♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: david petraeus is here. he commanded u.s. troops in iraq during the surge, and also led coalition forces in afghanistan. with the collapse of the cease-fire in syria, he has coalition forces ready to take mosul from isis. i am especially pleased to have general betray us -- general petraeus back at this table.

gen. petraeus: thank you, charlie. charlie: let us begin with iraq. it is on the highest agenda, the highest place on the agenda, the retaking of mosul. it has symbolic value. you were there during the iraq war. it will say something about the plight of isis. it has a lot of meaning. give me a sense of how you see it. gen. petraeus: it does. it has symbolic meaning, and very tangible, physical meaning. there is no question that we're going to defeat the islamic state in mosul and throughout iraq. the real issue actually is post-islamic state governance, the capital of which is mosul, an area i was privileged to serve during the 101st airport division in baghdad. this is the most complex human terrain in all of iraq. a sunni arab majority, many kurds, christians.

many of them have grievances against each other, and there are even rivalries within the sectarian groups. it is very, very complex. frankly, it is going to be far more challenging in this moment, than defeating the islamic state. it will be a tough fight. there will be a city battle. isis has dug in, improvised explosive devices, but there is no question it is going to be defeated. the same throughout iraq, if i could, because the islamic state will be defeated as an army. there will still be insurgents, guerrilla elements. but the level of violence should decline. the issue for iraq, writ large, is politics in baghdad, and we are seeing very concerning developments in recent weeks. there have already been, months ago vote of no-confidence, that , a resulted in the minister of interior being pardoned. in the last few weeks, the minister of defense has been

given a vote of no-confidence, and a highly respected kurdish leader was given a vote of no-confidence. the minister of finance, having previously served as minister of foreign affairs very impressively. this is an effort, undoubtedly, to take down the prime minister of iraq. it appears led by the former prime minister, maliki, whose highly highly sectarian efforts really undid so much of what we did together, who alienated the sunni arab population and created fertile fields for the planting of the seeds of extremism, which the islamic state then used and exploited as it was able to get back offense stomach after our enablers left, and of course went into syria through all kinds of additional combat experience, money, weapons, vehicles, sweat back into iraq. charlie: if malik he came back, would we assume he was doing the bidding for iran?

gen. petraeus: there would be considerable iranian influence. he is not one who, when i was privileged to work with him during the multinational surge, had a particular love for iran, but he had a need for what iran that he could provide at various times. and he is using that now. the truth is, he did not stay in iran very long when he was in his period of being outside iraq, as many of the leaders were. he ended up in syria for the bulk of the time. but the iranians clearly providing support, assistance, direction, weapons, and so forth for the shia militia, which to be sure did protect baghdad in a moment of payroll when the islamic state seemed to threaten ed the islamic capital, but who now are very, very powerful and a really beyond the control in some respects of the prime minister.

and have caused real problems when they have gone into sunni arab areas, and in many cases abused the population. this is an example of the kind of challenge you have post islamic state. again, all about the struggle for power and resources, a struggle writ large for iraq and baghdad. keeping in mind, by the way, it is baghdad that determines the distribution of the oil revenue. that is the biggest centrifugal force that keeps iraq together. and it will be about post islamic state governance in mosul, where we were able to achieve quite good governance that was representative of all the different elements and responsive to all of them with minority rights guaranteed as well in the early days. but that proved much more problematic overtime. charlie: and there is an axiom i assume of military strategy, it says it is one thing to push the enemy back. it is another thing to hold the territory. gen. petraeus: that is exactly right. a number of us has said do not clear until you know how you are going to hold. that is very much operative here, but i would add do not

clear until you know how to hold and govern. that is the real issue. and there are a lot of conflicting objectives, desires, and grievances that are going to make that very, very difficult. i know the president's special envoy is very seized with this, as is is the new ambassador to iraq from the united states. they are working at hard, meetings up in iraq, and where a lot of the different leaders are huddling to determine what follows islamic state control in the province. but again, there is a lot of conflicting objectives here. charlie: one historical point. donald trump often makes the point on the campaign trail that somehow the obama administration is responsible for the rise of isis. and he cites the fact that we left iraq, and because we left iraq, what used to be al qaeda in iraq morphed into isis. and that there have been more american troops remaining in

