flying through at roar a it was taken on board the space sayings an aurora is a natural electrical phenomenon which creates streams of red and green light in the sky. that's all of our time, "inside story" is next. >> the united states spent a decade, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to overthrow saddam hussein and create a new iraq and now the islamic state is threatening to unravel iraq and syria. if you are president obama, what is your next move? that's the "inside story."

hello, i'm ray suarez. the islamic state rolled over the iraqi army and adding western iraq to the big chunk of syria it is already controlling. with the loaded banks and the oil, the state is not depending on the outside support that the groups. without the restraint of the outside influence they are executing anyone that opposes their rule and destroying the communities. after spending the better part of a decade creating a new iraq, what should the u.s. do and what can the u.s. do? take national interest and long

term security concerns and what do you get? it is the "inside story." the syrian military lost a key air force base to fighters on sunday and adding to a growing list of land and loot snatched up by the rebel army. the base housed a number of war planes, ammo and tanks and ar till rare. the us lam state is stronger in syria and known for the crew said in northern and western iraq. earlier in the month, the u.s. began a limited air campaign to stamp out the islamic state in iraq and the obama administration saying they have to protect the american interests there, especially after investing $2 trillion and a decade of war to pacify the

region. the focus on whether there should be u.s. action there too. >> to the question of defeating them without addressing that part of the organization, the answer is no, that has to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially of a nonexisting border. it is a variety of instruments. one small part is air strikes. it requires the application of all of the tools of national power. >> in the syrian civil war, the u.s. supports a coalition that used to be aligned to the islamic state in the fight to overthrow the syrian president. president obama is weary about getting the u.s. militarily involved and syrian war killed 190,000 people in the past three years. but with the islamic state pushing on in the blaze of

destruction in the border areas, syria's foreign minister hinted on monday of the country's willingness to work with the united states to take down the islamic state. >> syria is willing to cooperate and work to fight on terrorism, but takeing into consideration that the syrian government is representing the syrian sovereignty. >> sideing with the regime that the u.s. encouraged others to over throw is not sounding ideal or logical, but what other options does the u.s. have. can the u.s. defeat the islamic state without giving advantage to other problem players in the region? the way forward for u.s. policy in iraq and syria and what are

the obama willings's options and the risks attached to those options? we have froefr from georgetown university. a senior fellow from the council on foreign relations and deputy security of defense. and a fellow at the brookings institution and author of temptations of power. you have got these lists of possible options, the chips on the u.s.'s side of the table, and on the islamic states, what's the next logical moh for the u.s.? >> well, the first thing that we need to do is take some lessons from the past. one thing we know to be true is that taking a short term

approach and thinking that you can bomb your way out of this is not the best option in the short term. what we need is a long term approach bringing in actors from the region and bringing in the political problems and that is realistic about what can be done. that being said, in the short term there is a threat. i do believe there are viable military options in the short term that can continue on the momentum to push back isis and that is not the long term fix. >> so, what is job one? they are deployed in the field. they have got what they have got to fight with and who they have got to fight with. what is the most important job as we start? >> we have to stop seeing these two separate conflicts. with respect to isis, there is a racing of the border, so they can take our paradigms from what

we consider nation states and normal warfare and using that against us and their sanctuaries are in syria and we know we don't want to go into syria. if we maintain that stance, that is a choice, there will be consequences. >> we saw the general saying that basically the border is stopping, it is stopping the existence? >> yes, the original sin is failing to intervene more aggressively in 2012. that was precisely the warning if we don't do something now and let the conflict continue and getting worse -- >> you mean in syria? >> yes, the ratted cals are going to gain ground. el you can't undo the damage. now we have to manage the situation to best of our

ability, but syria is so, it is destroyed iraq and it is not a state as we know it. do we want to contain isis or do we want to defeat them? >> how do we answer that question? >> we want to defeat them. are we willing to live with that for five, ten years and what kind of repercussions does it have on the rest of the region and the fallout from foreign fighters coming back home to the u.s. or europe. >> very quickly, do they get harder to defeat the longer you wait? >> precisely. if it requires a massive effort

