re going to envision using boots on the ground, you 

ought to have an exit strategy going in, and I just don’t see anybody we can hand off to, and I think we would be sucked into a 

program where we would have to try to create—this is Iraq 2.0. We 

would have to create the institutions to guide that country for the 

next 10, 15, 20 years. 

So I know you weren’t hired to do this job, but you all spend time 

on this. If you could just share your thoughts on that whole question with me, that would be great. Mr. Wallace? 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you for your thoughts. I would say that 

Assad isn’t doing the job. That’s one thing that we do have to remember. I mean, obviously Syria is an area of incredible turmoil 

and otherwise, and on top of him not doing the job because of the 

incredible migration problem, the human suffering, the toll that’s 

taken there, he is the proxy of Iran. 

And I think we have somewhat overlooked it. Not to any intention, I don’t want to speak for my colleagues, but the State DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:50 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97977.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

ment and I think all of us still view Iran as the number one state 

sponsor of terrorism in the world. I think the growth of Iranian hegemony in the region has stoked the sectarian flames. So I think 

we have a double problem, if you will. 

Assad isn’t the solution. Whether or not he was before, it’s beyond, we don’t get a do-over; it’s whatever it is now, and I think 

we can do much better in finding a better solution than Assad and 

the human suffering that’s taking there. And hopefully not continue to empower the Iranian regime, which I think has been regrettably on the march since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen. 

So I think that the concern is Iran and the number of Shia and 

the destabilizing influence of Iran throughout the region that is 

stoking sectarian conflict and radicalizing a lot of the Sunnis. Let’s 

remember that the initial rebellion against Assad was actually 

pretty secular. It was a secular movement against Assad, but that 

was a missed opportunity. 

Mr. LYNCH. Doctor, I know you wanted to say something. 

Mr. GARTENSTEIN-ROSS. Definitely. I think your question is a 

very important one, and that’s why I mentioned this issue of Syria 

in my testimony. I think that fundamentally what we’re doing in 

Syria and what we do in Syria is linked to our ability to communicate effectively on these issues related to extremism. 

I agree with the way that you framed it, very strongly. And I 

think that in addition to the fact that these groups are not what 

we would regard as moderates, we should also note that the degree 

to which al Qaeda is strong enough on the ground, to really dominate Syrian factions whom we’d otherwise consider to be acceptable. So in the LA Times on October the 12th, you have an individual Major Fares Bayoush, who is the commander of Fursan al 

Haq, which is a group we regard as moderate, who said that some 

level of coordination with al Qaeda-style groups was unavoidable. 

The quote in the LA Times is: ‘‘There is something misunderstood by world powers. We have to work with Nusra Front and 

other groups to fight the regime in Daesh. And this is someone who 

we’re supporting. That reenforces your point about the rebels, and 

we have to fundamentally understand that. 

TOW missiles have used—American-provided TOW missiles— 

have been used to help these groups advance. Now let me be clear. 

It’s not because the United States is trying to help bad people. I 

think that the U.S. tends to be on the side of the angels, but we’re 

very blunderingly on the side of the angels. And i think that we 

wanted to back this uprising against Assad, given that he is an 

awful dictator; but then when the facts on the ground revealed just 

how much extremism factions were dominating the battle space, we 

didn’t adapt. Our adaptation was to go ahead and help those extremist factions to gain ground. 

In addition to the idea of boots on the ground being problematic 

for the reasons that you articulated, I think it is important to look 

into our current policies. As I said, following the Russian bombing, 

U.S. officials were talking about how they considered our program 

of supporting rebels through the CIA to be successful. And when 

they looked at rebel successes, they were pointing to areas where 

the Nusra Front gained ground. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

If we are backing rebels to help al Qaeda to make advances, we 

can’t very credibly say to Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, to Turkey, now 

you guys cant support them because we are indirectly, not directly, 

but we’re doing the same thing. And I think that’s something 

which is very much worth looking into, including the question of 

whether these programs violate U.S. law and the question of 

whether Congress has been given accurate information on what the 

rebel groups that we’re supporting are doing. 

Mr. LYNCH. I’m not sure—Ambassador would you mind? 

Mr. DESANTIS. No. 

Mr. LYNCH. Ambassador Fernandez. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I would make two points. I think your concerns 

are well-stated. There’s a shocking reality, and that is that for millions of Sunni Arab Muslims in that area of Syria and Iraq, ISIS 

and ISIS rule seems as the least bad option considering the alternatives. That’s a huge problem for U.S. foreign policy. 

And on the rebels, on the moderate rebels, you’re right. There 

was a golden opportunity earlier this year when Jaish al-Fatah, the 

Conquest Army supported by the Qataris and the Saudis took over 

most of the province of Idlib. This is a province that had a Christian minority and a Druze minority, so it was a golden opportunity 

for them to prove their tolerance. And the Christian minority has 

ceased to exist. They’re gone. And the Druze minority was forced 

to convert to Islam. The rhetoric was a little less nasty, a little less 

hard-edged than ISIS, but the reality was not much different. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. Mr. Purdy? 

Mr. PURDY. I think one of the problems we have is when the 

United States removes leaders, and there’s kind of a historical list 

in this region from Egypt, kind of Mubarak; Yemen, Salah; Libya, 

Qadhafi, and now we’re talking about removing or trying to push 

out the President of Syria. None of these individuals are angels, 

and none of these individuals are people that our government 

would want to truly be partnered with because of human rights 

and all kinds of other things that these individuals have done. 

But when we push one of these leaders out, there always seems 

to be a void that’s created. And what we constantly see is whether 

it’s AQAP or al Qaeda or ISIS, they step right into that void that 

we have had a hand in kind of creating. And it causes us long-term 

problems because now as we try to look and gain coalition partners 

and other people, there are other geopolitical reasons maybe why 

somebody might want to go in and do something or hold back because we have created a mess. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I went way over time. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. No problem. I’d like to thank our witnesses for 

taking the time to appear before us today. If there’s no further 

business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(27) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 97977.001
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 97977.002
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 97977.003
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 97977.004
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 97977.005
33 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 97977.006