>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> as the tide turns in the fight against the islamic state, what role is iran playing? how will russia's economic decline affect putin?

bob corker of tennessee. thank you for being with us. let's start with isis. any chance the lame-duck senate will vote on authorizing that war? >> we agreed this week to have a debate. we are hoping to have witnesses come up on monday to have some classified breifings and debate the issue. there are a number of senators in the committee that one to -- want to begin weighing in. i have been talking with the white house and the state department and believe they are not quite ready. the whole issue especially in

syria is a complex one. i think general allen is doing a good job in beginning to piece together actions that could have a desired outcome. we are not there yet. personally, i would rather take this up when they are fully ready and thought it through so the american people could understand what the outcome is. i would rather wait. i'm a minority right now. i'm thankful the chairman agreed to at least lay it out the way they did. it's not going to make it on the senate floor, but in the committee, it's likely will have a markup of some kind next week. >> the secretary of state said we have weakened the islamic state and have them on the run. do you agree? >> i don't think there is any doubt their operating in a different way. no longer are they patrolling with large caravans.

they are operating at different times. they still are involved deeply in urban areas. we haven't yet done the things that are necessary to take them to the state that we wish to take them. you have two different arenas. iraq is easier to piece together. in syria, you have all kind of competing interests. we have allies in the region who are beginning to talk about the fact that we should align ourselves with assad. >> should we consider that? >> we have other allies that believe the only focus should be in the other direction. we obviously let this get into a situation that is more complex than it should have.

we have not released a policy there. again, as general allen works through with allies, there are people that want to work with turkey. he is working on an alliance. there's a no-fly zone over a portion of aleppo. allies who say we should be working with turkey that way. turkey is really a friend of isis. i'm not saying that. i'm repeating. i am just laying out the fact that there are a lot of competing interests in syria. >> you say there are people who say we ought to consider some kind of an arrangement with assad. what is your view? do you think we will not get rid of him? >> let's face it. we have sometimes different points of views. we really propped assad up. he has been reelected this last

summer for a five-year term. working with him on chemical weapons really established him. i don't want to go to a place we should be working with assad. my only point in raising that is certainly among the neighbors there is beginning to be a big split in how we approach syria. those of the things we need to figure out. there is an arab face on this. right now, obviously, we are viewed as taking away time. >> there is also a persian face on this.

airstrikes against isis last week. they played a role in stopping isis from going to baghdad. good or bad? >> it is interesting. in iraq, we would perceive we have some alligned interest. they certainly are opposing isis inside iraq. on the other hand, they have concerns about us having greater alignments with the sunni population. in syria, they are working against us. they support hezbollah. hezbollah has been helping the regime. the regime is killing the moderate opposition. and we are having training sites throughout the region to train more moderate syrian rebels to help us. at the same time through hezbollah, iran is killing them. >> leads to the question of nuclear talks with iran.

you have talked in the past posing sanctions. the talks have been extended for another several months. >> you know, we had a great hearing yesterday. we had private witnesses. i'm getting ready to leave in a few to a briefing where we are going to have a classified input. we had some private witnesses. i think everyone with the iran issue that i know of and highly involved, i think people are searching for the appropriate outcome. legitimate concerns on both sides of the aisle on where the administration started. with this jpoa.

people are tend to figure out what is the best way to help get this to a place we all would feel comfortable with? trying to understand the dynamics of the association of home that congress could play is what we're going to be looking at. i've tried to work in every way i can. also with the white house. i think we all understand when you are in the majority and have passed on the other side of the aisle, you want good things for the nation. you have the potential of passing real legislation. i think there will be genuine search to figure out the best way congress good play a role. -- could play a role. >> am i reading into this too

