Let's give a warm Georgia Tech.

Welcome to our guest John.

Afternoon ladies and

gentlemen is my microphone
on can you hear me.

Well I'm honored and
delighted to be here at Georgia Tech and

I very much think Chapman and
everybody else.

So seated with the business school.

Welcoming me here so nicely.

I'd like to talk today about one
of the major issues of our time.

And that is radical Islamism.

It's an issue about which I think there is
been insufficient public discussion and

I think it's extremely important for our
nation to be talking about it particularly

since we are in the midst of
a climate these days where we

are actively being discouraged even by
our own government from talking about it.

Radical Islamism is something
that is different from

Islam Islam is a religion
Islam ism is an ideology.

This is a very simplistic
division of definitions here but

it raises the problem of
what is authentic is SMOP.

It is a problem because Islam is
decentralized it does not have

a pope who is in a position to
determine what doctrinal orthodoxy is.

And you know for years.

Moslems.

Have worshiped God have
been guided by their faith

towards leading a moral life towards
having a spiritual life in such

a way that has enabled them to co-exist
with other faiths and minority groups.

But there are some within Islam.

Who selectively choose
passages from the Koran.

In order to justify pursuing
a political agenda.

These people argue with considerable
validity that Islam covers all

the elements of life.

And therefore establishing
an Islamic political order

is not just legitimate but
is actually required by Allah.

They too can argue that those
Moslems who reject the their

radical political agenda are also being
selective in their reading of the Koran.

So there's a debate between
two sides of Islam and

this is of course a very simplistic
reduction of a much more

complicated mosaic into these
two larger schools of thought.

But in light of this debate.

One can conclude that Islam itself
does contain seeds of Islamism.

But one has to recognise that the two
are not necessarily identical.

Let me just observe here in this
connection a couple of facts.

One is that most Moslems do not wish
to live under the share re a law

that is and as it is interpreted
by the Islamists there been.

Only a couple of countries which
have consistently had this

type of law Saudi Arabia Afghanistan
from time to time.

So Don And now a couple of other countries
are moving in that direction but

basically most people
in the Islamic world.

And remember most of the Islam ik world is
not necessarily even in the Arab world.

It is in India Indonesia and
such places these folks do not want and

have not lived under do not live and
have not wanted to live

under under the Islamists
interpretation of Sharia law.

Another fact.

Sharia law does not come close to
covering all the different aspects

of civil commercial and

private life that are covered by
a modern western legal systems.

And so therefore Sharia is is a.

Is a law that is incomplete and
therefore subject to

a great deal of interpretation by those
who happen to have political authority.

And finally and it's Martin not
just interpretation it is subject

to augmentation by those who
have political authority.

And finally let me observe that Islamists
are divided amongst themselves some of

them seek some kind of a Sharia
based political order but

others believe that the Sharia based
Cayle if it which they're seeking.

Is so divinely ordained.

That they are even justified
in killing innocent

people on a mass scale to achieve
this political objective.

So you've got two variants
even within Islam ism itself.

And both of these variants.

Nevertheless are of concern to the United
States and much of the rest of the world.

Some Islamists including many in
this country may not be terrorists.

But they do wish to transform our
constitutional order into a Shari'a

based system.

They wish to establish up.

Parallel track for
Shari'a within America and

they do so by promoting such
things as Shari'ah finance.

And and a separate.

Jurisprudence that has manifested
itself in such cases is where a new and

New Jersey judge acquitted.

A Moslem who had serially
raped his wife and

he was acquitted on the grounds
that he was a mosque and

that this was not inconsistent
with Sharia law and so therefore.

New Jersey the civil.

Judge lets Shari'a law dictate
the criminal code of the United States.

The.

In addition to this kind of
thing some Islamists work

to obscure our understanding of
the nature of Islamism itself.

Many of them such as members
of the Muslim Brotherhood and

its front organizations in the United
States promote anti blasphemy laws.

Self-censorship and

outright censorship about any of the
matters that I'm even discussing right now

many of them conflate Islam
in Islam with Islamism.

And have and if sufficiently penetrated
U.S. government agencies with

their censors that one cannot
refer today in the U.S.

government in most agencies
to Islamist based terrorism.

One cannot refer to jihad.

When cannot refer to even to Islam
at all when it comes to linking it

with any kinds of terrorist
activity around the world.

One example is that you'll recall
that Major Hasan committed

this act of mass murder at Fort Hood.

And when he was shooting at everybody
he accompanied his massacre

with shouts of Allah akbar
which means God is great.

