 We've been going at this a while. We had a good night last night. We've had a very good day today Several people who have been to a number of these have walked up to me and said This is the best group. This group has been the most diverse the most interesting the most engaged the most committed to their roles I think that's true. I think it's been a really good day, but none of these processes are actually better than their conclusions None of them are better than, you know, what are the big ideas? Are there new ideas? Are we coming up with something new and fresh in the context of this discussion? And so for this session, we'll leave the roles behind We want to be ourselves. We want each of you to be leading experts in this area Just as you are all leading experts and because we've done this before and we felt that it was always very important to bring in some outside Perspectives. We're very fortunate to have here with us Greg Trevor Tyn who's the chairman of the National Intelligence Council Which is a really important part of the director of national intelligence that looks forward and Greg is a leading thinker on intelligence and how intelligence can be used and how it should evolve to face the challenges of the world that we are living in and likely to live in in the future and then At the end of the table here is Graham Allison who is well known to all of you from Harvard's Kennedy School, one of the leading thinkers on foreign policy for a long long time in fact and he asserts this was his grandfather, but in fact Up in our office at foreign policy is copy number one of foreign policy Which came out in the winter of 7071 and one of the most important articles in it was by Graham Allison And so every event we do we bring him no, I'm But but but Graham has been part of this dialogue for a long time and is one of the smartest strategic thinkers that we know And so here's how this is going to work Nancy's going to offer some seem thematic conclusions from the day I'll fill in one or two if I've got any and Then I'm going to pose a question to Greg and oppose a question to Graham about how this might fit into the longer-term way we manage these kind of issues pertaining to Violent extremism. I mean our focus here is combating violent extremism So what are some longer-term ideas about it and then after literally just one round of this What I want to do is open it up to the audience so that you've got some of your best ideas if you have no ideas Don't say anything That's my suggestion You know, but if you've got an idea a suggestion on the policy front offer that up and then Periodically I will turn to this group and say well What's your reaction to that and we will try to make the next 45 minutes lively and fast-paced You know what that means so Nancy? Great. Thank you. I just want to offer a few thematics that really emerged from the day and the first is that You know, this is this is definitely a problem that relates to the highly interconnected world that we live in not just from the issues around recruiting that we discussed but also the way knowledge spreads and so policies that are practiced these these kinds of approaches affect how Extremism is understood in any given Locale so the Interconnected interrelated nature of the world makes it very difficult and the second piece of that is it also limits the ability of states To be principal movers of solutions and that emerged very strongly in terms of What we experienced this morning where we really weren't able to use the usual state levers to come up with different Solutions or effective solutions and the importance of the private sector the civil society of faith leaders and of understanding What exactly is is Motivating and moving Millennials so that leads to one of the conclusions that emerged Both with Tom Donnellan and Steve Hadley and in various comments and the importance of really considering More integrated strategies that we need to have a number of these voices at the table in order to understand how the relationship of what we do Matters both in the short term in the long term and from the hard side in the soft side And I liked very much Jorn's comments that sometimes the soft side is the hard side Because it's more difficult to really understand what will work or what won't work Especially with longer-term time horizons and sometimes political pressures Which is the next point and that is there is still a very weak evidence basis for understanding what some of these interactions and what some of these Interventions will actually do and what they will do in a particular context Finally is the Importance of a local focus that we spent the morning talking about some of these larger frames Lot of it happening more at the UN and state level when we got down to particular places and more specific Pieces of the problem we started coming up with more specific possible solutions That looked at the role of local police the role of communities the role of understanding what is moving a particular young person into or out of Extremism and thinking a bit more granularly about how to address that in a particular community Looking at what Tom called the conducive conditions that Can and must be addressed locally there was a very important discussion Georgia and a couple others mentioned this about Steve Hadley also about not just the counter narrative But also understanding what is the positive vision? What is the alternative identity and how do you understand that and how do you support it and who? Articulates it and how do you support that? Finally, I think we just need to note the very forward and often audacious proposals by our tech industry colleagues and it underscores that tech is clearly an actor both in how some of the