not one party alone. clerly this was a time of republican strength and knowledge that was made of the. the assumption was that whatever steps might be taken were going to limit is not very well described the human freedom i hear uil today. see, s. and you begin your comment by quoting edward how you're not talking about a liberal anymore. i was thinking of a different edward. [laughter] >> one edward is as good as another, iuess. . .

>> and walter badge jet who in the great essay on sir robert peel says politicians actually do us more good when they're n is whetted to their principles and ideals. and he says the parliamentarian,

or theegislator, is elected to serve his electors, not to serve himself. we valorize, you know, this notion of the visionary political party that will right wrongs or lead us into the future, steve, i've never heard of a conservatism that pledged itself to the future wheer it was american or british. i'll make one last point which is to say before we derive to quickly the absence of democratic participation in the israelis england, let's remember who participated in american democracy then. it was a slave nation, all right? so when we say that embedded in our historic values are human freedom, let's remember it tk quite some time before they became widely disseminated. one last point, and then i'd like to hear from the audience.

there's a great political scientist, kendall, and i believe a colleague of his may be here tonight, walter burns, who made a remarkable argument. identified two really equally important strands in the foundation of america that are actually competing strands. there is no single set of american ideals. what kendall said was there are actually two strains. on is the equalitarian argument put forth in the declaration of independence, n of our cradle dock yiewments. another is a conservative argument put forth in the constitution, a system designed to slow and inhibit change. in my book i make the case that ken call the was the most kendall was the most incisive analys of the civil rights controversies of the middle '60s, though not many here would agree with his politics on those issues. the analysis was most subtle and

interesting. but these two ideas of a nation or state that will use its powers to expand opportunity is one that according to kendall, lincoln made manifest with another cradle document, the gettysburg address, and that the constitution in some sense stands in opposition to it. so at the risk of sounding myself like a e gail yang at least or a marxist at work, i would say there actually is a dialectic in our politics. it's a competition between two equally opposed principles, not a set of clear cut mount rushmore or granite principles that we follow simply. included in this society is much more complicated of that. ours is a government of competing interests, and that --

it's accommodations amongst them that enable us to function. that's the end of my rapt he, and maybe we could take some questions? is that what we'll do? >> yes, we'll now turn to iran from the audience. [laughter] we have pley of time for discussion and questions. i'd like to ask you before we start to follow a couple of principles. one is to wait for the microphone, the second is when the microphone, please, to identify yourselves. and as i call on the questioners, i invite sam to exercise veto power. if he sees someone he wants to favor that i have not called on. shall we start right here, near the front. >> thank you. i'm roger pilan with the cato institute. sam, you've begin us an interesting -- given us an interesting view of the conservative movement. there is another city in the country out there on the shores of lake michigan far outside the boss wash corridor that has a great university at which a lot of intellectual activity was taking place during the period

in which you covered, especially among theconomists there. and also political philosophers as well. and the new york crowd surrounding bill buckley at national review drew heavy ri upon the writings of hayek, stigler and so forth. >> strauss too. >> oh, yes. and i wonder why you did not, at least in your talk, incde that very important fouational aspectf modern conservatism? >> great question and in a longer book i probably would have. i was looking specifically at the politics in history that, you know, i've been immersed in these past 20 years. and as important though they are, i think, you know, friedman's book, hayek, of

course, the road to serfdom in some ways really initiated the sort of intellectual conservatism and the economics, so it's always worth remembering. we get reminded, but it's worth reminding a great admirer of that book was john may forward keynes -- john maynard keynes. those are, it's a great and rich subject. one i'm not as immersed in as i've been in the others. also in part because i wanted to deal with, it's what i doy preoccupation, is the interrelation between -- and these guys,y the way, did a great job of hitting this question. the interrelationship between ideas and practicing politics. now, it's true that i think friedman in particular and later the straussians became very,

very important, had a role. but maybe i d have a new york bias. i left chicago. it's a very good point, though, i'm glad you brought it up. >> we'll move over to this side. here. >> zachary davis, carnegie endowment f international peace. my question is -- >> hold your hisses. we won't hold that against you. [laughter] >> firstoff,'d like to thank you for pointing out the vagueness of this, of the son r coervative tendency to point to freedoms. america, individual freedoms i've argued a lot -- well, discussed a lot with friends. they dislike obama because he threatens freedoms, but they never point to which free comes th are -- freedoms they are. what is it that conservatives tend to feel as threatened by

