movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. ♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie rose: he's the president and chair of btb, russia's second-largest bank. persistently low oil prices and other geopolitical risks also posted your threat. on thursday, president putin will meet with francois hollande in moscow to discuss opportunities for a united front against isis. they took credit for downing a russian airliner over egypt last month, killing all 224

passengers. i am pleased to have entree back at this --andre back at this table. let's begin with some thing you know a lot about, the russian economy. is that where it is today? is in the russian economy negative growth this year but starting from next year we expect some economic growth. ofer the first shockwave lower oil prices and sanctions and bad commodity prices for other russian commodities and slow growth in china, all the sectors -- i think we understand the economy will be growing. it will have to adjust to new conditions. charlie rose: the decline of oil prices and the expected declining gas prices is the most of your threat to the russian economy? andre: it is but already the

next budget is based on the assumption that oil prices will be around $50 per barrel. i think that is a reasonable approach. theyis level of oil prices can cope with the budget spending and have maybe slight economic growth. charlie rose: what is the most significant contributor to the russian economy besides energy? course hasia of tals, medt dities coal, electricity. and agricultural issuing healthy growth. who has the: sanctions hurt? andre: they hurt russian banking sector, including my bank. charlie rose: let's take your bank for example. how did sanctions hurt it? andre: we don't have a liquidity

squeeze as much as we had in 2008 for example. we are limited in international borrowing. more importantly are retreated from the international stock market. we are not selling more stocks. we can't privatize our bank any further. -- it is forain been for foreign investors to buy. substantial -- capital base in liquidity from russian central bank. we don't experience a big problem nowadays. charlie rose: you have sufficient liquidity? andrey: we do. but for the ideal model us it is now what they call a new normality. charlie rose: clearly eliminating the sanctions is one of the primary objectives of the president. andrey: he never raises the

question. it was notn is arrested introduced sanctions and we're not asking to remove them. sanctions -- we can disagree with the sanctions. it's the wrong use of international economic financial architecture infrastructure. sanctions never reached their goals. it is impossible to force russia to change the foreign policy. you're at the second largest bank in russia and you were hurt and had to depend on the state and the central bank which provide liquidity. andrey: unfortunately geopolitics intervenes with business nowadays. that is not the russian approach. we don't think it is the correct approach. most of the business and financial community in the west thinks the same. they should be separated. geopolitics and business should

be separated and differences should be resolved by the governments as a separate issue rather than using the financial and trade and other instruments to exert pressure on other countries. charlie rose: is there significant american investments in russia? andrey: not really. charlie rose: i mean by private enterprise. andrey: the american investor shows an interest now in certain areas but the relationship between our countries are quite limited. though interesting despite the sanctions. the share of russian-american trade and russian foreign trade is growing mainly because it's a great decrease in our trade with europe. probably that is a weak point. charlie rose: with china? andrey: some with china, yes. but in dollar terms it is down because of -- the general trade

and because of the decrease in the commodity prices. the chinese -- charlie rose: their demand for imports is quite andrey: -- it's quite big. we signed a contract for oil and gas with china. we have to expect a growing volume of trade with china in the next decade. charlie rose: what is your assessment of the chinese economy? andrey: from one hand but we are talking about the slowdown of the chinese economy that is still 5% or 6%, that's quite high-growth. i think china still has a lot of problems of a reformed economy. they still lack the domestic consumption. charlie rose: they are trying to change that. andrey: this is a quite a number of important problems they need to overcome. charlie rose: like what? andrey: like increasing domestic -- forby actually having

example their financial sector is totally dominated by the state banks. unlike russians, act many ways on the political instructions. they took too much risk and that led to some big problems. charlie rose: how much domination of the russian banks is by the kremlin? [laughter] andrey: they are not dominating. of the russian banking sector is the banks with government majority. charlie rose: more than 50% of the banks in russia are owned by the government? andrey: yes. charlie rose: is that healthy? andrey: we were privatizing the banks. in my bank, 40% a lot to the private investors. the largest bank is nearly 50%.

