♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> my fellow americans, tonight, i want to speak to you about what the united states will do

with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as isil. as commander-in-chief, my highest priority is the security of the american people. over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. andook out osama bin laden much of al qaeda's leadership in afghanistan and pakistan. we targeted the affiliate in yemen. we recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in somalia. bringingone so while 140,000 american troops home from iraq. thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, america is safer. still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. we can't erase every trace of evil from the world and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.

that was the case before 9/11 and that remains true today. that is why we must remain vigilant. at this moment, the greatest threats come from the middle east and north africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. and one of those groups is isil. it calls itself the islamic state. let's make two things clear. isil is not islamic. no religion condones the killing of innocents. the majority of its victims have been muslim. and isil is not a state. it was formerly al qaeda's affiliate in iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and syria's civil war. gaining territory on both sides of the border. it is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates. isil is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. it has no vision other than the

slaughter of those who stand in its way. in a region that has known so much bloodshed come of these terrorists are unique in their brutality. they execute captured prisoners, kill children, and enslave rape, , and force women into merits. they threateneded a religious minority with genocide. and in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two american journalists, tim foley and stephen sotloff. isil poses a threat to iraq and syria and the broader middle east, including u.s. personnel. if left unchecked, they pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the united states. while we have not yet affected specific plotting against our homeland, isil leaders have threatened america and our allies.

our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners, including europeans and some americans, have joined them in syria and iraq, trained and battle hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. i know many americans are concerned. tonight, i want you to know that the united states of america is meeting them with strength and resolve. last month, i ordered our military to take targeted action against isil to stop its advances. since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in iraq. these strikes have protected american personnel and facilities, killed isil fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for iraqi and kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. these strikes have also helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. but this is not our fight alone.

american power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for iraqis what they must do for themselves. nor can we take the place of arab partners in securing their region. that is why i have insisted that additional u.s. action depended on the iraqi government creating a more inclusive government which they have done tonight. so with a new iraqi government in place and following consultation with allies at home -- a broad and congress at home, i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil. through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. first, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. working with the iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions so that we are hitting isil targets as iraqi forces go

on offense. moreover, we've made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isil in serious as well as iraq. this is the core principle of my presidency. if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven. second, we will increase our support for forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. in june, i deployed several hundred american service members to iraq to find out how best we can best support iraqis security forces. now that those teams have completed their work and iraq has formed a government, we will send an additional 475 service members to iraq. as i said, these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get dragged into another ground war in iraq. but they are needed to support iraqi and kurdish forces with

with -- training, intelligence, and equipment. we will also support iraq's efforts to help sunni communities secure their own freedom from isil's control. across the border in syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the syrian opposition. tonight, i have called on congress to give us additional resources and authorities to train and equip these forces. in the fight against isil, we cannot rely on the assad regime. it's ownorizes zone -- people. that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. instead we must strengthen the opposition while pursuing a political solution necessary to solve syria's crisis once and for all. third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent isil attacks. along with our partners, we will

redouble our efforts to improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter its warped ideology and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the middle east. and in two weeks, i will chair a meeting of the un security council to further mobilize the international community around this effort. fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been this faced by this terrorist organization. shiaincludes sunnia and muslims at grave risk, as well as christians and other religious minorities. this is our strategy. each of these four parts of our strategy america will be joined , by a broad coalition of partners. already, allies are flying planes with us over iraq, sending arms and assistance to iraqi security forces and to the

syrian opposition, pouring billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. secretary kerry was in iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity. in the coming days, he will travel across the middle east and europe and list more partners in this fight, especially arab nations who can help mobilize sunni communities in iraq and syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. this is american leadership at its best. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity. my administration has also secured bipartisan support here at home. i have the authority to address the threat from isil. but i believe we are strong as -- strongest asset nation when the president and congress work together. i welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that americans are united in confronting this danger.