some little ideology? and my second part of the question is you mention the need to delink the conservative movement with the conservative politica necessities. w do you imagine that, how do you imagine that to be and what kind of institutions and mechisms do you feel is needed renew conservatism now? >> why don't y guys go first to answer the obama question and then, you know, i'll way in. weigh in. >> oh, gosh. well, one reason they don't define fom, well, it's not simple to do especially when you're trying to be brief. i could do it, it would take a while. i would say that the understanding of jefferson and the natural rights of people like jefferson is, madison and so forth is the theoretical basis of it, long footnotes to llow. i think modern liberalism is

right on one important point. something i like to ask conservatives, what do you think liberals are right about on the broad scale? i think what the progressives were right about in an abstract sense was the enjoyment or physical filament of -- fulfillment of modern industrial capitalism, we'll use that term, may require or often does require state intervention. okay? that'll mark me out now as a defector from the chicago school and so forth. the defect of liberalism is that it does not understand, i think, it does not understand a limiting principle to state expansion for those interventions onehalf of individual liberty or individual fulfillment of people's freedoms. so -- by the way,ilson's view of it was forget this whole individual liberty of the founders, we now want to speak about mature freedom. that's the word he used. a whole different meaning that liberty, see. so the very critique of that valid point of view is that it is not neat and simple, and

there's lots of exceptions and requires some deep thought. but to the extent the state continues expanding without limit, individua liberties will be restricted. what will obama take? they may take away my freedom to choose health insurer that i might like to have in an on marketplace. there's a specific for you, and that's not -- it seems to me -- a frivolous argument. >> i think steve's actually stated both what conservatives ar and what conservatives need to recognize more readily. you and sam mentioned irving crystal posing the challenge that conservativeseed to visionhat a conservative welfare state would entail. which is the practical implementation of steve's ip sight that in -- insight that in the post-industrial age one needs to have some degree of government intervention beyond the night watchman state precisely to maximize human

freedom within circumstances. that's a challenge that conservative politicians have yet to meet and conservative intellectuals remain in a quandary about how to do that across the broad measure of policies and on on the objectivs that the liberal and progressive states have implemented over the years. what i think conservatives fear about obama is that much like the french revolution that when the boars came back into power, said ty had remembered nothing and forgotten nothing. liberalisms failures and difficulties incorporate conservative, neo-conservativ and neoliberal critiques. to the conservative mind the current obama administration and its aies on the hill seem to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing and,

consequently, make us fear that perhaps the problem that we saw will come back again anew and i stronger power than ever. >> i think these are both really interesting points. what henry just said rinded me why it was this statement i've made in the book about eisenhower and clinton being the true burkeian presidents of the modern era brings to mind exactly what you said you perceive. and perhaps accurately it's a failure of obama's liberalism. remember, clinton rose to the fore as a candidate by esntially appropriating the rhetoric and also the argument first of barry goldwat, then of richard nixon, then of ronald reagan. essentially not in the libelous

sense, he essentially plagiarized the vocabulary of the forgotten america, the one who plays by the rules and works hard. this comes right out of goldwater's 1964 odes to the forgotten america, later the moral majority under -- the silent majority under nixon and the moral majority under reagan. there's another point, too. i describe early in the book how when clinton took office some will remember he actually had a stimulus package of his own. remember this? $19 and a half billion. it seemed like so much money ck then. [laughter] and bob dole stopped him, stopped him four times with a filibuster which was a precedent-breaking maneuver of another kind that gets us into a different territory. but in the end clinton got a very watered-down bill. i think it was 4 billion simply

unemployment insurance, and the republicans were right: the economy recovered. and clinton, quite amazingly you will see this in robert samuelson's book, the eight years he was president unemployment decreased every single year. and you'll know -- i should have put this in the book -- that in the agenda bob woodward describes clinton as being the president who more than any other was obsessed with the wall street ticker tape. in other words, he adjusted to a conservative period. he saw that the forces unleashed by reagan were powerful and strong, and it was not his place to resistt. so go four years earlier to dwight eisenhower who also takes office following a period this time of democratic agenda. quite remarkable to think that republicans did not win a single

presidential election in the entire 1930s or 1940s. five elections in a row from 1932-194was some of the most massive landslides we'll ever see. one of the problems with our politics now i think disinfected president obama, a muc of the media that adore him is that his election was kind of average, average/close. it was not a landslide. we call anything a landslide these days. but back in the days when landslides were landslides, fdr would win 56, 57 percent of the vote. a massive, massive victory, 46 48 states as nixon did in '72. at any rate, eisenhower came in following these 20 years very powerful democratic new deal leadership. and he decid it could not be undone.