particulars of this issue that we're discussing today are spread and and If we can harness some of that creative energy for solutions That gives us a pathway to keep focused on into the future. So those are a few thematics Okay, thank you. Let me let me offer a couple of others that that that I picked up in the way And this you know, I'm gonna turn to Greg and then I'm gonna turn to Graham and sort of say Based on what you've just heard and based on what you know, you know What kind of priorities would you set in terms of dealing with these issues? Oh? I was struck at the beginning by you know The the discussion that Catherine kicked off of sort of five w's and an H, you know This is the who what where when why you know and how We go and tackle it and one of the reasons I am is because there is clearly a spectrum of responses here you know from dealing with this from the supply side to the demand side dealing with this from Identifying the people who are most likely to end up being drawn to violent extremism and dealing with you know trying to create off-ramps so that they don't go there to Interdicting them as they are on the way there To getting them off that path after they have been there and that each of these things involves a whole range of tools and I noticed as I was looking at the Twitter that somebody said that I denigrated soft solutions and soft power and sort of the psychotherapeutic side of the This thing that's wrong. That's I do not I feel those things are vitally important to all of this And what I think I was trying to say was that you know, you know Nancy mentioned that sometimes doing what soft is hard But you know we talked about going from the social to the science from from the interpretive qualitative to the quantitative From dealing with the social origins of this to dealing with the battlefield consequences of this and there are no solutions that deal with just one element of it or another and that there are some elements of this that are more distasteful than other elements of this And that we you know can't do all of it and so we have to prioritize And so another key point that was made in number of cases shlomo made the point Another's made the point is we have to identify we can't you know stop the flow of violent extremists everywhere We have to identify choke points. We sort of have to look at the cardiovascular system of violent extremism and identify the the points where we can place pressure and Reduce the effectiveness of the system at the beginning along the way And at the end as we do so another of the points that came up is that we have to be very careful of unintended consequences So, you know if we act we must act proportionally Because to me if there is one You know big takeaway from this It's and this goes back to the soft hard dichotomy. It's that narrative is Action and action is Narrative you cannot say we are going to create a counter narrative and behave in a way that undermines your counter narrative You have to behave in a way that actually supports and embodies your narrative because words alone won't do the trick and if you give one area Which you know if you take one action It's going to be seized upon by an adversary and used and so this this narrative equals action thing is extremely important I too like Nancy was struck by The need to gather more evidence and move more towards the use of big data as we can in finding these kind of solutions Identifying the individual movements at the local level quantifying them translating that information in real time to actors who can take advantage of it Identifying trends very early rather than requiring them to accumulate over time so that things can be nipped in the bud And also using that kind of data analysis to actually understand what is driving actions Which gets us to you know one other question, which we haven't gotten into here But I think we ought to over some time and that is what about Countering violent extremism is unique to the 21st century environment there have always been violent extremists There has always been terrorism there have always been violent outbursts against governments And individuals who were unpopular But do we live in an era in which the ability to connect small alienated groups into larger groups Change the character of threats going forward the ability to respond quickly to information For there to be a very rapid spread of a viewpoint for a narrative to take life and go viral Changes the nature and the character of threats, you know, do we live in a point where? Today, we're talking about violent extremism As it's manifested in the political problems of the Middle East But we could just as easily face these kinds of issues this metastasization of social dysfunction in domestic problems in the United States or in Europe or in Russia or in other places that will Mimic many of these things because we are living with a new kind of Social construct that is that is empowered by new technologies. I'm not sure but I think we need to think about that and I think we we Run a risk if we look at the problem in terms of the proximate threat whether it was core al-Qaeda or its Daesh today or its Militant Islamic threats across the world or it's something else I think too narrow of you is is problematic So with that in mind you've heard now from Nancy and I sort of where this is You're clearly at a disadvantage of not having heard the whole day But but perhaps there are two or three things that resonate with your view on how to deal with these things that we can turn to Greg and then Graham The session I just got back from Asia late last night, so I had to put an appearance at the office at least Let me just say a couple things and then hope others will react Pick up David's