He was a self admitted
self radicalized Islamist.

And and yet within the United States
government within the US Army.

One cannot call this an example
of Islam as terrorism.

It has to be called workplace violence.

Another example one of our own professors
at the Institute of World Politics.

Who teaches a course on a Salaam ist.

Threat doctrine a unique course in
the United States also does briefs

people in U.S. government agencies and the
armed forces about some of these matters.

He does powerpoint presentations and
he cannot make an amendment

to one of his own powerpoint slides
without submitting submitting that slide

to a group of anonymous Islamic
censors who will determine whether or

not that slight is offensive to Islam.

So the circumstances today are such
that in the United States government.

One cannot discuss these things openly.

We cannot discuss openly in other
words the nature of our enemy.

And if we can't discuss him.

How can we impart the knowledge of him.

That is necessary to defeat him or

to prove it to prevent him
from subverting our system.

And let there be no mistake the subversion
of our constitutional order is

something that is not impossible
it is just as possible as the well

advanced subversion of several
European states where Shari'a

has it as stablished a parallel track and
where national law and.

Force meant cannot venture into certain
unassimilated Islamic communities.

So what's the state of affairs
with Islamist terrorism today and

with our efforts to combat it.

Modern Islamist terrorism burst on the
scene in the one nine hundred ninety S.

with the very first bombing attempt
at the World Trade Center and

then later as everyone knows
with the attacks on nine eleven.

Al Qaeda was its leading organization.

Although one has to recognize that
the radical Shiite sect as being run

by the the was in Iran
has been another force

of radical Islamism that has justify
terrorist action against innocents.

And also there is
the Muslim Brotherhood that has.

That is also part of this larger movement.

We have treated our war against these
forces principly as a military and

as an intelligence problem.

We've eliminated successfully a very
large portion of the al Qaeda leadership

deprived of it and deprived it of its base
in Afghanistan and earlier even in Sudan.

Several elements of it.

However of secured footholds in Yemen.

Earlier in Iraq although they
overplayed their hand there and

they even have footholds in such faraway
places as the Philippines in Indonesia.

Most recently they found
opportunities in Libya Syria and

Mali somehow despite
huge military efforts and

then not just not just those places you
could say we could refer to the Boko Haram

group in Nigeria as well and
other smaller groups in other places.

So now despite our huge military
efforts including drone attacks.

Has found ways to stay alive and relevant.

How is this possible.

The answer has very much to do with
the fact that al-Qaeda is not an army.

It is an ideological movement.

It has methods there for
over a generation.

Our military efforts while proper and
necessary in some of these places

I liken to shooting mosquitoes.

You can shoot a lot of mosquitoes.

But the problem is that there is
something going on in the fever swamp.

And that is the recruitment
of new mosquitoes.

And that is not a military problem and

it's only partially into
an intelligence problem.

It is a.

A political problem an ideological
problem propaganda problem and

a religious doctrines problem.

And so where are we in the effort to stop
this recruitment process of those who

think it is legitimate to kill innocents
to achieve their political agenda.

Well this is a war of ideas.

This is a war of ideas.

It's a war of information.

It's a war of propaganda.

And unfortunately we have very few if any
serious warriors in this ideological war.

You know what is an ideological
warrior is there any

agency of the US government that actually
recruits ideological warriors and

ideological warriors somebody who
knows something about wars of ideas.

Who knows the methods of wars of
ideas who knows the history of wars

of ideas and who actually may
know something about ideas.

The ideas of the enemy.

Our own ideas but
if you want to be clear about it.

It isn't the war of ideas may
not be between our ideas and

the ideas of the enemy.

The war.
Actually maybe between the ideas of our

enemy and the enemy and
the enemies of our enemy.

About which later.

So you know how do we address

this challenge this war of ideas
information propaganda and so

on the first thing you have to
do is look at the ideology.

The Islamist terrorism of the modern
era began with elements of

the Muslim Brotherhood and
sowed a radical Saudi one hobbyists and

not all lobbyists are radical.

Who were inspired by
the ideology of Saeed to.

This ideology has been has been
described by Douglas threw sand as

totalitarian Islam ism.

It exhibits various elements of
totalitarian ideology not the least of

which is ruthlessness based
on a doctrine of the end

justifies the means a doctrine
in a way of might makes right.

This ideology bases itself
on a strain of Islam.

That rejects the existence
of the natural law.

What's the natural law
the philosophers understand this to be

the law that is written
on the human heart.

