became more and more famous he became more interested in humanities and history then he was appropriate into the university then it was a department. in the '70s -- we do 400 books per year mostly in humanities and science been a director of yale university press. thank you very much. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen right now is the former chairman of the joint chiefs, richard myers, 40 years in the u.s. military, and he came into office three widelt

general, i want to start the conversation with congresswoman wooley, you talk about not being clear on the objective of the campaign in iraq and afghanistan and how difficult it was to know what success was. will you talk about that in light of the fact we are changing strategies particularly in afghanistan? >> i will contrast previous conflicts, world war ii, we knew what victory was, you could follow lines on a map as we advance through europe towards berlin or as we advanced towards japan. you could track progress. we had a better sense of what victory was going to be.

when you are fighting an insurgency, those distinctions are not as clear so it is difficult to describe what victory is. in a military sense there is not going to be victory. there will be victory in the sense that iraq becomes a stable country, victory is afghanistan becomes a stable country, asking that people don't understand, will take more time and are harder to describe. >> towards the close of the book, you talk about the future, you write my view has been that since 9/11 we have not developed a national strategy adequate for dealing with global insurgency. we view operations toxic amanda knox place them in the larger strategic context. >> we would meet often, the national security council, on

afghanistan war iraq. less frequently, many times less frequently, about the broader issue of extremism and how we deal with it. >> theaters in a larger work? >> yes. i would argue, part of a larger issue which is violent extremism. you see it in pakistan and india and china and indonesia and thailand, north africa, many places around world, where there is insurgent activity, trying to delegitimize legitimate government and do it through violence. that is why violent extremism is taught -- what i am on instead of the war on terror. >> why is it a more strategic location hasn't been advanced? >> there has been a lot of effort in my last year in office, we were dealing with

iraq, afghanistan, that is the reason we had people dying, being badly injured in iraq and afghanistan and that tends to be where your focus is, but you have to take time, take the 30,000 foot view and say are we dealing with violent extreme in the way we should or are we over using the military power and not using the diplomatic corps economic or informational instrument of power in ways to facilitate success? >> host: was part of the reason the structure of the agency's task? >> guest: yes, and i go into that. i served in the clinton administration as assistant chairman and vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is not administration pacific -- specific, the government is not perfect organized to bring all power to

bear on our problem. the one element of power that is more resources, that will do exactly what the president and commander-in-chief says to do is the department of defense and the military. the other departments are not as well -- in terms of either money or manpower. so less able to focus these instruments, some of which diplomacy rests primarily with the state department. we are not organized. if somebody said who is in charge of the global war on terror? you might say the president. but the president can't be in charge. somebody cabinet rank is in charge and below him is hard to put a finger on it. he is responsible, has the authority and hold accountable. we are not perfect, we haven't been for a long time. national security act of 1947, perfectly organized for recent

experience, we are perfectly organized. those conflicts are not the security challenges we face. >> host: there is so much still in the news today that we are interested in talking with him about. many of these are issues that are touched upon in this book and we welcome your comments and questions on national security and our military policies that are in the process of being changed and debated in washington. call 000000 for democrats, 000000 for republicans, and 0605 for independents. i have some callers, then we will get up to the conversation. jeremy on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i have 2 questions and that i will go off the air.

troop deployment overseas in iraq after 9/11, i truly respect what the guys are doing over there. but the one person's freedom fighters another person's insurgent, the american agenda appears to be democracy everywhere at all costs. my question is, when we were overseas for our way of life, i want to know how you felt about that, and it would also appear the winners--the war in iraq and afghanistan, win or lose, sustain, with regard to the military-industrial complex, making profit off of these wars. >> host: the first question gets

to the heart of a debate that you recount going on within the highest levels of the administration. >> guest: right. there was debate. it will overlay on iraq. there was certainly assistance in helping them shape the new constitution, iraq and afghanistan have new constitutions, they are considered liberal constitution's. the un helped shape the market. but they were their own constitutions adopted by their people. i remember specifically during iraqi elections, when people tried to convince the president we have got to influence the

outcome of this election, iran is trying to be elected inside iraq, we are trying to influence 7 individuals we think will represent our views. president said this is their country, their constitution, we are not going to get involved. we tried that in the past and have never been successful. chips will fall where they may. government with the prime minister ahead of it, he would not have been at that point the first choice of the united states hierarchy. it turned out he turned out to be a pretty good prime minister. i think you can go too far. providing the opportunity for iraq and afghanistan for their people to go to the polls at great risk, for their own personal safety, and adopt their constitution, elected governments, whatever form of government, we have not tried to

