But we could find out about where they were being held, about how secure they are, and about the potential to bring them back to the United States. But what I found when I got there was something that I was not at all expecting to see. And that was a northeastern Syria that was seeing a return of refugees who had left that part of the country. We went into Mambage. We saw, walked through the marketplace without any body armor on, talked to the merchants who were in the marketplace, traveled along the road, saw the farms that were beginning to come back, very rich farmland, and met with some of the leaders in Mambage in a restaurant, sat down and talked with the SDF commanders and with the local Arab councils. And everywhere we went, what we heard from the Syrian people that we talked to was, please stay. Don't let America leave. Make sure you stay. We need you there because we are finally seeing some stability return to the country. We traveled along the road, and children walking along the road were flashing V for victory signs at the American troops when they saw us. So I came back not just with information and thoughts about how to address the detainee situation, but I came back convinced that the effort that we were putting in northeast Syria, the 2,000 or so troops, the $200 million in stabilization money that is there, is making a huge impact and it would be a terrible mistake for us to leave. To leave Syria to the Russians, to the Iranians, to Assad, to the brutality of what continues to be one of the worst humanitarian conflicts that we've seen, to we're not sure what will happen with Turkey along the northeastern border, to abandon our allies and partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces. So I am in wholehearted agreement with what the report says, with those recommendations. And it is clear in my mind anyway that those American troops, those diplomats who have been there continue to serve as a shield against the ISIS cells that are operating in northeast Syria, continue to serve as a shield against total abandonment of Syria to Russia and Iran. And a recognition that while the President may believe that ISIS has been defeated, that conditions on the ground in Syria and across the world paint a very different picture. And if the United States diminishes its presence, we run the risk of enabling a resurgence of ISIS, we run the risk of the capitulation or all-out destruction of our partners in the region, and the eventual loss of the resource-rich territory that the United States currently helps to control. And unfortunately, instead of leveraging those gains as the report suggests we can do, this administration has chosen to squander them. And we are again based with uncertainty in Syria. And again, that's what I believe this report tells us, that we have an opportunity again to stand strong at the negotiating table, to be in a position where all of our allies are willing to listen to us. But we've got to take some definitive actions. We've got to breathe new life into the policies that got us into Syria in the first place. And we should not cede those hard-fought gains to Assad, to Russia, and to Iran. And that ultimately the United States and the President should recognize that our leadership is essential to completely defeating ISIS and to helping to address the terrible humanitarian situation in the Middle East and in Syria. And one of the lines that I like best from the report asserts, and I quote, no one argues that withdrawing U.S. troops would make ISIS less likely to regroup or Iran less likely to entrench itself, end quote. Bringing an end to the horrific violence in Syria, which has put so much pressure on our allies, should be our main focus, working with the international community. And I believe that the authors of this report have played a critical role in helping to lay out, once again, the arguments for why that's in America's interest and how we can actually move the ball forward in Syria in a way that's positive. Because there is still time, there is still room for America to achieve its aims by working with our partners and securing peace in the region. The challenge now will be to ensure that we begin to implement the recommendations in this report, that we heed the bipartisan call of this serious study group and its recommendations. And I can tell you that, at least today, not only have we had a hearing this week on the report, which I think begins to give us a blueprint for how to move forward in Congress, but one of the recommendations, the creation of the ISIS Detainee Coordinator, is in the National Defense Authorization Act. So that should pass as soon as we pass the NDAA this year, which should be sometime next month. And we're also beginning to see some of the actions of some of our allies on addressing the issues that are raised in the report. I heard this week that Germany is beginning to put on trial some of the Syrians who are in Germany for crimes against humanity. I think that is another sign that this is an international issue. It's important to the international community and that for the United States to continue to be relevant, we need to stay at the table. We need to exercise leadership, and that's what this report says. So congratulations again. Thank you all very much for your work. And for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I appreciate the fact that you and Senator McCain worked very hard to put this study group together with obvious significance and results, which are helpful to all of us. Thank you also to Michael and Dana for the work that you've done in leading this study group. I had the privilege of listening to you in your testimony before our subcommittee this week. They are extremely expert and thorough in their analysis. I think made very compelling cases for a way forward in Syria. The great debate which is going on that relates to Syria but also to our affairs throughout the world is what it means to pursue our national interest and what our national interest means with regards to Syria and other places in the world. And there is certainly a stream of thought which is there's all sorts of bad stuff going on throughout the world including in Syria. And if we're really caring about America we should just get the heck out of there and let them do to each other what they're going to do.  And following the Second World War as you know Harry Truman and Dean Atchison sat down and described a new American foreign policy. In Dean Atchison's book, President of the Creation, it basically said there are three major elements of American foreign policy going forward. Number one, we're going to be involved in the world because when we're not involved in the world things happen which ultimately draws in because no nation is truly an island, well I guess there are some that are literally island, but from an allegorical standpoint no nation is truly an island and we are connected to the rest of the world and if we're not involved bad things will happen that influence us. Number two, we should share our values with others throughout the world and encourage them to adopt human rights that we find acceptable and various freedoms and so forth. And then number three, we should be strong and we should be strong so that our influence in the world is as great as it can possibly be and by the way our strength is enhanced by linking arms with other nations that we can only be so strong today based upon our own scale but ultimately other nations are going to be large, China for instance will have a much larger economy than ours someday unless there's some kind of discontinuity that occurs there they'll have a much larger economy, larger military than ours some day so linking arms with our allies becomes essential. That's been the foreign policy for well up until more recently and now the question is well should that continue to be our foreign policy or should we just get out and come home. Now the study group looked at the circumstances in Syria and said we've got to look at this carefully and Senator Shaheen I think very thoroughly described those circumstances hundreds of thousands died about a half a million people died, 5.6 million people refugees around the world it's an unthinkable number, 5.6 million, 6 million displaced within Syria itself. I mean these are just unthinkable numbers and 86 deaths of our own men and women in uniform whose memory we hold very dear and these facts are not just devastating from a human standpoint a humanitarian standpoint they also have dramatic foreign policy implications and impact us so when 6 million people become refugees throughout the world many are going into Europe and into nations Turkey and others that are friends of ours it either strengthens them or weakens them it makes them in many cases weaker and subject to a greater burden and if they're weaker and there are allies then our effort is weaker these things have an impact on us when they go into Turkey and Turkey is upset with us linking with the Kurds and we're working with the Kurds to try and fight forces within Syria if Turkey which has been our ally and a member of NATO is angry with us again we weaken ourselves it's remarkable how things going on in Syria impact our capacity to stand up our interests here and around the world now what was interesting as I read the study report and I'm sure you've had the chance to do so is an underlining of things which I think has not been foremost in the American psyche one is that ISIS is not defeated its territory has been removed but that ISIS continues to be active two is that it's not just active spread out throughout the population and in one corner or another but instead it's active in some of these refugee camps one camp seventy thousand people in the camp and overwhelmingly becoming radicalized I was in Iraq earlier this year and they've got ISIS fighters in Iraq they're in various communities in Iraq and the Iraqi government wonders what do we do with these people as they go back to their homes will they radicalize