iraq when we left, even of the government did not want them, we would have seen a different situation. gen. petraeus: i am nonpartisan. i will not comment on a particular candidate's statement. i will comment on the facts. and the facts are that the real cause of the rise of isis is the alienation of the sunni arab community in iraq, which again created this opportunity for the islamic state to get support within the sunni arab -- this is by malaki. charlie: so the sunnis say they would have allowed -- general petraeus: that is, to some degree. but prime minister reality also to continue to keep the islamic state down, to keep

ifdefeated on its stomach, you will. and that is also prevented. he made an agreement to that effect in one point in time, and it was never operationalized. now, i would like to have seen 10,000 troops stay. without question. i do doubt it would have given us the influence over prime minister malecki to keep him from carrying out these ruinous sectarian actions. but what it would have done, if we would've had bases, infrastructure, communication, satellite shots, all the rest of that, so that we very rapidly could have reinserted forces into iraq when it was was clear we needed to support the iraqi security forces to prevent them from taking iraq, urbil. that is something that is indisputable. it took us too long, frankly, a very long time. as we discussed before at this table, time matters when you are fighting an enemy like in the islamic state, which is enjoying success in cyberspace, in large part because it is seen as a success. and the sooner that you

can show the islamic state is a loser is the sooner it is no longer effective in recruiting, and inspiring others across the world to carry out extremist acts. charlie: the taking of mosul, everybody knows this battle is coming. the united states announced today that, in some near time in the future, that some 500-600 american troops would go to iraq, i assume to participate in some way in this effort. what are they going to do, and who else is going to be on the ground involved in the retaking of mosul? gen. petraeus: gradually, the president and the secretary of defense have granted authority to the commanders to embed u.s. forces closer to the front. that authority exists for the commander on the ground. lieutenant general steve

townsend, who knows mosul as well, having fought there as a commander, a really talented commander. so, that authority is there, if he chooses to use it. beyond that, there is a base being reestablished, a huge, sort of strategic-level airfield had housed one of our brigade combat teams and 80-100 helicopters when the 101st airborne division was deployed. that was a very important base from which to project a lot of different power, perhaps even unmanned aerial vehicles, attack helicopters, perhaps some long shooters from the ground, and so forth. that is another very important element. it is a huge base, though, and it requires enormous protection if you put a lot of vulnerable

coalition assets on the ground . it is interesting now that we are approaching 6000, the cap i -- the account that i have seen what we mayates of find on the ground, and i very much support that. the paradox is, of course, that we have been there, preventing them from keeping 10,000 troops on the ground when we pull them out before. charlie: what are the rules of engagement? gen. petraeus: i cannot speak to those, again. charlie: but i asked the secretary of defense and he said yes to me. gen. petraeus: it is publicly known that special operation forces are authorized to carry out certain raids on targets. those are offensive in nature. it has been used relatively infrequently, but it has resulted in some very important kills. charlie: how long is it going to take, do you think? gen. petraeus: i don't think the fight to retake mosul is going

to be anywhere near as difficult as we would have x -- what have expected six to 12 months ago. i think the islamic state has been beaten up very badly. and have to know it is going to lose. and soldiers who are in a lost cause obviously start to lose heart. and you have seen reports of islamic state leaders executing leaders who had sought to desert, or not done the duty. that is assigned to the cracks appearing in the firmament here of the islamic state of defense. having said that, taking any urban area as large as mosul, 2ich, at its peak, head million people in it, is is a very significant undertaking. the enemy will undoubtedly hug civilian populations. i would not doubt that bank is stayingghdadi alive by surrounding himself with hundreds of civilians. charlie: we know where he is? general betray us: i think we have a good idea. -- : i think we had

