♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: it is a historic week for the united states supreme court. the court a firmed in a 6-3 -- affirmed in a hearing today that 6-3 nationwide subsidies called for in the affordable care act are illegal. chief justice john roberts wrote in the majority opinion congress passed before the health care act to "improve insurance markets, not destroy them." he was joined by the courts for liberal justices -- ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan. also voting with the majority anthony kennedy, often called the swing vote. three conservative justices

voted against it -- scalia thomas and so alito. -- alito. the decision makes a major victory for the obama administration on health care. the president spoke at the white house earlier today. president obama: today after over 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple this law, after multiple challenges before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. my greatest hope is that rather than keep refining -- re-fighting battles that we have settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together and make health care in america even better. charlie: public opinion of the law has improved, but it remains a polarizing issue. joining me now from washington adam liptak. he is the supreme court

correspondent from "new york times." i'm pleased to have him here. let me begin by significance of this. does it put aside the legal challenges to the affordable care act? adam liptak: there are more minor challenges lurking in the lower courts, but having survived the supreme court twice unscathed, it looks like this is a law that as the president might say is getting woven into the fabric of american society and will be very hard to pull out wholesale. is it possible that some later congress might do something? that's possible, but i don't think that the supreme court will take on this issue again. i think from the court's perspective this does uphold once and for all the affordable care act. charlie: even though he had done it earlier, were you surprised by john roberts? adam: we knew that the four

liberal justices would vote in favor of the administration. there were two votes were in play, justice kennedy and the chief justice. the administration was hoping for one, must he particularly -- and must be delighted to get two, and must be particularly delighted that it was the chief justice -- leading a unified and lopsided majority, really speaking in ringing terms about the law, quite different from three years ago when his opinion was fractured. joined in whole by no other justice. and it a grudging quality to it. -- had a grudging quality to it. we seem to have a shift from the chief justice. charlie: when you look at the issue itself, explain to us the -- that there were certain states that did not have exchanges. people argued that the subsidy did not apply. adam liptak: there was a phrase in the law that if you look at all by it self you might well think that only states that have

established their own exchanges, these days typically democratic run states, are entitled to exchanges. the phrase is that the exchange must the established by the state. the chief justice said -- that's so, if you bear down on those words that is probably the better argument. but you have to put those words in the context of a sprawling 900-page law and what it meant to achieve. he said that it would frustrate the purposes of the law, many interlocking provisions, to deny subsidies and maybe 2/3 of the state to poor and middle-class people who need them in order to buy health insurance. charlie: justice scalia, in his dissent, called that thinking quite absurd. adam: right, justice scalia is a textualist. he thinks the words make sense as written. he thinks that if congress would

have written different words they would have. and he thinks that it the words mean what they seem to mean and that congress could fashion a new law and it is not for the court to save congress from its mistakes. charlie: so, any opinion in this historic decision? i assume it is historic. is it not? adam liptak: i would say so. the technical legal construction argument may not have lasting presidential residence. -- resonance. but the symbolic resonance, the centerpiece of the obama legislative legacy being upheld by a supreme court thought to be hostile to president obama is super significant. charlie: scalia also said that the law should be called scotus care. adam liptak: he really thinks that his colleague and friend, the chief justice, has gone out of his way to twist first

constitutional law, and next statutory interpretation law to rescue a law that justice scalia seems to have no sympathy for at all. you know, there is some truth in that. president obama, while a senator, voted against the nomination of chief justice john roberts, but the chief justice has returned that favor in a very gracious way by twice of -- by twice affirming the affordable care act. charlie: this week or probably next week they may announce what they think about same-sex marriage. will that be an historic decision as well? adam: that is probably a once in a decade decision, the culmination of the civil rights struggle. most of the signs point to a decision in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. i think we will get that decision probably more likely monday than friday, but one of those two days. that will cap a term in the supreme court that has, across a

whole range of issues, turned out to be surprisingly liberal. you have a court dominated by five republican appointees who are generally conservative, but this term at least they have time after time deliver liberal decisions. charlie: why is that? adam liptak: it may just be the selection of cases. it may be a little bit the mood of the times. you can connect the same-sex marriage case and health care case, assuming it comes down the way it think it does, -- they think it does, as an attempt to unite the nation, not a patchwork of states where there are and are not subsidies, states where there are same-sex marriage or not. it may be the spring court tempting to have one united states. charlie: was there any great constitutional case decided in this term? adam liptak: the biggest case of the term in constitutional separation of powers terms it may not have gotten the attention it deserved, it involved the question of whether