much? what i hear you saying is we are not sure right now. we'll take a look at the idea. let's see how things develop. >> i'm a cosponsor on the menendez bill that establishes new sanctions. it has been difficult to understand how that is problematic in the negotiations to say we're not imposing sanctions now. but, if we go down this route and the deal breaks apart, it is difficult to understand how that is problematic. >> that will give hardliners a chance to walk out. the other countries britain, france, russia, will not go along. >> >> the task is to figure out whether that statement is in fact real or not. the hardliners inside iran certainly play a role. the supreme leader has certainly played a role. he has been an anchor on one side. i really do believe in

negotiators believe congress has thus far been constructive. they sometimes don't like the input, but when they get to the negotiating table, they talk with officials. we've got folks back home that have tremendous distrust and are concerned. the art of this is figuring out an appropriate way for congress to weigh in. at the same time, there is concern administration wants a deal. some would say really wants a deal maybe at the expense of something that causes us to be in a sound position relative to iran. i think there is a bipartisan, constructive role that could be played. that is what we will be seeking out. >> the house intelligence committee issued yet another

report on benghazi. should the next congress continue to find out what happened in benghazi? or do we know enough now? >> the intelligence committee has issued a report. i think the armed services committee has issued a report. i think the focus has swung around to the state department, which is the area that the foreign relations committee overseas. rsees. i had a discussion the last couple of days. this issue has come up. there are some who are talking about a select committee. i'm still looking at that and try to discern what is best. i have to tell you -- i think the thing that is true -- there were security lapses. there were cables from our

ambassador seeking additional security. there is to legitimate concern. how could this have occurred? how could missions like this that we know aren't safe, how could this be overlooked? there are many issues of people saying this was about budget. that drives me crazy. the defense department was supplying people for free to the state department and pulled them away before the september 11 event. i'm not the kind of guy -- we have conversations all the time -- and not the kind of person who would want to go on a witch hunt. that's not who i am. we are looking at it.

i know there will be people on our side of the aisle asking and we are trying to figure out what is best. >> i'll ask the overarching question of libya. what lessons have you learned from that adventure in libya? and also, from going into iraq in 2003? >> i think you hearken back to colin powell. you break it, you own it. we did such a light thing. we never owned it. we just broke in. it is sad. i think if you're going to go in to a nation like this, i don't think we should. i didn't understand what our national interests were there.

i thought the legal argument that was put forth by the state department was incredibly weak. i think our desire for these countries to spring from nowhere -- i think we have learned that it doesn't exist. >> that is the lesson from iraq? >> that is the lesson. the way we wish things to be is not the way that it is. we have learned a great deal from iraq and libya. >> let me turn to russia. the ruble is plummeting. the pipeline in eastern europe had to be canceled. the economy is going into a recession. the sanctions have clearly worked. oil prices are dropping. is this going to make putin

more moderate, less aggressive, or go the other way? >> i think it's going to be more aggressive. the speech he gave this week was more strident than any talks he has given. that is why i was so concerned when he had 40,000 troops on the border. he had not yet gone into eastern ukraine. i felt that was a time if he didn't pull away -- we kind of fiddled around with it and tweak a few oligarchs who won't receive complaints well. we let it fester. now he is on this nationalistic horse that is difficult to get off. his popularity has risen tremendously. people understand there are deep long-term problems there. we all know this.

what do we fear about countries that have military capabilities? when they become weak inside, they create issues on the outside to keep themselves in place. i think that is the trap that putin finds himself in. >> what are the options? tell businesses, if you do business in russia, you won't do business here? >> there is no question in my mind that we need to continue to ratchet up the pressure. one of the pressure points -- i think we ratcheted it up. if we get to that point, that would be devastating. continuing, it weekend, -- if we to work with europe is important. do things to strengthen ukraine

itself. i have not been this bond didn't pondent over the fact when we had intelligence when we knew what was happening with the russian troops and the rebels they were supporting, we were afraid to appear operational. i felt we should do something as appropriate, as that ukrainians are able to take it. we should provide additional support. will they ever fend off russia? no. i think we should continuously be raising the price inside ukraine while continuing to inflict greater pain. we have got a lot of companies in this country that don't want to see that happen. our national interests, i'm sorry, will always trump commercial interests. this is very important.

