>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: russia and syria continued attacks on opposition groups. u.s. defense secretary ash carter criticized russia at a nato meeting in brussels. >> they have initiated a joint ground offensive, shattering the facade that they are there to fight isil. this will have consequences for russia itself. which is rightfully fearful of attack upon russia.

i also expect that in coming days, the russians will begin to suffer casualties in syria. charlie: joining me is philip gordon, senior officer of the council of foreign relations. i am pleased to have him back on this program. let me read from something you have said on september 25, 2015. politico said "for years i have advised president obama on syria. it is now clearer than ever that a new strategy is needed." what is the new strategy? philip: what has become clear in the past several weeks is that the stated objective of u.s. policy and western policy and our allies in the gulf, which is to bring about a political transition by supporting the opposition, is not working and unlikely to work. by that i mean it has failed.

we have to say that. we had a program to train and equip the opposition, to make it strong enough to either get rid of the regime or pressure the regime to make meaningful changes. we hoped and expected that the russians and iranians who were mainly backing the regime would ultimately see the light and realize they had to come to the table and negotiate seriously, and those things have not happened. with this russian deployment, one needs to conclude they are not likely to happen soon. when you're in a situation like that, you have to ask yourself, do i double down on the strategy that is not working? in my view, in this case, that would mean just perpetuating the conflict we have seen tragically for so many years. or do you ask yourself if there is another objective that is more realistic and that could help bring the war to an end? charlie: what would be your answer to that question? philip: my answer would be that

we need to rethink the political objective. it's not to say we don't need a transition in syria and that we don't need to see assad go. there might be steps we can achieve along the way. that's what we disagree with the russians and the iranians on. as long as we are focused on bringing that about as step one, or even a commitment to seeing it happen in a near timetable, it's not going to happen. that means fueling an opposition that is increasingly dominated by extremists and seeing the work along with all the tragic consequences you see. i think the question now is, especially after the rush and appointment, this is not going to be pleasant for russia. i agree with secretary carter, it's clear what they are doing. they have bought some responsibility in syria that may not be cheap or easy for them. i would say to the russians, we are going to disagree on the

aside -- assad question, but you need to see a political transition as much as we do. can we not start talking with all the key actors at the table about steps toward the installation that would include regional safety? regional and local cease-fires, as we've seen a couple of minor cases, and you could start building on that. the beginning of dialogue and political reform that would enable some change in the governmental structures, moving ultimately toward political transition that gets rid of assad and de-escalate the conflict and have meaningful, positive steps for the syrian people in the meantime, rather than just insisting on a goal that frankly we are not in a position to achieve and will not

be for some time to come. charlie: how far are the russians prepared to go? will they do everything they can to defeat all enemies of assad? philip: they are going pretty far already. this is a significant military deployment. they are undertaking a serious military operation. they are doing that because they really are committed, they feel they have strategic reasons for backing this regime. again, i think it's something we have failed to fully appreciate. even those earlier on calling for more escalation on our part, i think they failed to understand that more escalation on our part would lead to more escalation on their part. why is that? vladimir putin has made it clear for years that he hates the concept of regime change anywhere. he especially hates it when it

is backed by the west. that's what he sees happening in syria. he hated it in ukraine, georgia, central asia, in libya, where has he would argue it led to nato intervening and having civil war and chaos. he does not want any hint of that in russia. he is absolutely committed to preventing this pattern whereby people rise up against a dictator, we come in, there is a war, and then there is chaos. he is also afraid, russia is, that if somehow we got rid of a ssad, the islamist that threaten russia would be empowered by that. there he has a more legitimate point. he is right that if the ousting of assad comes in the form of violent overthrow led by

extremists, then it will not lead to the stable syria we are trying to accomplish. in all the dealings we had with the russians, i did this for the u.s. government earlier from the state department and from the white house. all along, it was clear that until we could answer the question of what followed assad, they would be determined to back assad. scioscia and your question, they're willing to go pretty far to avoid what they fear would be regime change and more violence in syria, and stepping on the united states. charlie: they clearly want to be a player in the region and that is clear from what he says and does. is it possible that it seems

less likely today that the united states and russia and other parties could agree on some kind of interim government to replace assad? could the russians find someone that would be acceptable to them that would recognize what their investment was, and at the same time, be acceptable to the united states and those syrians that the united states supports? philip: it's not impossible. i don't want to overstate the prospects of an agreement on that. that is precisely what we should be talking to them about. saying fine, if you come into that assad, that is a reality, but it's not going to be easy for you to continue to take the military risks, fight a war, they have experience in afghanistan. they know what it is like to back an unpopular government. they will be looking for a way out, too. so it is worth having that conversation with the russians. it would start with, why don't