a good idea. nobody is going to run an army and a caliphate as actively as he has to without getting some sense of where he is. i am told that we knew about him, and it was when he left his sheltered area to go up and rally the troops -- charlie: that a drone took him out. gen. petraeus: that is my understanding. ♪

charlie: your old adversary, is he playing a role? gen. petraeus: i am sure he will put in an appearance. i would imagine -- charlie: and the retaking of

mosul. gen. petraeus: he will not go into the frontline area, but there will be selfies, undoubtedly, with admiring shia militia, supported by iran -- supporting shia militia, who are from iraq? gen. petraeus: yes. charlie: and he will have some connection to engagement? gen. petraeus: yes. there is an individual that was the minister of transportation most recently, who has emerged as sort of the overarching leader for a variety of the shia militia. what is ironic is that he used to be my conduit when i wanted to get a message to the force in -- to the commander of the quds force in iran. charlie: how would you do that? gen. petraeus: i would call him up and tell him to pound sand or whatever it was. something more substantive than that. charlie: is that a military term? gen. petraeus: that was a response that he sent me, which was essentially the intent of which was to convey i should deal with him, rather than iraqi

-- iranian diplomats or others. charlie: american air power will be employed? gen. petraeus: absolutely. let us remember, what america uniquely brings to this fight, in quantities that are many times the aggregate of all that our allies, partners, and host nations can provide, what we re intelligence, reconnaissance assets that are manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, precision strike assets that exploit what we are getting through imagery intelligence, but also signals and human intelligence, and the ability to fuse all of this in an industrial-strength way. to bring together all the different forms of intelligence, digitized, and to make sense of them, and to understand what it is we're seeing on the battlefield to help our iraqi partners with that kind of information.

and indeed to act on it, with the coalition partners and with the iraqi partners. charlie: back to syria and rocca. that is a longer-term project. six months, a year? gen. petraeus: it is. they will collapse in iraq. but mosul is fairly, fairly isolated at this point in time. what we are actually doing now over there is cleaning up some pockets to the south. you have mosul here, a town down here. they are actually going down and cleaning that up so they have clean lines of communication, from the south and from baghdad. they may do a city over here, that is a bit of a cesspool. it was literally one of the last cities we liberated during the surge in the fight against the sunni arabs before turning on the shia arab militia.

and concentrate everything on mosul. inmost soul, the lines -- in mosul, the lines of communication have been cut quite effectively. it is a very long trip across the desert, if you want to get in there. you really have to want to be a terrorist if you're coming across the desert. charlie: you and i were at a recent conference when there was a pronounced, majority opinion, that said in syria, we ought to be focusing on the civil war first. that there is a kind of emergency that -- there because of what is happening in aleppo. and we need to move some way against the tragedy that is taking place. gen. petraeus: this is horrific. this is the humanitarian disaster of recent decades, really. perhaps going back to -- charlie: the images. gen. petraeus: it is barbaric, what is going on.

what the russians and iranians are doing are basically employing tactics last seen in scale in chechnya, where if you cannot seem to defeat them precisely, you just destroy it all. barrel bombs in particular, obviously very imprecise and indiscriminate. civilians are bearing the brunt. a couple of thousands of people in the enclaves of the eastern part of aleppo, that are being encircled and just being pummeled. and again, this is an absolute humanitarian disaster of the highest order. charlie: and they tried to have a cease-fire negotiation with the russians, lasting a week. charlie: yes. it's very clear the russian objectives are very different from ours. whether you want to say we are being played or what the issue is, because they repositioned during this time, replenished and so forth, then just went at it. but the idea we were going to work together and focus only on the islamic state, and the al