this is something that cannot continue in the way that it is. >> let me get your overall assessment of the obama administration's foreign-policy and the role of secretary of rice.john kerry and >> i don't know if republican who has spent more time trying to work with the white house to solve problems in a sincere way. there are others who have -- i have been disappointed. our worst moment was two augusts ago. what we did relative to syria, that was a terrible moment to me in u.s. on policy. if we had time, i could share the fact that they watched on cnn people who would join us in

that effort watched on cnn -- did not get a call from the president, did not get a call from the pentagon -- it has hurt our credibility. it was a learning moment for putin. i have been very disappointed in the foreign-policy that has been put forth by this administration. kerry, i have to give him credit. he tries to throw himself into every issue. you have to say, look, you love a guy who wants to solve all the problems in the world in a short amount of time. i think john sometimes he views the world he wishes it was. maybe he would be better served by prioritizing. he spends his time traveling back and forth from multiple

conflicts. i have to give him an a for effort. for susan rice -- you don't hear from what happens in debate internally. based on the insight i'm able to get through conversations, i think the biggest deterrent to the president making decisions, the caution, the debate, the debate, the debate -- the biggest reason is the president himself. i do think that we have to think a little bit about the people around them. are they providing with clarity decision points? are they giving the background? is there something amiss around him that exacerbates the tendency to put off? i do see john. i do watch john.

i see his public comments. in fairness, i think it is unfortunate away the white house is concentrated. it seems every four years it gets worse and worse. it is so concentrated in the white house. >> on your side of the aisle, are you comfortable with the foreign-policy views of senator rand paul? >> rand today or this week, we had a debate. we had a debate over the amf. i actually enjoy hearing the different points of view. for that reason, i was going to table an amendment he was offering. the richness of our nation is the fact that we had this representative government that allows people to make these -- debate these issues fully.

we are in a different place. it's always with interest i hear his point of view. >> you will be central to these debates. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> will be back in a moment. >> andrew roberts is here. he is a historian and an author of the selling books. his latest is a biography of the great general napoleon bonaparte. it is called "napolean: a life." a series based on this book will air 2015. i'm pleased to welcome him back. congratulations on the grand prix. >> thank you. >> why do we need another biography of napoleon? you probably know how many there have been. >> yes.

there are more books with napoleon in the title then there are days since his death. a complete set of volumes, at 33,000 letters that napoleon signed in his lifetime. for the first time, we have them all together chronologically. they are beautifully footnoted. they are able to see the way this man's mind worked. the way he was able to keep thoughts in the air all at the same time. >> eloquent letters? >> yes. >> and letters to josephine? >> sexy and erotic at times. [laughter] the ones to his marshals and generals are immensely precise. he had this capacity to write

orders of the day and proclamations to his troops. these are moving. >> what surprised you most about him? >> his sense of humor. i wasn't expecting to find such a funny man. there are about 16 or 17 napoleon gags. he is constantly making jokes that are still funny 200 years later. >> he understood what best? war? >> people. war, certainly. i went to 53 of his 60 battlefields. one could immediately see the way in which his military genius worked when you see the battle he was fighting. it was his appreciation of how to infuse people in his natural secrets of leadership. that was most impressive. you have written about world war ii generals.

where do you put him in the history of warfare? >> right at the top, of course. who would know whether he was in charge of tanks? charge of tanks. he won 43 his 60 battles. >> waterloo did not work well. >> no. >> should never have gone into russia. >> should never have gone into russia. the reason he went to russia is actually much more logical than it seems. it wasn't some kind of ancient greek to do with nemesis following hebrew spirit he had an army twice the size of the russians. he had beaten the russians twice before. he had no idea he would kill so many of his men. he actually knew it would snow in russia and he gave himself enough time to get back. he made one tragic error after that battle. he went north rather than west.