these communities and go after Iraq we're obviously we have a huge interest Assad continues to use chemical weapons against his people what does that say about what's going to happen in the world that we're going to live in it doesn't become acceptable for nations to use chemical weapons is there no consequence on the global stage of people using chemical weapons what does that mean for Americans and our friends around the world if it is acceptable not punishable to be using chemical weapons 2500 Iranian troops in Syria clearly Iran looks at Syria as a key part of its global strategy to dominate become the hegemon of the of the Middle East that has consequence for us because of our trade there and also our relationships with nations like like Israel and Iraq and so forth so Iran clearly plant continued to play a very key role there Russia Russian missionaries I mean do Americans know that Russian mercenary troops attacked American troops in a battle about a year ago a little over a year ago Idlib a province of Syria where there are some three million people which are surrounded by or have been infested by various terror groups not just al-Qaeda but ISIS and other groups of various kinds so you got three million people a humanitarian disaster on the making but if they Russian to Turkey will have an additional refugee problem it's I mean there are extraordinary elements that the study group went through that that suggests there's a lot going on there that will have an impact not just on the lives of the people there which is an enormous concern for any human being but they will have an impact on America's interests and I think that the key recommendation of the study group was this matters to us it doesn't just matter to them we're not involved in the world just because we're only concerned about them we're also concerned about us and in my view being dramatically concerned about the interests of the people of the United States of America means that we need to be involved in the world and we need to promote our values in the world and we need to strengthen ourselves every way we can stronger economy here stronger balance sheet stronger relationships with other nations if we're really in favor of America and focusing on American future then we want to be involved in the world and Syria is a case in point where being involved is absolutely critical and to say gee let's save the cost of 2,000 soldiers we have some 600,000 fighting men and women but let's get those 2,000 home to save that money and say we got out of Syria with the consequence of doing so could be so dramatic not just on them but on us given that fact we need to be shouting for the roof tops don't pull out don't look at such a narrow analysis of what it means to have American interest at the forefront think about what our interests are long-term and what the implications will be of these decisions so I applaud the work that you're doing I I look forward to being part of those voices that will continue speaking about this and senator Shaheen and I as we were sitting getting ready for this conversation said we got to see what we can do to actually get the administration and Congress to buy into this and to promote some of these policies I don't think we have an answer as to how to make Syria all nice and neat I mean I appreciate the work that this group did but you know they're saying here's the next step and don't do that and don't do that and do do this but how we make this all work out I don't know but I do agree that just walking away is not the right answer not for Syrians not for our fellow human beings that are children of the same God and certainly not for the United States of America thank you so much good afternoon everybody we want to just start by thanking all of you for being here for taking your time it's a busy week obviously in Washington but we appreciate everybody who's come out for this to focus on this issue everyone who's watching the webcast thanks for for sharing this time with us it was I'm Mike sing it was my honor to serve as one of the co-chairs alongside my colleagues of the serious study group and I first want to express my appreciation for senator Shaheen and senator Romney for their comments I don't think I can say much more that hasn't already been said but I want to express appreciation for their comments I think it's so important that we have not just experts not just activists not just officials who are involved in this but also leadership on the Hill political leadership and so we appreciate that deeply so I want to start just by talking a little bit about something which frankly you've already heard about from senator Romney and senator Shaheen before I hand things over to Dana's rule my co-chair our charge on the serious study group that we received from Congress was to provide Congress and the administration with two things essentially one was an assessment of the situation in Syria and the report does that the other was a set of recommendations for US policy and those are featured in the report as well but we among the group decided that there was really a third element that needed to be included in this that we couldn't just take for granted and that was this question of why should Americans care about this why does Syria matter to the United States and a lot of this you heard from the two senators but I want to echo a little bit about what they said but I also want to go backwards a bit because I think to understand the answer to this question to understand where we are today you also do need to go backwards a bit the conflict in Syria which is really now an intersecting series of conflicts started as a peaceful uprising in 2011 as part of the so called Arab Spring and it progressed in a very negative way from there in April of 2013 ISIS moved from Iraq into Syria I think these days you know if you look at coverage of this conflict you can almost think that it started with ISIS obviously it didn't start with ISIS it ISIS came in only a couple of years into the conflict August of 2013 you had the gassing of Syrians in the suburbs of Damascus by President Assad which triggered the whole red line incident in August in September of 2014 as Senator Shaheen talked about you had the brutal executions the brutal murders of James Foley and Stephen Sotloff by ISIS in September of 2015 you had the intervention into Syria by Russian armed forces which has proven so decisive and so bedeveling to us to this day and all along the way you had the exodus of refugees driven from their homes in Syria to neighboring countries to the shores of Europe and elsewhere and all along the way you've had hopes within the US government within other governments in other quarters that somehow we could just avoid this conflict you'll many of you will remember back in around 2013 or so far we talked about cauterizing the conflict we've talked about sheltering ourselves from the impacts of the conflict but as the senators mentioned we haven't been able to shelter ourselves from the impact of this conflict and I think the group was unanimous and feeling as though that will continue to be true there are vital US national interests at stake in Syria and we detail this in the report you have terrorist groups finding safe haven in Idlib some of which are actively engaged in plotting externally you have ISIS morphing into an insurgency in northeastern Syria you have Iran entrenching itself and seeking to project power via Syria something that it's done in the past but is doing in a much more determined way today you have Russia using its intervention in Syria to reestablish itself as a significant player in the Middle East and to try to undermine American interests and prestige in that region and elsewhere you have refugees straining the economies of neighboring countries and roiling politics in Europe you have international norms being smashed as senator Romney said by the behavior of the Assad regime Russia and Iran whatever your preferred strategic framework whether you're concerned about terrorism first and foremost as we had been for so many years whether you're focused on great power competition as is increasingly the case amongst national security circles here this is a conflict where those two things converge where they come together it could yet get worse as our report details we're very concerned as a group about the possibility of a massacre and a new exodus of refugees from Idlib and the possibility frankly those refugees wouldn't have anywhere to go since so many of them have come to Idlib as internally displaced persons we're very worried about still the potential for a Turkish incursion into northeastern Syria which could not only cause more tensions between the US and Turkey but bring Turkey into conflict with the SDF with all the consequences for the US military presence a wider war between Iran and Israel remains a possibility we've already seen some ominous spreading of the conflict between the two and of course that could become more pronounced and in the areas that the regime has retaken you could see I think a reigniting of the civil war because the control that's being exerted there is brutal but tenuous I would say our group was unanimous in the judgment that we cannot ignore this conflict that this is important for Americans and we've tried to make that case because really I think at the end of the day good policy is going to have to follow from people being convinced of that that this matters to American interests as Senator Romney said as Senator Shaheen said with that I just want to say thank you thank you again to all of you for being here thank you to Dana my co-chair thank you to all of our group members who were true experts very collegial and worked very hard on this report we're also cognizant that we received an amazing level of support from the US Institute of Peace and so we thank their staff and I'm sure Dana will echo this but we're also cognizant that you know we are we really represent our peers there are so many great experts around