qaeda affiliate, that has obviously not transpired. nor did the provision of humanitarian assistance to those areas that are not under control of the regime. so this is very, very desperate. you are going to see the creation of massive casualties . it is ongoing. the number is very significant. and there is nothing precise whatsoever about this. charlie: just one quick point about the civil war in syria. this is about assad versus rebel forces in aleppo, which they hold, they are being bombed and the families are being bombed. charlie: that's -- robby: gen. petraeus: that's -- gen. petraeus: that's right. this is assad's regime forces on the ground, supported by the iranian revolutionary guards corps. and russian air assets, though russian special operators have been on the ground as well. charlie: so the question is, do

we need to say, yes, we want to go after isis, yes, you will go after mosul, and yes, we are going to go after iraq, wherever else we think it is necessary to carry the battle to them in syria, but right now we had a global catastrophe of unseen horror. gen. petraeus: it is tragic. charlie: so, what we do? gen. petraeus: is it too late? no, not too late to declare a a save zone, it's not too late to declare a no-fly zone. and indeed, if the regime air force, for example, bombs folks we are supporting or concerned will tell them we will ground your air force. charlie: we can do that? very quickly? gen. petraeus: sure, and you don't have to enter airspace. that is a question for the administration.

charlie: but what is the rationale, the argument? wire 20 -- why aren't we doing that now? gen. petraeus: the concern is always, then what? and that is a reasonable understandable question. ok, do we get into it with the russians? then what? that is the kind of questions that has caused understandable reservations, but the fact is, where we are right now is absolutely tragic. you know, if you back all the way up, rule number one in dealing with a potential refugee situation is to try and always keep them in the country. we did a no-fly zone to support the iraqi kurds for the better part of a decade or so following the gulf war, until we ultimately went into iraq to take down saddam hussein. this is very doable. yes, there are risks that have

increased and gotten more complex and complicated as each additional element has committed to shore up assad at moments where he appeared to be crumbling. and the russian introduction is particularly concerning. so, this is not to be provocative, this is not to provoke the russians. again, if you don't show that you are going to prevent them from carrying out what is an absolute -- this is a war crime, actually. i think that everyone now agrees, if you look at the definition, this is the definition of war crimes. charlie: how hard is it to build a coalition? gen. petraeus: we have a coalition, against the islamic state. charlie: that is my point. not against the islamic state, we are talking about a coalition to do something about the catastrophe in aleppo. against bashar al-assad and his russian helpers. gen. petraeus: numerous other countries that are part of the coalition against the islamic state were part of an earlier coalition that was actually

seeking to show up the "moderate" sunni opposition to assad. charlie: unanimously opposed to assad, and still are. gen. petraeus: absolutely. they still view him, i think correctly, as the magnetic attraction that will keep this war going, because of the way the sunni arabs and elsewhere in the world see assad as acting and being responsible for the death of maybe 500,000 syrian civilians, and the displacement of over half the population, either internally or externally. and you know, before you say let them fight it out, this is a mideast problem, they have never gotten along together, let's remember that this is a region that does not play by las vegas rules. what happens in the middle east does not stay in the middle east. it spews out. and in this case, the tsunami of refugees from syria into europe has caused the most significant mastic political challenges -- significant

domestic political challenges for our european allies and partners that they have experienced in decades. and that is going to play out over the next months and indeed years. charlie: is this a consequence of incrementalism? gen. petraeus: well, it is a consequence of decisions not taken. but there has never been a guarantee. and the challenge with this -- look, to be fair in the , i was situation room table in the beginning, without going into what it is i might have recommended. certainly, others have talked about it. it is in memoirs and so forth that you can find. there were clearly opportunities in the beginning. the challenge was that no one could ever say at the situation room table this will guarantee this particular outcome. the challenges by not having done that -- charlie: how often do you see a decision in which somebody says, i guarantee you if we do this, this will be the result back -- result? gen. petraeus: not that often. there was considerable risk.