you agree to get rid of assad? we've never been able to answer the question of what comes next, but if we could find some way of fulfilling that goal, now that they have protected their interests, the regime itself is not going to collapse because they are there. their naval bases protected. they have less to lose by getting rid of assad. if we could find some way to agree that assad and his cronies go out and we agree on some interim government and security forces, that would be the best outcome. if they are unwilling to budge on the assad question, it would still be in our interest while working toward that ultimate goal of getting rid of assad so you could have a genuine transition. it's exactly what we should be working for. charlie: i tend to agree with you could have a genuine transition. you that is not so much a commitment to assad, as a commitment to a central

authority. that is in vladimir putin's dna. philip: they have always said, we don't care about assad personally. i think that is actually true. sometimes that is misinterpreted to mean the russians are going to help us with the transition. while they are not committed to assad the person, they know he is part of the problem, but they are committed to the regime and its institutions and avoiding violent regime change driven by extremists. so there is some space in there to agree on a political outcome that needs to be explored. charlie: why have they not attacked isis with larger forces? philip: i think primarily they are focused on the wolf at the door. they felt like these other groups were starting to threaten some regime strongholds.

isis is further to the east and not actually fighting or directly targeting the regime as much as these other groups. they are not comparable with isis, they would like to eliminate them, but their urgent and immediate priority is preventing regime collapse so they are hitting the groups that are targeting the regime. charlie: where do you think this president's head is and why has he been so resistant to doing more? philip: throughout the crisis, he consistently and appropriately asks the question of what comes next? and he was very much -- we have a tendency in this country to avoid the mistakes of the previous administration. everyone grapples with these problems in a different way. the previous administration looked at a legitimate problem,

to stop hussein and all the problems he was creating just through his very existence. and decided the way to deal with problems like that is to be decisive, use american military power, be confident, and solve the problem. that approach to solving that problem, no one can say it was passive or did not respect the lines, it had unintended consequences like empowering iran in iraq, which in a way is part of the problem we are seeing today. by getting rid of saddam and letting iran become the main power in iraq, you made the sunnis in iraq feel like they were slighted, and the government that came to power essentially drove them into the arms of isis. charlie: let me get your impression on a couple of quotes.

to convey to moscow the demand that it cease and military actions that directly affect american assets. russia has every right to support assad but any repetition of what happened should prompt retaliation. philip: i am all for to messages to moscow and making clear that we have interest and if they persist with what they're doing, there will be consequences to moscow. you have to be careful with that sort of redline. if by that you mean -- it's the question of are your objectives realistic? the maximal version that you just read is telling the russians they cannot defend the regime. we will stop them.

that means shooting russian planes out of the sky, but you cannot just do that. it means taking out their naval assets at the same time and essentially killing russians and going to war. that is something the united states could do. there is no doubt if it came to a confrontation like that, our military would win it, but it would be a very significant military conflict with casualties and implications elsewhere. who knows if the russians would not just take that lightly and say, you called our bluff, we have been defeated, we will go home. they would presumably respond in disproportionate way. even if we succeeded, russia did not back down and we use military force, even if we took out their assets after a significant conflict, the iranians and the regime would

not just go away. they would presumably respond in ways that we might not be able to predict. maybe iranian militias in iraq respond by going after our troops there. then you have a need to bigger problem on your hand in iraq. it's a slippery slope. you have to be really careful. you can establish your credibility but you better be prepared to go pretty far in terms of the cost you are willing to bear. and let's say it succeeded and we knocked out the russians and the regime and then isis became the major -- they succeeded in taking the threat in damascus. then all the minorities and others backing the regime would have to get out of dodge. then another million refugees start fleeing isis and then they

have another battle for who will be in charge as well as the other elements of the hundreds of different opposition groups until you have a total free for all for who is in charge of syria. we would have succeeded, so to speak -- i would not use that word in what i am describing, in staring down the russians and maybe getting rid of assad, but we would be facing a situation on the ground that would not only be more horrible for the poor people of syria but more horrible for our credibility. people would say what now, powerful america? and there would not be a clear answer to that question. so we can confront the russians and get something out of them, but if you're going to say they have to cease and desist and basically leave, you better be prepared to do everything i just talked about. ♪

charlie: this is from josh earnest, the president's press secretary. he says syria is not going to turn into a proxy war between russia and the united states. that certainly would not be consistent with our interests. but is there a risk here is some kind of proxy war developing between on the one hand, russia and the united states?