town in this audience I'm sure who have been working very hard on these issues who continue to work hard on these issues and will long after this report is published and what we hope is that we can also help to shine some light on their work and bring it some attention and so thank you to all of you thank you Mike good afternoon so as Senator Shaheen said last year Congress directed the Syria study group to form an assessment of the political and military status of the Syrian war and provide recommendations for the way ahead today we are proud to present a report that represents the consensus of all 12 members it is a bipartisan plan for action now nothing else is going on in Washington so I know you all have read the entire report already so this will be a review just going to hit the top line conclusions that we want to make sure are imparted to everyone here and everyone watching on the livestream Assad has not won the war areas under his control are riddled with crime and poverty civilians are subject to conscription forced disappearances and execution conditions are set for the next phase of conflict the political process is stalled the announcement earlier this week of the formation of a constitutional committee may hold progress but it is too soon to tell to date Assad has not demonstrated willingness to make meaningful compromises his offensive in idlib makes it painfully difficult to conceive of momentum toward a negotiated settlement at this point in time ISIS is not defeated you've heard this over and over and over so let me say it again ISIS is not defeated the US led military effort successfully pushed ISIS out of the territory it held but the group has transitioned to an insurgency meanwhile al-Qaeda is still active in Syria the ISIS detainee population is a few prison breaks away from refilling its ranks for the next phase of battle and the US supported Syrian Democratic forces are resource constrained in securing this population Iran Iranian boots are not leaving Syria despite US sanctions and Israeli strikes in addition to its military campaign Iran is entrenching itself in serious economic and social fabric for long-term influence Russia has exploited its intervention on behalf of Assad to contest US influence and leadership Turkey US Turkey ties are immensely strained and US support for the Syrian Democratic forces is a leading factor a Turkish military incursion into northern Syria will provide ISIS with the opportunity to reconstitute joint US Turkish military patrols right now in a mutually agreed upon area prevent this scenario for the time being the scale and scope of human suffering over the course of this conflict have set a depraved new standard for the 21st century the parties responsible Assad Iran and Russia have faced no meaningful consequences for the use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs torture starvation and intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure informing our recommendations the Syria setting group was realistic regarding the limited appetite in the United States for significant increases in military or financial investment we are proposing a strategy that strengthens key elements of the current approach calls for reinvigorated US leadership and prioritizes resolving the underlying Syrian conflict the tools for the strategy are already on the table already on the table a US led international coalition against ISIS limited US forces on the ground capable local partner forces sanctions assistance and diplomacy but effective and appropriate resourcing of these tools is necessary to align us ends and means to start we recommend the following steps stop the US military withdrawal from northeastern Syria strengthen US sanctions on Assad and his backers and make them multilateral lead ongoing diplomatic isolation of the Assad regime spend the 200 million dollars and US stabilization funds already approved by Congress continue to withhold reconstruction aid to the parts of Syria under Assad's control concurrently the US must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Syrians inside and outside of Syria while shoring up vulnerable refugee hosting partners and host communities on Syria's borders we as a group acknowledge that this strategy will not lead overnight to the elimination of ISIS the removal of Iran from Syria or a political settlement that ends the war but this mix of tools combined with consistent high-level and credible American leadership will provide leverage to shape an outcome protective of core US national security interests when conditions are conducive for a negotiated settlement to end the Syrian conflict finally in our report the Syria study group offers a vision for an end state for US policy in Syria it is a Syrian government viewed as legitimate by its own population capable of ending dependence on foreign forces and able to eliminate the threat from terrorist groups emanating from its territory Syrian citizens would therefore need to not fear the Assad regime Russia Iran or ISIS such an end state in our view requires an updated social and political compact we are going to get into the details of our reports assessment and recommendations in the panel that's about to happen but first just a few more thank yous the work of the Syria study group would not have been possible without the support of Congress and in particular senator Shaheen the 12 members of Congress who named members to the group put together a deep panel of expertise and committed colleagues we're deeply grateful to Congress the US IP team facilitating the work of our group has been nothing short of tremendous in particular executive director Mona Yacubian our chief of staff Cheryl Saferstein as well as Jude Hassan Grace Mokul and Greg Johnson thank you so much to the US IP team as well as US IP president Nancy Lindborg and vice president Mike yappy so I'd like to personally thank Mike sing my fellow co-chair who has been a tremendous colleague but also a partner over the course of these serious study groups work we also welcomed an honorary 13th member to the series that a group my son who came came into the world about 10 hours after our first set of meetings he was very punctual and I really appreciate he didn't come before the first set of meetings so thank you Mike for supporting me through a wild adventure and finally thank you to the members of the series study group for your diligence commitment and collegiality with the members of the group who are here today please stand and be recognized thanks very much and now we're going to move into the next session of this event and we're going to have four members of the series that a group join us for a panel discussion is it worth oh it's working great okay so I'm pleased to welcome to the stage four members of the series study group we have Kim Kagan founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War Melissa Dalton senior fellow and deputy director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Sir check a senior adjunct fellow at the center for a new American security and Fred Hoff diplomat and residents at Bard College thank you all for joining us on this panel today what we're going to do I'm going to ask two rounds of questions and then we're going to open it up to the audience for your questions so without further ado Kim our report states unequivocally that ISIS is not defeated and in fact has transitioned to an insurgency why does ISIS remain a threat and why should US forces not leave Syria at this point in time thank you so much Dana and thanks to all of my colleagues and to the US IP team this report issues a strong warning that ISIS is not defeated ISIS has simply changed its model of fighting for now and it is not a long-term problem but a short-term problem before ISIS actually revives itself inside of Iraq and Syria you have heard this from every speaker so far and I will say it again ISIS remains an insurgency inside of Syria and ISIS is a living entity within the detainee facilities and the IDP camps in Syria we are talking about a population as our speakers have said of more than 70,000 human beings in an IDP status and 10,000 fighters in an annexed facility 2,000 of which are foreign fighters okay so far we're talking about 80,000 people in 2000 foreign fighters and then scattered throughout northeast Syria we have 10,000 additional ISIS fighters in small makeshift facilities that are not properly guarded that have only perimeter security and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has issued a statement as of the 16th of September calling for his forces inside this detention facilities to break out of their prisons ISIS will decide the time and place when it will move from the phase of the war that it is now in to the next phase of the war and it has potentially in the camps itself and in the prisons 90,000 people who may support it and who are at least vulnerable to radicalization this is an imminent national security threat and the United States must help address it the Syrian Kurdish and Arab partners but particularly Kurdish partners within the SDF do not have the capability to secure these facilities nor will they prioritize ISIS as a threat if the Turks continue to move against their territory and bring military resources to bear to cleanse them ethnically this is an urgent warning Kim I'm gonna ask you one follow-up you describe the threat and what it means for ISIS to transition to an insurgency and the threat within the ISIS detainee population why are why are our US boots on the ground important as we conceive of how to address this threat thank you Dana first of all the US presence in northeastern Syria is one of the things that actually guarantees the continued partnership with the Syrian Democratic forces we are a glue that holds northeastern Syria together secondly US forces have outstanding capabilities that far exceed what the Syrian Democratic forces have we have special forces on the ground who have unique capabilities and our presence is absolutely