overlay the democratic principles on these countries. thank you for your service. >> host: here's a paragraph from your book, at the time i was convinced removing saddam hussein's regime would be the key to democracy in the middle east. some experts thought a stable democratic government in the region would become the catalyst for similarly positive change route the area but the wm d issue was enough of a concern to me and i felt the objective of removing saddam hussein from power was justified, putting our men and women in harm's way is directed by the commander in chief. so if it turned out as it did, how do you feel about that thinking? >> when you find out there are no weapons of mass destruction, now you are there. it is like members of congress used to say particularly before the 2004 presidential election got really hot, they would say i didn't vote for the war but now

that we are there we have got to be successful. once you have taken saddam hussein out of power, there's an obligation that you try to make iraq a viable country. one of the other assumptions turned out to be wrong, was that the iraqi people would grab their own destiny and march off, and that didn't happen. so we got into nation-building. >> host: for the ensuing 6 years, americans have been listening to the debate about whether or not our postwar planning, specifically the policy of the process and the officers in the military, finding jobs within the new government, was approached the right way, the ability of hindsight, what is your thought on that question? >> some of those decisions were made without enough debate in the national security apparatus

of the time, by those in charge, those were not military decisions. however, they were made. probably too far in terms of process, then you have a majority shiite nation done great harm to by members of the party. it was always the plan to take the army and turn them around and use them for security of the public sector. the problem is the army was made largely of conscripts who didn't want to serve in the first place so they melted away and the leadership, they had a thousand generals, most of whom had blood on their hands or suspected have blood on their hands. how do you keep them around when you have this 60% majority shi'ite? they took my family away in the middle of the night.

it is a difficult issue. if it had gone this way everything was perfect, victory parade early on. i don't think you can say that. it has taken a long way to get back. >> host: over the years we heard members of congress, testimony that seemed contradictory on the assessment of the state of readiness of the iraqi army, what can you tell people from your conversations, who is responsible for that as far as how these iraqi recruits are standing up? >> it took us a while to develop how are we going to measure u.s. forces? probably a bridge too far. how do we make sure of their readiness? it was difficult, it is still

difficult today. you read stories where iraqi security forces don't perform up to the standards we think they should of form. that is why in 2004, we put general david petraeus in terms of training of iraqi security forces. we had some ups and downs and did not put enough resources in the training of security forces thinking this would come easier. it was harder because in away, you are trying to change the culture in terms of serving, and did is problematic to develop security forces when there is no connectivity to the minister of defense for the armed forces. there was not that leadership in the early years. there were people working the problem but there wasn't a

continuity of government that the people in the trenches understand who they're working for and what their objectives were. it was a nation without a government. with these interim governments, until the prime minister was elected in 2006. for a long time there were interim governments. we changed our standard a couple times and finally got it right, general david petraeus did it right. >> host: what is your biggest regret with regard to iraq policy? >> guest: unable to focus on national power on the problem. often in the media in particular, people who talk about iraq's they just more troops. my view from 2004 on, it is not just troops. we talk about other experiments of power, economic instrument of

power, when paul bremer was given the job of standing up his staff as the coalition provisional authority, 100%, u.s. civilians, coalitions civilians, it was never meant 100%. in afghanistan, my last trip was in 2005, somewhere around 50%. through the country team leader, greater than 50%, for ambassador bremer, his provincial authority to the levels we need. this would all be debated, we bring it up and it goes back to the other departments and agencies of the government, do they have the manpower to do

what we asked them to do and the answer is still no. >> host: this is like on the democrat line. >> caller: good morning. let me state, this is not greta, this is susan. this is your favorite pacifist anarchist. let me state first and foremost, if i may, in relation to the last topic, so far as president obama not releasing photos, i was in the marine corps, the president is the head guy, the head of the military, he has a responsibility to the troops, and in terms of the cost, one

american soldier's life, don't release the photos. there is a responsibility, as i understand about coming clean, make us feel good and all this, but it will cost one american soldier his life, don't release the photos. the problem in the middle east is the israeli/palestinian question. once we take care of that, you cannot deny the right to exist. we have to have a solution. somehow the palestinian woman, the mother of a family can send her family out and not hassled at all in going about their lives, where she can feed her family. >> host: first, the release of

photos, to block that, then we will come to the question. >> guest: thanks for your service in the marine corps. there was an allegation that guards at guantanamo, it took 2 we to go through all the data to determine that there was no record of that happening, there were records of detainee's trying to stop the toilet system but in the meantime if memory serves me right, there were 250 people killed in riots around the world on that allegation. these things can have an inflammatory effect. what is going on on the ground in afghanistan and iraq, not to

release photos that have been released, the essence of those types of photos. i haven't seen the current photos. maybe i have, but i don't know what they are intending, what is proposed to be released but i think our commander-in-chief has spoken on that issue, they prefer they not be released. they would incite violence, no question. >> host: a follow-up comment, they intended to release the photos and retracted it, which makes it worse, playing into the enemy's imagination. >> guest: this is, as outlined in the book, the struggle is a struggle within islam. extremists want to make it out to be a struggle between the west and islam and that is not what it is.