last one. I think this is we are seeing in technology in other ways a new this is different That the combination of people being able to live in their own echo chamber to communicate quickly It does mean to self-radicalize Themselves on the net that's that's I think quite different and that does seem to me to be a Characteristic of the future we face It's obviously very difficult for folks like me who work in intelligence because that means individual groups may be atomized and therefore hard to find radicalized quickly and sometimes act fairly quickly after they radicalize Though we do know that the vast majority of people that radicalize then don't go on to commit violence And maybe there isn't that atomization Some advantage in the sense that the kind of semi-loan wolves very hard to predict attacks We've seen are almost certain to continue But happily they have been well tragic less damaging than the major attacks. We've feared since 9 11 So there is by that that atomization I think makes for both for less capability on their part, but still lethal And maybe the silver lining is it makes Less harm to us when an attack happens though politically as you know, it's very hard to say that out loud the other point I guess I would make strongly is to Nancy's point that this really is a Difficult area for governments to act almost anything we did to try and create a counter narrative would be suspect suspect from the get-go As she says we also then have to act primarily through intergovernmental organizations what we Where I said in the intelligence world try to do and this is all difficult enough is to remind our Colleagues that other people view the world very differently than we do And not everybody it turns out Really aspires to be a middle-class American They're moved by many other things as well and by the way by their own testimony Many of the would-be terrorists almost all the would-be terrorists mentioned US and other Western policies as part of why they radicalized So that's a tough message to get across but it does mean it seems to me that the counter counter narrative needs to be done by Communities all the emphases you've had can't be done across a region different It's a local set of issues very hard for as we know often when we talk to the parents of Radicalized people they say gosh. I had no idea So even communities can fail, but it's got to be there that the task is most impressive even for the government to help communities is difficult because last thing we want to do is Kill someone by our embrace. So I think this does have to be primarily the work of the private sector of police local police local communities local NGOs I Think that seems to be a strong conclusion. It makes it hard to implement because that means the Implementation is atomized as well, but I think it's a powerful insight. Let me stop there. Now, you know that's a really really important point and I think I think it's a kind of a Key takeaway here, which hasn't come up and I would characterize it as mirroring Just as a group like Daesh can grow Decentralized open source across many borders take many forms Embrace lots of local issues and use them to their benefit people alienated for lots of reasons that the response also has to be decentralized localized Open source using the tools that are available Not top-down Not one size fits all and that that requires, you know, that's sort of how companies think today It's and and and and it's not how governments they tend to say well Let's get a bunch of governments together We'll hand down a set of rules and and they will be implemented and I think we need to Think a little bit about how that mirroring can be used as a as a tool Graham So thanks very much. I'm sorry that I missed most of the conversation, but I've had a several pairs of eyes and ears here And they've given me some benefit of their takeaways. I think two big points first an academic moment, okay, so I'll go back to 1793 a long time ago 1793 just to remind you the 1776 was the question of independence 83 the war was with Britain was over 89 the Constitution 1789 was also a big event in France the revolution 1793 two big things happened at least in the European American space And the European space you got to the reign of terror so the guillotine at the plastic concord started chopping people 3000 that year in Paris and 30,000 across the rest of France, but in Philadelphia, which was then the capital of the US People started dying from what was called yellow fever and The yellow fever was an identified illness people caught it. They turned a little yellowish many of them and a large number of them died So over the course of the summer of 1793 More than 10% of the population of Philadelphia died John Adams was the vice president Abigail Adams his wife very thoughtful outspoken person who knew many many things Explained to her sister what was going on in Philadelphia in the summer of 1793 she said in the summer it became hotter the rivers became Terminal there was more more Turmoil in the river this gave off putrid air and the putrid air caused the disease So she said to John Let's get the hell out of there, and they left and we're gone for five months the vice president He went back to brain-free, Massachusetts And in the fall at the end of November when it became colder the putrid air went away And they returned the vice president to the Capitol Now why might that be relevant for this conversation? I'm wondering I Would say the conversation that's been held about this in Washington in general in the policy community is way way way more like The conversation in 1793 About whatever was happening Then most people are prepared to recognize That is if you think about something you said earlier in one of the