it will take time to eradicate the cancer like isil. anytime we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. this counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out isil wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. this strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us while supporting partners on the front line is one that we successfully pursued in yemen and somalia for years and is consistent with the approach i outlined earlier this year. to use force against anyone who

threatens america's core interest, but to mobilize partners wherever partner. to address broad challenges in international order. my fellow americans, we live in a time of great change. tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the great depression. yet despite these shocks, through the pain we felt and the grueling work required to bounce back, america is better position today to seize the future than any other nation on earth. our technology is unmatched. our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. energy independence is closer than it has been in decades. for all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest, uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. despite all of the divisions and the discord within our democracy, i see the grit and determination and the common

goodness of the american people every single day. that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future. a broad american leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. it is america that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. it is america that has rallied the world against russian aggression and in support of the ukrainian people's right to determine their own destiny. it is america, our scientists, doctors, our know-how that can help contain an sure the outbreak of ebola. it is america that helped remove and destroy syria's chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the syrian people or the world again. and it is america that is helping muslim communities around the world, not just in the fight against terrorists, but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future.

america, our endless blessings ow an enduringest burden. but we welcome our responsibly delete. from europe to asia, from the far reaches of africa to war-torn capitals in the middle east, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. these are values that have guided our nation since its founding. tonight, i ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. i do so as a commander-in-chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform. pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the middle east and service members who support our partners on the ground. when we help prevent the massacre of civilians on a distant mountain, this is what one of them said. we owe our american friends our lives.

our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people. that is the difference we make in the world. and our own safety come our own security depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for, timeless ideals that will endure long after those who are out for -- offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth. may god bless our troops. and may god bless the united states of america. ♪ >> henry kissinger is here.

he is the diplomat, nobel peace prize recipient, and also served as secretary of state and military adviser for presidents nixon and ford. his new book is called "world order: reflections on the character of nations and the course of history." in it he writes "libya is in civil war. fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared

caliphate across. iraq, and afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of collapse. to these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with relationship with china divided between cooperation and recrimination. the concept of order that is underpinned the modern era is over." good to see you. >> good to be here. started on a very positive note. [laughter] >> this idea of order has permeated your academic, public, post public life? it has been this concept that you seem to be at the core of how you see the world. >> i see that my concern is the achievement of peace. but peace requires some system of order that has two elements.

it has to have enough of a balance of power that no single component, usually a nation, can dominate at. and it has to have some agreement on values which determine what is a just arrangement. because unless a system is accepted by most of its participants, there will be constant outbreaks of war. this is the concept of order i am interested in. it doesn't mean order against idealism, because idealism isn't a central component of it. but it does mean that power is a central component. >> how far back do you look in terms of to see the creation of nationstates and balance of power between them?

>> nationstates is a peculiarly western evolution. rome certainly had order. it dominated most of the known world and upheld peace within its boundaries. china certainly had a system of order. but almost all previous orders and all the ones i know were variations of empires, with one group or element in it. the special character of the west is that it divided itself into a series of nations in the 17th century and then developed a concept of order based on balance of power and to some extent legitimacy. sometimes the balance of power was the dominant element.

sometimes the legitimacy that all nations agreed on the nature of a just arrangement. but the system broke down and the western system spread around the world in the 19th century as a result of western imperialism in the colonies, as they emerged, emerged as nationstates. but the concept of order based on the nationstate is a special western invention. >> why did you decide to write this book now? you describe how it came out of a conversation. >> the conversation was -- actually, i thought of writing a book about key personalities

in international affairs. and i discussed that with a friend, he said right about the problem that must be occupied -- most preoccupies you at the moment and has preoccupied you all your life and see if you can synthesize that. actually, that got me started. and it has been implicit in what i have been writing, as you say. but this is a way of summing it up. >> is there an absence of order when you look around the world. are we in transition? >> this is one of the most chaotic periods that i know about. because every part of the world -- almost every part of the world is in the process of redefining itself. some internally to some extent like china. some externally. and the european system has been abandoned in europe.

and the united states is moving into a new period where the dominance it enjoyed in the immediate postwar economically is no longer there. but on the other hand, we are still the essential element in creating a new order. >> the most powerful single nation. without our participation, it is very difficult to see how a new system can emerge in most parts of the world. >> but new systems do emerge when there is a vacuum. >> we know what happens when there's a vacuum. as the threatens to be in afghanistan, for example. surrounding countries threaten and then there is some sort of a contest.

and out of this sometimes a new order emerges. then the question is whether you thecreate that order before contest has taken place. >> some people talk about the fact that during the bush 43 era, we moved too far in one direction. and then, in the obama era, we have moved too far in the other direction and we haven't found the balance between the two. >> bush 43 faced an extremely difficult problem. >> 9/11. >> yes. we were attacked. we had to reestablish our credibility in the region from which we were attacked. and reestablish the respect. we were bound to unleash a number of latent forces in each of these countries.