>> why did he do that? >> because he fought this inconclusive battle. he thought the russian army was on the other side of the hill. it is impossible for him. he could have pulled it off. >> you compared him to caesar. you also compare him to george washington. as soldier statesman. >> that's right. caesar was his own personal hero. he wrote a book about caesar. it doesn't break new ground, but it shows his immense reading. maybe you did not just have time because he was running the world. >> was the idea -- church hill famously said, history will be kind to me because i'm writing that history. he was an eloquent writer. made a living as a writer as you do. but napoleon didn't do that.

any of that. >> he wrote and he had nothing -- when he had nothing else to do. history isn't always written by the victors. he had lost, but his book came the bestseller of the 19th century. >> in the world? >> even more than "uncle tom's cabin." anything bigger than dickens. in the world. he managed to write. >> when he had time, he wrote. >> yes. and you are right about george washington. he admired george washington. he wrote constitutions like madison. he was a philosopher. rabble-rousers like john adams. a wordsmith like jefferson. was all of the founding fathers

as it were rolled into one. he found a country that was a failed state in 1799. he left it six years later. >> how extraordinary is his comeback? >> not a shot was fired in anger between them landing on the south coast and getting back to paris and sitting down and meeting the dinner that louis the 18th had cooked for him only three weeks later. >> wow. when you look at his relationship to women and josephine -- >> it's not the love of romeo and juliet love story at all. she was unfaithful to him within weeks of their marriage. after their two-day honeymoon, he went off on campaign. she jumped into bed with

somebody who was a calvary czar. he had all the charm of a week makers assistant. [laughter] when napoleon found out two years later, he marched on the first of his 22 love affairs with mistresses. >> he did that in response? >> he did that in response. he went back to josephine. they were married for another 10 years. it is much mark obligated, -- it is much more complicated, much more interesting, human love story than the romeo and juliet one. >> how do you assess his mind? >> compartmentalization. at the same time of writing a long letter of how the army had to be moved right away across europe for a campaign, also wrote a prefect.

saying he must stop taking his mistresses to the opera. >> a level of involvement his soldiers' lives. eve of one -- on the of the most horrific battles in history -- crashed into an area of ground. killing or wounding everyone on board. yet the night before, he was able to sit down and write the rules. >> how is your book different? you have suggested to biographers do not idolize your subject. >> i criticize him seriously for war crimes. he basically -- 3000 had been captured in an earlier battle.

they promised to give them parole if they didn't fight against the french. they did. he had them all executed. it is a terrible moment in his personal story. it is a war crime under any sort of moral basis. >> you look at historians who have a great sense of the history of his time, where do they place him? >> many of them think, especially those who see things through the lens of the second world war, they see him as another hitler figure. he was a dictator and try to invade russia and britain.

>> why did he do that? what did he see his role in the world? run the world? >> to extend the enlightenment. he was a figure who believed in religious toleration and equality before the lord. the values that he extended. he extended them as far as he could. that doesn't make him adolf hitler. >> not by a longshot. do you ascribe to him the reason he was imperialistic because he had some conviction he was given birth to values that went beyond his own ego? >> and beyond the borders of france.

they had to be extended. he was the enlightenment. >> was he an intellectual? >> certainly. he was really interested in the thoughts underpinning the enlightenment. he was appreciated by other great intellectuals of the day. a proper, bona fide intellectual. also a creator. he was a builder. someone who brings 42 legal codes into one. created the peaceful parts of paris we love so much. the education process. very important. >> when you talk about him and his leadership, because you are a brit, how do you compare him to churchill? >> churchill admired him enormously.

said he was the greatest european men of action since julius caesar. >> churchill desperately wanted to be a man of action. >> he did it when he had the chance to become he marched in the last great calvary charge. he never commanded an army. always wanted to. he admired napoleon. >> the world you're talking about has to do with global leadership? >> he does personify leadership. he was able to master his own emotions. he was also a fantastic organizer of his time. he would have newspapers read to him in the bath. he would only sit down 20 minutes maximum to a male.