but any time we screw up, a huge mistake and hurt us strategically. still hurts us today. just the perception of guantanamo really is trying to win the hearts and minds, but our voice is not welcome. our actions have to be very prudent and very careful. >> host: the need to find a solution to the middle east. >> guest: a lot of people do. that is not my area of expertise. that keeps things in the middle east stirred up. extremists use that as an issue to keep things stirred up. it needs to be solved. there are millions of people being hurt on both sides of that question. it needs to be solved.

i know dennis ross. the other folks that were involved in that, senator mitchell, hopefully they can craft some sort of plan, that is probably number one. >> host: next telephone call from illinois on the independent line. >> caller: i stand and salute you for your service. >> guest: have a seat. >> caller: my birds are making too much noise for me to make a statement. i will try to get through this. i don't really have a question, i have a statement for the people of this country. whenever in the past there was a revolution, and i hope we never have that sort of a revolution, it is generally the wealthy are the first to be dispatched. most importantly, the second ones to go, if i am not

mistaken, are the pundits, you know the sort i am talking about, they are the next ones to go. when the government in power realizes -- when they realize the government they have put in power is not what they wanted the, the careful when you ask for because you just might get it. they will be the next ones on the list. i want the people in this country to think about what they say, take their hate and vitriolic and put it aside and try to understand the issues and instead of trying to be right all the time. everybody has a right to their opinion, you do not have a right to be right. the issue of the constitution, everybody thinks the constitution means something different. if it means something different to three hundred million people, it means nothing. words have to stand for something. you have to use your words correctly instead of inflating

the passions. thank you once again for your service and your sacrifice. >> guest: i don't know enough about revolutions to validate a list of who goes first. i can talk about the debate and one of the things i argue in the book and while i was in uniform, the debate became too partisan. after the 2004 elections it was difficult to have good, solid non-partisan debate on the issues of national security. it was always tainted. both parties were at fault in terms of fueling the fire.

the people of this country deserve an open debate that is not filled with hate. sometimes that describes the commentary you hear from time to time. these are serious issues. they are a serious threat. it needs to be dealt with. you deal with them when you have good, democratic, open debate that doesn't have a lot of divisiveness and name-calling. brian jenkins, the expert with the rand corp. wrote a book a couple years ago and i attended a lecture where he talks about the threat from terrorists globally. the public debate on our national security challenge from extremism, it is like the gangs in los angeles except they have

better taylor's. that is part of what we experienced, the country deserves better than that. >> host: good morning, jim. >> caller: you might have already answered this question, the memorandums by the current president, you kind of answered that question. you are basically against that? >> guest: what are you referring to? the photos? i haven't seen these photos but i understand what they're coming from. it would bring harm to our

troops. that is how our system works in this country. you are fine with that. the commander-in-chief and military, this would be detrimental to our forces and other americans. >> guest: >> host: you have a second question? >> caller: yes. we are in the twenty-first century so we have to adjust to twenty-first century means. i was wondering what your take is on whether or not terrorists should be treated the same as conventional prisoners in uniform, and be given the same treatment, in view of the fact

that a twenty-first century situation, that an american has, hanging upside down on clotheslines, etc. yet it seems to me that the democratic party insists on giving them the same rights as if they were regular prisoners of war. the use think we should give them those same right? what is your take on that? >> this could get to be a complex legal question but the basic issue is how we treat detainees that we found on the battlefields or wherever we happen to find them. i do think in this conflict, have argued this all along, the united states has to take the moral high ground. we clearly can't treat detainees as they would treat us if an american service members were captured. that is not appropriate. i talked to audiences, they say we ought to use the same methods, that just brings us

down to their level. the thing that's so repulses us against violent extremism, violence against men, women and children, any of our actions, we have to be very careful and we have to, even if it hurts us, we have to assumed the moral high ground on these issues. how you treat them legally gets to be complex, i am not a lawyer, i have some opinions, a lot of legal advice, working our way through this problem. the geneva conventions were set up based on nation state models and more conventional forces so when you get to force is like al qaeda, which doesn't have an identifiable nation, don't wear uniforms, don't meet many of the criteria, with recognition as a pows, how do you handle them? the way president bush decided to