it could be minimized, it could be trimmed, it could be checked, it could not be rolled back. why? you've got to get used to it. that doesn't mean that the public has to get used to it, but it has. and that's where the argument comes in, you have to look to the electors. you know, richard of stetter in 1952 argued the case for adelaide stephenson because he was a true conservative. now, you can spin that infinitely. you can call any a conservative who followsolicies you lik but the point is that the politics of accommodation and a flexibility is something that's fallen very much io disfute many -- disrepute in our time. i think obama's strengths seem to per sonify it, and his weaknesses come when he doesn't. and i think, henry, you're right

about something, and i don't want to seem as though i've jumped too much into your camp if say one thing that struck me as interesting about obama an david rem nick, of all people, told me he is right r writing about this. if you look into the inllectual genealo of obama, ere's very little of what we would call liberalism there, right? it really is a kind of leftism. and if it is true that he and his administraion have not learned the lessons tt i think clinton actually did, he teem -- teamed up with gingrich, you know, to end welfare as we know it. george will objected at the time, so did daniel patrick moynihan, but there you have it. it could be a problem. to answer the question abo what should be done, i'm terrible at this, the mechanics of parties. but i'll tell you one thing where i differ with most observers in all of this, and

this mayave, hold one clue. i'm aually not one of those who think the republican party went wrong when it ceased to be conservative. i actually think it got in trouble when the conservative idealogues took over. i think we'd be better off with at least one republican legislator from the northeast, a representative in congress. you kno back in the days of late '50s and early '60s there was talk of there not being tw parties in america, but the four. there were presidential parties and legislative parties. that's partly, by the way, why eisenhower and fdr also wanted to form a new party. it's because they saw everything deadlocked and stymied in congress often by conservatives in the wrong party, so they wanted to create realignment. but we nowot only don't have the four-party system anymore, we have a kind of imbalance where the republicans are very

disciplined and unified and agree on most things legislatively. somewhat split.till seem and that's why obama can't martial the kind of majorities he wants. and i wish the republicans were a little more geographically and ideologically diverse in that way, but maybe those are the dreams of liberal. it's kind of f to come here, the only place i'm ever called a liberal. [laughter] in new york i'm denounced by all manner of names, liberal's not one of them. anyther -- do we have more? >> jonah goldberg. right here on the -- and wait for the microphone, please. >> i thought this was all very interesting. i've only just started the book. i read the new republic essay, i hear you have nothing but lavish praise for my book in your book. >> i mention it once. >> no, that's fine. it's fine. but i gotta say, you kno as

something of a student of conservatism myself -- i'm sorry, los angeles times and national review, and i used to be a little policy gnome running around here for quite a long time. >> also the author of a hugely best-selling book, everyone in here knows. don't be so modest. >> anyway, be that as itay, the -- i think steve in many ways put his finger on i there's a certain other worldly nature to this conversation that i'm hearing. at least that's the feel i get of it. your discussion of conservatism remind me of no one more than peter vorex who was in many ways the other main conservative alongside william f. buckley who was a very literary, brilliant guy, he was a poet at holyoke. >> he won it twice for history and for poetry. >> so there you go. and he, i mean, richard of

steader's intererting, he said we should support adelaide stephenson as well. so the other worldly sense i get of your description of things let me just present a sort of visitor from mars i have of this history very, very quickly. you look at this present moment where you see dogmatic conservatives unwilling to sort of exfend a hand and engage in a stability with liberalism. you lookt someone like ricrd nixo you can call yourself a nixonopfile. it's interesting that nixon himself thought that william phenomenal buckley was a greater threat to the republican party than the bircher were. and i look at george bush, and i see someone who's far more xonesque, for more representative of an accommodationist approach to government thayou say a conservative should follow than