>> did he have great dinner parties? >> can you imagine? all the wine and food you can have? it would be the most fantastic life. 20 minutes maximum. he also appreciated the power that luck played in his life. he was 20 when the french revolution broke out. he was able to become a general at the age of 24. he deserved it. he won a battle brilliantly. for that opportunity to come is a tremendous luck. >> his ego. describe it. monumental? >> no. i think it was as much as it

deserved to be. he was quite clearly the best soldier in france. he was the man who managed to turn a failed state into a successful state. this did give him a strong self belief. he had won all these battles. i don't think he had a napoleon complex. [laughter] napoleon doesn't have a napoleon complex. i'm not saying there isn't such a thing. i am sure there is. >> a small man idea. >> yes. by the way, he was not small. he was 5'6". that is my height. [laughter] winston churchill was 5'6" inches. >> what are you saying? 5'6" is great?

[laughter] >> when no one was looking, i lay down on his deathbed. i fit perfectly. unless you think i am a midget -- the reason people think he was was because of the british caricatures. these wonderful caricatures all made him out to be small for political reasons. >> vanity? >> a huge amount. by the time he got obesely fat when he was 41 -- >> really? >> unfortunately. i don't know how. considering he never spent more than 20 minutes on a meal. this was also when he was having

problems with the regards to the continental system trying to close down british trade. he got fat. he hid all the beautiful statues made of him as a young, beautiful man. he had them boxed up and hidden because he didn't want to be ridiculed. >> there is some question of his death. >> there has been for so long. >> there is no controversy? or are you saying the controversy is absurd? no serious person has gone for it? death, he after his withpened up in an autopsy

doctors present. they pulled his stomach out. there's no part not riddled with cancer. it was in the family. his sister died of it. that is what killed of them -- that is what killed them. >> what do you think he was proudest of? >> he said, the achievement of my battles have been wiped out, which they had been by the time he died. but the code of napoleon will stand the test of time. and it has. the state of louisiana has the napoleon code. >> it does. >> it replaced 42 legal codes. many of them contradictory.

that was the thing. it stands out in shoulders -- stands head and shoulders. that and the education system. >> how long was he in exile? >> 5.5 years. >> what was it like? >> terrible. a tiny island. a spec. the second most inhabitant island in the world. for this energetic figure to be stuck on this tiny island -- >> with no information? >> the government official wouldn't let him have newspapers. he didn't know what was going on. the whole place was up in the clouds. everybody had bronchitis. it was a dreadful way to end his life. >> he wrote. >> he wrote the books. he met interesting persons that came off the boats.

they would come and meet with napoleon. >> he would look forward to the boats. >> they would bring him news. people him back from china, for example, would spend hours talking to napoleon about the politics of china and the society of china. he was a brain and fascinated by that. >> how is he in terms of women? generally in terms of what women meant to him. >> he loved josephine after his own fashion. he was also in love with his second wife mary louise until she was unfaithful to him as well. >> women were unfaithful to this great man? in her case, she was 18 when she married him in his 40's. when he fell, they brought in

this handsome, one eyed calvary colonel who swept her off her feet. otherwise, he never allowed women to have power in france. he thought that is where they went wrong. louis the 14th, 15th and 16th -- allowing their mistresses to have power. >> do you collect napolitano? [laughter] >> i do. i have a little bit of the wallpaper of the room in which he died. i thought it at auction the other day. not the option of the hat that recently sold for $2.4 million. one of 17 hats he owned.