congress could tell the president something about the status of jerusalem, the capital of israel. charlie: yes. adam liptak: and here again the , court makes what a lot of people would think is a liberal decision -- saying no -- the president wins, the president is allowed to decide. it comes up in the context of passports. congress passes a law that says if you are an american with a child born in jerusalem, instead of jerusalem you can have israel put in the passport. both president obama and his predecessor, president bush, said that interferes with the president's power to run foreign affairs and recognize sovereign nations. the supreme court agreed. charlie: likely to be any retirements in the next two years? adam liptak: unless someone's health goes staggeringly and surprisingly south, i don't see it. i think the next president may

have two or three supreme court appointments, which should put some pressure on people in the presidential campaign, but i don't see any justice voluntarily going unless there is a real health issue. i don't think that one of the more liberal justices would risk supreme court nomination this late in the president's term and obviously the more conservative justices would rather have a republican president appoint his or her successor. charlie: when you look at the court today and look at the way that it operates, is there a judgment that john roberts has been a good chief justice? adam liptak: i think he is respected by his peers in terms of administering the court. charlie: ah. adam liptak: there have been chief justice is that played favorites and were not straight

with their colleagues, and he is not one of those. but at the same time the truth is that this court is often divided along ideological lines not reflect it in today's decisions, but in the second one today, where justice kennedy joins either the four liberals or for conservatives. -- four conservatives. i think that the chief justice has been working to do away with that image. he is pleased when the press reports that this is a court that is not about politics but about legal judgments. charlie: in the history of the supreme court, is it likely to say that o'connor and kennedy because there were -- they were swing justices, exercise enormous power in terms of the outcome in what the court said was constitutional? adam: absolutely right, charlie. it turns out that the medium justice at the ideological center has completely outsized power. you see that in supreme court arguments where the moment that justice kennedy perks up with a question -- everybody, including

his colleagues, becomes exceptionally attentive because they know that it is kennedy's vote that will decide many cases. charlie: adam, thank you again. as always, a remarkable thing we have watched in the court in two separate instances in which people thought there would be a real challenge to the affordable care act. not so much this time, but were surprised especially by the involvement of the chief justice. it makes the supreme court a very interesting place to cover. adam liptak: very good to be here, charlie. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: the united states is drawing its longest-running war to an end. troops are scheduled to withdraw from afghanistan in 2016, in march they announced the 10,000 u.s. forces would stay throughout this year. meanwhile, taliban fighters have read grain ground in their latest offenses. -- offensive. last year they suffered their highest number of casualties since the war began. ben anderson is a correspondent for "vice" on hbo. he has covered afghanistan for seven years and i am pleased to have him here at this table. it is an honor to have you here. you have been in a rock -- iraq afghanistan, i want to talk about that and other places. give us a sense of what was the action on the ground? who is winning?

who is losing? what is happening? how strong are the security forces on behalf of the afghan government? ben anderson: in previous cases i thought it was a bloody stalemate, but now it appears the taliban have the upper hand and the afghan security forces look like they are not on the point of complete failure but the numbers just don't add up. they are unsustainable. they are suffering the highest casualty rates since the war began as well. this summer we will see the taliban retake several areas in their heartland, but they almost retook a major city recently. very far from -- i've got many afghan friends who have money and have an exit plan ready. their opinion is more important than mine. they are very afraid.

charlie: they have more steak. -- stake. ben anderson: there are attacks in cobble regularly, more regularly than they ever were. charlie: so, how did he get to this point? the afghans who did not have a central government? was there too much corruption? all of the above? ben anderson: i think the rush to a rock -- iraq played a major part in what we are now seeing in afghanistan. the worst warlords of recent history were put back in power. the very people whose behavior led to the taliban sweeping to power so easily in the first lace. because people were so sick of corruption and violence they thought that the taliban would be good muslims who provided security and justice. by putting those people back in power, it planted the seeds for the insurgency that we saw later on. the nationbuilding effort was not taken seriously until 2009