Whether it is written by God or so

that it is somehow placed there
because it interferes in nature.

A thousand years ago.

Islam had natural law
philosophers one of the most

prominent of which was of a row us.

But those for loss aversion were defeated
by followers of a new strain of Islam.

That posited that Allah is pure will.

That Allah wills everything that happens
that Allah creates every minute.

Every second of every day.

Well there are Muslims who acknowledge
that Hillman's have free will.

But there are others who argue otherwise
that everything is Allah's will.

Some of these people argue in effect.

That if I will say everything.

Then if a terrorist succeeds in
committing his terrorist act.

Then Allah must have willed
that such radical thinking

in effect equates the terrorists
will with us Will.

And this is a modern variant
of the Communist or the Nazi

reject rejecting God's moral standards or

nature's moral standards and
substituting them with his own.

If then moral standards are those
that are willed by the terrorist.

Are there such things as moral
standards objective moral standards.

If I look and will a terrorist attack.

Then can Allah's rules or
moral standards even be discerned.

Let's be clear.

You know.

Well first of all this whole
question of whether these these.

Whether Al has rules can be discerned.

Is it was a question that
was raised by Pope Benedict.

In his famous speech at Reagan spirit
University just a couple of years ago.

He basically asked is a law.

Reasonable.

Is it reasonable to justify.

Islands on religious grounds.

Can lot can I WAS laws be discerned by
human reason the God of Christians and

Jews is reasonable His laws can
be discerned by right reason

we can see this by the way
the work of people from

the pre-Christian era like Aristotle
who was analyzing what is the good

and then his work was taken up by
Thomas Aquinas in medieval times

to show that there was absolutely nothing
inconsistent with the right reason.

Discerning what is the good and
showing how that reasonable discernment

of the good is precisely parallel with
God's understanding of what is good.

Benedict effectively

by asking these questions lobbed
a Salvato in the war of ideas.

Challenging all Moslems
to an open dialogue.

So as to give those who reject to tell a
Tarion Islam ism an opportunity to reclaim

reclaim that Islam which has
the possibility of coexisting with others.

Now this is just one little example
of entering into those rooms of

philosophy and theology that
are necessarily part of a war of ideas.

It's a classic element of political and
ideological warfare.

But what is this kind of warfare.

If we're in a war of ideas.

What is political warfare what is
ideological warfare gave you one little

example which challenges.

Those mausoleums to think
clearly about whether or

not it is true that a terrorist
will is equated with Allah's will.

Well.

As we study state craft at
the Institute of World Politics.

We recognize that there are things that
one has to do before you start killing

people where war is really has to
be a matter of last resort and

in the case of the terrorist
attack against us.

Those who attacked us from
their bases in Afghanistan

deserved their got their just deserts and
are getting them.

But there's that fever
swamp where there are there

is the recruitment of new terrorists and
so what what do you do about all of this.

How do you deal with
an ideological movement.

Well well.

You can even take a little page
of what we do to each other in

our own country in the end
domestic political battles.

What is this political warfare.

Well one principle is
you discredit your enemy

you demonstrate what
he does that is wrong.

That is evil.

And there are plenty of examples where
where this discrediting can be can be done

and where where we can expose
criminal terrorist activity.

You can divide the ranks
of the enemy organization.

You can you can turn one side
against another you can isolate

the worst elements within within
the ranks of the of the adversary.

You can try to separate
the enemy from his allies.

You can try to to six to isolate the enemy
from his population support base.

You can try to isolate the enemy
from his recruitment base.

You can you can compete for
the minds of potential recruits.

In in Minneapolis today there are so
Mali American youth.

Who are lower watching some one or
another of the five hundred al Qaeda

websites which are basically
going on helping to recruit

people around the world with nary any
response from the United States and

some of these people are being recruited
specifically into the ranks of Al-Shabaab

which is the radical Islamist
group in Somalia and

some of them head over there and get
terrorism training and so on and so forth.

There's absolutely no support being given
to some of the Somali American leaders

faithful mausoleums who want their
religion to be a religion and

not a radical political ideology and.

And these are people who are trying
struggling as they might to try to ensure

that their young people don't get sucked
in to the romance of suicidal terrorism.

And.

They have no budgets.

They have they're trying to do this stuff
on their own These are poor people by and

large you know and not not very high
up on the on the income scale and

but but imagine there is such a thing
as a Somali American radio station

in Minneapolis and
is hoping to broadcast some kind of

of content that would help compete for
the minds of those.

Of the Somali youth.

