The Syrian Opposition in 2018, New America DC

The Syrian Opposition in 2018
RSVP
Photo: ART production / Shutterstock.com
When

January 19, 2018

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America

740 15th St NW #900

Washington, D.C. 20005

Ever since the Arab Spring protests broke out in Syria in 2011, the ensuing conflict between the government of Bashar al-Assad and Syrian opposition groups has gone through numerous shifts. With the fall of ISIS’ territorial holdings in the east of the country, advances by Syrian forces, and a new administration in the United States transforming the Syrian conflict, where does the Syrian opposition stand in 2018?

New America is pleased to welcome Osama Abu Zayd, a spokesman and representative of the Free Syrian Army to discuss these issues. Zayd has been a member of the Track 1 delegations at negotiations in Geneva and Astana, representing the Syrian opposition bilaterally and with transnational bodies such as the EU and UN.

Join the conversation online using #Syria2018 and following @NewAmericaISP.

Participants:
Osama Abu Zayd
Spokesman, Free Syrian Army

Moderator:
Peter Bergen, @peterbergencnn
Vice President, New America
Director, International Security Program, New America

Trump has scored some successes in foreign policy, CNN.com

Trump has scored some successes in foreign policy

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Updated 9:28 AM ET, Wed December 27, 2017
Trump unveils national security plan

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” ”

(CNN)Some of the most ferocious critics of President Trump’s foreign policy are leading Republican thinkers and writers such as military historians Max Boot and Eliot Cohen, along with Michael Gerson, who was President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter.

In venues such as Foreign Policy, The Atlantic and The Washington Post they have described Trump as “utterly incompetent” (Boot) and as running a foreign policy defined by “blunder, inattention, miscomprehension or willfulness” (Cohen). They’ve also pointed to his “fundamental unfitness for high office” (Gerson).
And those are reviews of Trump’s foreign policy record by some of his fellow Republicans.

But what the critics don’t acknowledge is that Trump and his national security team have actually scored some real foreign policy wins in the past year that have been sometimes obscured by Trump’s penchant for bloviation, bluster and belligerence. (And I don’t mean self-described Trump wins, such as the “travel ban” whose effects on containing terrorism in the States will likely be negligible, as lethal terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 have invariably been the work of self-radicalized US citizens and legal residents.)

Red line

The first win is that Trump enforced a real “red line” against the use of nerve gas in Syria by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, something that Obama had failed to do. On April 4, 2017, the Syrian regime used sarin, a nerve gas, against civilian targets in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, killing more than 80 people.
Trump called the attack an “affront to humanity” and said that it “crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies … that crosses many, many lines — beyond a red line.”

Two days after the sarin attack, American warships launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield, the first direct military action that the United States has taken against Assad’s regime.

Assad hasn’t used chemical weapons against his own people since Trump ordered those cruise missile strikes in April. The enforcement of the important international prohibition against the use of nerve gas is certainly an achievement for the Trump administration.

A flurry of cruise missile strikes, of course, doesn’t make a Syria strategy, and the precise contours of Trump’s game plan for Syria going forward are not clear — at least not publicly.

What is clear is that ISIS is almost completely defeated in Syria and is largely eliminated from all of its havens in Iraq. The defeat of ISIS has been a long time coming, and most of the anti-ISIS campaign took place under the Obama administration. But the Trump national security team helped to hasten the defeat of ISIS in two ways.

First, Trump decided to equip the anti-ISIS Syrian Democratic Forces — a largely Kurdish militia — with mortars, anti-tank weapons, armored cars and machine guns. Those forces captured ISIS’s de facto Syrian capital, Raqqa, in October

Second, Trump allowed American ground commanders greater latitude to carry out operations in war zones such as Iraq and Syria without consulting higher up the chain of command. Pentagon brass had long chafed at what they considered to be the micromanagement of military operations by the Obama White House.

Greater stability in Iraq and Afghanistan

As a result of ISIS’s defeat in Iraq, the country is more stable than it has been for more than three years. I traveled to Iraq earlier this month and the Iraqis I spoke with were cautiously optimistic that the recent gains against ISIS might help to produce some kind of lasting peace.

In late August Trump announced a plan to bring some modicum of stability to Afghanistan, where the Taliban have asserted more control in the past year or so. In addition to sending a mini-surge of several thousand more troops to the country, Trump made it clear that the US commitment to Afghanistan is long term and “conditions-based.” Trump did not impose any timetable for withdrawing US forces from the country, which was the counterproductive approach that the Obama administration had taken.

The Afghan government has welcomed this long-term American commitment to Afghanistan.