2010, and by then it was far too late. the policy then, which president obama adopted was counterinsurgency. they cleared entire areas of the taliban and did a good job doing that. there was never anything to transfer to the afghan security forces. the afghan government was never anywhere near ready to take over and do this. charlie: could they have been ready? ben anderson: this is a very long term project. the u.s. marines could not -- if the u.s. marines could not defeat the taliban with all of the resources. what chance has the afghan security forces? the afghan security forces is still funded completely by foreign aid. the government cannot pay any of the bill for their own sick or -- security forces. charlie: could the marines, with all we had on the ground if we had to double that and used every means that we had to wipe out the taliban, what is -- is that possible?

ben anderson: by the time they took it seriously, it was too late. charlie: swept into pakistan. ben anderson: then a deal could have been done. the taliban have a much stronger position now than they have -- than they were then. i think that almost everybody including the taliban, realized things had to change. then there would have a chance -- there would be a chance to do a serious nationbuilding project. charlie: any connection between the taliban, isis, or al qaeda? ben anderson: i am following reports closely. it looks like the so-called isis in afghanistan so far are disgruntled taliban members looking to get some attention, respect, instill fear into people. they are printing flags and pledging allegiance to isis. i would not say that isis at l -- it's self has a presence in afghanistan. the taliban actually wrote a

very polite letter recently saying -- you have no place in afghanistan -- don't get in the way of what we are trying to do, if you do there will be trouble. i don't think that's a serious threat yet. charlie: are the caliban willing -- taliban willing to negotiate? ben anderson: mixed signals. one of their main preconditions is that the u.s. has to be out which is now the case. some are negotiating, some are not. as you said in the beginning the summer or spring offensive has already started. it is already killing a large number of people. some elements are talking, plenty of other elements are still fighting. which of course might just strengthen the negotiating table. charlie: the remark is often made in the political environment that the fact is the united states left no troop the hide in a rock contributed to the rise of isis. is there a debate as to how many troops will leave after 2016 -- what is the best thing to do? ben anderson: if you leave a

vacuum, it's filled by other players. there is a vacuum right now in afghanistan. a large vacuum. i think the caliban are filling that -- taliban are feeling that now. 10,000 troops isn't that much. for every infantry troop or soldier out really doing something, there are between 6 8, and 9 in support of that is in. you've got 10,000 there -- a very small fraction of them actually doing something. the fact is the security forces need a lot of training and equipment, it is a very long-term project. an extra 12 or 18 months, i i think it's going to achieve the goals we are seeking. i think one of the big misunderstandings in a dennis -- in afghanistan was that some of the large group of people that wanted things to change radically, by removing the caliban -- taliban they thought

that would have an easily and we are now seeing that our allies actually have very few ideological differences with the taliban on many issues. in some areas i have seen the afghan police doing things -- the most hideous crimes imaginable. child rape, child murder as well as spectacular levels of corruption. charlie: these are by the afghan security forces? ben anderson: yeah, mostly the police. and there is a militia force now that the u.s. pays for that is expanding now because art -- they are deteriorating so badly. trying to change an entire culture in the space of a few years from outside, especially when most of the population doesn't want those changes, i think was a pipe dream. charlie: some argue that we made a mistake getting into the -- forgetting about afghanistan after russia was kicked out. that that was the beginning of a series of mistakes. ben anderson: yeah and if you present what happened then to obama now, it probably looks like a dream scenario. three years after the russians

left, the u.s. troops stopped engaging. the government stayed in power for three years and then collapsed. there was an all-out civil war. you could almost describe what's happening in afghanistan today as a civil war. 450, roughly, soldiers are killed every month. civilian casualties are higher than they have been at any point since the war began. charlie: did the corruption go away with karzai? ben anderson: no, absolutely not. the corruption went up and up. opium is the best example of that. apart from a few years here and there, opium production has gone up every year. if we were out in helmand with the council narcotics police chief and the police chief himself and we were walking through poppy field after poppy field and then we went back to the police base for lunch and within the police base there was a poppy field -- these poppies

are not getting destroyed. everyone is involved. in the trade. charlie: it is a lot of money involved? ben anderson: 1-3 of the economy is based on the opium trade. it's big money. charlie: what is the lesson for the united states and all of this? ben: we travel to the various frontlines and in the last we the last -- the last week of the trip we went to kurdistan. going from baghdad to their is like going from baghdad to paris. kurdistan, it struck me now as a dispute -- it is thriving. the lesson there is that we are very good at removing the taliban or whoever it is. real change after that had to come from within. charlie: and you have to have a plan. ben anderson: that helps. but support the right people who

have the country's interests at heart and are streetwise as well. people who know who to -- streetwise as well. charlie: you never have those kinds of relationships and bonds. ben anderson: i have some friends who work for ngo's in a -- in iraq and afghanistan and the best example i can think of his emergency. they operated a number of's in afghanistan. just a tiny fraction of the money that we spend daily in afghanistan. if your interest is in nationbuilding. i think in the long run that is how you reduce extremism in countries like this. providing a better way of life. then supporting people like that. foreigners or locals. charlie: in the absence of doing that is how the taliban rises. ben anderson: it's painful to say, but the taliban are doing a better job of providing security and justice in white a few areas of afghan and. -- of afghanistan.

