 Thank you, Emily Schneider. Thank you, Dr. Wen. So we're going to turn to our next conversation, which is what does terrorism look like 20 years from now. We have an all star cast to have that conversation led by moderated by Karen Greenberg, who is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. She's just come out with a very relevant new book, subtle tools about kind of all the on downstream consequences of the war on terror. As we use to describe it, the unintended consequences of so many policies that came out of the 911. She's also a fellow at Senior Fellow at New America and the International Security Program. Similarly, Javad Ali is also a fellow in the program, Senior Fellow in the program. He is the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, a job that he had most recently under the Trump administration he's worked in a variety of roles at the FBI and and knows counterterrorism very well from the inside and finally Rebecca Wiener and certainly not finally in the kind of sense of somebody who is also a leading expert in the field she runs the she's assistant commissioner for intelligence analysis at the New York Police Department. And in that role she has arguably one of the most important jobs in the federal government when it comes to counterterrorism. So I handed over to Karen, and thank you all for participating in this important discussion. Thanks Peter thanks for the kind words thanks so much to New America and to its partner ASU for hosting today's event. And for this panel which I think is going to be very interesting to us all. 20 years is a long time to have gone by. And so, posing the question what's going to happen in the next 20 years is a little bit unfair it's more like, can we take a pause. But in fact encounter terrorism, as Rebecca can tell you and as Javad will ascent to I'm sure we can't take a pause. And so the question is, what will those next 20 years look like. We know that the road to terrorism is paved with incremental developments in ideology capacity and leadership. And in some ways now that we've seen this 911 chapter, if not terrorism come to an end. It's a moment to reflect on what new threats might emerge in terms of capacities in terms of tech technologies in terms of globalization, and just to think about it in the broader perspective. So that's what we're going to turn to today, Rebecca Weiner, you've been watching developments and terrorist movements abroad as well as here, thinking about present and future threats. And all that preceded us before the coven one spent a lot of time talking about Afghanistan and what Afghanistan means in terms of the future of terrorism, among other things and so I thought in addition to talking about new tactics that you expect to see before seeing threats that you're starting to bubble up, you might just talk about where Afghanistan plays into this, particularly in the light of the DNI will Haynes report on other threats, take a terrorist threats like in Yemen and Syria, taking more importance in some ways and see more of a heightened threat than Afghanistan itself so maybe we should start where this last conversation ended and move into your vision of the next 20 years. Well thank you thank you so much Karen thank you Peter. This is a wonderful opportunity to spend 30 minutes planning the next 20 years the good news is that. Okay, by the time it has been approved, we probably won't remember it. But thinking back to 911 it's amazing how much has changed, and how much seems somewhat familiar. And we are now in an environment where we have an ascendant domestic extremism threat and I know that job it is going to be speaking about that so I won't dwell on it but just to note that is playing out in the west and all of its manifestations from neo nazis to white supremacists and militia members the anti government extremists acceleration is anarchist extremists, but at the same time as Karen's just noting, you have new energy and important new energy that is just been injected into the global threat with the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, which isn't just a problem for Afghanistan and the Afghans region, but it's a kind of renewed energy into the whole global jihadist narrative, all while Iran is still seeking retribution for the killing of Qasem Soleimani and the nuclear scientist Mosin Fards audit and that's just what's happening now. But bringing all of these strands together and taking a bit of a step back is a pervasive distrust in an antipathy for institutions of all kinds, whether it's secular Western democracy, elected officials, the police military, the media public health officials as you all have just been hearing telecommunications companies the postal service. This is a growing problem and it is obviously not new, it goes to the heart of what terrorism is as a tactic and as a philosophy. This is increasingly widespread in part because people are living in falconized and self reinforcing virtual information ecosystems. So even without additional pressure, the gathering momentum of this anti institutional impulse will be disruptive, not to the politics of events that have taken place over the last couple of weeks. Over the medium and long term, we're also going to have to grapple over the next 20 years with a multitude of exogenous disruptors and I'm going to name three just because I think they're pretty important. This is climate change, which can create mass migration flows resource scarcity and conflict over resources, water food shelter to include in and this is important because anyone who is living in the United States over the last three