>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> susan rice is here. see is the national security adviser to be president of the

united states. previously, she was the united states ambassador to the united nations. she has received criticism for perceived entrenchment and foreign policy. >> ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all of its danger and uncertainty. we have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency. but american leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be, a place for the aspirations of individual human beings really matters.

where hopes and not just fears govern. where the truths written into the founding documents can steer the currents of justice. >> welcome. >> it is great to be back. >> the president making a series of speeches. is he defining obama doctrine? >> for good reason, one is wary of the term "doctrine." i think what he is saying is really crystallizing what has animated his foreign policy from the outset. the united states is the most powerful and important country in the world. we have been for a long time and will be for a long time. in recent years, our power has increased when you consider our military has no peer, when you consider our economy is strong and growing. we are becoming more and more

we have a network of alliances around the world that is unmatched from asia to europe. we have all of the most powerful tools of leadership. the world looks to us, as the president said yesterday, for help, whether it is a typhoon or kidnapped nigerian girls. against that backdrop, what he was describing is how we should live. he outlined a viewpoint which i think is very important for the american people to understand. first of all, we would use our military might to defend our core interest, that our people, our homeland, our facilities overseas. >> let me stop you there.

>> through the persistent threat of terrorism. the president talked at length yesterday about the fight against al qaeda and its affiliates. we don't face a nationstate at this point that poses an imminent, direct threat to the united states. there are countries that are rising, that are powerful, that have strong militaries. there are countries that are irresponsible that could potentially pose a threat. as he said yesterday, the most direct, proximate threat we face is from extremists, particularly al qaeda and its various affiliates around the world. what has changed in the last year, charlie, is that we had previously in afghanistan and pakistan. they have been largely dealt a very severe blow.

they are much weakened from where they were in the past. what has happened as we have successfully degraded al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan. is in those affiliated groups, some loosely affiliated, some really indigenous in their origin, works like those in somalia or al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, or al qaeda in places like mali, or now what we see in syria with the rise of extremist groups in the context of the syrian civil war. these smaller, weaker regional base group are still dangerous. they have aspirations to attack american personnel come american embassies, american facilities. some are trying to develop the capacity to attack the homeland.

>> what is our strategy against them? >> that is what the president outlined yesterday. we will continue to work to ensure that the al qaeda core in afghanistan and pakistan is degraded. at the same time, we need to regional-based affiliates. yesterday, the president of established the announcement of what we hope will be up to $5 billion for counterterrorism partnership fund. the key word is partnership. the long-term strategy must be with these regional or local agendas is to enlist and build the capacity of partners to take on the fight in their own backyards, not us there on their behalf, but sometimes providing the support they need, training, capacity building, and material support.

sometimes it will be support for airlift, refueling, as we have done with the french. this foundation will be an evolving strategy for the united states to be effective against these groups on a global basis without having to resort to u.s. direct action. >> as you have decimated the ranks of the original al qaeda, led by osama bin laden, these other groups have grown during the years of the obama administration. >> they have evolved. they have become more diffuse. >> we have had a terrorism concern based in africa since

1998 when our embassy in kenya and tanzania were bombed. what is the case is where you have weak states, fragile states, that aren't able to control all of their territory, or where we have conflicts zones, you have the potential. indeed, in some instances the reality of extremist filling the void. >> do we have to get the permission of those government's where they may be located in order to go after them with the drones and other measures? >> our preference is to work with the host government. we will do so wherever we can. where we see a continuing imminent threat to the united states, and we can act with near certainty of avoiding civilian

casualties, as the president's policy directive said last year, we will do so if necessary to defend the united states. >> we have intelligence that they are trying to launch some kind of attack against the united states or indices around the world? >> that would be the definition of a continuing imminent threat. whether that is to our personnel, embassies, whether to the homeland, all of those constitute a threat to the united states. >> he said this a couple times, the most important thing i can do is not screw it up. i think he perceives iraq and afghanistan as serious mistakes that drained the united states. is that correct? >> i would not put it that way. the president affirmed yesterday