charlie: you said that none of the child rape was conducted by the afghan security forces. less. ben anderson: far less. the afghan police force are notorious for abducting young boys, sex slaves at night, servants during the day. it's very common. charlie: movies have been made about that. ben anderson: yeah, i did a documentary, i cannot repeat the link which he used, but he used the worst language imaginable to justify his men raping young boys. he said they basically have to have sex with something, what do you expect to do? but in worse language than that. narrator: charlie:charlie: iraq. you were in iraq. did you see the money? ben anderson: we were with one of the shiite militias. i was staying outside of the mosque. charlie: one of the ones that were trouble for us in a rock --

in iraq. ben anderson: plenty of american blood on their hands, for sure now being aided by u.s. airstrikes. maybe the guys will take ramadi very soon. i was sitting outside of the mosque, waiting for the operation to take to the street. and he literally walks in front of me. charlie: gray hair, no helmet, nothing. ben anderson: nothing. we were a fair distance from the front line. i was thinking to myself, head to the face, that he knew that we were westerners he would kick us out straightaway. in fact he did find out we were there and kicked us out. our fixer heard that he found out we were there to cover this operation and was very angry about it. i think that he just said -- leave, now. then we left and he later said -- it would not surprise me if he just got his men to stick a bullet in your head and tell everybody that they were killed by isis during the fighting. i have no idea if that's true or not, but we had to leave and did not get to cover the operation. charlie: talk about the fighting in iraq respect to the battle

against isis. you have got iraqi militias. is he directing those militias? as you just suggested? ben anderson: absolutely. created and commanded by iran. absolutely. we interviewed former ambassador ryan crocker, we spoke to him for the work we are doing on a -- on iraq and he said there is no difference between them and isis. charlie: no difference between them? ben anderson: in terms of the way that they behave. charlie: beheading and? ben anderson: yes. you can go on youtube -- charlie: i see. i assume that the militias had directed all of their hostility towards sunni's, as well as isis. ben anderson: that is the big fear. in the areas where they clear out isis they then take retribution against the sunni population.

i think that one of the biggest mistakes of the iraq war was allowing maliki to have a second term. the first -- i put that question to ambassador crocker and he said he was the only man who would have done that job at the -- at that point. but he had a record of governing along very sectarian lines. that should have been repeated. mullally actually got more votes in the election. most iraqis voted for a secular coalition. but maliki was given a second term. i think that that directly led to the rise of isis. charlie: but fighting isis now are shia militias, and you are saying that after they drive them out, they are ultimately is that is isis was in terms of beheadings, in terms of pillage, in terms of violence against women? ben anderson: you could spend half an on youtube and see the hour exact same crimes that they are committing. charlie: from a military standpoint if the argument is

we do bring shia militia and here, we have a hard choice, but what choice can you make if you need them to drive out isis? ben: the big question that i left with was -- i think isis could be defeated in iraq. the kurds are doing well against them. the young bar tribes they might do well. the shiite militias are beating them. the big question is -- what happens next? it looks like they are set up for another round of sectarian war, just like we saw before. that was tens of thousands of lives lost. people being killed just because they came across the wrong checkpoint and get asked the wrong questions about being shia or sunni. charlie: they didn't have the right answer. ben anderson: right. we met a man in iraq and wikileaks released a cable saying that his preferred manner of killing was an electric drill. that was who might be in charge if isis had defeated them. charlie: the interesting thing

to me is that -- if assad goes what do you have? when you go to serial, you have the same issue. is it moderate forces, or is it some kind of isis -- commendation of isis and somebody else? ben anderson: i think a stop has played a master game in making the opposition into such monsters. charlie: although that seems to be changing from afar. ben anderson: i've been seeing it for quite a long time. there are some people who argue that dealing with people like saudi arabia with a sod and trying to encourage them to slow reform is better than violent overthrow and what happens next -- the rise of isis. charlie: there is some question as how strong there wereir respects

are to a sod. -- assad. in syria and iraq what is the long-term outlook in the battle against isis? iraq to syria to libya? ben anderson: i think we are seeing a conflict that splits -- spreads to libya as well, which could go on for years. ambassador crocker said to me that isis now has thousands of fighters with u.s. or european passports. they can just get on a plane. that is a capability that al qaeda could only have dreamed of. if they want to have their religious civil war and kill each other, let him.