on the other hand, saudi arabia and the arab states and iran? and on the other hand, some overlapping between shia and sunni. all of that could somehow explode into a wider war and sucking in too many people. philip: harley, there is a proxy war already and there has been for years, and that is the problem. for years, the sunni states of the region and turkey and we and the europeans have been on one side, providing support to certain elements in syria who are at war with the regime that is backed by russia and iran and has the law -- hezbollah. there determined to apply their proxies in a battle for the future of the country. that proxy war has escalated. as always in these things, the

outside sponsors are determined, getting back to the credibility point, to win and to show they will not be deterred by the others. they fuel it by escalating. it turns out the other side escalates as well. there is a good piece by my former colleague jeremy shapiro. the problem is that as long as each side is determined to fuel the proxy war until it wins, it just gets worse and worse, and that's precisely what we've been seeing. that's why the only way out is for the outside powers to all come to the table and see if there is a political solution they can agree on that would be messy and ugly and unfortunate, and not achieve either side's

goals, but would be far better for everybody's interest than what we are seeing. that is how these things ultimately have to end. i mentioned the way bosnia ended. bosnia was four years of approval, terrible civil war, with outside actors fueling genocidal nationals. ultimately we ended up having to deal with the russians, deal with the extreme nationalists. we recognized -- it was built on ethnic cleansing, which we said we would never accept. ultimately, to end that war had to recognize that part of the country would be run by the bosnian serbs. it was unsatisfying and it was not what we ideally would have liked to see, which is a unified

country where everyone is living together. but after four years proxy war, that was the best we could do, and it was also the moral thing to do. it ended a war, and if we could have an outcome in syria that may syria look like bosnia today, i think we would all be thrilled. it's not just us and the ruffians -- not just us and the russians. they need to understand that they are buying many more years or decades of increased sectarianism which is ripping apart every other country in the region along sectarian lines. it's not a risk of a proxy war, we are in a proxy war and we have to find a way out of it. charlie: thank you so much, a pleasure to have you here. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: dr. ben carson is here. earlier this year, he announced his candidacy for the republican nomination for president of the united states. he has since surged to second place, trailing only donald trump. he continues to rise in the gop primaries. he has written over a half dozen best-selling books. his latest is called "a more perfect union, what we do people

can do to reclaim our constitutional liberties." i'm pleased to welcome dr. ben carson back to this table. you.arson: thank charlie: what i would like to do in the time we have together is find out who you are. and what you are about. because there are interesting things, and it seems to me that perhaps you have changed some in your views and i would like to understand your basic philosophy , if that is true. let me just begin with the notion of, tell me about how you define yourself. what matters to you in terms of ideals? ben: first of all, i feel extraordinarily fortunate to have been born in the united states of america, and to have had a mother who had an even rougher life than i did, but refused to be a victim, and wouldn't let me be a victim.

and made me read when i didn't want to read. as i began to read about things, about people and great accomplishments, a metamorphosis occurred. charlie: and you were how old? ben: i started when i was 10. for instance, i used to hate poverty. i thought i was born into the wrong family. but as a read about people of accomplishment, it didn't bother me as much. because i began to realize that i had control over that. that i could make decisions and put energy behind them and i could pretty much control my own life. that was something that was constantly reinforced by my mother. so i became a little bit of an outsider in the sense that i was not listening to a lot of people who were saying you cannot do this, nobody can do that. charlie: because you were poor, or because you were black? ben: both.

i refused to listen to it. i was ostracized, called names, uncle tom, trying to be white, all these things. but it didn't bother me. i would tell people, let's see what i'm doing in 20 years and let's see what you are doing in 20 years. i guess ultimately they believed me. they voted me most likely to succeed. when i came back for a 25th high school reunion, i was shocked to see that the cool guys were pretty much all dead. everyone else was coming up to me and saying how proud they were, and don't i remember how they used to encourage me? interesting how it changes over the course of time. but i did hear a lot of what you can't do. like when i joined rotc. i would only have five semesters.