his view that what we have been doing in afghanistan has been absolutely essential to our national security. it was necessary after 9/11. the surge in 2009 was necessary. we also think it is serving our interests to bring the war in afghanistan to an end. there are times when we must do what we must do. >> what worries me is getting involved in a war that will suck the united states into it. those are words he has used with respect to other flash points like syria. >> he said two things. he outlined the circumstances in which it may be necessary for the united states to act unilaterally to defend our core interests. even in those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves questions. we have to be mindful of

international opinion, but we will not ask permission to do what we must do to defend our interests. he also outlined at some length in his view as to when we ought to use force or not to address issues of global concern that are not directly implicating the security and the economic well-being of the united states or our allies. he spent some time talking about our global concerns. there, he said that our strong preference is to act multilaterally to the greatest extent possible. these are collective concerns. when we are able to act multilaterally with partners, the action is more sustainable. it has greater legitimacy. it is more likely to succeed. >> jeffrey goldberg, who just did an interview with benjamin

netanyahu, suggested to me on this program last night that the president was motivated to speak on these issues, these series of foreign-policy issues, because he thought he was losing grip on america's narrative. >> i would put it differently. i don't think it is a question of losing a grip on a narrative. the president was looking forward to the opportunity presented by the occasion of the commencement at west point, which he had long planned to do, to lay out in quite clear terms his view of american leadership. to make it clear that there is no question that america must and will lead on the world stage. if we don't, there is no question that we are retreating from the world. of course we are not. it is not a question of where we will lead but how we lead.

we have to lead with our brains. you have to use our logic and wisdom and not just our impulses. when we do, that means acting with restraint. it always means acting to the greatest extent possible. the other thing he said is that our leadership role is not defined solely by our military might. it as defined by the strength of our economy, the strength of our alliances, our moral leadership, and our values. when you look at how we lead in the world, we are the nation above all that can rally other countries to achieve the goals that we desire, whether it is trying to bring iran to the negotiating table. >> after what happened in syria, with respect to the red line and the threat of military force, that some people in the region,

people who are enemies of iran, had some question about america and where it stood and how it was prepared to lead, and that made the president go to those countries and reassure them. i am thinking of saudi arabia and king abdullah. >> let me answer that directly. i think at the time there were friends and partners of the united states, the middle east, they did act with concern and skepticism. a few weeks ago, i was in israel. prime minister netanyahu and the senior national security team, you know what they said? they said president was right. they never anticipated that we would be able to get syria to

acknowledge that they had a chemical weapons program and get 92% of their chemical weapons out of the country. they said that that was in the president's choice and decision to threaten, but when the syrians back down and acknowledged their stockpile and acknowledged to dismantle it and we took them up on it, that that was the right choice. i have spoken to other key american allies in the gulf, including the saudis, they understood that that turned out to be a wise choice. >> prime minister netanyahu also said that this was a smart move by the president of the united states. i applaud what he did to get the chemical weapons out of syria. are you saying now that whatever reservations people had about u.s. leadership in the world, they have been reassured and it is no longer an issue?

>> i cannot speak for them. i did speak to them, but i will not speak for them. i think they would probably appreciate that. i will say this, the notion that the united states is unprepared to use military force is belied by the facts. it was president obama who surged our forces into afghanistan. we are trying to bring to a close at the end of 2014 our combat mission in afghanistan, after the longest war in u.s. history. history. this president has been willing to use force to protect our interest. we have also used force collectively in libya to deal with the threat there. libya is having a very difficult time today. >> what is our role to influence libya?

>> we have tried hard to help a government come to the fore that is legitimate and has staying power. for a while that was the case, and now they have had it a series of handovers from one prime minister to another. they have a rebellious congress that is at odds with the government. we have also tried hard to help them build their security apparatus. remember, they the ran that place for 40 years like a one-man band. they were starting from scratch. unfortunately, the various militia in libya that came to the fore during the revolution had turned on each other. there are extremists within libya that have gained some prominence. they are now being countered by those who are anti-extremist. >> with respect to the question of understanding what the president's strategy was, i'm going to read two articles.