my question for that would be, what happens next? the most vicious violence group comes out on top. charlie: and my question to you is, what leverage do we have? ben anderson: i think this is the long-term legacy of iraq and afghanistan. aside knows that we will not intervene because the last two interventions were disasters. charlie: that explains obama -- ben anderson: even if he wanted to, i don't think you could send in large numbers of ground troops. what depresses me is most people on the right and left agree that we probably should have intervened in rwanda. intervention is so bad, if that happened tomorrow, most people are not support intervening. charlie: even though bill clinton has said we made a mistake. ben anderson: i think this is

the perfect case of intervention. i think this is the real tragedy of iraq and afghanistan. charlie: so you went to work first for the bbc? what kind of relationship? ben anderson: there was a texas pair of undertakers buying family funeral homes. they were running it like a corporation, training people to upsell underpaying and under training to look after the bodies. horrible business, but very profitable. charlie: you did that for the bbc? ben anderson: that was another channel, channel four. charlie: how did you get to five's? -- vice? ben anderson: i met shane eight

or nine years ago, he gave a speech to people we met at breakfast, and he was 100% convinced that everything the media says about people not caring about international affairs is wrong. they just don't have a place to go. i've been living in america now 18 months, and i do think foreign coverage is -- people in studios here are talking about it, or it's on a hotel roof many miles away. with feist it -- vice, it is a simple model of getting there and actually telling you what is happening. charlie: when i hear you say that i think about cbs news and what i know. go ahead. ben anderson: i have seen some of the coverage.

it does seem like as a whole, one foreign story gets covered at a time. the rest of the big foreign story happens to be a missing plane. i can't remember the last time afghanistan was covered by anyone else, yet there are still u.s. troops -- charlie: so the attraction of vice to you was you will get a chance to go wherever you want to go, tell stories up close, and show us things we would not see otherwise. ben anderson: yeah, and i was always told that young people don't care about current affairs. i don't believe that's the truth, and it has proven not to be true. i have been to iraq, afghanistan, yemen, and i have never been anyone give that much

support for complex, depressing -- charlie: what do you think it is about the style of vicer that you think is attractive? ben anderson: i don't think we lecture about what's happening. we just show what's happening. i think it is as simple as that. criticisms of vice i think they were applicable a few years ago. correspondents were so excited that they were there, and that's with the film was really about. isn't it amazing that i am here back out has changed since then, and now i think there is a massive commitment just to show these important stories and to say -- charlie: whether it is north korea or nigeria? ben anderson: and even places -- i did a story in sudan and while

ago. that is not going to get much attention, but it is important and they backed me to do it. i don't know many places where someone like me could get that kind of acting. it is working. many people are watching and enjoying it. charlie: you feel like you have had the kind of experience you wanted to have, and you wanted to simply do more of them or has all of this influence to you and giving you a vision of a role you want to play in terms of the kind of reporting you are capable of? ben anderson: that is a great thing about doing the feist's -- doing vice. i was organizing the transcripts of interviews, and i said this would make an amazing e-book. i had a quick conversation with someone, and an e-book appears a few weeks later. charlie: one that you did? ben anderson: yeah.

i organized the stories and joint digestible format. -- into a digestible format. charlie: this is a big problem in a lot of countries, especially after the withdrawal from iraq. ben anderson: there are people having to wait literally years to get visas area charlie: they should've been getting them immediately. ben anderson: yeah, i've said i can completely doubt for this guy. this guy would be a benefit to america. it doesn't present a security risk. they still can't get the visas. charlie: this is been talking to children and local militias, and you see the kind of reporting that engages him. ♪ ben anderson: these boys, aged