reagan is. here george bush is signature education, he ran on education, he ran on a humble foreign policy. his signature domestic program first and foremost other than the tax cuts was an education bill that he co-authored -- he worked with ted kendy to get across. we saw an increase in education spending ithis count of over 127 percent or something like that. riard nixson when he debates jfk in 1960, he opposes at all costs the idea of federalizing education which was a backbone position of all conservatives for almost 50 years which george bush did in a swipe. george bush increasing inerms of the prescription drug benefit the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the great society. george bush runs as a compassionate conservative buyi into the philosophal precept of liberal schism which is that your worth as a human

being is adherent to counterproductive government programs. you can go down this list. meanwhile, you talk about how nservatives aren't extending their hand. nation review supported bill clinton in the balkans, supported bill clinton when he bombed the sudan. you say that we're sort of doatic in refusing to sort of criticize our own sid as when bill buckley said, you know, those things about the primary lots. national review opposed george bush's creation of the department of homeland security, opposed no child left behind, opposed his immigrati plan. now, that may be a separate issue. opposed much of bush's domestic agenda. and so when i look -- and meanwhile, you say that a sure sign of dogmatism and bultural enmity is is when people start believing in secret cadres. a piece was run saying that who

cares if there are people in the administration who believe in truthism? who cares if they believe their own government conspired to kill 3,000 of their own citizens in the greatest domestic attack in american history because that's just, you know, that's trivial. and that, it seems -- and this is the same magazine that ran in 2002 the cover saying in praise of bush hatred. so it see when you look at the actual landscape out there, it is far easier to find examples of conservatives extending an olive branch. barack obama'seen far more partisan than george bush ever was. and it is liberals who because they see themselves as a movement will not accept it. and as a strategy for political or philosophical or other kinds of success to say that conservatives should abandon be their enemy of movementism in the spirit of accommodation, isn't that reay essentially a

device to say the conservatives should surrender? [applause] >> who wants to go first? is that for me? [laughter] >> i think that was for you, sam. >> yeah, yeah. well, i said early on, jonah, that i was not here to defend, to defend liberals. and much of what you say is true. i think the complication with george bush is a little different, and so i'll get io that and try to get o to some of the other points as well. one, i know ross dolphet is here somewhere, but in the book ross wrote brand new party, is that the title? you'll see one ofhe defenses early oofush's first years in government. a kind of new deal republicanism. so this notion of bush as

accommodatin democratic or liberal ideas is absolutely sound early on. i think what happened with george bush and with the iraq war and, you know, i quote tonight's benjamin israeli on the danrs of exporting democracy. he wrote a piece when he was infuriatingly young about the dangers of trying to export democracy to lands run by despotic priests, unquote, only he meant catholics. [laughter] i think the problem came with george bush who was, by the way, as easily as often and as unfairly demonized by liberals as president obama is conservatives. no question about that.

and i would not defend any of those attacks on him. the revenge just won over cultally. the attitude towards the press which sounds like a small thing but a great piece in the new yorker said that the bush administration treated journalists as if they wer a special interest group. the secrecy, the lack of candor shall we say about the lead up to the war in iraq, these are consequential things, and they seem rooted in what i call a revan. ist view of how to govern and how to conduct politics. that is to say -- and i think dick cheney had much to doith it -- that you know best, your ideals are purist, and anyone

who's in youay be damned. i think it was very damaging to our politics. what people also forget, by the way, i quote this in the book is that a great champion of reagan, martin anderson who i'm sure steve knows very well, you know, said in 2002 or 2003 that bush's policies on all the major issues, his positions were identical to ronald reagan's. and in 2003 we were hearing much about bush as from the right as a president who would complete theeagan revolution. so, you know, that's important to remember as well. as far as the czars in the obama administration, man, i'm with you there. you know, it was jfk who came into office, you know, fearful of the permanent government wanting to circumvent actually roosevelt before him because you

couldn't get things done if those government bureaucrats got in the way. andne of the interesting sort of reversals in our politics is that conservatives want to recognize the value of having bureaucrats running much of government because they would slow things down. it's not in the nature of a bureaucrat to speed change along, but quite the opposite, to involve it alln red tape. that's why when you go back and look at herbert hoover, you see his defense. herbt hoover was a progressive, too, if you'll remember, a bull mser. his defse of efficient government. you know, he didn't underand why coolidge and, you know, wasn't regulating wall street more. you kw, these were ideas that once had their basisn conservatism. one other point i'll make about that is there's been some discussion of the progressive movement, the original progressive movement that lasted from 1900-1915.