the address did not match the hype. it is unlikely to quiet his detractors on the right or the left. >> you will not be surprised to hear that i think that is rather ungenerous and also inaccurate. if you read the scope of that speech, and i encourage people to read it and not just listen to it, it lays out in very clear terms a vision of american leadership. it is assertive. it is strong. it indicates when, how, and whether the united states out the use force. it defines the counterterrorism strategy in updated terms and unveils a new set of tools to deal with that threat that has evolved and diffused. it also deals with the question of how the united states

mobilizes partners to our collective interest. that piece has gotten less attention. it is vitally important. folks need to remember and understand that most of the problems we face on the international stage, whether it is trying to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or punishing russia. >> he didn't mention crimea. >> he did mention ukraine. >> what are we prepared to do? >> i don't know if sanctions in

the near-term will cause russia to leave crimea, but several things have happened that are important. first of all, russia's economy as a result of the sanctions has stopped growing. it is close to negative growth. their capital outflows are unprecedented. the major banks in russia are losing value and profit. >> at the same time, they just signed a 30 year gas deal with china. >> that had been long in the works. it will be interesting to learn what price they agreed to pay for that gas. i am willing to bet money that it was a bargain for the chinese. beyond that, russia is paying a significant price in terms of its international standing, and also in terms of its economy. >> how is it affecting their actions? is it affecting how president putin weighs his risk?

>> russia had more than 40,000 troops massed on ukraine's border for a period of time. indeed, we just in the last week to 10 days have seen indications now that their forces are redeploying back to their home barracks. i can't tell you with certainty why putin took that decision. it is notable that he did. in addition, we have a successful election in ukraine. we have a first round winner in all parts of the country. he is well known to the russians and the west. >> he served in the previous government? >> yes.

>> what is the hope for him? what is the hope that this election will achieve? >> if the russians had hoped to make an election that was credible in the eyes of ukrainian people, they did not succeed. i do think that the collective action of the united states and our partners has had an impact. with respect ukraine, we have had an impact. we have mobilized the resources of europe and the imf to help support ukraine through this very difficult economic period. they knew president's challenge is to unite the country, to sustain and take advantage of the economic moment that the financial support provides, and to find the balance so that ukraine can choose to have close ties to europe and to recognize

that russia is its neighbor. >> what do you think -- you know and have access to every intelligence information that we know -- what you think they want with respect to ukraine? >> i think they want a ukraine that is maximally influenced by russia. >> we want? >> we want a ukraine that can chart its own future. that is simple as letting them choose their leadership, choose whether they want to apply for membership to the eu, choose to whether they want to apply to russia's regional organization. frankly, our view is that sovereign countries ought to be sovereign. they should not be invaded or threatened by their neighbors.

>> did you make a mistake -- should they have responded quicker to ukraine and therefore had made a deal earlier so that all of this might not have happened? >> i don't know if it is simple as making a deal. in fact, when the change occurred, the events unfolded quickly. i think going back many months to the point at which the previous government was flirting with greater european integration -- this period will be fertile ground for historians to delve into. if you look at it carefully, there were many miscalculations on all sides. >> did we see it coming? >> i think we saw that ukraine was fragile, that there was a real chance that the popular

sentiment brewing could be unpredictable. i don't think we saw that russia was going to make a play on crimea. i don't think the russians made a plan. >> it was a result of what happened to the previous president? >> i don't think it was long planned. yes, it was in substantial measure a reaction to what happened to the previous president. >> what you expect to happen? how will this unfold in your judgment, in terms of ukraine and the future of ukraine? >> most countries don't recognize crimea. it was overwhelmingly rejected,

the russian efforts to annex and occupy. the international community utterly rejects this. it has no legitimacy. it can't have any legitimacy, because in the 21st century, it we start to acknowledge that it is ok for countries to take bites out of one another, it is a recipe for anarchy. nobody acknowledges it except russia and a few of its closeness allies. >> what you're saying is that our policy, that this was an illegal act by the russian government. we have to exercise every amount of pressure on russia, including sanctions and the like, to get them to pull out of crimea. >> you are now putting words in my mouth. it is an illegal act. we do not recognize it. we have exerted significant sanctions on russia as a consequence of that decision. >> if the sanctions don't work, what will we do?