close to 50%. if the situation allows, i think the further privatization of the russian banking sector. charlie rose: i spoke with president putin and asked what you admired most of america. he said the innovation and creativity. andrey: that is true. charlie rose: i think america was surprised but he did say it. he was fully aware of silicon valley and the contribution of technology to the american productivity and the american economy. there is no question there. i'm interested in understanding what is your sense of him? you heard gary kasparov, a sworn enemy. andrey: very emotional. [laughter] charlie rose: but his best friend? i have none of for many years. charlie rose: what happened do

you think? andrey: is a tragedy. it's very better russian politics and i think it is bad for putin. by the way, he was a harmless person. charlie rose: harmless? andrey: he was not viewed -- he was not a person of some aggressive intention and not a person who was seen as any threat to his power. kasparov saying russia's a brutal regime. and in calling for an uprising. i think it's funny because the regime will probably act differently. positioncourse in a and one can expect them to say such things. i think mr. putin is a person who really loves russia. he really wants russia to be strong from an economic point of view. one or two years ago he was

named as the most powerful person in the world. charlie rose: this year. andrey: he was asked and he said look, today the power defense of economic strength. in russia is not strong enough economically to be the most powerful. i think he is realistic in understanding the role of russia. he definitely wants russia to be as powerful in -- and respected. charlie rose: you would hope that every political leader who want that for his country. to be powerful and respected and creating economic successes towards people. andrey: russian society probably was feeling a little bit differently. after the collapse of the soviet powerfulich was a big concept that people saw, we are to live in an authoritarian society in the soviet union and we are quite poor but had great

power. since the collapse russians never thought about it. and to a certain extent they were humiliated by being a not so important nation. putin reinstated this and that people started to think about russia. the crowd of the country. -- for manyt time years people are proud of their country. charlie rose: how did he achieve that? andrey: i think he is focusing on a certain very important issues for russia. russia on reinstated the political arena as a country within -- with independent foreign policy. he showed strong leadership. charlie rose: in the west the view is that the takeover of crimea, even though president putin says it was a referendum, most people view that is a legal takeover in the west.

takeover -- a legal an illegal takeover. andrey: i have spending my summer's in crimea since 2002. crimea,ple think in people really support it. if you go to crimea, if you come to crimea and i'm sure they will tell you they never wanted to be part of ukraine. they are -- after the collapse of the soviet union they were defecting. what ukraine did was provide a lot of economy to crimea. the crimean leader was called the president even. it was an autonomous republic. then they removed all the rights later. crimea with ang, 60% of the population being russian never wanted to be part of ukraine. absolutely

voluntarily to become part of russia. charlie rose: do you think that part of what drives resident putin ispresident demanding a kind of respect for russia? that he clearly believes that after the collapse of the soviet union at all the russian problems they went through that the world of us respected he is thermined to make sure that world respects russia and that is part of what his political activities are about? andrey: he think there should be some rules of the game in international politics. when it wasollapse, the soviet union there was a standup between the soviet bloc and the western block and there were rules of the game. a major decision had to be taken by the united nations security council. and since the collapse of the soviet union, i think we in russia feel that the united states are to play their own game without asking anybody.

without asking the united nations or asking russia or any other countries of the world. if unitede in syria states can bomb syria and russia can do the same. noess we draft new rules, country can do it unless there is consensus or agreement or some framework for taking a solid issue on such issues. herlie rose: what he think things about relationships of the united states in terms of cooperation in syria in terms of "cooperate on a lot of big deals? andrey: i think united states is important for russia and russia always wanted to have a good relationship with united states. i think he was quite sincere sankey respect united states, its people. we have to cooperate because russia might not be very short economically but it is a big nuclear power. if we want peace and stability,

we have to talk to each other. otherwise the world will not be a very safe ways to live. charlie rose: how close are you to vladimir putin? andrey: i am not among his friends. charlie rose: you didn't grow up with them? -- him? andrey: i have known him for 17 years probably. in russia you the chairman of the largest bank you visit the president from time to time. he does a very well and i know him very well. my relationship is limited to what i'm doing. . we don't discuss broad issues charlie rose: banking? andrey: banking and that anything. charlie rose: he has said another leaders have said that a country cannot be as strong -- a strong international player unless it has a strong economy. andrey: that is a problem for