>> who bought it? >> a south korean business man. it shows universal interest napoleon has. he is big in china, for example. but also the amount of money people are willing to pay. >> what is the best movie about napoleon? not a documentary, but a feature film. >> i asked martin scorsese that. he said there had it been a good one since 1927. a tv is why we really need series. you would have much more time and also he could grow up. >> we really do want to see and capture the sense of him from some of the best actors we have. >> yes. i don't know who would play him.

it would be quite a task. that would be a great thing to have happen. >> thank you for coming. for those of us to love biographies and understanding people who have shaped our world, this is the kind of book that will give you insight into him. love or hate him, you could not deny his impact. >> thank you. >> the book is called "napolean: a life." by andrew roberts. back in a moment. stay with us. >> robin wright is here. she just returned from her reporting trip to the syrian border for the new yorker magazine. her article is called "the vortex: a turkish city on the frontier of syria's war." i'm pleased to have robin wright back at this table. welcome. >> always great to be here. tell me what this story is about and why this town is significant.

>> and it is a frontier in turkey toward the syrian border. everything whether american aid -- it reflects challenges the international community faces in trying to deal with one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies since world war ii, but also what is a multifaceted war. there are two wars in syria. one is between isis and the rebels. the other is between -- this multifaceted war plays out. all have headquarters trying to find a way to deal with this.

where the free syrian army has offices. it is the kind of frontier now. >> where do you put -- on this? >> there are more than 1000 different rebel groups now fighting in syria. the largest number of them are in the various levels. they span the gamut. the majority are moderates, secular. their growing sectors that are with the al qaeda affliate in syria. there are other islamist groups as well.

the real challenge, as we in the united states try to play a bigger role in helping the , is the fact they are being outnumbered by the islamists. this is the most complex war in the middle east in a century. >> do they have enough people considered moderates to build soldiers on the ground to combat isis? >> they are probably down to somewhere between 30 and 50,000. the free syrian army doesn't exist as one entity. it doesn't have one commander. it doesn't have one set of strategies. they do not really coordinate with each other. in trying to find a force that could fight isis or the government in damascus, the challenge is finding the number of fighters.

a lot of them feel whether it is disillusioned with outside world from an looking at isis and not at their war, not helping them with weaponry or training, i was struck in talking to a lot of the refugees and asking, why aren't you inside syria? they were tired of the war. they expected it to have happened much faster than it did. >> would it have been faster if the u.s. and other countries supported them early? >> i and not convinced that arming would have produced isis faster reaction to u.s. intervention. >> how is it going to turn out in kobani? >> it is a small town. it is 40,000 people. , the kurdishere

that is fighting there, after 2.5 months, still only hold half the town. >> what is necessary to force isis out? >> whether it is better arms for the kurds or more forces -- the turks are positioned along that border. m-60 tanks on the hillside overlooking kobani. the turks have opted not to get involved in helping. they say the outside world should be focused on the other war against the assad. they don't want to help with isis.

>> when we attack from the air or other sources, does that benefit assad? >> to some degree it does. it diverts attention. assad has been able to get away with dropping deadly barrel bombs on aleppo. they get away with his own aggression, because the world is so obsessed with isis. in some ways it has helped him militarily. if it was just a war, the world would pay more attention. >> what are the options for this administration as it looks at syria, looks at iraq, and tries to ascertain how to fight isis? and at the same time, be true to its commitment to regime change

in syria? how do they balance that? do they try to fight two wars at the same time? the focus on isis and then come to syria later? >> i think that is exactly what they are trying to do. first of all, focusing largely on iraq. trying to regain territory with help from u.s. air power. after that is achieved, once isis is forced back into syria, then trying to help the rebels become strong enough so they could put pressure on isis and the assad regime. iraq is possible to make headway. i find it difficult to see any

viable solution anytime soon to the syrian war. even if the rebels were to to win, the danger is a warlordism is so entrenched, we would have a civil war play out in syria after that. i fear syria could be a longer war than iraq. >> thank you. the article by robin wright is in the new york magazine for december. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> he is known as tech's turnaround guy. blackberry ceo john chen has spent more than 30 years working in enterprise technology. famously taking the enterprise software maker sybase from the verge of death to $5.8 billion powerhouse. now he is taking on what some say is an impossible job, leading blackberry's come back. can he prove them wrong? and how did he become the tech industry's fixer? my guest today is blackberr