The big bet

As important as they are, these successes don’t amount to a vindication of Trump’s overall foreign policy and there are still a great many open questions about his approach to the world.

In the Middle East, Trump has placed a big bet on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 32-year-old future king of Saudi Arabia, whom the Trump administration has eagerly embraced.

MBS, as he is widely known, has launched “Vision 2030,” a wildly ambitious plan to wean the Saudi economy from its total dependence on oil and end the quasi-socialist Saudi state in which most Saudis work for the government and pay no taxes while getting free health care and education as well as subsidies for electricity and gas.

MBS is also liberalizing Saudi society. He has curbed the powers of the feared religious police, and has plans to allow women to drive and to open up once-banned movie theaters.

At the same time MBS has abandoned Saudi Arabia’s traditionally conservative foreign policy by launching a war in Yemen, which has turned into a fiasco, and blockading neighboring Qatar, which has devolved into a standoff with no end in sight.

MBS also deposed the previous Crown Prince, Mohamed bin Nayef, and has arrested hundreds of businessmen and royal family members who represent alternative power centers to his increasingly dictatorial rule, charging them with corruption.

It’s not clear how Trump’s big bet on MBS will ultimately play out, but the fact is that Trump embraced the young prince early in his administration. And over the past year MBS has amassed enormous amounts of power in a country that is a key American ally.

Similarities with Obama

Trump often underlines his many differences with Obama but in the realm of national security there are, in fact, some important continuities between the two administrations.

The Trump administration has continued the Obama doctrine of avoiding big, conventional wars in the Middle East. Instead, the Trump team has kept in place much of the counter-terrorism architecture that Obama developed, including his overall approach to the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and his reliance on Special Operations Forces and drones rather than on large-scale conventional forces to achieve American military goals.
In Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, Trump continues the drone campaigns that were a signature of Obama’s administration.

Despite Trump’s sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric about NATO, Trump’s team has remained strong supporters of the alliance, which continues to play an important role in Afghanistan.

The Trump team has also called for NATO members to spend more on defense — the goal is 2% of each country’s GDP — which is exactly what the Obama administration also called for, albeit somewhat more diplomatically.
Trump himself may make nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but his national security team takes many of the same positions on Russia that Obama did.

Trump’s National Security Strategy, published on December 18, states that Russia is “using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies” and criticizes Russian aggression against its neighbors by saying, “With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region.”

And this strategy document reflects real policies. On Friday the Trump administration announced its plans to arm the government of Ukraine with anti-tank weapons to help it fight Russian-backed separatists.

North Korea, China and terrorism

Despite Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, the North Koreans are continuing their nuclear weapons program. The Trump administration, like the Obama administration, hopes that China will influence Kim Jong Un to behave responsibly while simultaneously ratcheting up sanctions on his regime.

Also, as the Obama administration before it, Trump’s National Security Strategy worries that China “is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own,” and warns that Chinese “land reclamation projects and militarization of the South China Seas flouts international law, threatens the free flow of trade, and undermines stability. China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region.”

Obama’s response to Chinese expansionism in Asia was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade pact between a dozen nations that excluded China. Despite his national security team’s concerns about Chinese ambitions, Trump withdrew from the TPP, seeming to misunderstand it as simply a trade deal rather than also an effort to contain China.

Trump, like Obama, has not sent any additional prisoners to Guantanamo, instead relying on federal courts to try terrorists. Like Obama, he also has not pushed for coercive interrogations to resume.
The hyper-nationalists who once ran the show at the Trump White House — including Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka — are largely gone. As a result, the White House is no longer pushing the cartoonish view that Islam is the cause of terrorism.

Wins and losses

To be sure, the Trump administration has scored some self-inflicted foreign policy losses such as the withdrawal from the TPP and, most recently, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel instead of Tel Aviv.
F
The Trump administration didn’t secure any kind of concession from the Israelis, such as obtaining a commitment to freeze the building of settlements in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem, in exchange for this gift. The Jerusalem decision has also ensured that any efforts by the Trump administration to revive the moribund peace process will likely be ignored by the Palestinians going forward.

But the fact remains that the Trump administration has helped to speed the demise of ISIS, bringing a measure of stability to Iraq and also reducing the scope of the terrorist threat that the group poses. At the same time, Trump has initiated a plan in Afghanistan that reduces the possibility that the country could slip back into an anarchic state conducive to groups such as ISIS securing a large presence in the country.

And Trump’s national security team largely continues many of the policies they inherited from Obama, whether on Russia, the “war on terror” or North Korea.

Correction: An earlier version gave the wrong date for the chemical weapons attack against a rebel-held town in Syria.