russia. --rlie rose: we have andrey: we have failed in many areas of converting the economy, and innovative economy. we have brains and people. charlie rose: when you look back and i close on this, when you look back at the transition of the following soviet union -- at the fall of the soviet union and there was an opportunity to let russia grow, was there not? with the rest of the world trying to help russia emerged from the collapse of the soviet empire, some argue that there was a real missed opportunity. andrey: we did not expect a marshall plan for russia. my personal opinion on certain usets the west started to too many politics in our economic relationship. it happened with the eu. to a lesser extent america

because in america we don't have too much economic relationship. working inompanies equity like citibank or coca-cola or pepsi-cola. they have quite a big operation in russia. charlie rose: pepsi-cola got a head start. andrey: yes, buffer pepsi is the is the -- but for pepsi second-largest market after america if i'm not mistaken. we should blame ourselves for missing opportunities, not the outside world of course. that probably was a problem. charlie rose: is your bank the largest in russia? andrey: second largest. charlie rose: i thought you said first and i misunderstood. what is the largest bank? andrey: savings banks of russia. charlie rose: what brings you to the united states? theey: i was meeting with

chairman of some american banks this morning and had very fruitful discussions on joint cooperation and on general things like economy in russia. charlie rose: some of the things we've been talking about. andrey: we have extremely good relationship with financial institutions in the united states. we see it as important partners. i believe they will -- that they will, we will have more business with them. charlie rose: thank you for coming. andrey: thank you very much. ♪

♪ charlie rose: we continue looking at the threat posed by -- earlierike more this week president obama ordered the employment of 200 special ops forces to iraq in syria. strategyed his current and said that the deployment will not lead to an iraq-style invasion. >> we've been able to push back isil from territory then taken both in iraq and in syria. we are developing partnerships, although they are not as strong as we want yet with local tribes and sunnis were willing to fight. what i have said is we are modify and adjust our strategy based on those things that work and those things that may not work. charlie rose: i'm pleased to have mike back at the table,

welcome. always good to be here. charlie rose: tell me what questions we ought to be asking based on the information we know. we really don't know the motivation. we don't know if it was a workplace violence or al qaeda, isis or some combination of the two. it's absolutely clear they give the metal weapons that he had, the tactical gear he had he was planning to do something. it is possible that maybe he had another target in mind and he got angry at his workplace party. that then became the target rather than the original target. the possibilities -- we just don't know yet. i think the fundamental question is that motivation. what drove him to do that. isis-directed, inspired,

al qaeda-directed or inspired? charlie rose: inspired is the keyword. mike: bright. -- right. charlie rose: go online and see things that touch of motivate you. many people go back to saudi arabia. lots of muslims around the world go to saudi arabia. image nothing except the religious tone. people sometimes come back.and they are inspired mike: he both went to saudi arabia and pakistan. he took two trips. the vast majority of people that go on those trips are completely fine. sometimes people look up with people who they start a conversation with an you talk to them about what their religion really means. and they are radicalized. in other cases when you're already some ways down the radicalization road you might miss -- meet with somebody who

makes you think about carrying out an action when you go home. maybe even says to you here is a target i want to think about. case in surveilling thing about it. that is all we have to think about here. what exact we happen, what motivated him, what you doing with that saudi arabia, was he doing with the pakistan? -- do when he went to pakistan? charlie rose: a relative was on tv last night that said they could not believe it. how the that the? how can they harbor these things are not share them with family? mike: one of the things charlie ewart told when you are talking or talking to isis or al qaeda in saudi arabia or pakistan or syria, as they are telling you don't talk to anybody else. don't let anybody know you are talking to us. don't let anybody see your true feelings in true emotions about what you believe in don't believe.