but there was considerable risk of not taking action. now we have seen that materialize. it is hard to imagine it being worse than it is right now. this is again a catastrophic situation. charlie: and history is going to judge very harshly. gen. petraeus: i think it will. certainly -- charlie: it did in sarajevo. gen. petraeus: in africa, in rwanda. charlie: right, rwanda as well. so did you have kofi annan and bill clinton apologized? gen. petraeus: yep. charlie: what would you do? gen. petraeus: a safe zone as well as a no-fly zone. charlie: a part where these refugees can go to? gen. petraeus: yes, where they know they can be taken care of, where you can get humanitarian assistance to them, where you can again keep them closer. charlie: where the armies protect them. gen. petraeus: indeed. and we have now built forces that can do that on the ground. look, i agree where using host

nations possible to be doing the fighting on the front lines. remember, the lessons i laid out the last time i was here included one that this was going to be a generational struggle, and therefore, our strategy has to be sustainable. that involves the costs, and the greatest cost of all, obviously, is the loss of our young men and women in uniform. and we have to take every measure to mitigate the possibilities of that, recognizing that inevitably there will be, and there have been, losses. albeit modest numbers so far. we could do that. --could ground but shar bashar's air force. it is not undoable at all. charlie: this is a piece by bret stephens in the "wall street journal." obama will leave office, and the new administration will need its own syria policy. the first essential set up -- step, renouncing the fundamental principle laid down by secretary of state john kerry and larav that syria should be a unified

country. the war in syria is a complex business that will involve four foreign states, russia, iran, turkey, and the united states. we have not mentioned turkey. and at least five major nonstate militias, along with the assad regime itself. the war is a zero-sum struggle for power. either assad wins absolutely or its opponents accept the cover rise of sovereignty. if syria is to remain a unified country in principle, the warring factions will fight as long as they are able to make it. gen. petraeus: look, i tend to agree with that. i have said for some time that i doubt very seriously that humpty dumpty can be put back together again. that is tragic. but it is reality. you know, the military constantly asks policymakers, what is your desired end? what are you seeking to accomplish? we are very clear that we want to defeat the islamic state and the al qaeda affiliate in syria. beyond that, though, it is very

difficult to imagine the concept being held out as realistic anymore, the idea of syria as a unitary state, perhaps on some kind of federal nature, is starting, i think, to defy reality. charlie: what are you left with? gen. petraeus: i think we -- that is what the new administration will have to come to grips with, to determine what are the possibilities? what is in the realm of realism, as you examine this? going tomong those is be some kind of sliced up syria at the end of the day. and that is good to be very, very difficult. it is going to be fought over. by the way, when we reflect back on iraq and used -- and those iraqsed to say, well, let break into kurdistan, and the question that a lot of us used to raise was, ok, tell me how you are going to do that? who is going to draw the boundaries? who is going to displace

the hundreds of thousands of people in the wrong area, if you will? by the way, who is going to provide the resources in the case of iraq for the sunni arab area, which has no energy production left at all now that the oil fields are under the control of the iraqi kurds. these are very significant issue. we are seeing it play out in syria. and that could indeed be a vision, the kind of horrific vision, if you cannot get it right in iraq, which is why it comes back again to politics. it comes back to a struggle, as bret said, a struggle for power and resources. yes, there is religion, ethnic issues, but it is really all about power and resources. charlie: i'm paraphrasing here, but who was it that said all it is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing? gen. petraeus: yes, and in some respects, there's a lot more we could have done and are doned arguably should have

along the way, and now i think it is imperative to do. charlie: thank you for coming. gen. petraeus: great to be with you. charlie: back in a moment. ♪

charlie: shimon peres died last night, after suffering a stroke two weeks ago. he was 93 years old. one of israel's last surviving founder fathers, he devoted his life to building the jewish state. born in poland, he served as

israel's president in 2007 and 2014 and twice as prime minister, and was also foreign minister and defense minister. in 1994, he was awarded the nobel peace prize for his efforts to secure a lasting peace with the palestinians. in 2012, he received the presidential medal of freedom. he was revered globally for his leadership, intellect, and his unique understanding of the world. in a statement, president obama said, "a light has gone out, but the hope he gave us will burn forever. shimon peres was a soldier for israel and a justice for peace, and for the belief that we can be true to our best selves." he appeared on this program many, many times over the years. here is a look at some of those conversations. charlie: the borders can be solved. mr. peres: yes, i think so. charlie: are we further away today? mr. peres: yes. charlie: because?