remember, it was a movement that actually permeated both parties and first the republican party. and i guess there's not tremendous admiration for it here, particularly from steve, but i actually think that's the way ou to answer the earlier question. i think that's the solution for republicans. jonah makes a very brilliant point abmut peter verek. you're right. yeah, that was the other argument. chamber, whitaker chambersho's very witty because of all the languages he knew referred to the four-square pretty schism of verek, the four corners. verek los that battle with buckley, there's no question about it. interesting that archivallism for those few who care -- it was actually verek who reviewed buckley's book in "the new york times" review and began a correspondence with him. they were kind of fridly adversaries, but owe in's --

jonah's right, the conservatism i'm talking about is very much like that. and there's no question it lost. i don't pretend -- i think jonah said other wordily -- worldly, somebody else said that too. yes, you did. maybe the econgmist in a resue of the book -- review of the book. i don't think that's so bad. i think we could use hat right now. ..

>> abraham lincoln had it, roosevelt, reagan had it is not the worst thing. i will plead absolutely guilty to the charge in fact, i just think anybody. [laughter] >> we have one more short question. please wait for the microphone. >> my tendency not to say anything but i rise now because strauss has brightened brought into the conversation and improperly he had nothing to do with the buckley conservatism you're talking about. he is connected somewhat with

the neo-conservative because he turned out not to be a conservative. he did communique wants with buckley i imagine you have com across. >> actually yes. >> 1952 when his graduate students at that time asked me to take to him the local precinct for our have mentioned this once before i is worth repeating so he could register to vote for the first time. >> that's right. and also in 56. professor burns what i think i said is irving kristol was a great admirer of strauss.

you will see that clearly spelled out in the than negative book. yes. but absolutely. that is one reason i did not want to go down that path. it is an extraordinary exchange which i am sure the professor knows very well. strauss, at a time when kendall who was at a remarkable figure, people should buckweed themselves if you can get past that, kendall was marginalized as a political scientist in this point* and it was strauss doing something original what we all take for gnted which was to study the document, the founders taxed with minute sutiny.

one of candles own great followers it is scary well who i happen to think i am a loan. really a loan. because he does not agree. i think he is one of the great intellectual conservatives of thisoint* although he did not love my book very much. but strauss's role was a much more complicated one. you're absolutelright it has to do with ideas about democracy and how it works. straussotion when compared with irving kristol, they seem to be almost the vulgaring what he d have a much more complicated level. i do not even feel adequate to read about straess although i study him closely. thank youery much for the

professor burns. does that do it for us? >> this portion of the program our cversation will spill over into the reception that follows. my thanks to all of you for coming in and please join me in thanking all of our speakers th evening. [applause] nablus like to think everyone in turn because for better or worse, and maybe worse come i could not have written in this little book if my veby good friend sally did not ask me to speak here a couple of years ago, a year and a half ago. it made a huge impression. i think if there is an opening for the green job bizarre. no more stories. thank you. [applause]

>> host: robert earle what real in iraq and wire review there? >> guest: 2004 through 2005 senior ambassador to iraq and the first ambassador post transfer sovereignty back to the iraqis. >> host: in that capacity what did you do? >> guest: my job was to be the offline thinker and watch

everything that was transpiring and give the ambassador the important council that he asked me to provide. my first major assignment was to run a strategy group. what we needed to do was to determine first of all, that has the insurgency was mounting, who was primary and me? and secondly, how we could respond in a prioritized way and develop a political economic and military strategy at would help us get out of a deep hole we found ourselves. >> host: did you feel that are running this offline strategy sells, your thinking was

intention nor was it ogden bureaucracy? >> n the ambassador -- ambassador negroponte and general casey and arrive at the same time determined that they would forge a partnership between the dead diplomatic and military leadership that would radiate down through the ranks everyone under their command would grease band -- respond to a common strategy. working at that high level directly with negroponte and casey, we were assured that we would cut through things and we had minimal responsibility to clear what we were thinking and proposing with washington. >> host: what was your lifelike and iraq? >> guest: what was my life like in iraq? i tried to describe in my