there are people that are out to get you. that is part of the education process. charlie rose: is this primarily a need now for one, further surveillance of people coming in they are, where they are and where they have been in terms of the surveillance allowed by the united states? mike: right. charlie rose: and what else is part of a new intelligence operative that is part of command security? from ale lesson learned qaeda and their multiple attempts to attack the homeland was 9/11. lot after plot after plot disrupted. the primary lesson learned from that is twofold. number one, your homeland defenses need to be as robust as possible. tsa screening, immigration screening, bedding of names,

putting names on no-fly lists. all of that he's to be robust and easy carefully monitored and kept at the date -- up-to-date. the more important is for the country's intelligence services to penetrate the leadership. penetrate with spies the leadership of those organizations so the leadership of isis, the leadership of al qaeda. it's when you penetrate this leadership that you actually see the particular plotting that is going on. you see the individuals they are in contact with. when you have that information you are able to disrupt the plot. charlie rose: that's one of the things that seems to part of the president's strategy to go to the leadership. your tsonga depends on how good your intelligence is. you need to identify and locate. mike: i'm making a bit of a distinction. on one hand is the part of the cia and nsa and the intelligence community to penetrate the

leadership of isis just to know what they are doing. just to know what they are planning, wealthier thinking, what the capabilities are, who they are in contact with you can find what they're doing and stop it. charlie rose: i know with a plan to do six months from now. mike: that's one piece of the responsibility. to collectiece is intelligence on exactly where these guys are and where they are going to be at a certain moment in time so that our special forces, either by capturing them or killing them to remove them from the battlefield. that is what the president has just done. ramp up the number of guys on the ground who are going to be able to go after senior isis officials and remove them from the battlefield. hopefully capture them because you get more intelligence. charlie rose: these forces are intended to be on the ground in iraq and syria. mike: the primary purpose is to

go after in lead -- remove the leadership as rapidly as possible. you need that intelligence and talked about. once you start, it becomes self-sustaining. that is what we saw in iraq and afghanistan. wife is self-sustaining? when you capture somebody you bring them back and you interrogate them. and you get his pocket letter. whether it is actual paper or a phone or a computer or an ipad. you have all that information and you are interrogating him. that turns a new intelligence on other guys that you can then turn around and engage. the operations then begin and then it's. sustaining the intelligence charlie rose: your definition of boots on the ground? mike: boots on the ground is in the eye of the beholder. it really is. it's used more politically than it is militarily. charlie rose: but this is an

aggressive use of american forces in the region. mike: here is how i -- is -- there are over 3000 guys, american soldiers on the guy -- ground in iraq that are advising, assisting, training. that is physically boots on the ground that they are not in combat. they are not fighting. then there is special forces who personal up close and advise and assist in closer to the battlefield. they are still not in combat but they are closer to the battlefield and much more at risk. most people would not call that boots on the ground. charlie rose: spotters for plane attacks? mike: yes. they are still not in combat. then you get to with the new guys are going to be doing. they are going to be conducting raids to capture and kill

people. they are going to be in combat. they are going to be shot at and they will be shooting people. and there will be casualties. boots on the ground? yeah, i would say so. everybodyet to what agrees is boots on the ground which is 10,000 troops, 20,000 troops, infantry troops who are taking and holding territory. charlie rose: that is what the president was referring to. mike: these guys are not going to take and hold territory. charlie rose: they will take an old individuals? mike: they will go to a particular spot inside the islamic caliphate, grab somebody and leave. that is what they do and they do a better than anybody else on the planet. charlie rose: walk through all the threats now posed by isis. mike: that's a great question. onas americans tend to focus

the terrorist threat here. i see four different dress from isis. -- threats from isis. the most significant is not the terrorist threat to us. the most significant in my view is the risk that isis poses to the stability of the entire region. a region of the world that is still accounting for 30% of world oil production. has a right smack in the middle of it are most important ally, israel. that has in the middle of it suny-arab allies pushing back on iran's desire for significant influence in the region. it's a very important region. one of the real risks that isis poses is the spread -- imagine the spread of what is happening in syria and iraq to other parts of the region. lebanon, jordan we should be