months has felt up close and to personal the impact of climate change in a way that I think caught some people by surprise here in New York. The sky was smoky from the fires on the West Coast, and we had two hurricanes in this kind of a week and a half that ended up, leafily killing a number of people here in our city, and we weren't even centrally impacted by either of them. And so a lot of governments are going to really struggle to deal with the root causes and consequences of climate change, which will further erode confidence in the government and empower non government actors for better and for worse around the world. So this second disruptor I wanted to flag is technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biological innovations like genetic engineering, which all will be used for really important innovations make cure diseases like cancer and help out in all sorts of ways, but can have consequences. AI can be used to enable new attack modalities, more sophisticated drone attacks using facial recognition, advanced disinformation or social engineering campaigns, higher octane cyber attacks, quantum computing may imparel current encryption capabilities and threaten the integrity of data. So we've all been talking about the cyber 911, which may dominate the threat landscape and our response to it over the next 20 years. And related to that is the issue of information supremacy, which I think will continue to be devolved from institutions to individuals. So the democratization of expertise that the internet has enabled has had a lot of benefits, but it also has risks. It's led people into the arms of conspiracy theories, or to reject science, or to embrace pernicious ideologies that justify violence. So year and a half into the pandemic, we are all armchair virologists and public health officials and climatologists without leaving our computers or so we think, obviously that's not in fact the case. And so it does empower individuals to think that they know a lot more about stuff than they do. So all of this collective pressure on institutions could lead to a couple of scenarios. And I will get back to the issue of terrorism in a minute. The first is that governments and institutions around the world may not be able to withstand some of this pressure, some may collapse, be replaced with more local solutions so states may continue to gain power over federal governments, companies over states tribes over legislatures affinity groups over organizations and I think for terrorism in the near term. This may look like multiple simultaneous centers of gravity for foreign fighter flows around the world so the AfPAC region, I think front and center in the near term, but also as has been mentioned by many government officials, East and West Africa, Yemen, the Middle East will continue to draw foreign fighter flows will continue to be used as permissive operating environments for external attacks. Right so this isn't a phased scenario this is everything happening at once given all this pressure on institutions, lone actors that have been inspired to carry out attacks in the West may once again have the feeling that they're betting on a winning team. These are real capacity challenges that are going to require us to work collectively in the way that we have been over the last 20 years but more so. And at the same time around the world other countries are going to double down on institution reification and autocracy and I'm thinking about China Russia. That also incubates terrorism and backlash. So that's the kind of glass half empty scenario about what the next 20 years can bring the glass half full scenario is that our institutions are going to be able to adapt to these challenges will be strengthened by inclusiveness by flexibility. Able to accommodate multiple viewpoints and dress disparate grievances regain trust. So returning to the climate scenario the levees will continue to be a bulwark against the hurricanes and the power will stay on. And in this scenario terrorism remains a managed but persistent threat so time will tell. And I will stop there. Rebecca just one quick follow up when you said institutions and trust and institutions is under attack you name many but you didn't name the UN. Would you include the UN in that. I would include the UN I would certainly include any international organization. Again it's a wide ranging sentiment that it's oversimplifying just to say institutions are under attack because each ideology has its own particular manifestation. But it absolutely is part of a general distrust. Okay we're going to come back to to some of that glass half full part. Before we turn to you Java just for people who are watching and listening in. You can submit your questions. If you look to the box on the right of your screen on the right of the video, there's Slido and you can just submit your questions. If you have a problem. You can contact events at new America.org and we welcome your questions and we will find time to get to them. David Ali, you've been writing a lot about the theory of terrorism, the theoretical framework for understanding terrorism, which, which dovetails nicely with what Rebecca Wainer was talking about. I just wanted to ask you to start with how do you can you tell us a little bit of how you see these waves of terrorism these phases of terrorism, and whether or not you think they are overlapping at this point in time or if they're really distinctive phases as as you see them and sort of connect it back to Rebecca's follow on about what's happening in the world at large, particularly in the way of Afghanistan. Thanks Karen