sessions David about the viral Analogy So actually think about This if you were a medical person just think of it from the medical perspective. So medicine has actually progressed since 1793 Many other areas of policy. I'm less Comfortable or confident about and certainly in this space, but in any case medicine that's four questions first. What the cause? This is a virus or some bacteria that we know the genetic code In the case of whatever we call it violent extremism or whatever There's we have a good sense of the cause. I don't think so. Okay, secondly How is it transmitted? so in the case of Ebola to take an analogy that we've thought about lately unless there's a Transfer of bodily fluid from one to the other there's no transfer in the case of yellow fever It takes a mosquito not just a mosquito a female mosquito Who bites one gets the fluid transmits to another? in the case of Isis or dash or violent extremism Well, let me count the wings. I'm not sure we understand the next who's susceptible So in the case of Ebola you look at populations at in the case of of Violent extremism here. I think there's a little bit of help So these are mostly males They're mostly testosterone driven They're mostly 16 or 18 to 35 they top out There's a few females and there's a few others But if for whatever reason The population of males from 16 to 35 with into a deep freeze for that period Would this problem be different it might be so just to be controversial finally do we know what to do about it? so in the case of yellow fever The answer was to purge people So you gave them a mercurial purge and they vomited and this was thought to make them better or you bled them Let let down their blood pressure. I would say many of the treatments were administering look though look about as good So I would like my take away from the analogy is to simply say I think about this phenomena We can talk we can use a lot of categories. We can make some analogies But I think it's about as well understood as yellow fever in 1793. I Think it's a great analogy from dr. Allison It also calls to mind by the way discussion that I had not too long ago with a group of people in Washington addressing cyber threats and new technological threats and people were going around the room and The military people were coming up with the military response. We need a cyber command and The intelligence people were coming up with an intelligence response. We need to gather information from the internet and deal with that and You know in this particular case We've have economic people saying the solution is jobs and political people saying the solution is a political solution And there you start thinking gee When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, you know You start thinking people sort of stay in their lanes But during that discussion just to take your metaphor in a direction. I don't think you thought it was gonna go a guy came up Who happened to be the head of one of the advanced research projects agencies that we have in the US government? Whose training was as a public health first official and he said Maybe the way to deal with cyber and it and it just echoes with this discussion is actually the public health model I mean and and and I think it may pertain to this at the origin stage the public health model says Asked the questions that Graham asked and then try to come up with some best practices and some Education and the kind of things that reduce the likelihood of the contagion that reduce You know that make people aware of the potential threats That involve a sharing of information as more is known and that helps to contain the threat Now there is no one-size-fits-all threat. We've talked we've talked about this But at least in terms of the very very very beginning of this supply chain of violent extremists It may be that the public health model That says here here is the vulnerable community here the conditions that produce the threat Here is the best way that we know of to reduce it So it's actually going to reduce the number of people that go to the next stage So I do think in addition to trying to gather the kind of information that we don't have that Graham's analogy speaks to We may also want to try other models. We've got 15 or 20 minutes We've got a bunch of good ideas around the table. I am sure of it These guys will also have some responses to it So I want to go back to the kind of the discipline that we had at the beginning if people want to intervene and offer up an idea And they could keep it to 30 seconds or a minute so we can get some back and forth That would be the best way the kind of lightning round of big conclusions. Who wants to go first? All right, I'm gonna is there is there a Microphone someplace. All right, I'm we're gonna take I'm gonna take one of the first comments here from the audience But it's got to be 30 seconds the micro of the floor will give way beneath you at the end of 30 seconds You'll disappear. Thank you so much. I'm a part of a former World Bank official And thank you USIP for organizing this peace game. I Believe that Peace effort in the world will not be complete unless there is peace in religions and The peace in religion will not be complete unless there's dialogue and dialogue is not complete unless there's knowledge So I personally believe that sharing knowledge and learning about other religions very important I think consortium of rabbis imams the pastor somebody mentioned It's a good useful tool and as president Obama mentioned Religion is not radical. These are the people who are radical. So al-Qaeda and Daesh They are terrorists Islam is not terrorists. Thank you. Thank you specific Suggestions for policy actions far so I just wanted to echo a couple of themes