♪ >> 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. russia has been battered by sanctions from the west. persistently low oil prices and other geopolitical risks also pose severe threats. 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 andre back at this table. let's begin with some thing you know a lot about, the russian economy. assess where it is today? andre: the russian economy is in negative growth this year but starting from next year we expect some economic growth. i think the economy is stabilizing. after the first shockwave of 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

severe 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. at this level of oil prices they 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? andre: russia of course has other commodities like metals, coal, electricity. is also the agriculture showing healthy growth. charlie rose: 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 important, we are retreated from the international stock market. we are not selling more stocks. we can't privatize our bank any further. thing it is for , been for foreign investors to buy. support fromantial the government. we have 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. it's not the ideal model but for us, this is what we 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. his position is it, it was not us who introduced sanctions and we're not asking to remove them. we can disagree with the sanctions. it's the wrong use of international economic financial infrastructure. but we think sanctions never reached their goals. it is impossible to force russia to change the course of the foreign policy. charlie rose: 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. but 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 of course in dollar terms it

is down probably, because of the general trade and because of the decrease in the commodity prices. but in china, yes. we have a relationship. 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, 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 quite a number of important problems they need to overcome. charlie rose: like what? andrey: like increasing domestic

demand by actually having -- for example their financial sector is totally dominated by the state banks. unlike russians, act many ways on the political instructions. and i think 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. well, more than 50% 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% belongs 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 admired most about 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 of putin. andrey: very emotional. [laughter] charlie rose: but his best friend?

andrey: i have known him for many years. charlie rose: what happened do you think? andrey: is a tragedy. it's very bad for 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. but of course i have heard mr. , 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. he is of course in a position and one can expect him 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 depends on economic strength. 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 powerful and respected. charlie rose: you would hope that every political leader who -- it would 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 union, which was a big powerful concept that people saw, we are living 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. so putin reinstated this and that people started to think about russia. to be proud of the country. for the first time -- for many 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. i think he reinstated russia on the political arena as a country with independent foreign policy. i think that is important. and 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 as an illegal takeover in the west. legal expert.ot a i have spending my summer's in crimea since 2002. what people think in crimea, 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. the actually after the collapse of the soviet union they were protesting. what ukraine did was provide a lot of autonomy to crimea. the crimean leader was called the president even. it was an autonomous republic. then they removed all the rights later. frankly speaking, crimea with a 60% of the population being

russian never wanted to be part of ukraine. they voted absolutely voluntarily to become part of russia. charlie rose: do you think that part of what drives resident president putin is demanding a kind of respect for russia? that he clearly believes that after the collapse of the soviet union and all of the troubles , he isssia went through determined to make sure that the world respects russia and that is part of what his political activities are about? andrey: he thinks there should be some rules of the game in international politics. before the collapse, when it was 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. for example in syria if united states can bomb syria and russia can do the same. unless we draft new rules, no country can do it unless there is consensus or agreement or some framework for taking a solid issue on such issues. -- taking a consolidated decision on such issues. charlie rose: what do you think on things about relationships of the united states in terms of cooperation in syria in terms of big deals? andrey: i think united states is important for russia and russia always wanted to have a good relationship with united states.

they respectrely the united states, its people. i think we have to cooperate because russia might not be very strong 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 him? andrey: i have known him for 17 years probably. -- in russia,d, when you are 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 thing. 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. we have failed in many areas of converting the economy, and innovative economy. we have brains and people. we have knowledge. charlie rose: when you look back and i close on this, when you look back at the transition of 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 emerge 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. personal opinion on certain points the west started to introduce too many

politics in our economic relationship. it happened with the eu. to a lesser extent in america, because in america we don't have too much economic relationship. there are companies working in 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, but pepsi is the second-largest market after america if i'm not mistaken. we should blame ourselves for missing opportunities, not the outside world of course. but i think sometimes 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? andrey: i was meeting with the 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 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 isis -- earlier this week president obama ordered the deployment of 200 special ops forces to iraq in syria. president obama defended his current strategy 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 had 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 going to continually 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. mike: always good to be here. charlie rose: tell me what questions we ought to be asking based on the information we know on san bernardino. mike: 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 -- that given the amount of 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?

is it isis-directed, inspired, al qaeda-directed or inspired? that is the key question. charlie rose: inspired is the keyword. go on the internet, go online, that somehow motivates you. mike: right. many people go back to saudi arabia. lots of muslims around the world go to saudi arabia. 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 hook up with people who they start a conversation with and 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 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 and think about. that is all we have to think about here. what exactly happened, 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 is that? how can they harbor these things and not share them with family? mike: one of the things charlie , they are told when you are talking to isis online or talking to isis or al qaeda in saudi arabia or pakistan or

syria, 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 in terms of who 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 homeland security? mike: the lesson learned from al qaeda and their multiple attempts to attack the homeland was 9/11. -- post 9/11. plot 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, vetting of names, putting names on no-fly lists. all of that needs to be robust and carefully monitored and kept 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 after the leadership. you say it 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, thinking, what their capabilities are, who they are can findt with so you 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. the other piece is to collect 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 , can 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 and remove the leadership as rapidly as possible. you need that intelligence and once you start, it becomes self-sustaining. that is what we saw in iraq and afghanistan. why is it 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 into new intelligence on other guys and 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. so this is how i think about it. 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, but they are not in combat. they are not fighting. then there is special forces who are doing up close and personal 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 what 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. then you get to what everybody 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 and hold 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 it better than anybody else on the planet. charlie rose: walk through all the threats now posed by isis. mike: that's a great question. we as americans tend to focus on the terrorist threat here.