for that great to be here with you. Thanks Peter as well. I was glad to be participating in a new America event and great to be with Rebecca as well. Rebecca and I worked together more than a decade ago on counterterrorism issues in the government so it's always good to see her. So, Karen to your point, in order to understand what the next 20 years might look like even from the terrorism phenomena in the United States and the pure domestic terrorism aspect not even talking about the international terrorism set of issues that Rebecca addressed I would argue that you almost have to go back and look at the last 140 years of terrorist activity not only in the world but here in the US and using this famous framework coined in 2002 by use UCLA political president David Rappaport where he came up with this four waves of rebel terrorism theory. That's the framework that I have used to draw out a new wave of terrorism which I call the new right wave and I would argue that wave started in the late 2000s and the peak of that wave we have not yet seen so I would argue that that curve if you think about these waves that Evan flow, it's still on the upslope and January 6 was not the culmination of that wave and in my opinion we've got a long way to go. And the different waves that Rappaport looked at had different features and ideological drivers behind them but I think this is a very distinctly different phenomena and I'm comfortable using this new right wave and then some of the groups and movements and beliefs that Rebecca talked about that seem to fit into this new right basket of threats here in the United States I think that's what we're talking about we're not I'm not trying to put the jihadist threats into that. But like Rebecca talking about some of the key factors that I think will propel this new right wave going forward, because in my view it's only been around for about 10 years here in the United States maybe a little bit more. There's several factors there's no one right answer and even the three or four that I described it's not an exhaustive list but just very quickly. One is the fact that because of the impact of covid and obviously other parts of this session over the last couple days of touch on this the anger and the grievances generated from covid that affect this new right phenomena and here that even a dynamism that I don't think existed even five to 10 years ago. So that is certainly an issue and we I think that played out in January 6 to a degree it certainly played out here where I am in Michigan with a audacious plot to kidnap the governor, which looked like a real terrorism plot this was not aspirational. So we've seen the concrete manifest and there have been other reports of disruptions and harassing people plotting violence, based on their anger grievances over covid related positions or restrictions so I think that is a key one and this is going to be with us for a while. A second one is based on public statements from people like FBI Director Ray and other senior FBI officials, there is a large pool of Americans here in the United States that are latching on to these different beliefs and ideas that I would argue is exponentially higher than the pool of Americans that Rebecca and I were trying to put our heads around. You know what did that pool of jihadist Americans look like a decade plus ago I would argue this pool is hard to say because nobody knows what the real answer is. But even if you look at the number of FBI investigations alone and then figure that well just because you're under investigation there's probably a much wider circle people who are somewhere along that spectrum of radicalization and mobilization we're probably talking about thousands of not tens of thousands of people and again I think that pool is much bigger than the jihadist pool here in the US. Thirdly, I think, like Rebecca said the impact of social media and mobile communications and modern technology that is fueling these beliefs and ideas that is also helping plots develop and emerge and yes the social media companies and tech companies are taking steps without government intervention or without government regulation, but it's still a sort of a fragmentary landscape with respect to which tech companies have which capabilities to do certain things there's no uniform standards there's no general set of principles that companies are operating under some don't even enforce their own terms of service. So this is something that is very distinct that a 1015 even 20 years ago was not as big of an issue doesn't mean that there isn't still that physical way for people to to be recruited and to go down rabbit holes of radicalization or but more and more I think this is happening in in the virtual space. And then a fourth factor and I'll stop with that and hopefully get into some additional questions is just the really corrosive and divisive nature of politics here in the United States and again that was a driving factor of January 6 not the only factor, but that phenomena to only seems to be further accentuated now we're not unified as a country were further polarized for all these other reasons I just talked about so but the way the country came together after 911. That seems like a long time ago in a distant memory that that feeling of unity over threats to our country whether from at home or abroad. I don't think we're going to see that for a while so those very quickly are four key factors that I think will propel this fifth wave of far right terror or new right terrorism into the future whether last 20 years or 40 years like other waves we don't yet know, but I definitely