attempted to bring about a democratic system on the western model in a relatively brief period of time by means of military occupation. >> i believe -- i think you believe that is not a smart thing to do. >> it was a noble thing to try, but it went beyond the capacity of our system and it involved the quarrels between sunnis and shia and all the contending forces in the region. but in fairness to bush, his -- what were his alternatives it wasn'ts in iraq,

what i thought we should do is let some government emerge and then not make ourselves the arbiter of the evolution of iraq. but i understood what he was attempting to do. and i have great respect for him. obama went too far in the other direction. he seems to think that confession of american guilt would gain so much public support abroad that this could substitute for the military effort that his processor had made. -- predecessor had made. probably the long-term outcome is in between these two positions.

>> articulate what the mill is and what it ought to be. >> that is extremely difficult to define. if we cannot make ourselves the major factor in the domestic evolution in every country, particularly by the use of military power -- on the other hand, if we take no interest, then we have a situation that we are now seeing or if we appear to take no interest, then we have a situation that we see developing now. if you look at the crisis in the we had mubarak, for example.

it was clear that he was coming to the end of his ability to manage affairs. it was not obvious that we had to be the is a whole agent of -- invisible agent of his overthrow. >> what would have been an alternative? >> a more gradual evolution. one proposed and embodied in one american concept, which was then abandoned under the pressure of events. but i am not saying that i am outlining a solution for every country in the world. i'm saying that the united states has to find a balance between what it must do militarily and what it must do ideologically. and to understand that some countries have a totally different perception of order

and peace than we do. so we cannot always act like schoolmasters that give the impression that we know all the answers and the appropriateness of apology of other countries is measured to the degree to which they follow our prescriptions. >> let's talk about putin specifically. what is his intent and what should be the american response? it is beyond now. >> the western response? and --question of food intent, i have thought, and to some extent still think, i have thought what putin wanted above all was an understanding with united states that

recognizes the vulnerability of russia's position with long frontiers with china, the middle respect for its territorial members. that was not forthcoming. he reacted afterward. what he considered a period of deliberate humiliation during the olympics, the handling of ukraine by measures which i cannot testify on the basis of the analysis that i have made. a country the does not have the right to annex the part of another country because his historical views have not been a -- appropriately treated.

i had hoped that there would be a fundamental discussion -- on the highest level -- between the white house and the kremlin in which the long-term future of russian-western relations, and thereby the future of eurasia would be discussed. have been drawn into a series of tactical decisions step-by-step, which are putting an excessive emphasis on the military outcome on the russian side. and we cannot accept the proposition that russia can do -- dictate the outcome of its ordinations by the constant use of military threats. >> so what should we do now? >> we should open the possibility of a fundamental

negotiation with russia. but we should also make -- >> you say we. >> i am talking about the united states. the europeans have made it very clear that they will not engage, run any risk of war. but at the same time, we should also make their that the continuation of military operations made its fundamental relationship with the united states, not just in sanctions but in what may be a long -- >> do you think putting that at risk will influence putin? >> i think yes. >> do you think sanctions will influence him? >> not the way they are being conducted. >> let's talk about this president and how you think he is perceived and if putin is motivated by what he perceives to be a weak president.

>> i think putin is motivated by a perception that he cannot get through to this administration. we keep offering solutions to a whole set of problem and he is trying to talk about the overall situation. >> you seem to suggest that putin is more interested in the strategic result, a diplomatic strategic result and that he is much more of a deeper thinker about these things than the united states. >> if the russians play chess, we play poker. they have lived in a very threatened environment and therefore they have had to think about the relationship of

societies to each other. we have lived in a relatively secure environment. therefore any disturbance of that environment we believe has some practical solution that can be implemented in a short period of time. let me take syria as an example. serious -- saying has toas to be -- assad be overthrown. for russia there is concern that the extremist and jihadist groups have a more fertile field inside russia even than as a threat to the west. so any solution in quotation marks begins with solving the existing theme. libyand produce