that had come forward and push back a little bit On the panel. I think for many people CVE is sort of the latest and newest and greatest thing that everybody's talking about because we have this great threat with ISIS On the table right now, but in fact, we've had 13 and a half years worth of discussion within Communities that are on the ground to understand the ideological threat and there's a lot of value in what we have learned So I would say that while While we haven't talked about it in the mainstream the way we are doing in the summer of 2015 Believe you me There are people who from from September 12th all the way since our country was attacked have developed the kind of Understanding around why it is that people get sick. So what is my point? When you asked for a very specific policy recommendation I think one of the biggest failures has been and we are here in Washington is the partisan nature of this actual beast because the the teams that are looking at this have not indeed Looked back at what had happened and what we've learned to build off of it And we spent a lot of time in the first part of this administration Waiting and watching and thinking that things were different as opposed to moving the ball down the field So policy recommendation as we transition into a new administration and I am a bipartisan person I'm simply suggesting as a former policymaker that we indeed take the lessons from policy makers in terms of what has been seated What we have understood what the indicators are on the ground at the very local level and the money the hundreds of Thousands of dollars indeed millions of dollars that our government has spent on Developing programs on them on the ground and scaling them up So you're not building on a new front and then I have one other point that I did not raise today But I will raise because it's provocative and people are gonna throw tomatoes at me We does anybody have to make they might I think you're okay We talked about the ecosystem in which some of this stuff thrives and the the the chapters have been you know 9-11 onward, but actually the ecosystem has been building for 25 or 30 years in terms of The mindset on the ground what specifically am I speaking about there was some reference down at that side of the table to Gulf ideologies that are spreading in a wide variety of ways. So here's the policy question. I have To to the panel. Do you think our country? We'll ever get to a place where we are able to reconfigure and re-imagine What it would be like to speak openly and clearly about the impact of Gulf ideologies around the world both in in Textbooks that are being sent to children to learn In hatred that is being learned to spread and in moss that are being built the diversity of Islam is one of the most Important central pieces to building a new generation of young Muslims that understand how to push back And when we allow one monolith to control everything we are building that ecosystem. So that's my question for that for the panel You go go ahead Greg I don't mean to talk, but I think I will keep my job for the time being that is a very difficult conversation for us to have and in Some sense while we should be able to have it It's more important that people in the region actually have it because there are the people can do something about it And as I said earlier are Anything we did particularly as a government is so suspect that even if we said something true It probably wouldn't have much effect. Well, you've you've tenure, right? So so so you can say outrageous things every day But Farah, what what outrageous thing would you have us say? Yeah? You know, I'm not in government anymore And when I was in government, I was very limited in terms of how I could speak about Saudi Arabia, for example, right? so what I will say is in in the Demolishing of local cultures and heritage around the world We have seen and we do have evidence that Saudi Arabia has been responsible for doing that around the world We don't talk about it that makes a difference to how a young person grows up because when they only thing that they see is The newest version of what it means to be Muslim It means that that young kid who has 800 years of history behind him or her doesn't look at that as important So what would I want the United States government to do? I want us to be clear with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Gulf that are promoting a Monolithic kind of Islam and decimating historic Heritagees and diversity of Islam first Secondly, we need to we need to absolutely be clear about where foreign Books and textbooks are being written and published that are spreading a particular kind of ideology We aren't speaking about that publicly, and I think that that's very dangerous I'm not cutting you off for the substance, but just for the for the for the time Do you want to say anything else on that or was I agree? So see no to no tomatoes here. I'll come down in one second No, no go ahead, but brief briefly we really in minute ink increments I will do my best to make it in a minute. Thank you, David And finally you you nailed it on The point that we know where the source of this ideology is from and it's spread But beyond that I want to be more constructive and just give my final statement in terms of a vision for the new Middle East as I mentioned what drives Daesh is the possibility is the ability to give these Disillusioned youth a vision of what the future looks like it gives them dignity gives them respect It brings back Islam in the forefront of what it was the Khalifat the heyday the golden age of Islam So we need to redefine that but also provide it So what I would like to just make I do my best in one minute You've just you've just used your 29 