don't think it's ending anytime soon. Okay, well one follow question before we get to more is, where do you see this intersecting with larger international terrorist networks, and I mean, beyond, you know, white nationalist agendas but do you see crossover between these different types of terrorist movements and agendas or not. There's, there does seem to be an international dimension to some of the neo Nazi and the white nationalist extremists on both sides of the Atlantic but but thinking about the intersection of this far right wave and the jihadist way. I don't know if we've seen, certainly on the outside, you know, concrete examples of that, although I, I will say that look at a group that exists now in the United States but has elements overseas called the base. The base is relatively small but it is hyper violent it is organized only to conduct terrorist actions for the most part, or terrorist plots and attacks. It takes its name from Al Qaeda if that's not an example of some weird symmetry between the far right and the jihadist world I don't know what is another interesting data point is in the aftermath of the Afghanistan withdrawal and all the terrible things were happening on the ground some of the loudest voices at least in the social media world about welcoming this disarray and the chaos and the impact on US national security were far right and anti government and neo Nazi and conspiracy and acceleration is extremists in the United States so does that mean that plots are coming together or people are now moving forward for attack plans I don't think so, but you're starting to see some initial just data points that suggest this could be another element of this threat that is very different from the last one years. A follow up question for both of you. And then I'll get to some audience questions is Rebecca you've outlined sort of redefining national security in ways the United States has been redefining it over time, which is to include, you know, displace persons to include, you know, the result of climate change and various other things. But my question is, you know, our institutions up to it. And what I mean is it's not just about distrust in the institutions it's about terrorism taking up or this is a question terrorism has terrorism taking up so much of the national security that we're going to be banned with that we need to maybe redefine maybe cabin what terrorism is or, or, I mean, how do you see where terrorism is going to fit into this is it the, the bigger concept, or is it one of many concepts and therefore there might need to be a different kind of inter interagency process what do you think. I think that a lot of these issues are going to be intersecting and terrorism is one consequence among many consequences and depending on where you sit you may think it is less important or more important than some of the others. I think that strengthening our institutions sufficiently that they can grapple with simultaneous climate made as well as terrorist attacks that may emanate from that at the same time is going to require and it's a trite phrase but it certainly is applicable whole of government whole of society approaches so terrorism, I think becomes subordinated from the primacy that it has experienced over the last 20 years, perhaps rightfully so, but it is going to be an important element of what we're seeing and I think it's just important to remember that these issues are going to be at the root of kinetic violence and ways that we may not always anticipate and as local law enforcement here in New York. So we have to start thinking about that, along with the policymakers that are operating at the federal government. So that has not necessarily permeated through the law enforcement community or the emergency responder community who are going to be at the front end of dealing with these challenges. But do you think that the, because I know you've given some thought to this that this what Rebecca is referring to this sort of sharing of information that you know the country fought so hard for in the wake of 911 sharing of intelligence and that that what's happened in Afghanistan, maybe a signal about needing to refine our abilities to collect intelligence abroad and in terms of what even to look at, you know, do do you get a sense that the kinds of things are national security establishment is looking at as danger signs is on the front burner or does it need to be some kind of rethink to speak to today's conference. Well, just on the point of Afghanistan and the intelligence infrastructure that had been in place to monitor threats and and stop plots from from developing or track people coming and going that infrastructure is gone. And there's very little that is going to be left in country and this seems to be a deliberate choice that the Biden administration made in terms of accepting a higher level of risk in terms of terrorism in the country now it doesn't mean that we're going to be blind it doesn't mean that it will be zero because though, as the Biden administration has said, are hinted at that will be offshore over the horizon capabilities both for intelligence collection and probably strike operations we saw over the last couple weeks, two separate strike operations but in terms of again the massive infrastructure that was in place for almost 20 years after 911 that is for the most part a vestige of the past so we're going to have to reconceptualize what this kind of intelligence collection means to, to contain a really high fidelity of awareness about people and plots and threats to the West and my whole career was sort of in the