mr. peres: because they can see. charlie: and they believe that in this year, they could get a vote at the united nations, recognizing a palestinian state. peres: yes, but the vote is an illusion. the vote without answering the question, you can empty declaration. some of them understand it. and i think -- charlie: others think they have no choice. mr. peres: but this is not a choice. the other choice is completing negotiations. be patient, make decisions, be courageous, and do it. this is the best bet today. charlie: why would be destructive to declare the palestinian state? what is the negative of it? mr. peres: the state will not be able to prevent the west bank from becoming gaza. they will be taken over by hammas.

firing missiles against us. it may be a continuation, so what do they expect us to do? you have really to relate to the problems, as they are. and as difficult as it is -- charlie: to look at your career, why would i not think it is possible that you would be in favor of talking to hamas? mr. peres: i will tell you a story. i was in the socialist international organization, 15 vice presidents. 14, i was 15. i was a minority of one. and that did not trouble me. but the organization, they transformed germany. they took me to the corner,

look, gentlemen, you are a minority of one, you have to listen to the adult. why do you object? i said, i do not object. if you would tell me that there is a democrat and a socialist, i shall vote for him. but as a terrorist, how can you be for him? and to that fact. and we have to stop. you have to declare peace and start the negotiations. the same should be done with hamas. to take hamas as it is, a terroristic organization, a shooting group of people, having an idolatry, how can they do it? charlie: bring me to today's news? you must know something about what is going on there. mr. peres: just an hour ago, there was another missile that hit. charlie: right.

kill anyone? mr. peres: i don't know the results. and there were some events. none of them are really shocking, coming in the settlement, killing with a knife, the mother, father, three children and a baby. charlie: do you sense that time is running out? mr. peres: time is demanding, not running out. demanding to take a first step because of the developments, not to disturb them, but to awaken them. the end of the world, i don't speak in that account. charlie: but you are also aware of the demographics? sharon was, that is why he made the initiatives he did. mr. peres: the palestinians begin to understand it.

and they are not assisting anymore the way they used to. they understand it means suicide, and they soften their language. that is the solution of the palestinian refugees, and adjusting a great way, but when i talk with them, they understand. i talk with them openly. and it is difficult, but it is a change of mind on both sides. it is very hard to overcome. the intervention of bombs, acts of violence which make the people angry, what can you do? the anger because of the incidents, it is terrible. you have to overcome many horrible difficulties. do you say that to the

israeli people? mr. peres: i saying it to the am israeli people. the best solution for security for israel should include peace. but peace can add to our security. nothing else can. charlie: do you say to yourself in the morning when you look at the mirror, just give me the strength, courage and opportunity to help be a part of finally making this peace. is that what you would like to see has kind of the kind of crowning achievement of your service to israel? mr. peres: there are no crowning achievements. you have to continue to achieve your whole life. i will tell you something. i worked with a man for 15 to 20 years, i was the deputy of defense. and he is the most unusual man that one can think of. but when i am in a good mood, i

think he made a mistake, which i would never think was possible. i think it is too small. think a dreamthey is a miracle. now that i look back, i'm looking at the reality -- in order to correct the mistake, i cannot be afraid. [laughter] mr. peres: i do not look at the area to sew problems. but all told, israel is in an exceptional moment. in the desert, ringing through seven wars, we made a country which is successful economically, which is unique in its composition, that came back to the land, that assembled the people, that spoke the language,

