[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    THE EVOLVING THREAT OF TERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE COUNTERTERRORISM 
                               STRATEGIES

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 15, 2017

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the House Armed Services 
Committee held a full committee hearing on The Evolving Threat of 
Terrorism and Effective Counterterrorism Strategies. The hearing 
featured three witnesses, Professor Bruce Hoffman, Mr. Brian Jenkins, 
and Ambassador Michael Sheehan, all of whom are well-known 
counterterrorism subject matter experts.
  There is no question that terrorism is a serious problem that 
requires holistic solutions, and there is no doubt that countering 
terrorism at home and abroad at times requires using hard power. This 
is a point that we can all agree. However, I am concerned that we have 
spent the overwhelming portion of our federal resources and national 
attention on the security dimensions of terrorism since 9/11 while 
largely ignoring the intangible elements, such as those requiring soft 
power solutions. This approach has led our government to adopt policies 
which only exacerbate the problem of terrorism rather than solve it.
  President Trump's recent Executive Orders (EOs), in particular the 
Muslim ban and the virulent language being promulgated by senior 
officials, will only bolster the narrative which terrorist groups such 
as the Islamic State (IS) seek to spread, i.e. the West is at war with 
Islam. In his testimony in front of the House Committee on Homeland 
Security, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly called the EO 
barring individuals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering 
the United States a ``temporary pause.'' While I will not question the 
sincerity of this remark, the vast majority of counter-terrorism 
experts, including Michael Leiter, the former Director of the National 
Counterterrorism Center, agree that at best the EO completely ``misses 
the point.'' At worst, the EO is ``stupid,'' and ``counterproductive,'' 
according to Patrick Skinner, a former CIA counterterrorism case 
officer.
  As Skinner and other counterterrorism experts note, we currently rely 
upon local partners in Syria, Libya, and Iraq with whom we work side by 
side to expel IS terrorists from Mosul and Al Bab and other areas. With 
the Immigration EO, we are effectively telling our partners now that we 
won't need them and will abandon those who have sacrificed greatly for 
our cause. This is false. We do need them. It is also worrying that 
this EO supports the hateful West vs. Muslim World narrative terrorists 
are trying to propagate. As Jessica Stern, a counterterrorism expert, 
recently reported, ``jihadis are already celebrating Trump's executive 
order as a `blessed ban.''' Let me repeat that: terrorists are 
celebrating Trump's Immigration Executive Order.
  It does not stop there. Late last month Reuters reported that the 
administration is moving away from using the neutral term, Countering 
Violent Extremism (or CVE), to Countering Islamic Extremism. Reuters 
further reported that the administration is focusing the work of a CVE 
Task Force on programs solely tackling radical Islamic groups, although 
the evidence clearly shows that since right-wing extremists have killed 
more people in the United States than Islamic Extremists. The world is 
following these developments, and terrorist leaders are using them to 
rally supporters and garner recruits.
  In late January 2017, the New York Times provided evidence of a 
leaked draft of an EO that would have revived C.I.A. prisons, also 
known as black sites, where terrorism suspects were detained and 
tortured following the 9/11 attacks. The draft EO was reminiscent of 
the immediate years following 9/11, when torture was condoned by some 
of the highest levels of our government. Torture did not work back then 
and it does not work now. Simply put, torture makes us less safe. In 
early January 2017, a group of 176 retired flag officers from all 
branches of the United States military signed a letter to then 
President-elect Trump calling torture ``unnecessary'' and 
``counterproductive because it undermines our national security.'' A 
few days ago the New York Times reported that although the idea of 
black sites seemed to have been dropped, the Trump Administration was 
finalizing a new EO draft that would bring future IS detainees to the 
wartime prison at Guantanamo Bay.
  In the years following the 9/11 attacks, Americans were forced to 
confront our policies of torture, black sites, the Abu Ghraib prison 
scandal, and the wartime prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. These policies 
not only left a stain on our conscience and America's moral standing, 
but they also led to the radicalization of countless of individuals. It 
is well known that Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of IS, spent 
significant time at American detention centers in Iraq, including Abu 
Ghraib and Camp Bucca. It was there that he and other future leaders of 
IS first met. Former prison commanders, analysts, and soldiers all 
reported that these prison sites ``provided a unique setting for both 
prisoner radicalization and inmate collaboration--and was formative in 
the development of today's most potent jihadist force.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is plain to see the means this administration will 
use to counter terrorism will only lead to further radicalization, the 
birth of more terrorist groups, and increasingly strained relations 
with the Muslim world. I hope that we in Congress do everything we can 
to ensure that our counter terrorism policies live up to our values, 
and that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

                          ____________________