almost allin which that becomes radical. >> we want to avoid destabilizing. >> i think the best approach would have been to begin with an agreement on the nature of the outcome in syria rather than the personality of an individual. and i am mentioning this only as an example. i am not saying that what i have suggested would have worked. i believe it might have. the challenge that we have now, which might not be fulfilled, can there be a russian state that works cooperatively with special, but whose necessities are respected? the ukraine can

never be a totally foreign country to russians. you have after all famous dissidents like brodsky used to proclaim that ukraine is part of russia. i think ukraine should be an independent state within its existing borders. they should be free to conduct their affairs internationally, but in which they -- some of it should be based on cooperation between the west and russia. any shorte done in term negotiation? i don't know. >> do you think it is acceptable to putin? >> i think it is very late in the game. he has exceeded beyond what could have been his expectations when this crisis started.

toi want to come non-nationstates and what it is to world order. some have said that it is our history, part lecture, part memoir. some say it does not pay enough attention to nonstate actors. and they also say sometimes you don't pay enough attention to latin america and africa. but beyond all that we now have , a crisis created partly by the the disarray in serious -- syria, partly by the capacity of a nonstate actor to get both finance and funding and create an organizational structure, and motivated to try to create a caliphate and create an islamic state. what has to be the response and what is essential for the united states and europe to say and do at this moment? that is what the president has

on his plate right now. knowing that he has to do things he wished he did not have redo. -- to revisit. it is a section discussing the collapse of the state. i will not get into that issue. in the middle east now is a confluence of a series of revolutions that are partly overlapping and partly competitive. it is an evolution against a state authority within the state, which the uprising against mubarak is an example. the shia-sunni conflict within the iraqi state is an example. there is the collapse of the

state borders that were drawn in the 1920's by written and france -- britain and france as an expression of the european balance of power which did not reflect the actual divisions and realities. so all of these issues are coming together. the administration attempted to first restore and then to rely on the secular, democratic evolution most similar to that of the west and therefore to the position it took. and expected to do the same thing in syria. -- libya. and it led to the demand for assad's withdrawal, which had the practical consequence to

accentuate all the internal issues in a country in which there is not one cohesive national thought. in order to have the democratic system operating, you need the one minority that can become a majority. now you have a movement that is attempting to resurrect the that the, which is uniform government of all of the islamic people are under one roof. and they proceed with extreme brutality in order to demonstrate its defiance of the world and the impotence of outside countries, especially the united states. in the book i mention there are , three levels of strategic understanding united states needs.

one, what actions does it take to prevent, even if it has to do so unilaterally? because of the perception of world order. secondly, what actions can we do only together with allies? third, what actions should not be on the table at all? the isis issue reflects two of those. the first is when the throat of americans is cut on the national television and then decapitated, innocent bystanders who are in uniteded as victims, the states fundamental values are insulted. and that must have some retaliation.

and for that, we do not need allies. that we can do on our own with -- without necessarily solving the problem. >> with airstrikes. >> i would have thought with airstrikes. >> but not troops on the ground. >> this is not a final solution of the isis problem. >> this is to retaliate for what happened. >> it is to teach isis that there is a heavy price to be paid in seeking to humiliate america. and by -- >> but isn't that what the president is doing? >> i think he is doing it not as retaliation. the president began to do it as a kind of, to prevent isis from moving more and more closer to baghdad accompanied with more

limitations. it is now merging in that direction. my impression is in his speech the president will move very close to that position with a very different rationale. he finds it very difficult to express unilateral american action. secondly, how can one overcome isis? that requires some strategic assessment. because it depends, for example the road we have chosen is to , strengthen the baghdad government and then appeal to the sunnis and to speak of a united iraq but while we are arming the kurds, there are practical consequences that they will move out of the iraqi in a de facto way and then if a shia army is created and goes into sunni areas of this will present

the problems that led to the crisis. so in that it is a strategy that makes sense but it will take some time. >> if you are military people , say you need boots on the ground. >> but not ours. >> you have to find those boots somewhere. you got them from the kurds and the iraqi army and some middle -- militia groups. >> the militia groups we were trying to create in syria that we never were quite able to do. would find the most useful employment used against isis in in whateverybe decides soon as they

among themselves. ordersia, --sent borders are considered the permanent borders of the region. at any rate, for the immediate future, this would be the most fruitful employment or use of the moderate element. >> free syrian army. one of the moderate groups. and that is, i would think that saudis and even qataris strategicrstand its purpose. >> the thought is the emirates and jordanians will support that, will they not? >> yes. this, i believe

we have to remember we are dealing with 20,000 fanatics. but it is a relatively small group which has had astonishing successes because of the weakness of the opposition. but if we put together these various elements that we have discussed here we should be able terroristt them into groups which one should then defeat with intelligence operations. but the fundamental problems in the region of the sunni and the shia represented by tehran and saudis and al qaeda will continue. whether it is possible to create an order in that region, that will be the next challenge.