seconds. I'll go to my final 30 so Division for a new Middle East addressing the legitimate demands social economic and political aspirations of young Educated and connected population bringing dignity opportunity in future to those populace What is our goal in a regional perspective? stability and security in a region political settlement for multiple military theaters a Proactive inter-religious dialogue to shift Islamic thought to the center from the far right Iran is a sheer leader in Saudi Arabia as the Sunni leader should play a major part in this inter-religious dialogue We require institution building and weaving conflict resolution mediation peace building into our academia into our institutions and our governance Reallocation of resources GCC stopped spending money on buying weapons instead pump it into more, you know Social economic development in the region and within your own populace and countries when it's regional cooperation disaster management humanitarian aid economic opportunities early warning systems and preventive measures and confidence building measures because there's no trust among these regional countries and Finally in terms of the activities that international community can do this is when first and foremost US and the Western powers have to acknowledge their failures in their foreign policy in the Middle East That's important. That's a first that they should do number two They have to reorient their foreign policy towards a wave from these kingdoms and monarchies and Dictatorships towards more the aspirations of the populations, you know, you advocate democracy, but you play a different policy in the Middle East Okay, I've got to cut I've got a look you've literally what you've done here is covered every single point about every single problem in the No, it's it's important to because I tell you why because this is a region that is burning And I want to just finally just give you what I'm gonna give you 30 seconds and then I'm gonna unplug the microphone What I'm trying to say is that you know the British the French and the Germans massacred each other's two times in two world wars Because I'm trying to give you the Daesh problem today is a snapshot in the history of What we're looking at in the future, you know You would never have been envisioned following the second world war or the first world war We need to think outside the box do not be in the mud of today Think of what will be the bud and the future that will be created in the region of the Middle East and that Requires visionary thinking that requires to understand that this is just a snapshot and to get out of it We need to provide this new vision and that's what I'm hoping that we can collectively do in the near future Thank you, Andrea Andrea couple with the global humanitarian and development organization Mercy Corps were working in most of these fragile states So my policy recommendation would be to change the framing Instead of calling it countering violent extremism. We need to frame it as preventing violent extremism It sends a very different message It sends a message both internationally, but also to Congress. It's going to take a lot of hard work by this administration and by experts to educate Congress that the money Doesn't need to go simply to f-15s But it needs to go into the conflict mitigation programming into the reconciliation Into addressing the root causes of what drives these youth Predominantly into these extremist groups. Thank you very much They only got five minutes here And by five minutes, it's I mean no I mean five minutes. Yeah Yeah, there's there were a lot of inshallah ideas there, but they were good by Iman I believe that was very well-intentioned. It's the inshallah. Yeah, no it covered a lot of ground I just because of time I wanted to stop I think you know First of all, there's a lot of capacity constraints for people in this room We are we propose things we want to be the masters of it But as always it's you know who actually has the power to do any of this So creating jobs for all the youth in the Middle East well yet an Arab spring awakening uprising, etc And everybody in the room me you all the governments failed miserably nothing succeeded nobody created any jobs It's still the number one issue in the Middle East private sector wasn't there And now there's not even any attention to that. So I think we really have to take a sober look at ourselves now One of the big things we keep talking about in all the peace games It's the issue that keeps recurring and we say we can't change that and it ends up being a defining component of the Context and that's the situation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and we take it for a given that Saudi Arabia and Iran Cannot reconcile cannot be working together Etc. I would pause it that the circumstances are such in the Middle East across the board Locally nationally regionally that they cannot be fundamentally changed today and that relates very Significantly to this problem of the extremism problems being fueled There are things that can be done and we heard great examples But fundamentally cannot be changed unless there is a broader reconciliation Or a daytime between Saudi Arabia and Iran where they can act in some type of concert and it's unrealistic as that sounds I think the US fundamentally under estimates and the policy community underestimates It's ability to convene those two actors in a room and talk with them I think it's high time that happens and I don't think we should doubt that it's possible It very much is possible and we should be working towards that and I think that's a very tangible even though it's ethereal objective, okay Tangible but ethereal But look I mean it Clearly your critical point