The war in Iraq has ended. The war in Afghanistan will end soon. Osama bin Laden and his would-be rival for global influence, Anwar al-Awlaki, have been killed, and the decimation of the ranks of lieutenants and foot soldiers by a stunningly effective drone campaign all suggest that al-Qaeda today is all but a spent force. So can terrorism now be safely returned to the status of a second-order concern for policymakers?

This question was the overarching theme that drove the discussions at the third annual Aspen Security Forum, presented by the Institute’s Homeland Security Program. It brought to Aspen top-level present and former government officials
from all of the relevant agencies and branches; industry leaders and financiers in the national security space; leading thinkers from the academic and think tank worlds;
nationally noted print and broadcast journalists (who moderated all the discussions); and concerned citizens for three days of talks, interviews, and panel discussions on national security, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Continuing tradition, the forum was co-presented with the New York Times and, starting a new tradition, CNN’s Security Clearance blog joined as the forum’s broadcast media partner.

Using the terrorism question as a launching pad, discussions over the course of the Forum’s three days were multifaceted and wide-ranging. The consensus seemed to be that al-Qaeda is, indeed, on its heels, but terrorism remains a grave threat and one that we ignore at our peril. Several sessions looked at where the principal security threats are emanating from today: With the notable exception of al-Awlaki’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (the group’s Yemeni affiliate, which seems determined to probe America’s defenses until a vulnerability is found and exploited) it seems as though the old paradigm of our principal security threats coming from nation-states, rather than shadowy networks or lone wolves, is dominant again.

Speakers also focused on other parts of the globe where potential threats may arise. They discussed the wary eye that policymakers are keeping on China’s meteoric rise as an economic power, and pondered the implications of this for America’s continued global military pre-eminence. They debated the looming prospect of war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and the questions around what the Arab Spring has become. They also probed the nature and future of modern warfare, asking whether the era of “wars of mass invasion” and “nation building” over, to be replaced by the surgical insertion, when troubles arise, of Special Operations Forces and intelligence operatives, backed up by cutting-edge technology.

The forum offered a number of unscripted and important conversations on top security concerns with some of the nation’s most significant military and civilian leaders. Admiral William McRaven, the commander of US Special Operations Command, talked with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the raid that killed bin Laden and the outsize role that Special Operations Forces now plays in counterterrorism operations around the globe (find excerpts from this conversation on page 80).

Several key policymakers from the time—such as US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and two of his predecessors, John Negroponte and Christopher Hill—looked back candidly at the war in Iraq. “[The decision to invade Iraq was] one of the great strategic decisions of the first half of the 21st century, if it proves not to be the greatest,” said former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone. “It will be one of the greatest strategic victories of the United States because…of the aftershocks that you see flowing through the region, whether it be in Libya, or in Egypt, or now in Syria.”

The ambassadors of Afghanistan and Pakistan had a heated session on the war in Afghanistan and our troubled partnership with Pakistan. “We don’t welcome or sanctuary foreign fighters on our soil,” said Pakistani Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman. “There is no question now of hedging bets. This is a new Pakistan. Catch up, gentlemen.”

And the coming election, of course, was not to be ignored: There was a spirited debate by supporters of both presidential candidates (former State Department
spokesman, P.J. Crowley, for President Obama, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, for Mitt Romney) about their respective national
security policies. “Doug suggested that the Obama Administration has a ‘lack of
clarity’ on its Iran policy,” Crowley said. “Nothing can be further from the truth. The president has made clear that the policy of the US is that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.”

“I wish [Obama] had policies that backed-up his rhetoric when he says that the Iranian nuclear weapon is ‘unacceptable, we won’t allow it,’ ” Feith countered.

As the event closed, several influential homeland security experts lauded the Forum’s quality and, even though it’s only been around three years, referred to it as a “must-attend” event for those working in the homeland and national security space. The Institute’s Homeland Security Program Director Clark Ervin, who founded and runs the Forum, attributes this success to the event’s casual, warm, and convivial atmosphere—a rarity in conferences and especially in those related to defense and security. “Instead of the ‘hit and run’ nature of most such forums in Washington,” he says, “participants at this gathering find themselves spending quality time with policymakers and thought leaders, getting to know them—up close and personal—and how they think.”

Ervin and his team are already beginning to envision the 2013 Forum, and plans are under consideration for regional Aspen Security Forums in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. “We hope that out of these unique dialogues each year,” said Ervin, “will come answers that will help to shape the future in ways that will protect
the nation and preserve our way of life in this turbulent, still new century.”