i had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer when no one had ever done that. everybody told me, you can't do that. long story short, it worked. i did it. i was offered a full scholarship to west point and met general westmoreland. but i decided my path would be medicine. i decided that when i was eight years old. i listened to the mission stories and they frequently featured missionary doctors who at great personal sacrifice travel throughout the world to bring physical, mental, and spiritual healing. they seemed like the most noble people on earth. it was always medicine of some type. when i got to medical school, i started analyzing my gifts and

talents. i think god gives everybody special gifts and talents. i realized i had a lot of hand-eye coordination. the ability to think in three dimensions. great characteristics for a neurosurgeon. so i started moving in that direction. a lot of people said that was a strange thing to go into because there had only been eight black neurosurgeons in the world at that time. it seemed to me like a natural fit, and it was. i took to it like a duck to water. charlie: and became everything you wanted to be as a neurosurgeon? ben: i like to get a big return on my investment, and it worked out extremely well. i heard the same thing in medicine. you can't do this. no one has ever been able to do that before. but by that time i had already

developed the mindset. it wasn't so much about showing them as about belief and perhaps something higher than them. charlie: god? ben: absolutely. i grew up believing, but when i was 14 years old was when i had my real damascus road experience. i tried to stab another youngster. he had a belt buckle under his clothing and i struck it with such force that it broke it. i started contemplating my life, realizing i would not be successful, i locked myself in the bathroom and prayed. there was a bible there. i picked it up and open it to the book of proverbs. there were all these verses

about fools and they all seem like they were written about me. it was all about anger. i came to the understanding that to lash out at somebody was not a sign of strength, it was a sign of weak. it meant you were easily manipulated. i also came to understand that if you're always angry, you're probably a selfish person. i took my anger, they did this to me. i learned if you stepped outside of the circle and considered other people's perspective, the likelihood of you getting angry goes down immensely. and i've never had an angry outburst again since that day. charlie: did it seem like you had magical power? ben: it did not seem like i had magical power. one thing i did come to understand is that no matter how smart you are, there are other people who are even smarter than you.

if you can work with them, you can get them together with you, working toward a goal, you are likely to go much further and much faster. there was the case of conjoined twins. we have the best vascular surgeons, the whole gamut. i said let's do this in a way that we slot each team in where we get to the part of the operation were they would the the greatest expertise. it goes to show what can happen when you don't care who gets the credit, but you are trying to accomplish a goal. charlie: so this is a great life you have built for yourself. ben: no question about it. charlie: you were at the top of your game, much admired, saving lives.

how did the political idea come about? ben: i got an invitation to speak at the national prayer breakfast. charlie: as a man of deep faith who spoke eloquently about his faith? ben: i had spoken at the prayer breakfast in 1987 as well. i was not aware that anyone ever did it twice. charlie: so you felt that it might really connect and it might change? your life ben: i was wondering, i said lord, what are you up to? i really didn't know what i was going to say until the morning of the speech. and then it was so clear to me and had such a profound effect. charlie: what did you say? ben: you will have to go back and listen to the speech.

[laughter] it is easy to find. but really, i talk about political correctness. i talk about fiscal irresponsibility. i talk about the ability to actually work together, and i talk about health care. there were so many people that it resonated with. people started saying, you should run for president. i said, on, give me a break. this will all die down. but it never did, it kept tilting. charlie: was it the constituency within the republican party? why did you go from republican to independent? ben: because i was a little perturbed with the politicization of so many things. in that particular case, it was the impeachment proceedings

against bill clinton. charlie: you thought the republicans were out of line? ben: i thought it was hypocritical for so many who were also engaged in extramarital affairs. then when i decided i was going to run, i said it would be foolish to run as an independent, so i needed to decide which party to run for. i knew i would not be welcome in the democratic party. i was strongly pro-life. charlie: in other words, pro-life meeting abortion even in the case of rape? ben: yes, i would not advocate for abortion. charlie: regardless, under no circumstances? ben: if the mother's life was in

danger, but recognizing that is an extraordinarily rare situation. it is a very unusual situation. but i was also in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, between one man and one woman. i was also very much in favor of the empowerment of the individual, as opposed to programs that kept people in a more or less dependent position. charlie: you have laid out a lot of positions there that a lot of republican candidates believe in. i have talked to people who admire you greatly, and they think that it is beyond that,

conservative principles, that you have incorporated values and adhere to the work of some philosophers that go far beyond any conspiracy. . ben: you mean views that progressives have over a long time -- charlie: some of the things that glenn beck believes in. ben: what i have seen over the course of time is the transition of the educational system so that it becomes more of a propaganda machine. this is particularly true in our institutions of higher education. these are supposed to be places where people learn everything and learn how to discuss things from lots of different points of view. but many universities want to shut down conservatives. they don't want them to speak. johns hopkins is one. charlie: this is a place that

proudly wanted you, but they had an intolerance of free speech. ben: absolutely. that is why i went through as the commencement speaker for the medical school in 2013. charlie: tell me more about the ideas that you believe in, one that education does not want to hear the conservative point of view. ben: education is the dividing line, really. charlie: these things that you don't talk about that much -- give us a deeper understanding, or share your ideas about the country. ben: my deeper understanding is that i believe very much in what the founders of this country wanted, which was a country that was of, for, and by the people.