And there is actually some radio content

that exists along these lines in one of
the only places in the U.S. government.

It happens to be on the Somali
service of the Voice of America but

unfortunately there's been a law that
prevents Voice of America programming

to be distributed domestically
within the United States and so

this radio station cannot use it and the
recruitment process proceeds unimpeded.

Anyway.

One of the other elements of.

Worse.
And

this leads directly into
the obvious thing of fighting.

People who believe that killing innocents
is the moral thing to do is to support

their op the opposition forces and
to do this seriously.

Sometimes this has to be done covertly
because if you support somebody

the Congress for example passed a law
a few couple of years ago the some kind of

Iran opposition support act or
whatever it was called and.

And they did the they
appropriated a you know.

One hundred million dollars or whatever
it was to try to send to Iraq Iran and.

Opposition groups but unfortunately.

All of this was a way out in the open and
it was as if those opposition groups

particularly within Iran were
being given a big bull's eye

right on their forehead by the U.S.
government and there is.

They were being discredited by their
essential the by their association with

the United States.

This is why for example during the Cold
War we did this kind of ideological

warfare information warfare and
it had to be done covertly we would we for

example there was a huge battle of ideas
in Europe over whether communist ideas or

Democratic ideas were going to survive.

And and.

And and prevailed.

And while amongst the many things
that we did was we sponsored covertly

certain journals of opinion where
intellectuals who were fighting

this war of ideas would have an outlet for
for for their for their thoughts

these these journals may have been edited
by people who were utterly unaware

of where their subsidies actually came
from the authors who wrote in them were

completely unaware of where the subsidies
came from to support their journal.

They may have been on.

Where they were so

that those journals that the journal
was even subsidized in the first place.

But these were journals that could
not have survived on the basis of

subscriptions or of advertising they had
to have a subsidy first from somewhere and

so they came from.

Maybe some business within the country
in question that got the money

from some other source that may
have com originally from the CIA.

There was an outlet in other words for
people to argue about

these things in order that certain better
ideas would prevail over the worst ones.

Anyway.

This idea this war of ideas again is not

really between democracy and Islam ism.

It is between those who want
Islam to be a religion and and

who want to seek holiness who want to seek
a spiritual life who want to seek a moral

life and
those who are moated motivated by Iraq by

the passions of erratic old
political secular agenda.

And so the sooner we realize this and

enter into this conflict
at this ideological level.

The sooner we and
the rest of the world will be secure.

Anyway thank you for listening.

I'll be happy to take any questions.

Thank you

thank you for your questions.

Are off one question and that's the the
acquisition of Current T.V. by Al-Jazeera.

Could you comment on that and
then you're in the implications you see of

having that conduit now into the U.S.
Thank you.

I you know I'm concerned about
this in certain respects.

It's because our perceptions of

realities in the world are more
important than the reality itself.

Because we act according
to our perceptions and

oftentimes those are did differ
from what the reality is

we have a huge challenge in this
country to try to see the truth and

one of the things that we do not study
in this country especially in our

schools of international affairs
is the role of propaganda

perceptions management this
information and strategic deception.

These are subjects that everybody should
study who gets into this business

whether you're a military officer or
a diplomat in involved in foreign aid and

development involved in
public diplomacy and.

End volved in an F.
in a specially involved in intelligence.

Our country is very vulnerable to foreign
influences into foreign propaganda.

We are particularly vulnerable by
the very nature of our system as I

was mentioning to some of
the leaders of the university

at lunchtime today
the founding fathers of this

country warned us about
the vulnerability to foreign influence.

George Washington and
his Farewell Address writes about

the unique vulnerability of the Republican
form of government to the insidious

Wiles' of foreign influence
the authors of the Federalist Papers

write about this several times themselves
and this is it is a huge issue.

Partly because there is
the problem of propaganda but a.

Also there are all kinds of other
influence operations whether it's done

through business whether it is done
through law firms in Washington that

are busy lobbying Congress and lobbying
different executive branch agencies

there are all sorts of
vulnerabilities along these lines and

you know I don't know how much Americans
are going to be watching out Gore's era

but the it is a you know there are but

there are many attempts by foreign powers
to to reach the American people and

influence them in different ways.

The Russians try of it trying to do this.

The Chinese do it in a very big way and
Al Jazeera is yet another one and

I believe that Americans have to be much
more alert to the nature of propaganda.

They have to understand also that
propaganda simply isn't lie.