Trump’s new strategy: Russia is an actual threat, CNN.com

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
Trump’s new strategy: Russia is an actual threat
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Source: CNN

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” ”

(CNN)On Monday President Donald Trump rolled out his national security strategy, a key planning document that every president since Ronald Reagan has published to warn about threats to American national security and how best to respond to them.

Trump’s plan is, unsurprisingly, an unabashedly “America First” strategy that, at just under 70 dense pages, is full of insights into how Trump’s national security advisers see the world.

While usual suspects such as Iran and North Korea are described as threats, and campaign promises about the need for a border wall with Mexico are acknowledged, what is most newsworthy about the document is the extent to which it portrays Russia and China, America’s traditional major state antagonists, as threatening. The document asserts that Russia and China “want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests,” which seems quite at odds with the President’s own enthusiastic embrace of Russia.

Overall, the new Trump strategy calls for a policy of “peace through strength” that emphasizes deterring these enemies by preparing US conventional forces for “major war” while also modernizing the country’s aging nuclear forces. This new approach is necessary because the strategy document states that, “after being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition returned. China and Russia began to reassert their influence regionally and globally.”

Russia is “using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies…The American public and private sectors must recognize the threat and work together to defend our way of life,” according to the strategy document. The document also describes Russian aggression against its neighbors: “With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region.”

The document goes on to link Russia’s “information operations” to a broader campaign to influence public opinion across the globe. Its influence campaigns blend covert intelligence operations and false online personas with state-funded media, third-party intermediaries and paid social media users, or “trolls.” This, of course, is similar to the US intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia meddled in the 2016 American presidential election.

The emphasis on Russian perfidy may, in part, be a reflection of the “lead pen” of the document, Nadia Schadlow, the senior director for strategy at the National Security Council who in the mid-1990s was the desk officer for Ukraine at the Pentagon.

The strategy also calls out China in a number of areas. It accuses the Chinese of stealing US intellectual property every year valued at “hundreds of billions of dollars” and calls for tightening of visa procedures to “reduce economic theft by non-traditional intelligence collectors,” which presumably could include the more than 300,000 Chinese students who attend US universities every year.

China “is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own,” including a “diversifying” nuclear arsenal, according to the document, which goes on to warn that Chinese “land reclamation projects and militarization of the South China Seas flouts international law, threatens the free flow of trade, and undermines stability. China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region.”

What’s missing: Climate change and ‘Islamic terrorism’

Where President Barack Obama’s 2015 national security strategy document had a significant emphasis on the problematic effects of climate change, the Trump strategy doesn’t have much to say about the topic other than to note that bringing down pollution should be a goal of the United States thorough “innovation” rather than “onerous regulation.”

Also missing from the new Trump strategy document is any discussion of “radical Islamic terrorism,” which is a great preoccupation of the Breitbartian wing of the Republican Party. The document eschews this description of the threat, which critics say conflates Islam and terrorism, settling instead for the uncontroversial and accurate phase “jihadist terrorists” to describe groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda.

This omission will likely provoke fulminations on Fox News by analysts such as Sebastian Gorka, who was forced out of his advisory role at the White House in August and who has made use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” a touchstone for the only proper way to describe the threat.

When President Trump delivered a speech about the strategy at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington DC he did invoke the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” despite the fact that the phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in the lengthy strategy document.

Regarding terrorism, the strategy has some quite harsh words for Pakistan, “since no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists that targets a partner’s own service members and officials,” a reference to Pakistan’s support for elements of the Taliban that attack American targets in Afghanistan.

NATO continues to play an important role in Afghanistan and, despite Trump’s sometimes inflammatory rhetoric about the alliance, the strategy document describes NATO as “one of our great advantages over our competitors.” It also calls for European allies in NATO “to increase defense spending to two percent of gross domestic product by 2024,” which was also a goal of the Obama administration.
(Disclosure: I was one of the outside experts consulted by the Trump National Security Council as they formulated the strategy.

What’s promising (sort of): Technology and policy

The Trump strategy document includes considerable and welcome discussion of the intertwined roles of technology and policy. The strategy is clear about the threat to the United States posed by cyber intrusions — many of which emanate from the Russians and Chinese. The strategy calls for a defensible, modernized, federal information structure and also a “secure 5G Internet capability nationwide.”

The 2016 hack of the obscure US Office of Personnel Management underlined the necessity of radical change in the way that the federal government does business. In that hack, personal information such as the Social Security numbers of more than 20 million current and former US government employees and their families were stolen.