book, it "nights in the pink motel" the chaotic primitive difficult circumstances in which we found ourselves. we worked seven days per week, we work 12 or 14 hours per day. we live in a trailers, we were interrupted by a periodic mortar and rocket attacks. temperature was 120 degrees. we eight in a common dining facility diplomats, the soldiers, contractors, other civilians, iraqis, other diplomats, i think all of us were struggling to orit ourselves to how badly the occupation have gone. and what we needed to dewhurst to get our feet under us.

the insurgency picked up in the fall of 2003 and by a june 2006 when i moved and, it was reaching an early crescendo. we had a real sense of pressure and we really needed to drill down deep and fast and tried to find a secure footing. >> host: what did you change with the u.s. strategy to make it more successful in your view? >> guest: several things we accomplished forging a relationship between the military and diplomats was important step. that has carried through subsequent ambassadors and generals have carried through to afghanistan at the moment. during the occupation the commanding general and administrator of the coalition

provisional authority barely communicated and often did not see one another, i did not coordinate actions bween themselves so this is a formula for disaster and had to be fixed. there had to be trust the political economic and milary funds. we had to do what we could do so that was an important thing that we change -- to change. i think we tamped down the excessive fear of the iranian influence in the insurgency iranians played a role it was negati and they continue to do that. but they were not our primary concern. our primary concern was the

former regime and disenfranchised sunni arabs from the baghdad and west from the suni triangle. the constituencies whether formal or sectarian. we could clarify a primary concern. one of the most important things, however the most important is we determined we really did have to proceed with the win mandated election scheduled. there is a lot of controversy about that because it is so chaotic there is a great fear that any election would go bad and blow up in our face and in the iraqi face. the interim leaders were afraid of it. washingt commentators and critics were afraid of it with good reason but we have to get the litical front moving

create a non-violent sphere with which conflict could be resolved. i think that's in the long run will bthe major accomplishment >> host: robert earle what was your gatest frustration in iraq? >> guest: keizai account in my book, my greatest frustration was ambassador negroponte asked me to write an extensive message to president bush in which in the fall of 2004 indicated that in his opinion, we were losing progress toward the election notwithstanding, we were under resources in military and reconstruction and political terms. that the hold was aot deeper than the ainistration had confronted.

and initially he said it could take ten years to work this through. so i spent a long time researching all of the facets of the problem and drafting the message to the president recommending that he refashion his policy and he had knowledge of the stab a minimumt would take more resources in all of the dimensions over a five-year period at th minimum. for us to do with the level of violence of tension and conflict that we were confrond with. e president ignored the recommendation. and of course, that was my greatest frustration. by ignoring its, and not really

facing the proem as we saw it in iraq, he allowed iraq to become even more violent so that in 200we saw baghdad go up in flames. that ishat caused the need this surge which was a desperate last gasp effort which fortunately and serendipitously succeeded in some measure. >> host: 2009, six years later, what is the status of iraq? >> guest: iraq has made a lo of progress. attitudes toward the iraqi government have improve the political process, the dialogue acro sectarian lines is a

richer. there is a greater engagement at the provincial level, the government has developed a budgeting concept a number of steps have been taken to the fact reconciliatn with not the primary baathistut others who were part of the large sadam hussain opetion. that i think is good. we have a prime minister elected in the first election that cause to zero per that was pretty mediocre than we had a second prime minister who started out somewhat shaky and has gained strength and agility. these are good things, the violence levels are down.

the iraqis have done something that clearly they always had to do which was to insist with the new status of forces agreement that they take the ld and there be a drawdown of u.s. engagement. that is good. that is not a setback but an advance. there is so significant problems. the status of kirkuk which the kurds claim ald the arabs claim and some of the minority groups claim, is up for grabs and has yet to be decided. not only important to the people of kirk truck or the kurds who were driven out by some and have returned to kirk taka natalee important to them for reasons of history's but their oil and gas

fields are immensely valuable natural resources that is the area where we could see some a spike in violence d bozo which is another important iraqi city is also a source of concern for the future of the conflict again is the arab kurdish contest for control of mosul which has been a historic trading point* and regional capital of the country. those are pretty worrisome possibilities. >> host: you write in your book the concept of freedom could be destabilizing. what did you mean? freedom does not come with the associated program.