and still, fighting and keeping its destiny. look, i am 88 years old. i started when i was 24. i remember the whole process. i remember the fellows i came to work with. we were outgunned. we did have a single gun, a single plane. we supposedly lost everything. we did it to ourselves. so what do they want from me? i'm going to lose my heart because we don't have everything? i remember when we had nothing. charlie: so dream the and count your -- dream big and count your blessings. mr. peres: dream big and bigger. i think when i look today at the debate about the economy in the united states. the united states, actually, was the all-time greatest dreamer in the world. for a short while, you had more

money than ideas. look at the future, not at the balance of the day. you have to to be more up-to-date in the economy. the coming recession is sensational. totally a different world, so do not be so pessimistic and short tempered. and america still has the best institutions for wars, for innovations, for penetrating the secrets of the nature. go ahead. there are some difficulties. i believe i am an expert of difficulties, of shortages. charlie: but you are also an expert on optimism. mr. peres: why should i regret? i don't think it matters, what is called optimism. charlie: you don't look at a campaign you lost and say -- mr. peres: i never lost a cause. charlie: you never lost a cause, but you lost the campaign. mr. peres: yes.

charlie: did it ever occur to you, the israeli people have a chance to make a choice and the y rejected me. mr. peres: i think a leader is mistaken if he wants to be on the top, he has to be ahead. if you are ahead of the people, you are in the minority. so, i think wars, as they should have been, on some occasion we were not ready. but i continued to work. and most of the things i was fighting for became reality. so, i have my own satisfaction in my heart. and i think that is the story of the future, too. don't give up. twitters are not winners, and -- quitters are not winners, and winners don't quit. i don't see why you should not quit, and i remain optimistic. with evidence, in my heart. and i tell young people, don't give up.

difficulties are part of life, if you want to arrive in the promised land, you have to negotiate four deals in the desert. so what? charlie: when you speak of these aspirations, clearly, one was part of the founding of the israeli state at a young age. ben gurion, as you said. can you identify with the same aspirations of young palestinians? mr. peres: yes. i think they have to get from a different past. we started from a different point, they started from a different point. but i will tell you something, maybe i am exaggerating, but i feel the palestinians, young palestinians today, too, and i can speak with them, and they know my position. i did not become a palestinian. and the young israelis, you know, i was six years as

-- six years in politics, three and a half years as president. i was the most controversial politician. charlie: why was that? mr. peres: and now i am the most popular one. [laughter] why was i controversial? a sickly because i moved a basically because i moved a little bit too fast, too much. and i think fighting is better than satisfaction. charlie: it used to be said, even though that you were a defense minister, that shimon was not a general, not a man of the military, even though he and -- had been defense minister. you might be soft on defense and security? mr. peres: you can be a builder of force or a user of force area

there are two of them. i think since we did not have anything building the force, it was my first priority. and that was my responsibility, more or less. that's what ben gurion wanted me to do. he said, look, we have to build a force, we have nothing. charlie: that was your legacy, building up an israeli defense? mr. peres: that was indeed the priority of the nation. i did not think in terms of credit or legacy. i work for people. and you have to do, at a given time, the right thing, the most demanding one. and look, we received criticism. now they praise everything i do. so what? you know, when i'm asked what is the greatest contribution of the jewish people in the world, they say the satisfaction. a good jew cannot be satisfied.

you know, to be satisfied yourself, you change, you engage. and that is a great thing. so, i don't see an end, and i don't think history is a judgment. i think we have to judge history, not history has to judge of us. we are blinder than we are today. we want to open our eyes better, to see longer, to see deeper, to see a long-distance. moses was probably the greatest man in history. he did not have glasses. and he did not have a telescope. we had it. at that time, the expectancy of life was half. all the kings of europe, when

they had a defect, king david did not have antibiotics. and have a look at it differently, maybe. and each of us has a given time to contribute, and there won't be an end to the contribution because there will be the end of your life. do not waste it. charlie: and so, what do you hope the epitaph will say? mr. peres: i do not care. for me, if somebody will say that he saved the life of one child, that is the greatest for which i hope to be remembered. charlie: save the life of one child. charlie: in this long life that you continue to flourish in, what has brought you the greatest sense of satisfaction, and where is the deepest regret? mr. peres: the greatest thing that makes the satisfied is to serve the people.