which is if you take things as they are on the ground right now You could give up or you could say what is it in this that will take us to some place? We've never been before and I think that point is a very constructive point because frankly Otherwise you just get you know you would throw up your hands and walk away. So for briefly Yeah, I just want to actually pick up on the World War two piece, which I was very interesting You know World War two obviously had that the largest this is now the largest displacement in the world since World War two What arose out of World War two was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a lot of the Arab Spring was obviously it was an assertion of My rights now I have the I have rights and that that's how it started a lot of it So I would just want us to see this as a rights-based whatever happens It should be rights-based. It should be human rights-based shouldn't be based on generalizations about an entire community of people between the ages of you know 16 and 30 I Think we need to be much more specific than that I think we need to respect that there are differences in all communities including of course the Muslim community around the world And that people are vulnerable for different reasons, but that whatever approach is taken it should start locally, and it should be it should be Right-spaced. Thank you very much. Jocelyn very briefly Very short. I think that the idea would be talking about vision is the more we have been discussing We are still in a Cold War vision with the center state The state being the major actor and looking for superpower that in this current situation would be the US And I think it doesn't reflect what are the din dynamic at the ground which is People who distrust politics people who want to be empowered on a daily basis. So what does this mean? It means that we have To give up the idea that the US can't solve and should solve The question of violent extremism. It has to be a multilateral Approach including also the Muslim countries and not only looking at Muslim states, but Independent thinking outside the Muslim state. That's why when I hear all the time Iran versus Saudi Arabia I'm not sure that it reflects the the capacity of innovation that exists in different civil society than that can be tapped into but not through the state channel we have to forget about the state Not to forget about it completely, but not to bank on the state only to resolve these kind of global issues Thank you very much. I want to turn back to you guys Based on what you've heard. Do you have anything else you would like to add to this conversation? Pick up the inch a lot agenda would seem to be exactly right and a wonderful vision But I said I look back over the last 15 years if we take in a snapshot of how we thought about the terrorism problem at Three-year interview intervals. It would have been quite different one from the other We know that Isle will go away at some point, but it'll morph into something else We tend to get focused on the flavor of the month And I think the underlying conversation is the one you're trying to have about how do we think about? Causes is hard. How do we think about key points of intervention? It is it's going to be a long task as the kinds of demographics economics sectarian Identity politics that are going on in the Middle East are all going in the wrong direction so it isn't going to go away quickly and that I think makes the the Task of trying to see if we can understand it better Get beyond our putrid air Diagnosis of the problem all the more important It's very hard I think but it's also very necessary Where it seems to me in a funny way as several people said really at the beginning of thinking about this problem after we've been working on it for 15 years it's sort of the typical American ready-fire aim approach and it seems to me this is a time for Stepping back and trying to say yes We know they can be continuing manifestations of this violent extremism Can we move back a step and really have some sense that there are things that we but more important others Might do to do something about it Graham So if I stay with the theme here, I mean I I think that We will look back on this after a decade or two and still be amazed How different our views are then than they are now in the way that one sees in the public health or medical analogy and In the public health space if we take Ebola There we have a good good idea what the cause what's the transmission? What's the fix and look at what's happened? Okay, so it's pretty amazing if we look at yellow fever Actually, there's no yellow fever in Developed countries now, but 30,000 people died from yellow fever last year just not in the countries that we think about most of the time So it has not been eradicated, but if we want to take Influenza and flu every year there comes flu Remember in 1918 50 million people died from flu This huge influenza epidemic more than in World War one So I suspect a posture of humility about what we're doing and exploration is the place where I take away Yes, I think humility does play a huge role in this and and I think it's essential even as we need to Embrace visions that are bolder than that and I think the humility takes many forms one form of which is To recognize this is not of this moment Something a lot of people have been working on for a long time in the US But of course, it's something that people in the region have been working on for centuries in many cases There are issues that have Existed for centuries that we need to recognize as having historical roots But there are also phenomenon which are new That we have to recognize are different and where old solutions will not apply and where we need to be