worried about. even northern saudi arabia. that is threatening or one. i've read to regional stability. that's a threat that most people don't think about or talk about. charlie rose: is a growing? the president talks about we've been able to shrink them, the amount of territory that they are taken and held. mike: the president is right. we have shrunken by about 25%. most of that shrinkage was in the very early weeks and months of the campaign. there has not been a lot of shrinkage in recent months. and isis has solidified his toition inside the caliphate a degree they did not have in the beginning. charlie rose: and it's enabled them to access money and resources? mike: right. i think it's fair to say that i

don't think it's likely that isis is going to push out permits caliphate into lebanon and into jordan and it's a northern saudi arabia. i think it's more likely that the sectarianism they have created in the sectarian conflict they have created could pop up in these other places as a result of what is happening in iraq and syria. that the threat to regional stability. that is what happened in iraq. is the threat posed by the terrorist threat posed by isis to the homeland by radicalizing young men and women who go online and read their propaganda in my even chat with them online. it is what might have happened here in this case in california. happens in canada and a couple of cases in western europe and australia over the

last year. radicalization of young men and women to conduct attacks on behalf of isis without isis directing them. that remains at this moment the most likely isis terrorist threat to the homeland. is the direct isis threat to the homeland. paris, paris. where the plot is conceived of, roccazed and directed in and then carried out in paris or new york or washington. charlie rose: do they have the capability to do with it in paris elsewhere? mike: i don't see intelligence anymore but i say we don't know. the reason i say we don't know isiscause we do know that spend about 9-12 months building

their attack capability in europe and we did not see it. and we do not see paris coming. if we did not see the building of the capability in western europe and did not see paris coming, the fact we don't see here does not give me a lot of confidence. here, and don't see i'm assuming we don't or it would've leaked by now, i'm assuming we don't see it now does not give me confidence. and we know they want to. they want to build a capability here. that is threat number three. over time if we don't degrade them and defeat them, the threat will grow. india the front of her for which it -- number four which is the threat they pose by radicalizing other militant groups around the world. we talked about this before. the extremist militant groups in 20 different countries to say we now are with isis. we are now affiliates. the threat that those pose to

u.s. interests and western interests. that is the story of bringing down of the russian airliner over the sinai. charlie rose: stephen boko haram and a group like that which is large in number are saying we are united with isis. whether the report to them or sort of look to them for leadership, they do say we have united appeal. what they believe in, we believe in. mike: and boko haram is a group i worry deeply about. charlie rose: because? mike: because they are large. they controlled territory in northern nigeria. they are every bit as brutal as as brutal as were isis before isis existed. in terms of the kind of attack they conducted. i worry most about them because if they wanted to engage in andorism outside of nigeria

the geographic area around it, if they wanted to do that, the diaspon dias brought -- ra around the world is so large that they could blend in and take advantage. if they ever wanted to develop an external attack capability, that would help them do that. charlie rose: what is your assessment of our intelligence capabilities? on one hand we did not see paris coming or cannot make the connection even though those names that come up within the system at one place or another. mike: i year-and-a-half ago isis becomes a big deal and takes all this territory. the united states goes to war against isis. point i'm sure the intelligence community was asked to make ice is a key focus of

their efforts. you cannot just flip a switch and start developing the intelligence you need. it takes a lot of time. charlie rose: how do you do it? mike: if you don't have a presence on the ground, you don't have an embassy or counsel it -- or consulate, it's even harder. it's hard to operate in a denied area where you are not allowed. it is difficult to begin with. it becomes harder because it is a denied area but it is still doable. we've done in many places. charlie rose: is a primary an issue of recruitment you can turn -- of people you can turn? mike: is the recruitment of human spies, absolutely. to dove to figure out how that and it takes time to meet people and develop them and recruit them and send them back in and get information from them. it's a very complicated process. and a technical collection.