with the government being there for the purpose of facilitating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the socialist believe something quite contrary to that, that the government knows best and that somehow there will be a utopian society where nobody has to worry about anything from cradle to grave. charlie: who do you think in american politics is advocating the socialist philosophy? ben: it's consistent with the policies of people who want big government and big government programs. they should be pretty easy to identify. charlie: ronald reagan made the argument, being opposed to big government, government being the problem is not the solution, those are not new ideas. ben: it depends on whether you believe it's a conspiracy when a bunch of people want to fundamentally change america. charlie: i generally want to understand who you think it is

that poses a threat to america. ben: anybody who wants to change our system. charlie: but that doesn't help us understand who you are talking about. ben: i think it is pretty clear. charlie: tell me who they may be. ben: particular progressives. who.ie: identifyt ben: i don't know that anyone person represents them. there is a whole group of people who are secular progressives. i don't think it is that hard to figure out who they are. and the election next year is going to be a bellwether, because it's going to be an opportunity for america to make a very clear choice. do you want to go the secular progressive route with the government programs and the government taking care of you

from hail to grave until they run out of money? or are you interested in a country where the people are accountable? charlie: do you think most people believe in a system where the government will take care of you from cradle to grave? ben: no one will admit it, but look at what is going on. the liberals won't admit this. are you kidding me? but they count on people saying, you cannot say that. they know exactly who they are. charlie: i am a reporter trying to understand, and you seem reluctant to identify who they are so we can have a full conversation about who those people are. ben: i told you who they are. let me tell you what they advocate. they advocate that the government knows better than the

individual americans what is best for them. for instance, let me give you an example. the government comes along in 2009 and says, i don't really care what you people think, because you don't really know. we are imposing this health care system on you and we don't really care what you think. that is an example. charlie: the government said that? the people elect representatives to congress and put people in the executive branch. who were the people who passed over obamacare? it wasn't some government that said we don't care about you. ben: the american people know exactly what i'm talking about. that is what is going to happen in 2016. there will be the group of people who try to say, they are all the same, there is no real person who is trying to change anything.

and then there will be the people saying yes, we know exactly what he is talking about, and we identify with it and we grasp the principles he is talking about, and we are not willing to give up the values and principles that made america into a great nation so we can be politically correct. charlie: some say you are becoming a bit politically correct because you don't want to anger at all those people of a certain rigid philosophy who believe in you. ben: give me an example. charlie: when you talk about gun control, you are basically saying, as i understand from the conversation we had this morning, the reason the second amendment is so important to use because you think people need to have guns in their homes because if the government gets out of control, they will have the opportunity to rebel. is that a correct understanding of what you said?

ben: that is one of the reasons for the second amendment. i talk about it extensively in the new book. it is very clear, because daniel webster said america would never experience tyranny because the people are armed. charlie: on the question of what is the best way to have a health care system that-- ben: i am all happy to debate that. charlie: how would you characterize one who thinks the government simply knows best? ben: i think he is a government knows best individual. i would be incredibly happy to discuss it with him and discuss my alternative plan versus his, and let the people decide. rather than impose something on people and say you've got to do

this. charlie: did anybody impose it, or did the congress vote on it? ben: it was imposed. charlie: how was it imposed when the congress voted on it? the supreme court has not overturned it. ben: did you notice there was not a single republican vote on it? charlie: do you believe in the separation of powers? do you believe in the american system of legislative and congressional -- ben: i do. i've written extensively about it in the book. charlie: do you believe, therefore, that the constitution created separation of powers and has left to the court to decide whether something was constitutional or not, and the court has said yes, obama care and the affordable care act was constitutional?

ben: and it was a 5-4 vote, and i would say that the court is not infallible, and this proves it. because the court is not supposed to make laws. they certainly are not supposed to take a law and change it around so they can say it is constitutional. it was unconstitutional, what they did. charlie: you think it was unconstitutional, but a majority of the members did not think it was unconstitutional. ben: the constitution says it is unconstitutional. charlie: but who do we have to determine what is constitutional? ben: the words were very clear, and the court came along and said that's not what those words mean.