It can be sometimes
ninety five percent truth

it is however manipulated truth it is
a sufficient mixture of the truth and

allow us that even if you
know that you're listening

to something that may be false
to one degree or another that

the purpose of the propagandist
is to get you to believe or

to say essentially this may be lies but
it can't be all lies.

And what that essentially does

is that it changes the propaganda success
of helping to frame the terms of reference

to to be the prism through
which you perceive reality.

You know there are some things.

Doubtlessly that appear on on
Al-Jazeera that are absolutely true and

Al-Jazeera actually has some some
pretty darn good journalism compared

on on some international East.

Shoes compared with some of
the lightweight fluff that we get on our

on our other televised media but it.

There is an agenda there and
one has to understand it and

I'll just era has been the.

You know has been the vehicle
of the radical Islamists

in order to get their message out to
the world and we should never forget that.

So I think.

I am going to say thank you.

First off.

I have two quick questions for you.

The first miner and you mentioned the
vulnerability of Europe to Islam Islam and

I sort of wonder how true that actually is
considering France passed the so-called

burqa ban which of targets an incredibly
small minority of people and

several laws passed in different
countries regulating the growth and

development of new mosques and
Islamic centers and

the second question is in
regards to perceptions and.

Propaganda.

Do you think that perception of the U.S.

and our version our ideology of
democracy has been helped or

hindered by drone strikes in the past
in Pakistan very good questions.

The burka laws and

the other kinds of laws like
that that urged in Europe are.

In certain respects a kind of a I don't

know if they're called a last ditch
effort to try to deal with a problem but

it is a problem that as we're
unassimilated populations.

Some of which particularly in the second
generation those populations have

become extremely extremely alienated from
the cultures of their new found lands.

Have you know have been
developing a separate track.

And.

Of separate track of development
a separate civilization

where they've come to another country and

rather than saying well I've come here
because I want to be part of this country.

They've come in order to transform the
country or at least the second generation

has decided to come with that agenda in
mind and you know how this has happened.

Of course has a long history it has to
do with you know the possibilities for

citizenship of countries.

Of citizens of former colonies of
some of these European countries.

Sometimes it simply
happened because countries.

You know like in Scandinavia or

that they have not had any of these far
flung empires in other parts of the world.

You know opened their hearts and
let people in as you know for

economic opportunities and
so on and so forth.

But the visitors or and or
the next generation have

have have simply not wanted to be part of
the program and it is not something that

is particular this is an attitude that is
not conducive towards building community.

And let's remember that community
is what peace is all about

peace is the tranquility
of political order

it is building it is building human
community whether it is domestic peace or

whether it is international peace and
in order to build a political order.

You have to take into account the dark
side of human nature which is why you need

laws of law enforcement domestically and
why you need armies internationally but

to build human community you have to have
the best side of human nature which is

man's capacity for truth for
justice for mercy.

For forgiveness and

for that love of neighbor that
transcends the requirements of justice.

And when people come in and they don't
want to be part of the community.

This is not conducive to peace and and so

I frankly don't blame people who want
somehow to defend their civilization.

There is a rainbow of
cultures in this world

doesn't there deserve
to be a Danish culture.

Doesn't there deserve to
be a Swedish culture.

Just as there deserves to
be an image be in culture.

I think there does.

And so I have a problem with the attempt

to undermine the civilizational and
legal foundations

of some of these different countries
on ostensibly religious grounds.

Now as for drone strikes.

I take your point.

I think the drone strikes are something
that have to be used carefully sparingly

and that they hold the risk of being
particularly counterproductive.

However let's remember that

there is a lot of propaganda
surrounding these things and that.

You know we may actually
target a terrorist and

and get him in his house or get him in his
meeting place with several other people.

And then the propaganda come comes out and
says well we've just been blasted entire

school full of innocent children and
that's the message that goes out and

that's part of the battle of ideas and bad
battle of information that is out there

and there's been a lot of that
there's been a lot of distortion.

That's not to say that that some of
what we've done with the drone strikes

has indeed been counterproductive and
and but

you know the United States.

For all of you know you.

You can make considerable arguments
about the prudence of our foreign

outreach military outreach.

I happen to be one of those people
who believe that our invasion

occupation a nation social revolution and

nation building enterprise in
Iraq was a strategic error.

I thought that it was a big mistake.

I thought it created more anti-Americanism
than this country has ever suffered

in the history of the American
republic and and so

you know I'm not somebody who blesses
everything that our civilian leaders.