listening to phone calls and e-mails and all that kind of stuff. a lot more than that that i can talk about. the technical collection. it's a matter of both. my assumption is that it's getting better over time but we are still not where we need to be. i say that for two reasons. number one, we do not see paris coming. inroads, the the intelligence inroads we need to disrupt these attacks. we did it with al qaeda all the time. we saw an attack coming in disrupted it. and we are not removing leadership from the battlefield in the numbers that would tell -- that theave intelligence is as good as it needs to be. charlie rose: do we need more powers of surveillance? mike: i think the question more is resources. i think the question is more resources. one of the stories about the

charlie hebdo attack in paris earlier this year was that those guys were under surveillance by french security forces for a period of time within the french had to drop off because of resources. there were other guys that had a higher priority. in france and the u.k. in terms of resource problems. the same is true in the united states. let me make this as specific as i can. it is not about surveillance. it's about intelligence capabilities in general. at theber of employees central intelligence agency is a classified number. i cannot say it. but i can tell you in 1991 it was x. this is an algebra problem. was001, 10 years later it .75x.

a 25% decline in 10 years. that was the peace dividend from the end of the cold war. charlie rose: can you get the same kind of efficiency because of advances in technology? mike: intelligence is a people business. particularly the recruitment of spies and analysis. that's a two things the cia does. if the people heavy business. people intensive business. resources grew dramatically after 2001. when i left the cia in august of 2013 we were at 1.1x. just 10% higher than 1991. essentially the same number of employees as we had in 1991 in a world that was much, much more complicated. parisrennan said after that the cia is literally overwhelms by everything it has

to do. all of the threats that the united states -- that are facing the united states. and i sure he is referring to exactly what i'm talking about now. ♪

♪ charlie rose: tell me how this kenexa the president? mike: i think he understands this. charlie rose: understands that so therefore what? how does that affect his judgment? nessarily get

affects his judgment or actions but it affects what is trying to say to us. which is yesterday in a -- he wason with trying to make t point thate can't be so fearful here that we give up the very freedoms we are trying to protect. that is the point he is making. charlie rose: and he said of her, as he said in other circumstances, we can dramatically reduce the we cannot eliminate. mike: right. things that worries u.s. i don't think infantry guys in the thousands, holding and taking territory in syria and iraq is the answer to this. i don't believe that. i think iteris-style attack elitist down that road. charlie rose: because the public would demand it.

politicians would demand it. why don't you think is the right thing to do? mike: because we don't have -- we learned in both afghanistan and iraq that taking the territory is really easy. easy, ait is somewhat little bit more challenging. but turning it over to somebody else you can control it from that point on is very, very hard. somebody who can control in a stable way is very hard. what is the endgame? what is the endgame of a u.s. invasion of iraq and syria that is successful in pushing isis from holding territory back into the safe houses and back into the mountains? what is the endgame? who will come in and take over and be in charge and have a security force capable of ultimately holding so that we can go home? it's that end game second --

that because very difficult. charlie rose: if you don't have an answer to that, at least seven alternative. mike: right. because the consequences of the attacker greater than just the people dying, i think there's got to be a significant -- as we talked about last time. charlie rose: acceleration? mike: acceleration, amplification, intensification of what we are doing on both the military side, which the president has done with regards to the special forces, and on the diplomatic side in terms of getting a political solution in damascus and baghdad. charlie rose: this is the tangent. the question comes up all the time because of what is going on with the russian plane. and the idea that they believe that as long as a sod is in power it can choose to isis. -- assad is in power.

clearly they want him out. clearly they believed the u.s. will take time. he can do it overnight. what is the plan to get him out? mike: this is what i think the plan is. that he is a big part of the isis problem. that isis is in part as big as it is and as strong as it is because of opposition to him. who was the most effective fighting force against assad? isis. why not join the guys doing the best? that is absolutely true. going the that assad way allows you to focus on isis in a way you can't when he is there. and it takes some of their kindling that supports them. etc.. he has got to go. not everybody agrees with that at the moment. i think the russians and iranians don't agree with that.