10, 12, and 14, have to fight. can you describe what happened recently when the taliban were close? >> [indiscernible] ben anderson: were you fighting as well when they attacked? >> [indiscernible] ben anderson: you are tougher than me. good luck. have a good one. [applause] [laughter] [applause] ben anderson: these child soldiers are part of a force. charlie: is it man and women -- men and women? ben anderson: mostly male. charlie: tell the story about

the grandmother did who when someone snatched two of her grandchildren -- two of those boys -- and she went out and kidnapped -- ben anderson: several taliban family members. this is the scene of the biggest u.s. operation -- 30,000 troops billions of dollars. the afghan government patent -- played no part in resolving the crisis. charlie: what draws you to it? the story or the risk of life? ben anderson: people say i must be an adrenaline junkie. it's not thrilling at all. it often feels like an endurance test. i have to go on a plane thinking what's going to happen this

time? it's not exciting. in afghanistan, lives are lost and promises were made about what would happen. i feel obligation to keep going back and show what actually happened as a result of that loss. i don't know what that achieves. maybe it makes politicians -- maybe it makes it slightly harder to lie about progress in london, i don't know. beyond that, i don't know. i feel like if i am physically capable, i should do it. charlie: how large is your team? ben anderson: as small as possible. charlie: do you like it like that to travel faster? ben anderson: you can travel faster and if i join a group of rebels i will say we are not going to slow you down, we will keep up with you. the idea is we film what would've happened had we not been there. if there is just two of you you

can spend weeks rather than just a day or two. charlie: i looked you up on youtube to see the kinds of things you are doing, and there you were, walking in the middle of the road and i'm thinking about landmines. you're talking about them to. that would be the scariest thing in the world for me. ben anderson: -- charlie: you were dancing through the middle of the road. ben anderson: all seven of them were set off. someone was watching us. the wire was attached to the box, and they attached a battery to the wire. they put strange piles of rocks here and there, and when people walk past them they connected the wire and the battery, and the mines would go off. i promised to my mother i would never again be in front of a patrol. i think the bomb maker was

waiting for more marines to come out behind us. somehow the marines on that corner were between the ied's and they were deaf and blind for a good few weeks. i've got one friend -- a photographer stepped on one and lost both legs and an arm. that's terrifying. is it worth that? is it worth losing lamps? i would say no. it is worth risking it, but not worth that kind of injury. i have had close shaves. i have been lucky. charlie: what's the closest shave? ben anderson: that was very close. i've have been in the middle of firefights and one case the

guys on either side of me were hit. charlie: is war the only thing that interests you? ben anderson: no. i have done environmental stories and films about slave labor in to buy. -- in dubai. conflict -- i can cope there. i can get young men with weapons to open up to me. charlie: where wouldn't you go? ben anderson: i have never said no to a job. charlie: if isis said -- come, would you talk about anything you could want to? ben anderson: that is a good point. that was offered. we did a film with isis where a filmmaker had a relationship with those guys. there was talk of me going in there. which would have been me. charlie: and? ben anderson: they promised a letter with the guarantee of my

safety. my problem is not a guarantee of safety, the problem was morally i had a very big problem. they take pleasure in beheading journalists and civilians. journalistically i could not see a really good reason to go. we had done the film already. we had shown the nature of these guys. we knew what they were capable of and what they wanted to do. i didn't think there was anything to gain from doing that stuff. morally i would have felt very compromised. of course it would have been completely on their terms. charlie: and then they change their mind midway. ben anderson: an older german reporter spent a couple of weeks with them and was treated well. he returned safely. i think it would have been physically possible to do. but i could not bring myself to not be able to challenge these people who are taking such pleasure in killing people, including colleagues. charlie: are they the worst? ben: the worst i have seen imy

career. i can't think of a modern equivalent. the khmer rouge is closest. charlie: they have an almt similar ideology. the khmer rouge. ben anderson: yeah, and isis seems to be more of a death cult. their videos are disgusting. i always used to think that every conflict have a peaceful solution. isis has made me question that completely. what would the negotiation be? what would a deal look like? charlie: it's tempting because i asked a leading american security official in the armed services what it would take and he said -- we would need 100,000 troops. the question then becomes -- suppose you make that kind of commitment? what are you stepping into? ben: and again, what comes next? you would be fighting alongside these shiite militias who are just as bad. charlie: i would presume that