i think that alone destroying isis will not be the only issue. because at the end of november, we will be facing the deadline for the nuclear negotiations of iran. and that outcome will determine the relative position of many of the countries. >> what do you think that outcome will be? >> it depends on whether there is a significant interruption of the iranian new year program or a way to legitimize it with a little delay. i would prefer a successful negotiation that leads to iran joining the international system. but i don't see how that can be done unless there is significant impairment of the nuclear

military capability of iraq. >> you think the supreme leaders are prepared to accept that? >> i think that is what they are debating in tehran right now. but you have an interesting phrase about iran. you say it has to decide whether it wants to be a nationstate or a movement. it has to decide to be a nationstate and participate in the community of nations or it wants to be theocratic. >> in its history iran has been a nationstate. it has been a great empire. and it has been the leader of a jihadist movement. for recent decades, it has tried to merge the empire and the jihadists. if they decide to become a nationstate, they can have a major impact in the consolidation.

>> we have talked about russia and the middle east and isis and -- and then china before i leave you this evening. you believe that xi jinping has a clear sense of china's lace -- place that is different than has built whatever has gone on in the past and they seem to want china to be more aggressive. >> i don't think that's true. >> but you seem to believe china can be accommodated. >> i think the fundamental effort of xi jinping at the moment engages in the reform of chinese society. of a magnitude which we have not seen. >> it involves corruption. inch means that many people the bureaucracy are threatened

simultaneously because either adjustments or the potential corruption. nationalism is a kind of unifying element. period. whennk that xi feels that something is perceived by him , that he must take a very strong stand. it isdon't believe that the same impulse as it was in , having to putin demonstrate to his people that he is the protector of

historical patrimony. therefore, it's not a question so much of accommodating. he has said that a relationship with the united states and china should set a new example for the relationship between potential adversaries. president obama had said the same thing. the only thing that has been lacking in some complete program to express it and that is to which we should pay attention. i think 15 years from now, when china has reached the level of a large middle class, how it will then perceive the international situation? i am not predicting. i am saying, if we are lucky, it could be that, at the end of

that, we have fallen into a pattern that we have found it in our interest to continue. but i also think that a military conflict between potential superpowers will destroy the world. we have seen what happened in world war i. it's not just the physical destruction. it is the choosing of sides on a global basis during it would be very hard to repair your that is my concern. not to accommodate. >> you worry that there will be a conflict between china and the united states in which people would be forced to choose sides. >> there is a lot of discussion about world war i. certainly, one of the experiences of world war i. 1914, nobody claimed they were going to war. then a number of people to -- took decisions that sounded

reasonable and prudent, and within the space of a week they suddenly found themselves at war based on mobilization schedules and those kinds of things. i think we should try to avoid gradual escalations if we can. and we should above all understand the nature of the challenge. but in all of this, when we happen to speak about order, i start with the united states and i look at it from the point of view of what environment is most conducive to our values and our security. >> you said that obama had an imbalance between introspective and how we should address the rest of the world. >> we have to learn as a society to think in historic terms. we are part of a process. we are not part of a pragmatic

solution that will end in history. in 1990, a book is written called "the end of history." attention at the time and justifiably so. we won't see the end of history. we will be part of a process of what we are seeing around the world. we will continue to go along. we should be in a position, one, of protecting our security and, secondly, one of the world in which our values are preserved to the greatest extent and in which there are not upheavals of the nature that we put everything at risk. that is a big order. >> the book is called "world order," henry kissinger. thank you for being with us.

see you next time. ♪ ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, "this is bloomberg west." i am emily chang. first a check of your top headlines -- new details on yahoo! as government surveillance and court filings just, yahoo! says the u.s. government threatened to find a company to hundred $50,000 per day if it did not turn over user.data related to national security these requests eight back to 2007 and 2008 and yahoo! turned the information over and was not find.