>> as you heard the president described yesterday, this is not an issue from the united states perspective where the use of force is contemplated or implicated. it is a situation where we want to strengthen the government in kiev, economically, politically, and give it maximum independence. we want to continue to pressure russia through economic means. this may well be an issue that we are wrestling with for some time, the issue of crimea. >> do you have any information to suggest that vladimir putin act in part because he believed that president obama was not prepared to stop him? >> no. >> nothing? >> those are two different things, ok? did vladimir putin calculate that the west would not go to

war over crimea? perhaps. that is different than it he thought president obama was weakened. resident obama were strong and led the international community to punish and isolate russia. russia is now suffering significant economic consequences. >> does all of europe, on the same page as the president, including germany, are they on the same page with the president of the united states as to what we have to do with respect to tell sanctions against russia? >> they are very much on a similar page. the president has met with and spoken to her all throughout this crisis, almost every couple of weeks, if not more quickly than that. when she came to washington early this month, it was there again that they reaffirmed in

saying that if russia were to destabilize the election on the may, such that it cannot be conducted credibly, then we were prepared to lead europe and the west towards sectoral sanctions. >> what has changed in syria that makes the administration seemed to want to do more than it was repaired to do several years ago in supporting rebels? has the nature of the opposition change though that you can clearly identify who is good and bad? has what you have done to the cia had an impact? what is the dynamic that makes the administration willing to do more? >> there are several answers. first of all, the situation itself in syria is getting worse, not better.

let us be honest. the humanitarian situation is appalling and heartbreaking. the outflow of refugees, the number of displaced, the use of chemical weapons early on, the use of barrel bombs on a daily basis, snipers shooting at children, it touches every human heart. that is not a unique situation to syria. we have seen it in the congo, sudan, and many other places, but it is getting worse. secondly, as the conflict has evolved and as buster al-assad has prosecuted the war, he has lost control of significant parts of his territory. into that void have come

terrorist groups. there is one group who is active in syria and iraq. then there are al qaeda elements and affiliates, which we worry about as well. >> would they have been there if we had done more? >> the answer to that is not a degree of military involvement, or military support for the opposition, short of direct military involvement, which the president has excluded, that could have necessarily countered

the investment that iran, and russia have made on behalf of bashar al-assad. in my own view is the answer is, no. it may have changed the trajectory of the conflict. it still would be a regional battle. we would still have areas outside the government's control that were attractive to extremist groups. >> how far are we prepared now because of the change in circumstances to support those in opposition to the government? >> let me answer that. there is one of the piece to your prior question. we have been supporting the opposition. the united states government has been actively supporting the opposition, armed and unarmed elements of the opposition. i don't know that you know how much we are doing. >> no, i don't. >> i am not going to get into

that. let me just say that we have been providing support and increasing it for quite some while, over the last couple years. the quality, quantity, and the efficacy of our support has increased, and will continue to increase. we have been able to identify who among the moderate, they did opposition our partners we want to work with. >> you can work with them, arm them, and supply them? >> it is something that we think we are learning to manage. >> that was the reason for not doing more earlier. >> the other challenge has been that some of our friends and partners, who have also been supportive of the opposition, have not been in every instance over the years particularly discriminating as to whom they gave their support.

the good news is that we have gotten to a point where all the partners who are involved in the enterprise of supporting the opposition are now of the same view that we have to be very careful as to who we support. we want to support those elements that are not extreme, that are moderate. we are coordinating and cooperating in a much more effective way. effective way. that is another thing that has changed. the situation is worse. the ability to have an impact in is greater, we think. >> are we going to look at a stalemate there? >> there is no military solution to the crisis. >> is russia prepared to play a

positive role in finding a diplomatic solution? is what is happening in ukraine hindering that? >> let me reiterate, there has to be a political solution. there is no military solution. it is a negotiated solution of the sort that we and the russians and other members of the united nations security council envision being implemented. >> we tried this in geneva. it failed, did it not? >> it did. >> bashar al-assad was gaining on the ground. >> that is why i say that there is not a military solution by which there will be a clear-cut victor, either the opposition or the government.