The document calls for further American investments in “data science, encryption, autonomous technologies, gene editing, new materials, nanotechnology, advanced computing technologies, and artificial intelligence” in order to grow the economy of tomorrow. At the same time, it advocates for increased US government understanding of worldwide science and technology trends and their impact on American strategies.
This, of course, is an excellent idea, but as CBS News reported last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is barely staffed and “has disintegrated into a shell of what it once was under President Obama.”

Bolstering the State Department, but how?

The strategy document calls for an enhanced State Department in no uncertain terms: “We must upgrade our diplomatic capabilities to compete in the current environment and to embrace a competitive mindset. Effective diplomacy requires the efficient use of limited resources, a professional diplomatic corps, modern and safe facilities, and secure methods to communicate and engage with local populations.”

And yet, this strategy comes at a time when the State Department is largely rudderless under the leadership of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has failed to fill many of the key positions in his department and who has embraced a proposed cut of a third of State’s budget at the same time that the Pentagon is getting a 10% budget boost.
Follow CNN Opinion

Ultimately, the strategy document is the responsibility of the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen H.R. McMaster, who early in his Army career published “Dereliction of Duty,” a blistering account of how the Pentagon brass during the Vietnam War only told President Lyndon Johnson: “What he wanted to hear…Bearers of bad news or those that expressed views counter to his priorities would hold little sway.”
It would be surprising if McMaster were to make the same mistake with this key document that lays out the national security strategy of the United States. That is why the strategy document is unequivocal about the threat to democracies posed by Russian influence operations, even if that is not a message that President Trump always wants to hear.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include further content from Trump’s Monday speech.

It wasn’t Trump but this general’s elite soldiers who defeated ISIS, CNN.com

Bergen: It wasn’t Trump but this general’s elite soldiers who defeated ISIS
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

U
“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” ”

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN)Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi is virtually unknown outside Iraq, but he is a hero in his own country. When the three-star general walks into the lobby of a guesthouse in Baghdad he is quickly surrounded by well-wishers who want to take selfies with him. Iraqis know that the taciturn general was key to the long, grinding campaign that defeated ISIS.

Last week the Iraqi military released a statement saying Iraq was “fully liberated” from ISIS’ reign of terror. Three years earlier, ISIS had controlled 40% of the country, according to Iraqi officials.

It was the storied “Golden Division” of Iraq’s Counter-Terrorism Service, the Iraqi version of US Special Operations Forces, that did much of the fighting and dying to defeat ISIS.

Saadi leads the Golden Division. A tall, thin man with deep, dark circles under his eyes that are a testament to his fight against ISIS for the past three years, Saadi, 54, was dressed in a black leather jacket, black shirt and black trousers when he sat down to discuss the campaign against ISIS over a cup of tea in Baghdad.

Saadi asserted that all that remains of ISIS in Iraq are “some sleeper cells.” Surviving ISIS cells have gone to ground in western Iraq, Syria and Turkey, he said.

Two months ago President Donald Trump was quick to take credit for the looming defeat of ISIS when Raqqa, ISIS’ de facto capital in Syria, fell to US-backed forces. Trump asserted that ISIS hadn’t been defeated earlier because “you didn’t have Trump as your president.”
Saadi seemed genuinely puzzled when asked if he had noticed any changes in American support during the more than two years that he had been leading the Iraqi fight against ISIS. Saadi said, “There was no difference between the support given by Obama and Trump.”

Why is it that the US-trained Golden Division and Counter-Terrorism Service played such a key role in the defeat of ISIS while the Iraqi army ignominiously fled from the ISIS militants that seized much of Iraq in 2014?

Saadi explained, “We have zero tolerance for sectarianism,” which has been the bane of Iraqi security services. Iraq’s minority Sunni population have long viewed the Iraqi security services as armed Shia groups with a deeply sectarian agenda.

The Counter-Terrorism Service, consisting of about 10,000 soldiers, also demands continuous training for its soldiers, unlike the Iraqi army, which only requires basic training.

The prestige of the Counter-Terrorism Service can be gauged by the fact that when the Iraqi government launched a recruitment drive in May, 300,000 men applied to be part of the force. An American military trainer said that only around 1,000 of those will likely end up being trained at a joint US-Iraqi training facility, according to a report in the Washington Post.

Saadi said American logistical and intelligence support and US airpower accounted for “50% of the success of the battle” against ISIS. American bombs inflicted heavy casualties on ISIS and were a morale booster for Saadi’s troops.

Saadi led the Golden Division into battle in key phases of the war against ISIS, liberating first Iraq’s key oil refineries in Baiji in June 2015, and then significant Iraqi cities such as Fallujah, Ramadi and Tikrmt.