to defeat isis are we willing to what is necessary. there is it little to suggest that the obama administration is going to build a syrian army and support the main stream and have the air strikes against the regime. you need such, such a wide ranging coordinateel effort and we are not willing to do that and we have to accept that this might be with us for the foreseeable future. are you willing to accept that it is with us for the foreseeable future. >> and that it is with us and rewriting the history of the region is untenable for the people living there and the civilized world as large. it is not the ends to defeat isis, but the question is how to

get there and how does the u.s. power be an economic or otherwise get us to that goal. the big question in washington right now and the question that the program is covering today is how do we align our ends, ways, and means. there are a lot of options on the table. one of the things important to note, it is krercorrect, isis i exploiting the fact that there is a border between the two countries. there is some value in the border. at least recognizing that border. >> when the united states makes a policy, do we then do there with isis and cease to recognize the border and play the game and this area is controlled by a bunch of bad guys. >> here is the sovereignty question, it reminds us while the adversaries are the same,

the conditions on the ground, the political circumstances defining the conflict in those countries are still different. what we are able to do in iraq is different, the iraqi government asked for our help and we have a long standing relationship there. what we are doing in syria is complicated, it is a three sided war, the rebels and the jihadists and the regime and treating those places the same way using the same strategies is a mistake, even though we have an interest in defeating and degrading and maintaining the adversaries. >> so you are in favor of what, containment? >> in an approach that the tailored to the conditions that we see in these two countries. in northern iraq contain and degrade. and buy the time they need to do that. in syria we have this much more

complicated situation. if we heeded the warnings we could have avoided some of the sishs and now we have a three siding war and it is more complicated than in the iraq. >> when we come back, we'll dig in a little deeper on the very question of syria and iraq. in syria, our enemies are isis's enemy, and in iraq it is just the opposite. this is "inside story." stay with us.

>> hundreds of days in detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release. >> thousands calling for their freedom. >> it's a clear violation of their human rights. >> we have strongly urged the

government to release those journalists. >> journalism is not a crime. >> you are watching "inside story" on aljazeera america. i'm ray suarez. today on the program a look at the options for the u.s. as iraq is struggling to keep the government together and threatening to dismember is country. can we, can the united states oppose isis without aiding the regime? >> yes, that is possible, but that requires a massive under taking and boosting the main stream syrian rebels. isis was moving into the eastern syria and the rebels were literally begging us and they had a meeting with samantha power and saying that isis is coming, we need help and no help

was forthcoming and time and time again there has been the opportunity to boost these rebels and they are wondering to themselves now saying well we oppose isis and the regime and why isn't the united states and the international community willing to help. i am worried saying we should bite the bullet and support the fight against isis. and what that means in effect is acting as their air force and there is ironny there, because the regime's profession is the rice of isis and they allowed, they focussed on the other rebels and focussed much less on isis. they see isis as a perfect foil, look this is the alternative to us, do you really want them to be in power. choose us instead. they have been egging this on for a while and it is very short

term approach to do that. >> i keep hearing about these moderate rebel forces, do those people that talk about them under state how easy they were to identify and aid in the early stages of this conflict? >> athink it is mor fed over time. if you would had started early, you could have built them from where they were. they were peeled off into other groups. so i mean absolutely agree that we can't actually support the moderates at this point. it is going to take a lot longer. treating these as two separate regions, that may be the case there are different conditions, but that shouldn't defer us from acting. if we don't act in syria, the

strategy has a hole in the bucket. >> say we want to fix the error, the united states would like to revisit these helpable elements of the syrian opposition, do we have their cell phone numbers and do we know where to find them, are we starting from scratch with that project? >> not starting from scratch. i do think there are connections to be made. what is interesting in this region right now, we have hit on that a little bit, all though, you know, if you help one section of the problem, another section pops up. you try to go after isis you are helping, asad and there is a window of opportunity and isis is fundamentally a new breed of bad and you know that is something that we can take right now and we can rally a regional

approach around supporting these guys and it is people in the region that have connections also with the moderate factions in the syrian army. >> a new iraqi government is struggling to be born, how can they help in this process? if he manages to make a government of national unity does that take of the pressure off of trying to fight isis with one front uncovered? >> it would. the difficulty is that the war and the reform of the iraqi government and by vur which you of the government, those circumstances are driving forward parallel but with different paces. isis when it decided to act and kill certain civilians and target the groups they are making the decision without a need for consensus or politics.