in all likelihood, the two sides will be ready for negotiation when both sides don't see that they have the prospect of a military success. if you recall, about a year ago in may of 2013, secretary kerry was in moscow and agreed with president putin that we ought to push the two parties to the negotiating table on the basis of a framework that had been previously negotiated in geneva. it took the parties, the russians, and the opposition a long time, many months, to be willing to come to the

negotiating table. by that time, they performed admirably. in the months that ensued the tide turned further in al-assad's favor. at the end of the day, there still needs to be a solution. we don't want to see the institutions of the state dismantled. bashar al-assad can not be part of a credible transition. >> you say to him that there is no way where you remain in power? >> i don't see a negotiated settlement. some of the people around bashar al-assad will have a place in the transition. >> you're saying to them that

there is no place for you? >> there is no leadership role for you. >> what is the likelihood he will agree to that? >> he has not, as of yet. >> can we make the alternative worse? >> the alternative becomes worse when one of several things happens, his backers remove the support, his economy becomes untenable. thus far, they have not indicated a readiness to do that. i am just giving you analytically the elements here. that is one thing that could turn the tide.

the economic circumstances for bashar al-assad could change the tide. or the international community deciding that there is a basis for collective action. >> is he using chlorine gas? >> there are disturbing reports that he may be using chlorine gas. we are concerned about it. we have tasked the chemical weapons inspectors to investigate. they are. the chlorine gas is unlike the sarin gas, the gas it used earlier to deadly effect. it is not a banned substance under the chemical weapons terms. it's use in combat is banned under chemical weapons convention's. if they are doing it, it is illegal. that is why the investigation is important. we attach great significance to what it may be able to find.

>> a quick question about russia. dmitri medvedev said we may be entering a new cold war. >> i don't think it is a new cold war. russia is not an ideological block. it does not lead anybody in the 21st century. for another thing, the united states has said that it is not a a dual superpower world. our strength is not matched by any country, certainly not russia or china. when you look at our military, economy, demography, natural resources, and numerous diversity, partnerships and alliances, there is no peer. the cold war was premised on a divided world, ideological camps. there is no ideology behind

putin's russia, except for power and money. >> money. you know, crony capitalism. >> before i leave that region and go to china, i want to ask this question. setting a date for the takedown of troops, some have criticized you for setting numbers. why is it necessary? what is the incentive to do that? >> i appreciate that question. let me explain. we have been at war in afghanistan for 13 years. that is the longest war in american history. i don't think any american in the fall of 2001 would have thought that in 2014 we would

still be in combat in afghanistan. our combat mission will end at the end of 2014. what remains are to tasks. one is to train the afghan security forces. we and our nato partners have painstakingly invested in their establishment, training, and professionalization. i can tell you from having been there repeatedly that the quality and efficacy of those afghan forces are vastly improved. they are not yet at the point where they can do every function independently. interestingly, what they have learned to do are the high-end logistics functions, the intelligence functions, making sure their supply lines work, that they can pay their forces.

that is the level of training and advice that we are giving. >> that is one aspect. >> that is one aspect. the other aspect is ensuring that we are able to support continued counterterrorism operations against al qaeda in afghanistan. when our commanders on the ground in afghanistan made their recommendations to the president, it was also the same people who said we ought to have a ramp down plan. we should continue at the beginning of 2015 to train and advise the afghans, what they call the corps level.

we will use the duration of most of 2014 to complete the corps-level training that our commanders think are so important to giving -- here is why we ramp down, because the afghans, visit the advice of the commanders, the afghans need to see a rising at which they will be required to stand on their own. they have made enormous progress over the last two or three years. our commanders believe that by the end of 2016 they will not need the same level support. they have recommended this gradual drawdown of u.s. forces. at some point, charlie, those people who say that you're going to tell the taliban how long to wait. at some point, we are going to be gone. 15 years will be a long time.