necessary vis-a-vis these threats thirdly the Syrian Democratic forces are not actually trained to counter insurgency US forces are trained to do that I would assess personally that we may not have the right mix of forces on the ground to counter this insurgency but we're not going to find success against the threat I described simply by looking to local partners or simply from the air we actually need to be on the ground to hold this together and respond in a timely fashion to the threat that awaits us thanks Kim Melissa we've talked a lot about the SDF our local partner the Syrian Democratic forces so our report calls on the SDF to govern more inclusively so that quote an alternative vision for governance resource allocation and security in Syria can be realized we also talk a lot about ramping up civilian engagement in northeastern Syria so building on Kim's insights about the nature of a counterinsurgency mission and the insurgency threat from from ISIS can you walk us through why we are also recommending an increase in civilian engagement absolutely thanks so much Dana to you and to Mike for your leadership of this group to USIP for the stewardship of this process and to Congress for appointing a bipartisan commission with gender parity and that is cross-generational it's been an honor sorry I had to get that in in terms of the importance of civilian engagement on the ground in our estimation for our strategy it really hinges upon supporting local governance in areas where US partners have territorial control and the United States has reliable relationships that can at minimum improve conditions for stability for civilians Syrian civilians in the short to medium term such that if a political settlement is reached it can this area connect to Syria's center with the aim of compelling changes in governance over the long term this will require sustained US political commitment but it's with an eye to achieving that end state that that Dana mentioned a new social political compact for Syria it's a long-term vision but the seeds of it exist in northeast Syria right now albeit tenuous there are some concrete steps however that the SDF is going to need to take with US and coalition support in order for us to get here Americans should should know the sacrifices that our local partners in Syria have made over the last five years in encountering ISIS a generation of Syrians in this area that have sacrificed their lives their communities to rid this area of a global scourge and we should recognize that and and make good on our commitment there though recognizing the risks that are inherent in that and and be willing to create the space for them to to having an enduring relationship with other actors in in the region to that end and recognizing the considerable pressures that our Kurdish partners currently are under given Turkey's position on these issues we do recommend several steps that the SDF needs to take I believe that these are consistent with the policy framework that the SDC has laid out but in our estimation and it's it's really to transition from being a very effective insurgent group to being a capable credible responsible security provider and that means severing links with PKK leadership and and removing them from positions of authority in the region to open the space for political negotiations with Turkey over the long term that's a necessary step allowing civil society and journalists to to work freely and and report on transparency in in in the region to ensure local governance structures represent populations the demographics of the populations with with diversity and ensuring that resources can flow equitably to the the range of communities in the area seeking the promotion of PKK ideology and enabling civilian population freedom of movement to the IDP camps and increasing communications and transparency for NGOs and humanitarian organizations particularly in the all-whole detainee area. Thank you Melissa. Vance the Syria study group's recommendations on Russia assume that ultimately success from Putin's perspective is rehabilitation of the Assad regime, reconstruction of the Syrian state and the return of Syrian refugees from abroad. Can you walk us through why our group and report assesses that these are Russia's objectives for Syria? Put another way because this is a question that we've gone through over and over and over why is the status quo not victory enough for Russia? Why does Putin care at all about the condition of the Syria state? Well first of all thank you Dana let me echo my my colleagues in thanking you our co-chair Mike Singh the USIP team for the real leadership that that you've demonstrated over the last several months in shepherding this process. Also say thank you to the many representatives of the US government officials who came and shared their insights with with us while I think that this report is obviously issues a set of warnings and criticisms. The respect that we have for the people inside the US government who over the past many years have been laboring and struggling with what is unquestionably one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges that we've confronted certainly in this generation is tremendous. You know want to say briefly also Senator Shaheen mentioned this is one of the last legislative projects of Senator McCain and I had the privilege of working with Senator McCain just as the Syria crisis was beginning and I do think back to his lonely warnings then about how this could all unfold and as we look back it should be a reminder to all of us the importance of American leadership of statecraft and the urgency of action which is what this report now tries to put forward and the question of Russia as as Mike Singh put it earlier there is a bipartisan consensus that's emerged in Washington that great power competition is at the very top of American national security priorities. This report lays out clearly how Syria is an arena for great power competition and that how Russia has exploited the conflict in Syria to reestablish a status of a great power in the Middle East. A decade ago if you traveled in the Middle East Russia was largely a peripheral presence. As a result of its intervention in Syria it has been able to rebuild a credibility not only in Damascus but also with respect to historic American partners and allies across the region. It has weaponized refugee flows. It has worked to undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships. You see this with respect to Turkey right now as it's tried to use the events in Syria and its position there to pressure Ankara. Now there is a view that one hears that the path to peace in Syria runs through Moscow. Our report did not endorse this view. While we believe that we must of course always be open to the possibility that there could be some sort of understanding reached with the Russians I think that our report took the position that this needs to be aggressively tested and that simply by trying to pursue Moscow and through expressions of good will is unlikely to succeed. On the contrary particularly the view has also been put forward that there might be some sort of grand bargain with the Russians that would push out the Iranians. This is also something that our report declined to endorse for a variety of reasons. Foremost beginning with the skepticism that the Russians have the capacity or the will to push Iran out of Syria for the foreseeable future. So what should we be doing with respect to Russia? As you said Dana, we took the view, believe that the evidence is considerable, that while the Russians have exploited Syria to their advantage they are not capable unilaterally of resolving the war. Bashar al-Assad has not won the war. They are not unilaterally capable of rebuilding the country. They do not have the resources to do this. They also look at the continued U.S. presence and it is a constant reminder of their own failure to be able to consolidate success in Syria. So for all these reasons the U.S. does still have instruments of pressure against the Russians. We recommend continuing to put greater pressure on the Russians through sanctions on the Assad regime, through exposing their information operations and while the primary focus of the U.S. presence in northeastern Syria the reason for it is counterterrorism. The fact is that the U.S. presence in northeast Syria is an additional source of pressure and leverage against Russia in the unfolding great power competition across the Middle East. Thank you so much, Van. That was pretty good. A-plus. Fred, one of the arguments that we've heard that circulates in Washington against the strategy that our report is recommending is that actually more lives would be saved if the U.S. military withdraws from Syria and allows or at least does not block the reconstruction of the state while facilitating a agreement between Damascus and remaining communities not currently under his control. So can you walk us through why our group is not recommending this approach? Why is it that more lives could be saved if we simply step back and facilitate Assad taking over the rest of Syria where our military presence is blocking that from happening? Well, Dana, I'll do my best and since we are in thank you mode I would like to direct my thanks to the members of the audience who took the time to show up today and hear us out and I very much look forward to hear your questions. My initial reaction to this is that I think, Dana, the idea that lives would be saved by somehow being complicit in helping a violent regime restore its rule to all of Syria is flawed, to say the least. The United States's coalition partners have invested five years and considerable resources to destroy the ISIS caliphate in eastern Syria. Neither the regime nor its allies contributed to this fight. Indeed, the relationship of the regime and the caliphate was more often than not one of live and let live. Assad gave the caliphate a recruiting asset. The caliphate gave Assad a chance to proclaim this is my