give me a break. charlie: tell me what you think the most essential thing to understand about the use of power is? ben: i think one of the things that was demonstrated extremely well with the fall of the soviet empire was that you don't have to actually use the power, you just have to have the power. for instance, you look right now at the united states, with the smallest navy since 1917, the smallest air force since 1940, with the sequester system. i'm not denying that. with many of our generals retiring because they are

frustrated, with the morale eating very low, with 22 or 23 veterans committing suicide every day, with a 14% decrease in people volunteering, this is an abominable situation and we are not dealing from strength, and that is hurting us. charlie: let's speak about syria as a place to look at. i just returned from moscow with an interview with president clinton. he essentially said he wants to be a player in the middle east -- an interview with president putin. he basically said i'm increasing my military presence because i want to prop up the assad regime. as commander-in-chief, what would you be prepared to do to stop him from doing what he seems to want to do? to change the course of the war as it concerns bashar al-assad? ben: he initially said he was going in there to fight isis.

charlie: but he'd knowledge he was going into fight assad. should we be fighting al nusra? ben: let me just tell you what i think. he has expansionist ideals and we need to oppose him. we need to oppose the reestablishment of soviet influence, not only in the middle east, but everywhere. when his general last week said you guys should not apply here, we should tell him, forget about it, you don't get to dictate where we fly. charlie: the conversation took

place so they would avoid a mistake, endangering another's plane and creating some conflict that was not necessary. ben: here is my point, they don't tell us where we can fly when we are already there, and we don't listen to them. that is the kind of bullying that has been going on. we have to stand up to them completely. not only in syria, but i think throughout the world. i think we should have armored brigades throughout the hold baltic rim. i think we should reestablish our missile defense system which has caused no end of consternation to putin. i think we should provide offensive weapons to ukraine. with the tacit understanding that there would be protection if they were invaded.

charlie: and the baltic countries are part of nato and we are committed to defend them. ben: and most importantly, we should recognize that the reason putin has been kept under control is because of the very low oil prices. we also ought to put our little brains in gear and say, that could be the real reason he is trying to get back into the middle east. he wants to use this as his days and expand his influence. he wants to be able to gain control of oil there so that he can then control the pricing, which will give him the money that he needs. so we have to be thinking about all these kinds of things. charlie: should the united states create a no-fly zone in terms of areas of syria that we could control?

ben: sure. if they create a no-fly zone in the area where we are already flying? charlie: where we have the opportunity to create a no-fly zone. ben: we have a battle royal. charlie: the message we should send to him today is? ben: not backing down. charlie: and the red line ought to be? ben: we are not backing down. that is our message to him. charlie: and do you think that message has been sent to him by this administration? ben: no. are you kidding? [laughter] charlie: elaborate on that. ben: this administration has been extraordinarily weak. i think that has empowered the global jihadists.

it has caused chinese adventurism. the chinese are not warlike people, but they are very pragmatic, and if they see weakness, they will take advantage of it. we need to recognize that we have a lot of friends in the area who are being intimidated right now. we need to make sure they understand that we have their backs, and if that means sending a carrier group in there, we do that. if it means working with their armies, with their military forces to bolster them, yes. recently in the philippines they offered to reopen their basis to us. we ought to take advantage of that. we need to establish a strong

presence. charlie: and should we support the tpp? ben: in general, i'm a fan of free trade, but not at any cost. i think we can probably renegotiate in a way that gives more oversight to our congress. charlie: what distinguishes you, in your own mind, the most distinguishing fact that separates you from the other republican candidates? ben: probably the fact that i am not a politician. i'm going to be looking at things based on evidence and not on ideology. charlie: thank you for coming. ben: my pleasure. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

rishaad: it is tuesday, october 13. you are watching trending business with me, rishaad salamat. ♪ we are going to beijing, singapore and mumbai this hour. -- ahead of the latest trade numbers in china. that data is due any moment and expecting yet another contraction. kong.rp plunging in hong we understand potential buyers have been in touch. a ratings reverse.

cut by s&p. the report of vw's internal control seems to be inadequate. follow me on twitter. don't forget to use the hashtag. jakarta getting underway. we are just getting these trade numbers out of china. yvonne: surprising figures on the exports. we will break down those u.s. dollar ones later, but exports year on year coming in lower, 1.1%. that is much less than what the survey was expected at 7.4% dropping from a year ago. so, quite a bit of adjustments as a bit of an improvement as we saw a 6.1% drop in exports in the month before. imports coming