if the idea is that you say when you're gone, you get the taliban warning, we will be there forever. that is not the view of the afghans. it is not the view of the commanders. it is not the view of the american people. >> you think things will change for the better with the new president? >> yes, i think. i think that is a fair bet. i hope so. >> fair enough. in iraq, if we had been able to make a similar agreement to what you hope to make in afghanistan, would we be looking at in a rock that is not so divided joined sunni and shia and a resurgence of al qaeda, if there had been antiterrorist troops remaining in iraq? >> recall what happened in iraq. there is a lot of revisionist history going on here. it was president bush who signed the agreement with the iraqis to

to agree to end our military presence. that was signed before he left office. for those people who say why you going to tell the enemy when you're gone, that was the first instance. he decided on a date when our combat mission would end. it ended. what president obama said was that if we are able to negotiate with the new iraqi government an understanding, and they prove, that allows us to stay with the protections and our forces needs wherever they deploy, and then we would be willing to get behind a small residual to help do counterterrorism with the iraqis. >> i know they did make it. >> they regret that now. >> they advised the afghans to not make the same mistake they did.

>> i don't know if that is true, but i heard that. it was not that the united states made a deal with the iraqis nobody can argue the counterfactual. al qaeda is largely a function of what is happening in syria. they started in syria and moved back into iraq. there were some remnants within iraq. the syrian conflict has been a large factor in fueling the rising in iraq. the united states has maintained an advisory presence in iraq, in our embassy. it is roughly the sort of arrangement we would have in afghanistan after 2016. that advisory role has been

valued by the iraqis as they have now had to step up and deal with this threat. the iraqis -- the question you pose is one for the iraq ease. we were not ever going to be doing the fighting for them. we are still able to offer support and advice. indeed, we are doing so today. what the president said yesterday, as part of his counterterrorism partnership agreement, is we are going to ramp up our support, not only to the opposition in syria, but to the neighbors of syria who are battling this challenge. >> edward snowden made some statements. was he trained as a spy? has his information damaged any person we can identify? >> he was not trained as a spy. we have no idea where that assertion comes from.

has edward snowden done damage? he has done immense damage to the national security of the united states in ways that i wish i could describe in public, but i cannot. indeed, the illegal unauthorized revelations have given our enemies come up to the terrace, including al qaeda, insights into how we gain information and intelligence on them that have enabled them to change the way they operate and be much more difficult to track. that is just one example. >> are we in negotiations to bring him back? is there any kind consideration that he would do something and we would allow him to come back? what are the conditions for him coming back? >> that he stands trial.

>> nothing else? >> no. we have the best justice system in the world with all the protections for defendants that anybody hope for. he faces very serious charges. he should come back and face them in court. if his intentions are honorable, as he claims, which is hard to imagine given the damage he has done, then he ought to be brave enough to face the justice system that is the foundation of the country he loves. >> let me turn to a note of -- as a north carolinian who knew maya angelou very well, she was an inspiration to so many people, including young african-american women who have

gone on to have great success. what did she mean to you? >> charlie, i appreciate you asking the question. she was a huge figure for me, personally. part of the reason being, not just because she was an african american woman, that in my youth, before i was corrected by the business of national security, i was a poet. >> you are a poet? >> i love writing and studying poetry. she was from my earliest days as a student of poetry one of my very favorites. as i grew up and had more opportunities and exposure, i got to meet her on a number of occasions. she had such grace and warmth and dignity. she was extraordinary affirming of anybody she touched. as a woman and as an african american, i had a great deal of fondness and appreciation for her.

her loss is big. it is huge. she left so much for so many in she left so much for so many in her poetry and her novels, in her teaching of students in north carolina. she was a great woman. >> thank you. >> thank you. a pleasure to have you here. susan rice is now the national security advisor to president obama. thank you for joining us for the hour. we'll see you tomorrow night. ♪

.

>> this week on "political capital" -- nancy pelosi on benghazi and immigration. >> they would test an immigration bill. >> peter roskam on ukraine and the select benghazi committee. obama's big week and margaret carlson and megan mcardle debate guns. we begin the program with the house democratic leader nancy pelosi of california. thank you for being with us. the president accepted the resignation of eric shinseki who