enemy. My colleagues and I in the in the Syria study group came to the conclusion that sealing the victory over ISIS and excluding the regime and its allies from liberated territories were essential in terms of countering transnational terrorism and maintaining some degree of western leverage in the search for political peaceful political compromise and political transition in all of Syria. Now we could I suppose tell our tell our Syrian partners that we're done. They can make the best deal they can with the Assad regime and yes, we'll be thinking about them and wishing them all the best. All the while knowing that the Assad regime will keep no promises and that many people will disappear. Then the next time we need local partners somewhere in the world to counter a transnational terror threat, we can try to argue that Syria was a special case that only in Syria only in Syria with the United States abandoned combat partners to a violently lawless enterprise that helped give rise to the enemy in the first place. What would be what would be we be getting for giving up the leverage in search for a peaceful negotiated political transition in Syria. To date we've been able to work with coalition partners including local Syrians to minimize the cost to American taxpayers and to uniformed American personnel in northeastern Syria. Obviously the part of Syria we're talking about and this has been mentioned it contains very valuable pardon me agricultural and petroleum assets. It contains people who have suffered under ISIS who fear the return of the Assad regime and its Iranian allies and who have worked with the United States to erase at least provisionally at least provisionally the ISIS caliphate. I think that abandoning this part of Syria to Assad and his Iranian allies could have catastrophic consequences to say that residual ISIS forces would welcome the return of an illegitimate violent regime would be an understatement.  Moreover the gifting of eastern Syria to the regime in Iran would facilitate the latter's ability to move men weapons and equipment into Syria and beyond into Lebanon. If we're serious in the end if we're serious in trying to leverage a good outcome for all of Syria political transition for all of Syria we're not going to give this leverage away and we will try to the best of our ability to support a governance alternative to Assad growing in northeastern Syria. Thanks Fred. Okay before we go to audience questions we're going to do one more round here and I'd like to ask each of you to highlight one element of the final report that in your view merits particular attention. So something we didn't discuss yet that you want to shed some light on. So same question for everybody reverse order Fred. Okay. Okay. I wrote down I wrote down some passages from the I'm just going to I'm just going to quote the passages because I think we're limited on time and I want to get to the audience. There are two passages in this report that I would I would draw your attention to. One is on page 17 quote conduct during the war in Syria has established a precedent in which civilians can be targeted and bombed without meaningful international repercussions. Assad has seen and understood this as have Russia Iran and the rest of the world. A world that accepts this precedent would be antagonistic to American values hostile to U.S. interests and dangerous to our national security. Such a world would routinize mass civilian homicide as a survival strategy for dictators and raise recruits for extremists all around the world on quote page 48 quote. This is part of the recommendations seek to deter the Assad regime by warning that the use of chemical weapons or other forms of civilian targeting could bring a military response. Retaliatory strikes for regime mass civilian casualty operations in Idlib and elsewhere should be approached as a last resort best conducted with allies. Still the credible threat of military force and its exercise but this is diplomatic efforts to deter and counter Assad regime state terror. Neglecting such deterrence feeds the regime's sense of impunity with devastating effects in Syria and beyond on quote. That's a pretty good one. Yeah beat that. I think that one of the most powerful ideas in the report which which Kim already is alluded to is that ISIS has transitioned to an insurgency but that the United States has not transitioned yet to counter insurgency of the most sobering discoveries I think for me over the past few months has been what is a candidly a sense of deja vu from things we've seen elsewhere in Iraq in Afghanistan when we achieved what appeared to be a decisive success only to discover far too late that the enemy rather than giving up had innovated faster than we did. If there is a an a urgent warning embedded in this report it is precisely that there should be no complacency about not only the can you threat posed by ISIS in the abstract but that the tactics and strategy that ISIS has adopted in Syria and in Iraq at the moment appears to be ahead of us. That's actually a perfect segue to to what I was going to comment on this this idea of shifting the mission and the focus from counterterrorism to counter insurgency because there's a tendency to place Syria in the forever war category with Iraq and Afghanistan and particularly in today's political and budgetary environment and the legacy and introspection happening rightfully so in Washington and amongst our allies in terms of what we have learned from those experiences and how they they continue to to manifest. In reality the current approach in Syria is far different it's a much smaller U.S. footprint operating within a coalition framework to back certainly by U.S. airpower and critical enabling functions that Kim described earlier but really our Syrian partners are in the lead in a way that at least until later in the game in Iraq and Afghanistan is is quite different and and and what our Syrian partners have achieved on the ground with our support should not be discarded with a premature withdrawal and should be instead buttressed by non military tools. I think the strongest takeaway from our report is to sustain the military commitment but really ratchet up our diplomatic economic information and judicial or accountability tool sets that are fully within the writ of U.S. statecraft and those of our allies and partners and it's weaving that together and backing it by U.S. leadership that are the missing ingredients in the Syria problem set. So this is not a return to U.S. policy of 2018 this is not in the forever war category this is something fundamentally different and we have some of the right ingredients in place as Dana mentioned we have the tools in our toolkit it's about exerting concentrated U.S. leadership in concert with our allies and partners to bring them to bear on this critical issue set. Thank you my colleagues have said so many eloquent things and I really want simply to reemphasize that we have seen in Syria the consequences of inaction and we have observed in Syria the consequences of delaying till later or hoping that somebody else will take care of a problem instead of recognizing what has been an escalating threat. We are not in a safe position in Syria even now even if we hold tight on the policy reigns that we have we are in a situation that is dangerous and it requires leadership it requires sustained effort and it requires a vision that recognizes that U.S. strategy takes time it takes effort and that whether or not we are at any given moment done with a war in our minds or hearts that war is not done with us until our enemies and adversaries so decide. Thank you. Thank you so much now we're going to open it up to the audience we have people with microphones who will come to you before asking your question please let us know who you are identify yourself and if possible direct your question to a specific member of the panel and since we have a large audience I can see lots of questions and not unlimited time I am begging you ask a targeted concise question IE do not make a statement I don't want to cut you off but I will thank you that's tough so yeah. I'm Doğan Şık from Turkish Embassy here your report says PKK is a designated terrorist organization and says PYD is the Syria branch of PKK and YPG is the military arm of PYD that's in the box on page I think 33 so how come legally U.S. government provides arms and material support to YPG and how can that continue even that's my question to Ambassador Hof. To me okay. Lucky Fred. Since you know since late 2014 for a variety of reasons perhaps some of which involved the you know the readiness of Turkey to assist the United States with the degrading and destruction of ISIS the United States formed a relationship with a partner force inside Syria this all stemmed the beginning of this was the siege of Kobani as you well know in late 2014 that partner force has in many cases performed with bravery and with combat efficiency against the enemy that two presidents of the United States decided was going to be defeated now our group recognizes that this has that this has caused a very difficult reaction and a fully understandable reaction from Turkey given the identity of the force it's it has been a terrible dilemma we have recognized that now as we are moving into a new phase in northeastern Syria where ISIS is transitioning to insurgency we have to get the YPG out of the business of trying to govern in predominantly Arab areas unfortunately now we have a we have an agreement with Turkey for joint patrolling in the in the north so it's been a it's been a difficult situation for two administrations it's presented a tremendous dilemma because I think there is full respect for the importance of Turkey as a NATO ally can you hear me okay my name is well so I'm president of pro-justice an NGO that's focused on accountability and prevention of impunity in Syria my question to Kim one of the recommendation says until conditions inside Syria improve Assad and his allies should be denied and then