really, it is the greatest pleasure. i do not think to woo is a pleasure, i think to serve is the pleasure. and you know, i was for 60 years in the administration of israel, minister of this, minister of that, i'm asking, what took most of my time? the answer is handling frictions among people and institutions. as prime minister, i hardly held the world. yes, i'm a president. i don't have frictions. i have to help heal the world. [laughter] mr. peres: and these people feel that if you serve them, they will respond gladly. if you give in order, people will understand. if you asked them to volunteer, you would be surprised how many of them will volunteer. so, the greatest satisfaction is to discover the goodwill and

trust. charlie: do you think you were a good politician? mr. peres: i am not sure. [laughter] mr. peres: i think i was true to my mission. i don't know. you know, there is a difference between being elected and and accomplishing things which are not popular. that is the right dynamic. if you want to be elected -- you know, when i was in the administration, i was the most controversial figure in israel. and as president, i am the most popular man in the country. i don't know when i was more satisfied. [laughter] charlie: why do you think that is. now that your president, you are more popular than you were as prime minister. even though you were defense minister, israel seemed to pay more attention to former military heroes.

mr. peres: i respect very much psychology, but i am very weak on it. i do not know. my mind on the stories, i am not surprised by. maybe i took a little bit a step too much ahead, and i paid for it. and i don't regret it. but also, i will tell you something else. in israel, in order to be elected, you depend on the arabs. in direct elections, for example, i got a 20% advantage. but then, a change of element happened in israel. i lost immediately. it was the terrorists who decided. and the one thing in life, never complain and never explain. it is part of life. charlie: there are people here in this audience who feel

strongly that the passion that the palestinians have to have a state, to live in peace, to be occupied -- mr. peres: that is my wish, too. i mean, we are not there because they want to be there, but because we were attacked. we did not go to occupy anybody. we did not have the slightest intention to do so. we were attacked, we fought, and that changed the map. charlie: has it changed israel though, that you still are there, and having to -- mr. peres: i do not know, really. even though we live in the same land, we are separate communities. and every community feels they are better than the other on both sides, but no matter, i -- i can't say everybody -- but there is a serious maturity in israel that wants to put an end to the present situation, and

understand that it cannot be done by force. it must be done by agreement. with full respect to the other side, the palestinians. and i wish they would be at the same level that we are, and they can do it. they are not superior people. superiority in that case is to be democratic. superiority in that case is to employ science, technology. and they can do it. it is in their hands. unfortunately, they are split by hamas, by the religious, by the iranians. i feel like them. i would like to see every palestinian entering freedom and equality and dignity. it does not give me any pleasure to see the palestinians suffer. very far from it. and believe me, when i read

that the children in syria are being killed, i feel like a father feels about every child, who wants it? i know that the people say i am optimistic. maybe. but i have a license to be optimistic, too. israel achieved things that nobody thought they should achieve. and the agriculture, high-tech, you know, the fact that we are only country in the middle east that speaks the original language, hebrew -- no other country speaks the language of their forefathers. i never thought there would be more hebrew-speaking people than danish-speaking people, for example. so, this story is a great achievement in my eyes. charlie: what do you want your legacy to be? mr. peres: it is too early for me to think about it. [laughter] [applause]

mr. peres: i am more concerned about tomorrow then about yesterday. charlie: remembering shimon peres, who died at age 93. ♪

♪ mark: you are working "bloomberg west." let's check your first word news. federal investigators are looking at the deadly commuter train crash in hoboken, new jersey. one person was killed when a train crash through steel bumpers at the end of the track, coming to a stop at the end of the platform. the most important thing is the structural building and the safety of the people. the one fatality we did have was not on the train but someone killed by debris that was created while they were standing on the platform, from the crash. mark: the national transportation safety board