Creative and understand what's new about them and that also Requires a degree of humility in a purely practical sense. We also have humility about peace game We can't bring together a group of people even a brilliant group of people like you for a day or day and a half and Solve the most intractable problems in the world I'm reminded a little bit of a story that was told last night by one of my colleagues Claire Casey Who I think is no longer here, but it has been very helpful in putting this program together And I'll return to that thought in a moment but she described growing up as the daughter of a foreign service officer in Cairo and during the day Some local workers would come periodically to the house and grab the mango tree and Shake the mango tree and a few ripe mangoes would fall out of the tree Which they would then pick up and eat those mangoes and that's kind of what we do at the peace game is we get a bunch of people together and we shake the tree a little bit and Hopefully a few ripe mangoes fall out of the tree that can be useful in shaping the policy discussion moving it forward We don't have the aspiration that we are going to solve the problems that have been insoluble We are just gonna move closer fortunately for us This is an ongoing process again Thanks to the support that we've had from our sponsors at the UAE embassy But but the cooperation between US IP and foreign policy and all of you and this is a growing process You know, we started out with one a year In Washington and in Abu Dhabi this year. We're adding a discussion in September At the beginning of September, which is going to be in Brussels Our will then have our Abu Dhabi meeting about Abu Dhabi meeting and I think what do we say the 9th and 10th of December And we will have a number of outreach meetings with government leaders here to try to bring these messages forward We have at foreign policy the peace channel where articles appear based on this and the preparatory Articles that you know that lead up to these meetings the concluding articles that we draw and we encourage all of you if you have Ideas on these things to send the articles to us and we'll post them on the peace channel We have six million people who read different parts of foreign policy each month And so it's a great platform to get those ideas out there So the dialogue also continues via that platform and we'll look for other platforms as we go So from my perspective, this has been extremely worthwhile discussion Because there have been a quite a number of of right mangoes that have fallen from the tree And before I turn it over to Nancy I do want to say in conclusion a special thanks to the wonderful people at US IP who've made this fantastic Fantastic setting and this fantastic meeting possible to my wonderful team from foreign policy Grace Rooney and Stephanie and the others who are back there Maria who have made this possible It takes a lot of work and you don't see all the work We use the model of the duck gliding on the surface while it's paddling furiously beneath the surface a lot of work Is going into it and so before I hand it over to Nancy I just ask you to all join me in thanking the US IP and FP staffs who put this together Nancy is our is our host and so I will turn to her for the concluding comments Great. Thank you, David and thank you for your energetic M scene through the day and moving us all through a very complicated dialogue I think that Graham's historical frame bringing us back several hundred years was helpful thank you for bringing that at the end of the day Graham and Thank you also Greg for bringing in the framing that I think underscores some of the difficulty with our own internal politics here in the United States both of which are very helpful and if we remember back to last night when Tom Donilon talked about a region that has really lost its state structures in at least four countries at this point and also at the beginning of The Arab Spring there was an effort by the Obama administration To do as it was termed in the Cairo speech align our interest with our values And I raised that apropos of the inshallah agenda and how it then quickly ran aground as the inability to balance the Immigration and insecurity with an effort to hold that frame and it seems that if we think about the historical Framing on this and a number of you talked about the long time frame versus short Actions that we need to have that's an important thing to walk out of of holding all of those multiple Dimensions in focus at the same time the second Really important point that I wanted to hit is is that From a policy perspective It is how to balance the heart in the soft and that was raised in a number of ways last night and today and Being able to have a better evidence basis on our public health Set of questions We need that so that we can bring that to the table to balance the heart and soft to Rebalance some of the budgetary considerations and understand the inner relationships, so I thank all of you for the very lively both in-role and out-of-role Approaches that you brought to the conversation today it was it was a long day as people really stayed with it and I Think surfaced a lot of good ideas and as David indicated we will seek to bring those forward in mango form or otherwise to fruition Thank you To and to bring to bear on further conversations together and on the policy Conversation as we look at the challenges ahead I want to echo the thanks to both the foreign policy and the US IP team especially to those who worked through the night Lisa Jamie Jusselin and masterful leadership with George Lopez and Bill Taylor Working with grace and the foreign policy Thank you, thank you very much and thank you for being here with us today