you count what what what the United States needs to do in this case what I really do not understand what does improve me what's the level and who decides that level when we say okay now the situation has improved and we can remove the sanctions and we can continue our contribution to maybe a reconstruction or or or diplomatic relations or other stuff in Syria thank you very much thank you it is absolutely important to hold the Assad regime accountable for the terrible crimes that it has committed against its own population but we can actually truly say what the standard of improve is not the standard of improve is not that the Assad regime controls areas in southern Syria or in Damascus and causes the disappearance of refugees who return it is not improved in Syria if the Assad regime can continue to conscript its population with impunity or terrorize its citizens in their homes and deter the voluntary return of refugees that is not enough and sadly that's where we are so we as a group recognize that we as an international community have a goal it is a good goal but conditions are not now set to meet that goal the Assad regime has not shown itself willing or capable of holding to those minimal standards of justice and accountability and safety for its citizens and so we as an international community should not let go of that requirement now by any means there's no doubt that you have presented an incredibly compelling report on the urgency of US leadership in Syria the United States though deals with many foreign issues countries do you have a sense is this more important than China is this more important than the EU where do we where do we I don't want to say rate but we put this in this day perhaps our Russia expert might be the best person to answer that because Russia is a really good example too where do we rate this issue where is its priority and can you tell us I'm sorry my name is Juliet were I'm a retired Foreign Service Officer thank you so I think it's a great question I think that the challenge is that the world is is more complex than being able to kind of come up with a buzzfeed list of here the top 10 problems facing the United States in order right what we've seen in Syria and particularly if you've worked this issue from day one was that actually at the beginning there was this assumption that what happens in Syria is going to stay in Syria and so therefore yes it's a horrible human catastrophe but it's ultimately a regional issue it's a national issue what we've witnessed over the course of the last few years however is that Syria has also become an issue for Russia's place in the world it's become an issue that has had a dramatic impact on the politics of our European allies in the EU right it's had a dramatic impact on our homeland security and on international security from international terrorism in ISIS so I think that what we've found I think what our report tries to argue and lays out in particular intersection but why Syria matters so when you have a place where the most basic rules of this thing that we call international order are violated in the most spectacular way it won't stay local right now what the precise effects will be how it will spill beyond its borders those are very hard to predict but it won't stay where it is and so the severity of the abuses that have taken place in Syria the use of chemical weapons the use of industrial weapons of war against a civilian population right these are the sorts of things that intrinsically are so violent to the fabric of everything that we as the United States have historically believed in that they have systemic effects and so that's the way I think that we we've approached this issue and to quote one of my colleagues almost whatever framework you start with whatever your priority is the transatlantic relationship great power competition counterterrorism Syria implicates it right and that's because of the severity of the abuses that have taken place there and then the effects that that is unleashed we're going to take two questions at a time and let's pay some attention to the middle so just see there's one right there generally the middle is neglected in Washington and yeah and then hi there I'm Erica Hannah check with Americans for free Syrian and Dana everyone thank you so much for doing this report I wanted to bring the findings of the report to an announcement today secretary Pompeo was talking about a chemical weapons attack that the US intelligence community just verified from May and the attack happened just three days after US officials had underscored at the UN Security Council that the US would take these you know chemical weapons attacks very seriously including the use of chlorine so in your report you talk a little bit about upholding these international norms with the announcement today what do you anticipate our next move will be and what it should be thank you and let's do a second yes hi I'm Joel Charney from the Norwegian Refugee Council I first quickly I I really object to the characterization of the population of alho camp as basically 70,000 people who are ready to be radicalized or forming the vanguard of a future ISIS force in in Syria my question is what is your strategy as it relates to these camps we from a humanitarian perspective have recommendations that we're happy to make you know in for an effective way of approaching these populations but my concern is if you're predicating your analysis on the idea that we've got 90,000 future ISIS fighters what's your strategy I don't understand how you could have a strategy if that's your premise okay on the on the report which I which I think I heard just before we began today that Secretary of State has announced that there was another chemical attack I I suspect if I if I were forced to bet on this I suspect there will be a military response by the United States there have been two military responses 1 in 2017 1 in 2018 to chemical attacks I think the I think I'm speaking for myself but I think as matter of consensus within the serious study group this would be seen as proper the study group also mentioned in one of the passages I think one of the passages I quoted that this is not this is not just a matter of chemical weapons this is a matter of mass civilian slaughter chemical weaponry has accounted for under one percent of the Syrian civilians slaughtered by this by this regime I think there there will be a response in this case but I think the United States also has to take into account the fact that Bashar al-Assad is perfectly free to conclude as long as I don't use chemical weapons I can use anything else I want when I want to where I want to the continued use of chemical weapons though in particular I think demonstrates a a very particular very specific contempt for the international community thank you very much for your question on the internally displaced persons and particularly those at all Hall camp let me stress that this is indeed a humanitarian tragedy ISIS has recruited imprisoned enslaved populations in its conquest of the territories that it seized and there are undoubtedly thousands upon thousands of innocent people in those internally displaced person facilities but we also must not be naive and ignore the evidence that ISIS is deliberately trying to radicalize the women and the children in that camp we have anecdotal evidence repeatedly of the ISIS Hesba police women actually brutalizing other women and brutalizing camp guards we have observed the truly tragic phenomenon of children very often under the age of 10 actually engaged in radicalizing activities they have been subject to viewing executions this is tragic absolutely tragic but it is also a vector for radicalization and therefore we actually need to take both humanitarian and security steps in these camps and in these facilities to protect the innocent to help to restore the lives to the thousands of stateless children who were born under ISIS control and to make sure that this population is not untreated and not further radicalized and to that end Melissa Dalton is going to talk to you about some of the specific recommendations that we have for both humanitarian and security measures in an all-whole camp just briefly because I know we have some other questions in the audience Joel thanks thanks again for for the great question I think all of us if I can speak for for the group we're truly shocked by the lack of coordination and coherent policy approach to the detainee problem set and specifically the situation in our whole which is why on page 44 of our report we have a set of concrete recommendations for the US to take on with its allies and working with partners on the ground senator Shaheen mentioned that in the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act there is going to be a central coordinator designated for the detainee problem set that we hope will concentrate that that policy interagency coordination and bring together what what I know has been a set of difficult conversations in terms of prioritizing humanitarian and security interests and objectives in the short and medium term and the conflicting views of those communities and I know a lot of concerted work is going on behind the scenes in the interim to try to address those but hopefully the recommendations on page 44 gives some food for thought thank you we have time for one more round of questions so the first one is going to be right here and the second one thank you ma'am there's one right now Muaz Al Khattib former president of Syrian Coalition thank you very much for your meeting first I like to talk about ISIS it's extended extending every day why because we concentrate about the results and do not concentrate about the reasons the reason for coming off dash ISIS or something similar it's a keeping of silence for long time by all the administrations about the dictatoric regimes in the area dictatoric regimes growing up helping to grow up all this ISIS groups this is first ISIS now so strong extended more and more extended