You know said that we ought to do
with the use of our armed forces but

suffice it to say that in on the entire
history of warfare our ability to

discriminate between actual enemy targets
that are legitimate military targets and

innocent civilians which is one of
the heart which is lies at the heart

of just war doctrine surpasses that of any
other country in the world and I think

we ought to get a little credit for that
and that even goes for drone strikes too.

Yes.

Thanks for coming out.

First though throughout your speech
you talked about two different

types of warfare one being the
conventional that we all think of force on

force military warfare and the other being
ideological and at the end of your speech

you mentioned that during the Cold War
we had the ideological down and

we were militarily prepared to
fight that type of force on force.

I watched the military adapt to
the current type of warfare.

But what did we do
politically that although

we were prepared for ideological warfare
of the Soviets we were not with combating

Islam is radical Islamism and
how can that be reversed

Iraq we recognize that is that have to
do with some sort of a taboo against.

Religion including and
political constructs I guess.

Thank you for an excellent question.

This one of the reasons why where
we are not engaged in a lot of

this is that some people in our government
many people in our government are under

the genuine illusion that that engaging.

On the religious level in any
way is somehow a violation

of the First Amendment and in violation
of the separation between church and

state and fact nothing could
be further from the truth.

During the Cold War We supported.

Religion actively.

We had programs broadcast over the Voice
of America Radio Free Europe and

Radio Liberty that were actual religious
programs for different faiths for

Islam for Judaism for Orthodox
Christianity for the Catholic faith.

We we would we would actually
broadcast religious services for

example that over the over
the air we supported.

You know we were involved
in supporting the.

Solidarity movement in Poland and

working very closely with
the Polish Catholic Church to do so.

The matter of fact one
of the very interesting.

Episodes that I happen to know about and
it comes from the chairman of

our board at the Institute of
World Politics whose father in

law was the director of central
intelligence Bill Casey that one day.

Casey called up our chairman
his son in law and and said.

And.
You know about those mimeograph machines.

He said yes and Casey said well why don't
you go buy a couple hundred of them.

OK And what do I do with them
send them to the Vatican.

And well a couple of years ago.

Lech Walesa who was the head
of the solidarity movement in

the first noncommunist president of post
communist Poland showed up at I W P to

give a lecture and and
our board chairman went up to him and

said Do you know anything about
some mimeograph machines.

And he said yes we picked them up at C.
brigadiers church.

Anyway we were up to our necks in
supporting various political and

and religious forces in during the Cold
War and there was no First Amendment.

The First Amendment prescribes
Congress establishing

a in official state religion
in the United States and

has nothing to say about what we
do on the international sphere.

So the but there's been a lot of fear
about that there's also a lot of

theological ignorance and and and

where people do not understand what some
of these nuances are about Islam and

its distinguish in its
distinction from Islam ism.

In addition to the distinctions between
different variants of Islamism So

there's a there's a huge ideological and
and philosophical ignorance.

I even know of one of the most prominent
experts on Islam in the United States

today was once asked by somebody
who might know about the degree

to which he believed natural law still
had any kind of a foothold in Islam and

the guy didn't know what natural law was
so you know when when one of the top

Islamic spirits in the United States
doesn't know what natural law is this is.

This is a problem then you've
got the general problem

of of lack of an institutional
base in the U.S.

government to do this we used to
have a base in so far as the U.S.

Information Agency existed which.

Where which would partake
in information and ideas.

We also had a covert political
action capability within

the Central Intelligence Agency and
but after the church and

Pike committee hearings of the one
nine hundred seventy S. a lot

of you know it became much
more of a a career threatening

move to be involved in
covert action of different

kinds and and so a lot of
the institutional memory the Ways and

Means in within the CIA evaporated and

exists only in a few select
places around the country.

You know including our own school.

The then there's the whole problem

of the fact that a lot of this concern
is one of those arts of state craft

which is has been systematically
neglected in the U.S. government and

that is the whole art of public diplomacy
which means relations with people and

not simply with governments and
that's what U.S.I.A. did with us.

Ira was liquidated and
then in one thousand nine hundred nine and

a shadow of its former
capabilities were folded into

the State Department of State
which doesn't take it seriously.

Excellence in public
diplomacy is not rewarded.

It's not your ticket to
an ambassadorship we're becoming

assistant secretary of state.

And you know the State Department
focuses principally on government.

Government Relations and
not on relations with people.

And in public diplomacy
incorporates everything from

cultural diplomacy cultural exchanges
educational exchanges visitors programs.

Information Programs international
broadcasting strategic communications

counter-propaganda psychological
strategy but little and

ideological warfare political action.