i see four different 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. a region that is right smack in the middle of it, is our 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. that is threat number one. regional stability. that's a threat that most people don't think about or talk about. charlie rose: is a growing? -- is it growing? the president talks about we've been able to shrink them, the amount of territory that they are taking and have 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 its position inside the caliphate to 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 from its caliphate into lebanon and into jordan and it's a -- and into northern saudi arabia. i think it's more likely that the sectarianism they have created and 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 is the threat to regional stability. that is what happened in iraq. the second 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 and might even chat with them online. it is what might have happened here in this case in california. certainly what happens in canada

and in 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. number three is the direct isis threat to the homeland. paris, paris. where the plot is conceived of, organized and directed in rocca and then carried out in paris or new york or washington. charlie rose: do they have the capability to do what they did 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 is because we do know that isis spent about 9-12 months building

their attack capability in europe and we did not see it. and we do not see paris coming. so 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 it here does not give me a lot of confidence. because we don't see here, and 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. and 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. and then you have threats 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 who 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: boko haram and a group like that which is large in number are saying we are united with isis. whether they 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 control territory in northern nigeria. they are every bit as brutal as isis and they were as brutal as isis before isis existed. in terms of the kind of attack s they conducted. i worry most about them because if they wanted to engage in

terrorism outside of nigeria and the geographic area around it, if they wanted to do that, the nigerian diaspora 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 could not make the connection even though those names came up within the system at one place or another. mike: a year-and-a-half ago isis becomes a big deal and takes all this territory. the united states goes to war

against isis. at that point i'm sure the intelligence community was asked to make isis 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 nsulate, 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: it is the recruitment of human spies, absolutely. you have to figure out how to do 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 't 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 did not see paris coming. we don't have the inroads, the intelligence inroads we need to disrupt these attacks. we did it with al qaeda all the time. we saw an attack coming in and disrupted it. and we are not removing leadership from the battlefield in the numbers that would tell me that we have -- that the 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. same is true 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. the number of employees at the 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. in 2001, 10 years later it was

.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 two things the cia does. it is a 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. john brennan said after paris that the cia is literally overwhelmed by everything it has

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

charlie rose: tell me how this s to the president?

mike: i think he understands this. charlie rose: understands that so therefore what? how does that affect his judgment? mike: i do get necessarily affects his judgment or actions but it affects what is trying to say to us. which is yesterday in a conversation with -- he was trying to make the point that we 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 to her, as he said in other circumstances, we can dramatically reduce, but we cannot eliminate. mike: right. one of the things that worries me is i don't think u.s. infantry guys in the thousands, holding and taking territory in syria and iraq is the answer to this. i don't believe that. but i fear that a paris style attack here could lead down that

road. charlie rose: because the public would demand it. politicians would demand it. why don't you think is the right -- this 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. holding it is somewhat easy, a little bit more challenging. but turning it over to somebody it from can control that point on is very, very hard. somebody who can control in a t 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 that becomes very difficult. charlie rose: if you don't have an answer to that, at least you have to have an alternative. mike: right. because the consequences of the attack is 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 is in powers assad

help isis. 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. we believe 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. it is true that assad going away 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. so 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. our position started out as he can't even come to the negotiating table for a transition to a new government and to elections. he can't sit at the negotiating table. i think our policy is evolving so that he 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: and 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, but they 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. they have got shia militia they have trained and sent to syria and they have 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. this transition from assad to 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 belief 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 us 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 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

-- and what he would say if he was here, 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. that is 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 and larger than what the benefit would be? mike: yes, short-term benefit , but long-term damage. charlie rose: if it doesn't get any better for them or for us, can we live without? -- with that? mike: no, i don't think we can. because of 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 and 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 the recruiting agent for isis. is it an easier sell or a harder sell today? you look at paris and say, we are on the march. look at iran and syria and the caliphate and say, it is not going as well as we thought and they are getting ready to attack us.

mike: i think as the recruiter i love the current situation i am in. i love both of those things because with paris i can say we 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 winning? mike: the answer to that question is no. absolutely no. it is less because of paris and perhaps california now, and it's more because you can't win in this situation unless the other side loses. stalemates in a geographic sense 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 has been the central complaint against this president, he doesn't have a strategy. mike: 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.

political solution -- the 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. ♪

.

anchor: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it is a 21st-century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks for the artists at the heart of this. they have a unique power to inspire, astonish, provoke, and shock. in this episode, south korean artist lee bul.