to Nigeria to Niger to Egypt to Philippine to India to Afghanistan and many other places you must concentrate about the reason second we notice there is many of confusion inside the American administration there is no clear vision about Syria now I am talking and we pay that from blood of our nation the time it's linked to that blood people pay from their life and the generations which will come with days it will grow up inside unfair situation and it will be more fanatic and remember my words one day you will say ISIS it's so easy comparing with the coming very fanatic groups will come with time third there is really have a question very very human a problem and I will mention just name of a pilot his name ragheed at Atari he spent till now 38 years do you image that 38 years in the prison of an Assad regime after a court have just one minute we need your help to release him and release all the people thank you we're gonna go over here next hello my name is Shaldebo I'm a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute my question is from Melissa and I would like to pick up what you said about the notion that Syria should not be labeled as a forever war I've heard there were some elections next year in America and we've already saw like some debates about getting out of all these forever wars so I would like to to follow up on what you said and ask you whether you think the nuance you're making about Syria can be heard in an environment when we might have some polarized discussions in America and if political leaders and just the public debate in general will be able to hear this nuance or if this case is lost somehow just go to that one okay great thank you very much for the question yes I hope that you know this can be the beginning of a conversation in terms of being precise about the types of missions the types of focused tasks that our military is undertaking in a place like Syria vis-a-vis our ongoing efforts in places like an Iraq and Afghanistan certainly it's viewed through the counterterrorism lens so there is some continuity in that sense but because it's a much smaller footprint it's a much different mission set it's really at least in our formulation of this group just one part of a broader strategy that I think it is fundamentally different and it's best viewed I think through the the by-within-through-reliance-on-local-partners approach that personally in in my day-to-day drama spend a lot of time trying to build out frameworks for there's a lot of work that needs to happen on the US government side to ensure that we conduct these types of partnerships in a more responsible way but I think that that's a better lens to to apply to to what is currently being undertaken in Syria let me just respond very quickly to this question one one fascinating thing when you look at polling about American attitudes on foreign policy one thing comes through again and again and again which is that preventing terrorist attacks on the United States continues to be the top priority if not one of the top priorities of the American public above China above Russia above many many other things viewed through that prism my personal view is that making the case for a continued engagement in Syria given the threat that we have seen from ISIS when we are not engaged is something that is politically sustainable so we have five minutes left for this part of the event there's one right here yeah and then we'll go right up here and and yeah and I apologize to everyone else go ahead thank you Mohammed Ghanim with the Syrian-American community beyond the Northeast and based on the cautionary note sounded against the normalization of mass slaughter sounded in the passage that Ambassador Hough quoted how did you approach the critical issue of civilian protection in Syria and were the recommendations formulated or based on what there is appetite for in Washington DC or what ought to be done in your analysis thank you thank you thank you Dana my name is Noha Kamshe I work for an organization that works primarily on governance in the Northwest very straight to the point question I know we've talked about this Ambassador Hough but I'd like to ask you this again what is the likelihood for the US government to re-engage in the Northwest and in collaboration with the Turkish government how do we connect the Northeast and the Northwest different divided narrative of civil society and governance and how is that tied to the political process right now thank you so Melissa's going to take the civilian protection issue and then we'll go over to Fred yeah and Fred feel free I know you feel strongly about the civilian protection issue as well look I think it's it's incumbent upon the United States to stand firm with our principles and values in terms of our diplomatic pressure the exposure of those actors that are violating these norms in Syria in terms of judicial accountability through individual state war crimes prosecution and then resetting those lines of deterrence we also have the recommendation in our report in terms of follow-on action if those lines are crossed in Syria I think also on the table should be the degree to which evidence can be built towards sanctions or other punitive steps non-military but but that can continue to expose and put pressure on the actors that are violating these these norms and and providing the the funding for and protection for outside organizations Syrian expats other governments that are trying to do the hard work behind the scenes to to make the case for for prosecutions to to come I I think in addressing your question and perhaps the the statement of Sheikh Muazz I would highlight one passage from the report that Dana mentioned in her opening remarks the group believes that the best end state in Syria is one in which a Syrian government is viewed as legitimate by its own population and has the will and capability to end Syria's dependence on foreign forces prevent terrorism etc etc I mean in my view this passage gets to the heart of the matter the center of gravity for the destruction of Syria and all that has arisen from it whether it's ISIS al Qaeda waves of refugees hundreds of thousands of deaths is the presence of a violently illegitimate regime featuring state terror now the United States is not seeking violent regime change in Syria I think there are I think there are great practical difficulties right now in the United States exercising strong influence in northwestern Syria I hope I hope that we will continue or really reestablish our support for civil society in that part of Syria which would be under the most difficult conditions imaginable people resisting both the regime and Hayatash Shem and whatever whatever else is there but the central point I think is that as long as the Assad regime persists it's not going to be possible to prevent terrorist groups from thriving on Syrian territory and indeed this regime is an expert practitioner and supporter of terror thank you and I apologize to the members of the audience who did not get to ask your question but I'm happy to give you the email addresses of the panelists or even their cell phone number but we want to engage as much as possible with those who are interested in reading the report so please please follow up with us we are happy to discuss with you both what you think is the strong recommendations of our report and also the criticisms now Mike is gonna come and wrap up and the panelists we're gonna stay right here thank you thanks a lot and I can tell you that they were not nearly this polite or agreeable behind closed doors in our meetings well I think look this discussion illustrates just how difficult and contentious some of these issues can be frankly Syria presents not just one but a multiplicity of tough policy challenges and this report really represents our best effort to address and to provide a way forward on those policy challenges there have been a lot of reports from a lot of fine institutions and very smart people in this town on this particular set of challenges and I think that for us one of the sort of most valuable things about this report is that it's a bipartisan report in fact I would call it in a way nonpartisan in the sense that the discussions we had the debates we had were not partisan discussions or debates these are hard issues and of course people can disagree on them but I would hope that this is a set of issues that will unite and unify folks here in Washington and if we can just if our report can simply elevate the issue a bit in the political consciousness amid everything else which is happening that will have been a success the other thing that I hope we can do is to call some attention to all the amazing work frankly that is being done both inside the government inside the sort of international aid community as well as outside those communities on this I was Syria director at the National Security Council back in the mid-2000s I've been following this issue for a long time but I still learned a lot about Syrian about what's happening through the course of all the briefings we've received but I think more than anything I learned just how many people are engaged in trying to help in trying to solve the problems in Syria I think Syria in a way the conflict we're seeing presents as with some of the worst of humanity and has for the past eight years but I think we can also see some of the best of humanity and the aid workers that are inside Syria that are in Turkey and other places trying to help those who have been affected by the conflict in the policy officials who are working very hard to solve the very thorny challenges Syria presents as well as in the activist community here in the United States and elsewhere who are also lending their voices to this many of those people are here today or watching and so I really want to express our thanks and our admiration for all of you I do want to say one other thing though and I want to close with this obviously Syria is not just a policy challenge in Syria we have over the last eight years had hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives in terrible ways we have lost dozens of American troops we've lost people like James Foley and Steven Sotloff to terrorism there are millions of Syrians who have been displaced either driven from Syria or displaced within Syria there's 11 million or more Syrians who are in need of humanitarian aid and that humanitarian aid has come only partially frankly and so we have people who are in desperate need we are all sobered by that reality sobered that this is not just a policy challenge but represents human suffering on a really tragic and remarkable scale and so we hope that the US government our partner governments and all those organizations which are represented can really just not serve our interests our national interests which are important but can serve the cause of peace in Syria so with that let me say thank you to the US Institute of peace and thank you to my colleagues and thank you to all of you