This is an entire gamut from
the soft side to the hard side.

It gets underfunded it gets no sufficient
national strategic attention and

it is not studied in the academy save
a couple of places like at our school.

And.

I was one of the reasons
I founded this school

because public diplomacy has been
one of my greatest concerns.

I consider that public diplomacy
was arguably the most powerful

instrument when it came
to fighting the Cold War

particularly international
broadcasting and.

And this is not understood in mainstream
foreign policy establishment and

unfortunately I've recently written a book
it's called Full Spectrum diplomacy

full spectrum diplomacy and grand
strategy where I identify the problem.

And I set out a whole solution for
how to fix it because you cannot fix this

unless you create bureaucratic cultural
strict bureaucratic structures

that have a culture that rewards
excellence in these fields and my solution

in short is to establish a thing that I
call the U.S. public diplomacy agency.

Which takes all of the information
cultural it is occasional cultural and

other things out of the State Department
the human rights functions

the women's issues functions
labor democratization and

all of those issues folds
them into this new.

Agency takes our all of our international
broadcasters fold them in there

takes the USA ID folds it in there
takes the Peace Corps which is

a tremendous asset of public
diplomacy doing nothing but

bit building goodwill around the world
putting that into that agency

making the head of it a deputy secretary
of state making that making the head

of it also a statutory observer on the
National Security Council with the same

rank as the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And then over the Director of
National Intelligence and then.

To make it so that fifty percent of
all ambassadorships have to come from

personnel out of that agency and
faster than you can say

Jack Frost you're going to have excellence
in public diplomacy because there

will be career incentives for people to do
it right for the first time a long time.

I also almost sort answer my first
question we've obviously seen that

you know the surgeon occupation of
Iraq has not worked signals the end

of Q and and currently you know drone
strikes have their positive and

negative you know effects but you did just
mention you know a new agency that deals

post purely with public diplomacy but do
you not think that there are other facet

this problem there may be economic instead
of just regard to foreign policy and

on my second question is What do you mean
it would be well it's seen what the at

least what you laid out this far it
seems that you think this is purely

a lie foreign policy issue that
you can say be taken on by

part of the State Department
a new agency you said.

Whereas you know are there other economic

I guess strategies we need to take on of
the other military strikes me take on and

also consider rather than
just a new agency and I said.

Question is what improvements or you
know less than good ideas have you seen

through John Kerry as the new secretary
of state is because Hillary Clinton.

Thank you.

Economic issues can very
much be part of the solution

in dealing with the radicalization
process and I consider actually

elements of economic strategy to be part
of public diplomacy commercial relations.

Involve the natural establishment of
relationships of trust between people.

And those relationships of trust.

Are one of the greatest lubricants for
international relations.

When you establish a relationship of trust
with a foreigner that foreigner is going

to be much less likely to believe the
worst about America because he knows and

trusts you.

And America.

And and all of it.

When he knows and trusts you all
of a sudden America ceases to be

much less of a faceless power and
inhuman power.

L. of a sudden it has humanity.

And having putting the face
of humanity out there in

any respect is an absolutely outstanding
thing to do commercial relations.

Therefore are and are very much a very
much a public diplomacy dimension to them.

Intelligently conceived
economic development

projects are also extremely good.

I remember a good friend
of mine who is the head of

the Central Asian Institute
to Johns Hopkins.

Was taken several trips to Afghanistan.

And he remembered having met one very
alienated and disaffected fellow

named Mohammad who used to strut
around the mosque with his

A K forty seven and a few other
twenty somethings grumbling about all

of the things that he was mad at in
the world and wanting to do jihad and

he came back he came back
a couple of years later and

to the same locality and
inquired about Muhammad.

And it turns out in the intervening period
Mohamad had managed to get a micro-loan

where he was able to do
a little planting on land for

her to do some agriculture and
earn a little money the first year and

that next year and
enough to buy a truck and

then the next year he was doing
it expanded his acreage and

was doing well enough that he was able
actually to build himself a small house

just in two years a truck and
a house and expanded acreage and

it was explained to my friend that Mohamed
just didn't have any more time for jihad

and and so I really like figuring out ways
of keeping people off the streets and

there's nothing like having a job to
do that you know economic development

of course isn't just a matter of coming
in with some kind of foreign aid.

There are so many different elements to it
that are there are problems of cultural

capital financial capital
intellectual capital.

Are there property rights.

I mean so much of the world is poor
because there are no there is no legal

definition and clear title to property and
so the property and the people own it.