they would prefer them not be there they would say that there is no cooperation except working through the iraqis to figure out where the airstrikes should be. are they more of a cooperation between the militias and the americans in charge of airstrikes? ben: i think it will be because into crete, -- entech crit -- in takrit they could not take it on their own. charlie: they had failed to take it on their own. that is where they start, in the beginning? ben: i think that that has provided a model for the level of cooperation in the future. remember, i described why some welcome to the caliban in the first lace. -- first place. those conditions existed in a -- in iraq but many of those refugees welcomed isis. in the sunnis, life under maliki was such hell. that is what you need to stop happening. charlie: the tray is talks about that all the time, getting the

politics right. mira omar is in pakistan? has anybody talked to him? is he alive? is he directing things? ben anderson: i think he is alive and directing things. when we say the television, that actually means 30 or 40 insurgent groups. the pala band -- the television of today is different from 2000 or 2001. i am sure that most of them are just fighting to defend their own back gardens. charlie: take a look at this final clip, you with local forces on a base. ♪ [speaking foreign language] ben anderson: that's the

caliban. you talk back to them or just listen? [speaking foreign language] ben anderson: they were within 400 meters everywhere. that man is one of the good men. one of the capable men. he is now dead. he was killed two or three days after we left by a massive ied. is i am told are in the hands of the caliban. that is the second largest city in helmand province. charlie: you commented on a piece i did it this table of marines who had been in falluja. what was it that they said the -- that you thought reflected more better, more accurately, to the dealing with people on the ground? ben: people assume that when you go in and cover operations with the marines that

you are somehow pro-war and they are somehow pro-war. the interview that you did shows better than anything else i've seen on television that they know better than anyone else how bad it these wars were. they know better than anyone else that a lot of the fighting and dying that happened there has been for nothing. in some cases it has been worse than for nothing. it has been to introduce someone into power who was so bad that it led to another round of civil war, of secretary of war. -- secretary and more. i don't see talking like that on television very off in. you could just tell that the knowledge that they shared was so hard earned. the most hard-earned knowledge. charlie: if you see your brother is killed when you take a place like falluja, then you leave and then you read one year later it was -- all the work that you

did and all the lives that were lost have simply been up-ended again. you don't want to say died in pain, but you do want to say the commitment that they make in the lives that were lost, the bravery required, all of a sudden it's back the way it was. it's got to be hard. ben: that is probably one of the biggest contributors to the ptsd issues that we read so much about. charlie: post-traumatic stress disorder, yeah. ben anderson: they died doing a job for them and their friends around them, but i think they knew back then that the overall goal of eventually handing over to the afghan government or iraqi security forces. that that was the major flaw in the plan. and that was where the overall plan that always come to paint. -- come to fail. charlie: does the ukrainian conflict interest you beyond reading about it? ben anderson: no, someone else at device knows that that well

and covers it in detail, i leave that to him. charlie: thank you for coming, pleasure to have your the program. ben anderson: thank you very much. charlie: back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

we live in a pick and choose world. choose choose choose. but at bedtime? ...why settle for this? enter sleep number... don't miss the lowest prices of the season, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. right now, find the lowest prices of the season

with the c4 queen mattress set only $1499.98. know better sleep with sleep number. ♪ >> i always think people who can for the first time are lucky. it is definitely interesting. charlie: what is incredible about this is we go from one room to another it is like one

, treasure after another. >> this is wonderful, this is also a problem. this is why you must have exhibitions that show all the things. and you also have to show them a little bit apart, because when you have 10 in one room, it is difficult to shape each one. charlie: so, here we are. how good is your picasso collection? >> we have and his -- fantastic things. pieces like this don't exist. only in moscow. this is a wonderful condition. this is the best picasso we have. this is on the level of -- this is one of the most important in our collection of matisse. one of the best in the world. charlie: look at this, look at this, look at this. this is the morocco period. >> this is the famous madame matisse.

the best. the best one. charlie: you have something on loan? >> yes. these pictures are there, music and dance, and dance is very famous. the dance was given to the museum. we had an agreement with them. the corporation. charlie: i love the color. >> this was a big collection of american art masterpieces, postwar period. given to us from the american foundation. it's a whole room of masterpieces of american decorative arts.

it's a big addition to our collection, and a big digester -- -- big jester -- charlie: it is not only building, you are up wiring? >> yes. ♪

>> "brilliant ideas," powered by 10 day motor -- by hyundai motor. narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it's a 21st century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this artists with a unique power to astonish, challenge, and surprise. to push boundaries, ask new questions, and see the world fresh. in this program, yinka shonibare. ♪