the iraqi government is always lagging behind that process. now the good news is if the iraqi government gets their act together and rally around the flag, they have a lot more capability to do that and they know the place, they are from there and fighting for their own future. >> do you accept that isis is made stronger by the exclusivity of the previous iraqi government that purged the sunys and didn't give them a take or a place at the table? >> it created the conditions for that to happen. look a lot of the resentments driving the isis's ability to mobilize the people are derived from the mismanagement of conditions in iraq and conditions in the middle east at large. but look, getting back to the broader question of what to do with the problem and solving one

problem creates another. the circumstances in syria are going to create a new e quill lib yum. there is a new balance that has to emerge in iraq and social balance changing in the middle east as large. if the united states is not involved in that in a construct way and strategic fashion and thinking about our own interests then we are missing out on the opportunity to shape in this a constructive fashion. we fit our fight to the problem to the place where it occurs and we all may face the same adversaries. >> has this latest struggle strengthened the hand of the kurds and their desire for autonomy, to be left alone and not have very tiekt links to

baghdad? >> sure. the importants of kurdish independence have grown and certainly more autonomy and they have had it for some time and how much does this change the relationship between the kurds and the central government and the hope is they have the same enemy and for now the same goals and working together in a more constructive way and there cob more of a shared iraqi identity in the face of the unprecedented threat, which is isis. >> we are taking a short break, when we come back we talk about the united states, are americans really ready for another intervention in the middle east after taking so long to get out of iraq, is this country ready to be back there again. this is "inside story." stay with us.

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez.the islamic state came roaring out and headed to the east and seizing the money and oil and killing and destroys houses of worship and historic sites. the area experts and officials are debating the american moves and what are they. we have the professor from georgetown. and fellow at the brookings institution. mr. swift, we spent a long time as a country from 2003 to what the end of 2011, trying to get out of iraq, are americans not people at the tanks or at the

pentagon, the rank and file of americans ready to get involved in that part of the world again? >> not yet. it is not because we don't care about what is happening in the middle east, because the american public after ten years of war and trillions in debt and the casualties want to know what their return on investment will be. what the game plan is. what the mission is. what the scope of the problem is. one of the difficulties with the old iraq war and the global war on terrorism is that the mission has defined us, rather than us defining the mission. if we are going again and needing the public support, we have to define the parameters of the mission up front and we have to think not about where iraq and syria will be ten days or ten months are from now, but the

implications ten years from now. that is not the discussion in washington yet. >> you were in the plans department and the plans, if i understand them from much of the obama years, has been how to get ourselves out of that place. how do we get back in? >> well, it is a good point. that is exactly what the administration does not want military interventions. that said, i disagree about the american public. there have been polls, the poll saying that the majority of the americans want us to mind our own business overseas and recently, before the gruesome beheading video of james foley, the majority saying they were were the air strikes against

isis. and my assumption is that the american people don't want another iraq, they don't want another kwaug mire and seeing what is happening as america's business, it is a threat, a lot of these foreign fighters have western passports and it is a moral out rage and if we can do something, we have to do it. >> is the situation in the region changed so much that people actually see a role for america that won't leave the country more recented more hated andless respected when the dust clears? >> i don't think that americans know what to think. i mean, syria for example is very complex. when it comes knowing the differences. americans are not following the

intricacies of it. the public opinion of it is a cop out. the obama administration uses this to its own advantage and saying that the american people don't want it. this president has a deep philosophical orientation and that what colors the approach to the middle east. >> you said a cop out, and do you think there is an explanation given to the people in the way they think about this? >> they have to explain how this can come back to haunt us in the future. he shouldn't be think about courting the public opinion, it is about protecting the homeland and do we want a situation where the foreign fighters are returning to europe and wreaking havoc. on the philosophical issue, there is a self-doubt about america's ability to play a constructive role in the conflicts abroad.

he's not convinced that the american intervention will make it better. that is what is coloring this. >> thank you all for joining me today. that brings us to the end of "inside story." thanks for being with us. the program is over, but the conversation is continuing. we want to hear what you think about the issues raised. log on to facebook, send us your thoughts on twitter. you can reach me directly at ray suarez news. see us for the next "inside story" in washington. thanks.

>> every day across america, military-style raids are taking place. local police dressed like soldiers break down doors in the hunt for drugs. >> this is not what we think of as police in a democratic society. this is way out of proportion.