They live in their houses and

the property is all dead capital
they can't borrow against it.

Nope no bank will lend them any
money to with the with the house as

collateral because they don't know
if you know if it is going to come.

Long and and and
claim half of the house and so

it can't be collateralized
the capital is dead and

you can't you can't get a home equity
loan to finance a new small business.

It could be done.

You know read read the magnificent
book by Hernando De Soto

called The Mystery of Capital that goes
very specifically into this issue.

So there are there are huge policy issues
legal issues involved in all of this but

you know if we can help get
people back to work some how

it can be a big thing I don't.

As far as for Secretary Kerry.

I really don't know it's premature for

me to have any opinion
when I look at his first.

You know I mean he's made a made
a good trip abroad and maybe.

He'll make some headway
on some of these things.

It's really I really don't
want to pass any judgment.

I'm a very opinionated person but.

You know I just reserve
judgment to see how he does

on some of these things he's
just getting his feet wet.

So thank you.

OK thank you for enlightening discussion.

I'm a Muslim and I belong to Pakistan.

And like for a very long time I have
been studying these issues like

the video strand strands of thoughts
in Islam and the discussions.

So you mentioned they exist
two kinds of Muslims but

is this law mists who has
the political ideology and beat us or

to the use of violence against innocent
citizens to achieve their objectives.

Yes and the other kinds of
Muslims are those who just to be

honest with spirituality and
need to build relationships gone.

And so in support was that was a way
that was a crude simplification.

Yes I mean you know they make.

Distinct Yes.

Yeah I just wanted to point out that like.

The complication in that distinction.

I see emerging at a very
distinct third among Muslims

who do want who view shared and
as a political ideology and they do.

Resort to sort of modern political
problems they see that the Sharia has

the ability to do that but they did but

they reject the use of violence
to achieve those objectives and

they do not want this show to be
implemented in the distance with

their target where in of instance of
a Western in the in Europe are in

America be just warned the show he
had to go and allies of the Muslims

the countries they're Muslims are living
in it's already do you considered this

strand of thought which is in my opinion
because I belong to the country.

I keep talking to the people in this view.

Is getting popular.

The time.

Do you consider this as a threat as well.

And if so
don't you think that this would be unfair.

I don't actually I don't.

I think it's.

And I did make a distinction
between Islamists between

those who simply want Sharia.

But those who want to to
those who are ready to

truly radical violence using violence
to achieve their political means but

then let's let's say that there are four
strains because amongst those who do want

Sure there are those who want to have it
within the last world already and then

there are those who want to push it within
the West but they may not be terrorists.

So there are really two kinds.

And if people.

Who want to have some kind of Shari'a
law with it within the Muslim world.

You know be my guest.

You know if that that's that is the choice
of people living in these societies.

I think that it will.

It's I don't consider it a threat and
I and

I consider that this is something
you know look Islam is is

indeed an understanding of how
to look at the entire world and

all different aspects of life and
and it includes law.

The one thing that I did observe as
you recall is that is that that sure

doesn't take care of everything and
so there are.

That you can have yet
to multiple strands of how to interpret

how you put Shari'a into effect
in a Maslow I'm land because

you could have some where you cut off
somebodies head you cut off their arm you.

You know or their hand where you stone
the adulterous and so on and so forth.

Versus other ways of doing these
kinds of things where where you can.

Where where you can implement
all sorts of aspects concerning.

You know various aspects of Shari'a
law concerning marriage and

family and
all sorts of other things like that.

And so
there are there are multiple strains and

so I think that indeed what you're
saying is becoming more popular.

And you know I have no problem with it.

I mean I it's not that it's not that it's

Shari'a law is not the way I too
would choose to live myself but

I say if that's what makes people happy
if it makes for a better moral ecology.

If it makes for better citizens and
more responsible citizens.

Well maybe that's great.

And you know we we have
you know there are.

Cultures and
civilizations in the world and

we all have our good in you know we all
have our different positive points.

The.

And so I don't think that's a problem.

I do have a problem with
people who are not terrorists

who want to create Shari'a in the West.

I have a problem with
that I confess you know.

If you want if you want to come here and
be a Muslim and worship and

have a holy life and do all that kind of
stuff fine but if you want to create.

If you want to create
something that undermines

the Constitution of the United States.

I say you know go back to wherever
you came from and do it there.

That's that's my that's
my feeling about anyway.

Thank you for your question.

Dr Lee callus King thank
you come to Georgia Tech.

Today I thank you thank you very much.