Is digital marketing a good career? That is the topic of this video. We're gonna be talking about all the most important things associated with digital marketing, like salary, job satisfaction, demand, and other X factors. And by the end of this video, you are gonna have a very good idea whether digital marketing is a good career and specifically a good career fit for you or not. So if you like videos like this, go ahead, gently tap that like button and let me know down in the comments below and let's get into it. All right, so first of all, let's answer the question, what exactly is digital marketing? It refers to the use of digital channels in order to market a product to a customer base. So if you see an ad pop up on this video, for instance, or you see an ad pop up on Facebook or Google when you're searching, that is digital marketing. Next, let's talk about the education needed in order to break into a digital marketing position. Now in the past, in order to get a marketing job, you would have to get a marketing degree. But in modern times, because of the fact that digital marketing changes so fast, colleges have not been able to keep up with the changes. And so if you're trying to go into digital marketing, a lot of the time colleges are gonna teach you stuff that maybe worked 20 or 30 years ago, but doesn't work now. So a college degree is not needed to get into digital marketing. And that's why it's one of my favorite careers. It's really great for people who either want to switch careers or they want to skip college. And I did an interview a bit ago with Seth who is basically a digital marketer that teaches other people how to get into digital marketing. He's got thousands and thousands of reviews on his Instagram and his YouTube channel. He has literally helped thousands of people become digital marketers. So you can check that interview out. He also has a free masterclass down below. So if you're not sure if digital marketing is a good fit for your personality, you can check that out. And I will put that in the pen comment and the description down below. All right, so let's talk about demand. Demand is probably the most important thing when it comes to evaluating a career because typically everything else tends to stem from demand. So if something has high demand, you're likely gonna get paid better. You're also likely going to get treated better.  Now, BLS doesn't have a lot of statistics for digital marketers specifically, but they say that marketing managers are growing at about 10% over the next 10 years, which is higher than average. So that's pretty good. Now, if you look at digital marketing specifically on LinkedIn, you will see that there are 252,000 job postings for digital marketers. And even if you look at job postings for entry level careers, there's still 123,000 for digital marketers. That is absolutely bananas.  And because of that, this one is gonna get a score of 10 out of 10 for demand. Next on the list, we're gonna talk about job satisfaction.  Now, this is by far the most subjective section. So take it with a grain of salt, but I will talk about a few things just in case it helps you out. So according to PayScale, when you look at job satisfaction, it shows there is a meaning score of 44%, which is basically how much you think your job positively impacts the world. And the job satisfaction is 70%. So 70% is definitely well above average. And keep in mind, this is marketing managers. They didn't have anything listed for digital marketers. However, the meaning score is a little bit below average. So make sure this is something that you're passionate about and you actually enjoy. But overall, I think a lot of this has to do with flexibility. And the great thing about digital marketing is it's just a valuable skill in general. So if for whatever reason, let's say you go into pay per click digital marketing, you don't like it, you can very easily switch over into a different type of digital marketing, or you can just switch into something else. Your skills that you learned as a digital marketer will be valuable in many different roles. And just from my own personal experience, talking to a bunch of different people who are looking at a bunch of different career paths, digital marketing is one of the most flexible when it comes to a lot of different people being able to go into it and enjoy their work. So I've seen people who are extremely analytical, for instance, have a lot of success in digital marketing. And at the same time, I've seen people who are very artistic, really enjoy digital marketing jobs as well. Depending on your skill set, you might go down like the social media marketing route, the pay per click route, the SEO route, et cetera. But the big thing here is that it's very flexible and that leads to you having a higher job satisfaction. And another thing that when it comes to satisfaction is how much you risk going into it. If you look at a career like Doctor, for instance, you need to be absolutely 100% sure that it's something you can see yourself doing for a long period of time because you have to go to school for at least eight years and then you're gonna do a residency that's three to seven years and then you might even do a fellowship after that.  Whereas with digital marketing, you can get into it relatively quickly and inexpensively. So if you don't like it, it's not that big of a loss. So in my opinion, that does factor into job satisfaction as well. So overall, I'm gonna give this one a nine out of 10 when it comes to satisfaction. Next on the list, we're gonna be talking about salary. Now, BLS bunches together like all different types of marketers. Unfortunately, they don't have statistics specifically for digital marketers, but marketing managers make about $133,000 a year. And you can also see the specific salaries of people who go into different marketing skill sets. So I'll put that up on the screen. There's like information, professional scientific, et cetera. And if you compare marketing managers to the average salary of all people in all different occupations, it's 135,000 versus 45,000. So again, very nice. So a marketing manager is something you could become but the typical digital marketer according to Glassdoor makes about $76,000 a year which is pretty good. But again, you do have the option to move into a lot of those more lucrative roles. And you also have to keep in mind this is $76,000 a year for a career that you can get into without having to go to college or have previous experience. So for that reason, I'm gonna give it a salary score of 8.5 out of 10. Next, I'm gonna be talking about X factors. And this is basically anything that doesn't fit into the other categories but is still important. So there are only a few types of skills out there where you can use your knowledge, what you know to reach millions of people. Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are digital marketing, sales, content creation and coding. So you basically have infinite leverage when it comes to digital marketing because if you get really good at it you can pay money to advertise your products and you make even more money and it's like you put $1 in and you get $2 out. It's basically like a machine that prints money.  Now, as to the question of whether digital marketing is going to be able to be automated or outsourced, I highly, highly doubt it. Part of it will be automated just like in every industry things are automated but it is one of those skill sets, especially the artistic side of it that is never going to be able to be automated or if it is, nobody's gonna have to work because robots are just gonna be doing everything for us. And marketers also have to have a very good intuitive understanding of their market. So it's very difficult to outsource something to another country because they don't understand the market that you would be marketing to. So overall, when it comes to X factors I'm gonna give this one a 10 out of 10. So overall, this one is gonna get a 9.375 out of 10, phenomenal career path for you to go down. What makes it especially good is if you're somebody who doesn't want to get a college degree or you're somebody who got a college degree but you're not happy with it or if you're somebody who's in a career that you're not happy with and you don't have any experience in digital marketing you can still relatively easily transition into it. Now if you're somebody who is set on going to college this one wouldn't be as good. Hope you enjoyed the video, check out my other video right here if you like this one. I think I'm gonna link you to like a digital marketing interview I did. That's a really good video. It's a young guy who was able to get into digital marketing without any experience. I believe he did it at 19 years old and his name is Kishan. Gently tap that like button, hit the subscribe button, ring the notification bell and comment down below any thoughts, comments, criticisms, et cetera that you have on the video and I will see you next time. ["The Star-Spangled Banner"]