you can do a lot of different things with them and lot of different sequences. you can discover in people all lots of insecurity and uncertainty and a desire for somebody to tell the this is how it will be. particularly if that is the pattern of governance back through hundreds of thousands of years. to get someone to think his or her way through from a blank slate to an organized society government and the economy, it can be an extremely tricky, slippery and difficult propition. >> host: in the mosaic of all the books written about iraq, what do you hope your book adds to that mosai >> guest: two things. i wrote the book somewhat like a

novel so that people like you and people you are associated with and general readersould feel the experiee and calamity of war to understand its uncertainties in a personal sense. and in that sense it is wrien for the non-military reader. four someone who has not have the training, but may find themselves in this theater of conflict, what is it like? this is an important thing because we're somewhat divorced from more because we do not have a draft. not everybody is exposed for the we have volunteers in the military and broader society needs to understand. cond, to begin to contemplate

the importance mf the dimension to resolve conflict and to understand why in this case you need an election which you have to resolve these conflicts ultimately on a political basis. use the military toward that end. politics are much more complicated than force to force combat there even more complicated than military counter insurgency tactics. but they have to have a privacy and the leadership's thinking if we will resolve the challenges ahead. the record on assessing the political landscape and committing to and carrying through the election is important historical data and i would like that tstand out. it isot really given its due

because the military dimension is so exciting a so tragic and so compelling and so much more mediagenic and most of the books that have been published have the focus on that aect of the struggle. even military leaders think a lot about the political dimension. it just does not emerge in the public consciousness so i would like my book to contribute to the larger image. >> host: two final questions. has your health recovered? >> guest: it did. i had a setback when year ago this month. i had a return of thelood ots in my leg which have now resolved again provide do not know why they came back. but apparently there is a

disposition to having clawed say second time if you have them the first time but otherwise i am in good shape. ink about -- thank you. >> host: he writes about that in his book. what i the pink hotel? >> guest: aakeshift room in a corridor of the republican process that h been walls, walls, -- being calls were i went to write the message to the president that he ignored. >> host: robert earle "nights in the pink motel" an american strategist's pursuit of peace in iraq". >> this book is about culture and our culture matters and by

that, i mean how does that mean where we are from make the difference in how we do our job in how could we are or what we choose to do for a living? ke that idea is t whole second half of the book. it is very sometimes difficult ing to wrestle with. some of the examples i use in the bo illustrating the point* of how much culture matters is a whole chapter on a plane crashes. but i will warn you i will not toehold chapter -- tell the whole chapter it is scarier than the version you will read in the book but who in the interim will

be flying in a plane in the next month? [laughter] sorry to hear that. [laughter] it is scary but the most important thing that i want to talk about it is scary not because it is unusual but scary because it is typical. the crash that i talk about was of beyond the 052 that takes off from columbia january 25, 1990 found ford jfk airport. , the it -- columbia is not that far from the united states. just to get up to new work you across the caribbean sea but this was jittery with a nor'easter and allypes of

planes word delayed among them the avianca there were on a routine flight. the captain was a man named -- and the co-pilot start to get held up by air-traffic control and they are held up because the weather is so bad with high fog and high winds. they are held up by virginia for about 20 minutes and atlantic city about 30 minutes then again outside of jfk 40 miles out for an additional 30 minutes per after about an hour and a quarter of do they they are cleared for landing and come down to the runway and encounter severe wind shear when you are about 500 feet above the ground. it is a situation uhere the wind is blowing very heavily in the

same direction of the aircraft's a maintain power than at a certain point* it drops. then you are going to fast. what happens is that the autopilot will adjust and you can lay and save the anyway but as it turns out there autopilot was turned off for reasons we do not understand on the avianca flightossibly becaus it was not functioning so it was a door around so you realize you cannot make it so you pull amount to circle around and a bid -- to a big circle and we approached for a second landing as they flew toward jfk to come in for the second landing the flight gineer cries out flame out on engine number four than engine number two, one by one they were blowing.