When he was fighting to liberate Tikrit the general tore off the three stars on his epaulettes denoting his high rank, he told me, saying to himself, “I don’t deserve this rank if I don’t free my fellow citizens from the grasp of ISIS.”

The general leads from the front. “I have to be in the front line. Number one it is for the morale of my soldiers, and second I want to make sure no one mistreats civilians,” Saadi said. As a result, the general has narrowly escaped death repeatedly, showing this reporter a scar on his chin where he says a sniper’s bullet grazed him during the battle of Baiji.

It was above all his role in the fight for Iraq’s second city, Mosul, that cemented Saadi’s reputation among Iraqis.

The fight for Mosul was never going to be easy. A city of 2 million people, the old section of the city in western Mosul is a warren of narrow medieval-era streets and buildings.

The battle for Mosul lasted nine months — in part, Saadi said, because Iraqi forces didn’t want to level the city: “We were very careful to preserve the infrastructure and also the lives of innocents remaining in the city.”

The fight was also complicated in Mosul because ISIS deployed more than 1,000 “VBIEDs” –vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices — cars and trucks driven by suicide bombers. These VBIEDs were greatly feared by the Golden Division troops.

Also many of ISIS’ most competent fighters, numbering around 10,000, decided to make their last stand in Mosul where ISIS’ self-styled caliphate was first proclaimed in 2014 by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the elusive leader of ISIS.

Mosul finally fell to Iraqi forces in July.

Reflecting on the anti-ISIS campaign, Ben Connable, a political scientist at the RAND think tank, who served in Iraq for three tours as a Marine Corps officer said, “I have never been more optimistic about Iraq than I am today. They finally feel like they own their security.”

The battle against ISIS in Iraq is over. The next challenge for the Iraqi government is to win the peace. To do that, it must now ensure that Iraq’s Sunni minority feels that they have some real stake in Iraqi politics so that they don’t actively or passively support groups like ISIS that claim — no matter how self-servingly — to stand up for the rights of the Sunni.

Amateur terrorists can kill, too, CNN.com

Bergen: Amateur terrorists can kill, too
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Updated 3:23 PM ET, Mon December 11, 2017
Explosion at Port Authority Bus Terminal

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” ”

Doha, Qatar (CNN)Monday’s botched terrorist attack at Manhattan’s Port Authority Bus Terminal was an amateur affair, according to law enforcement officials. The suspected bomber, Akayed Ullah, had a homemade device attached to his body with Velcro and zip ties and when it detonated, it injured him with lacerations and burns, while three bystanders suffered minor injuries.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo observed at a news conference on Monday, “Anyone can go on the internet and download garbage and vileness on how to put together an amateur-level explosive device, and that is the reality we live with.”

Indeed, it is. But we shouldn’t take too much comfort from the fact that Ullah’s alleged attack was the work of an amateur, because according to New America, every one of the 12 successful jihadist terrorist attacks since 9/11 in the United States has also been the work of amateurs who received no formal training from any foreign terrorist group.

Consider the Boston Marathon bombers who on April 15, 2013, killed three and injured more than 200 with explosive devices they modeled in part on the instructions they found in the English-language webzine Inspire, which was published by al Qaeda’s Yemen branch. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the two brothers who carried out the Boston attack, hadn’t received any kind of training from a terrorist organization.

Or take Omar Mateen, who killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando in 2016. As he carried out his attack, Mateen pledged an oath of allegiance to ISIS, but there is no evidence he was trained by the group or even had any contact with it.
And Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov is accused of driving a rented pickup truck into a crowded bicycle path near the World Trade Center in Manhattan, killing eight people on Halloween. A note near the truck said Saipov carried out the attack for ISIS, but like Mateen, Saipov had no training from the group.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, the Iraqi government released a statement saying it had “fully liberated” all Iraq’s territory from “ISIS terrorist gangs.”

This is indeed a significant milestone, but Monday’s botched terror attack in Manhattan reminds us that jihadist ideology continues to inspire a small number of disaffected Muslims in the United States. And simply because they are amateurs doesn’t mean they can’t also be deadly.

LEGION OF BROTHERS, CNN Films

Bergen was producer, premiered at Sundance and was broadcast on CNN. The film was nominated for an Emmy in 2018.

Jihadist Terrorism Sixteen Years After 9/11: A Threat Assessment

https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/policy-papers/jihadist-terrorism-16-years-after-911-threat-assessment/

Statement to a Joint Hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Rise of Radicalism: Growing Terrorist Sanctuaries and the Threat to the U.S. Homeland.

US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

ISIS Online: Countering Terrorist Radicalization & Recruitment on the Internet & Social Media

US House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee

The Future of Counterterrorism: Addressing the Evolving Threat to Domestic Security