trenches of that to a degree not in Afghanistan but more from the Washington perspective. And so this is something that hopefully the Biden administration thought through the implications, acknowledge the risk and now has put some kind of mitigation plan in place in the region or elsewhere to help keep the country safe and we're just going to have to wait and see what that looks like but make no mistake the, the environment of the last 20 years is is no longer and this is something we're just going to have to watch going down the road. Rebecca we have a question I think you can, you can answer, and it kind of follows on what Java just said which is being more specific. What are the key trends and terrorist threats you've seen developing over the last few years that you anticipate will play a significant role in counter terrorism efforts over the next few or say a couple of decades. So, a couple things. One is just an acceleration and the plotting speed, right successful attacks as well as mitigated. More is happening, and it is happening faster than ever before diversification ideologically. So we talked about domestic violent extremism, which is, you know, a large bucket into unto itself. Al Qaeda resurgent and I think we see that in New York laying out in a couple of ways but certainly reinvigorating homegrown violent extremists who've been very active and we saw obviously a significant uptick in activity here in the city. So we're going to go from 2014 to the present. So you're going to have that threat, which I think is is growing post takeover, the threat of foreign fighters which has been in abeyance over the last couple years due to the pandemic, but I see that growing certainly near term. And that's not just an Afghanistan theater issue. That's a Yemen, that's a Somalia, that's a Sahel issue. So all of those coming together, create an environment where we need to be able to grapple with disparate threats at the same time. Jabid anything in particular specific that you're worried about that you think there isn't enough attention to any particular tactic, particular, you know, framework of ideology that we haven't talked about. I think we've done a good job talking about potential tactics and, and the way threats may manifest but one thing I didn't mention and it may be sort of somewhat particular to this question is part of the of the challenge again going forward at the United States for domestic terrorism here in the US are the significant differences in the legal framework and the gaps and authorities that exist for fighting terrorism at home versus abroad and I think this will continue to be exploited here in the United States as it already has so because we're dealing with Americans because there are a number of constitutional protections that Americans can stand behind in order to walk right up to the line of violent action. I think the United States as a country tackled that while still balancing the rights and privacy of individuals and super liberties and again not making the mistakes of of 911 of over securitizing and and stigmatizing communities and so these are all things we really have to think about. But again, because of the fact we are dealing with Americans here. This is going to make counter terrorism on the domestic terrorism side much much harder. So what we're going to add in terms of modality, and we flagged it earlier but just to double down is cyber related issues right and so social media has driven a lot of the inspiration the radicalization and mobilization of the last decade, but true cyber will I think intersect with terrorism and ways that we haven't experienced it yet, and that will create its own whole host of problems for us. And for both of you, which is in all of these counter terrorism kind of measures. What, how do you see the role of humanitarianism, how do you see the role of sort of efforts from the ground up of sort of taking care of resource issues taking care of individuals are displaced. You know, not so much in the framework of CVE but really relying on other kinds of institutions to help out as can this be pivotal in ways that we haven't looked at in the past. How do you see this, Rebecca start with you. This is going to be absolutely vital. And we're seeing that here right now with the Afghan refugee issue, even in this country. So these are organizations that have clearly played a role over the last 20 years, but they are going to be front and center. And so we need to start thinking about how to strengthen them early and often and increasing information flow and collaboration with organizations that perhaps didn't work directly with military with law enforcement with intelligence. And do you think the efforts towards that are underway. Yes, absolutely. And I think more will have to be done. What's your thoughts on this. Yeah, I think the Afghanistan resettlement issue is going to be a test case for this and on and on the backdrop of all these other factors we talked about and another one that I didn't get on the table about the changing or accelerating demographic profile of the United States. So there are already people in this new right space that are angry over their perception of how America has changed. This is going to yet be just another grievance for them. And there are already indications that people are thinking about violent action against Afghan refugees or people coming back based on those those grievances or that anger. I wish we had time for more you guys we could talk you guys are wonderful. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Javed. Daniel Rothenberg. I turn it over to you. Thank you.