they think let's have an election but let's let him run and if he wins, he can continue to govern. that is their position. as hesition started out can't even come to the negotiating table for a transition to a new government and two elections -- to elections. he can't sit at the negotiating table. i think our policy is evolving city can actually be part of that transition from him to elections. he can be part of that conversation but he cannot stand in the elections. i think that is our policy at the moment. charlie rose: in the emirates and the turks will accept that? mike: i don't the saudi's are there yet. charlie rose: and acceptance they have not reached that point? mike: i don't know about the turks or the emirates but it don't think the saudi's are there yet and i don't think the iranians are there yet.

i don't think the russians are there yet but hitting the russians are getting closer. -- but the russians are getting closer. charlie rose: who is more influence? mike: i think the iranians have more influence because they have more skin in the game. they have got more fighting force. they have got their own guys. militia they shia have trained incenses syria and they have has a lot with -- hezbolla. charlie rose: you think assad might be more willing to listen to the ayatollah? mike: i think the play for us is convinced the russians that this is the way to deal with this problem. tos transition from assad elections without him and have the russians working the iranians. charlie rose: how much do you think this president is influenced by -- that he has a

considered believe that he came to washington, to the white house to get us out of the deep involvement in the middle east? out of war in iraq and war in afghanistan? and that's what he campaigned on and believed in and promised. and therefore it is almost impossible for him in the remaining time he has to reverse that input is in a forceful way? mike: i think what motivates him -- and we are speculating. i don't sit down and talk to the guy. i think it is less what you said that he made a campaign promise to get out. charlie rose: i think it was a mindset for me to make that promise because he believed it in the best interests of the united states. mike: i think that is true. i think what he believes in what he was say if you were here is

that i don't think that is the solution to these kinds of problems. us being there makes it worse. i think that's what he would say. it's not the right policy move. that putting 50,000 troops on the ground in iraq and syria to deal with isis is the wrong strategic move. i think that is what he would say. charlie rose: because the damage is more in larger than what the benefit would be? short-term benefit the long-term damage. charlie rose: if it doesn't get any better for them or for us, can we live without? mike: no, i don't think we can. the risk they pose to the region that i talked about. because of the terrorist threat they pose here and the potential consequences we talked about. not only for the deaths of people but the consequences.

and because of the radicalization of other groups in many, many other countries. no, i don't think this is -- we can't just let this go on. you can contain it physically in geographically, but you can't contain the ideology. and you can't contain the terrorism. charlie rose: do you think the recruiting -- let's assume for the recruiting agent for isis. it an easier sell or a harder sell today? you look at paris and say, we are on the march. party look at iran and syria and the caliphate and say, is not going as well as we thought and they are getting ready to attack us. mike: i think you find the recruiter i love the current situation i am in. i love both of those things weause with paris i can say

are successfully attacking the enemy. the enemy we ultimately have to defeat here. the threat to our religion. we are successfully attacking them. on the other hand i can say they are aggressively coming after us and we need you on our side. i love both of those. charlie rose: the question becomes are we waiting -- winning? mike: the answer to that question is no. absolutely no. paris and because of perhaps california now, and it's more because you can't win in this situation was the other side loses. senseates in a geographic is them winning. charlie rose: do you think there is a plan that is either about to be unleashed or is on the

table now that will win? mike: so --charlie rose: which is been the central complaint against this president. he doesn't have a strategy. as we talked about before around this table there is a military solution in syria which is syrian sunnis fighting isis. organized by a new syrian government and supported by the international community. that is a workable military solution. there is a military solution in iraq which is the same thing. suni tribes armed and trained by the international community. but neither one of those things is possible without a political solution in both places. -- theal solution,'s political problem in damascus is

assad and in iraq is the sunnis. by ourselves, yes. we can't do it by ourselves we can certainly lead. we can lead. charlie rose: do we need russia and iran? mike: yes. that is what they get for putting skin in the game. by militarily supporting assad, both of them, they get a say at the negotiating table. that is the way it works. charlie rose: thank your for joining us. see you next time. ♪

leaders, delegates from other countries are gathered here in paris for prop 21. for the first time in more than 20 years, the aim is to achieve a universal agreement on climate change to keep global warming in check. >> never, and i repeat never, have the stakes of an international meeting been so high. because this is about the future of our planet, the future of life. president