>> and a critical voice against the size of the american government following the revolution. harlow unger spoke at red hill, in brookneal, virginia. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. it's an honor and -- well, very exciting for me to be here at red hill. it's a place that patrick henry called one of the beautiful

spots in america. anyone that wants to see the real america should stop by red hill and visit the great shrine to the american liberty. a friend of mine asked me the other day, who decided the names of the founding fathers? i decided i should. [laughter] >> that's because many historians limit the names of the founding fathers to the signers of declaration of independence and constitution. by eliminating those names, they eliminate patrick henry. that's why i think i should decide. unlike some historians, i put patrick henry at the top of the list of the founding fathers. i believe he's the most important of the founding fathers after george washington alongside of or ahead of thomas jefferson, james madison, and even ben franklin.

without patrick henry, i don't believe there would have been a revolutionary war. or a united states of america. i believe we would have devolved into a country like canada. thomas jefferson himself and he was no friend of henrys, thomas jefferson himself insisted that patrick henry gave the first impulse of the ball of american revolution. those are jefferson's words. if we wish to be free, we must fight. patrick henry was the first american leader who dared utter those words. those were treasonness, enough to be hung, drawn, or quartered by the british. is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god, i know

that what course others may take. but as for me, everybody -- >> give me liberty or give me death. >> most americans know the seven last words of that speech. but few know that patrick henry really meant by those words. and even fewer know anything else about the man himself. as i said, i believe that patrick henry was the greatest of our founding fathers after george washington. patrick henry sounded the first call for revolution and independence from britain. he was first to protest british government taxation without government representation. and first to demand religious freedom, and first governor of virginia, which declared independence from britain before the united states. what the americans today don't realize is that at the time of the american revolution, virginia was america's most

important state. it's largest, it's richest, and most heavily populated state. it was huge. it's borders stretched from chesapeake bay to mississippi river valley and northwood beyond the great lakes. and it's governor was north america's most powerful, most important civilian leader in the years before the constitution and creation of the federal government. the equivalent to the day of the governors of california, texas, new york, and pennsylvania put together. he was the most powerful civilian leader. as virginia's first governor, henry saw to it that his state provided washington and it's continental army with more financial and military aid than any other state. he helped washington win the war. it was henry who discovered the scandal behind the food shortages at valley forge. it was henry that helped uncover

and thwart the group of vicious officers to overthrow washington as chief and reconciliate with britain. it was henry that sent troops into the west to seize the illinois territory, along with kentucky, ohio, and indiana. that was not the continental army, that was henry's force. and it was henry who sent virginia militiamen into north carolina and helped drive the british out of north carolina. he never fired the weapon himself, he was one the great heros of the american revolution, along with washington, lafayette, green, and knox. the hit -- the historians all but ignore the greatest of the american patriots. which is why i wrote line of liberty to restore patrick henry

to his rightful place on one of the greatest of the founding fathers. in some ways, henry was actually a more notable founding father than even washington. washington fathered no children, henry fathered 18. who gave him 77 grandchildren. henry's friends said that he, not washington, was the real father of our country. [laughter] >> there are probably more than 100,000 henry descendants in the country today. enough to pop late the entire city of gary, indiana. [laughter] >> but henry was much, much more than a founding father. he was america's greatest orator and courtroom lawyer. lord byron, the english poet who could only read henry's speeches called him the demost these of his age. and john adams, who did hear him speak, agreed.

in the courtroom, he sliced opponents to shreds using every device he could find or invent. humor, hope, fear, on clear days he embraced the sunshine and lifted juror's hearts. on grave days he pointed to the clouds and rain and providing jurors to tears. and on morally -- stormy days he saw omens of destruction and bolt of lightning and called it the rat -- the wrath of god. one opposing lawyer said whenever henry rose to speak, although it might be on trifling subject as a summons, i was obliged to lay down my pen. i could not write another word until the speech was finished. in addition to oratory, he was a master of the law and legal tactics. and he combined that mastery

with a great sense of humor. in one case, a young couple came to henry before eloping. the bride was only 18, which was under the age of consent. henry told her to take her father's horse to the marriage and have her groom to be mount behind her on the horse. well, the county prosecutor wouldn't let this go by. took the youngsters to court. henry put the girl on the stand and asked, did your young man kidnap you? she replied truthfully, no, sir, i kidnapped him. when the laughter ended, the judge threw the case out of court. like many of our founding fathers, henry was a farmer. in his case, he grew up in the piedmont hills of virginia.

his father was a successful, well-educated planter and justice of the peace. but a young patrick had what one of his relatives called an aversion to study that seemed invincible. he harbored a mortal entity to books, substituted by a passion for fishing rods and shotguns. he was disorderedly and gave no hint of possessing any intellectual gift that could raise him to mediocrity or up to it. another more sympathetic relatives called henry nothing less than a normal country boy. remarkably fond of innocent fun without a hint of ill nature and malevolence. he loves to hunt, fish, and play the fiddle, like most mountain boys. sometimes between childhood and

manhood, he lost his empty to books and his aversion to study. although there weren't any schools in the hill country, his father and mother taught patrick and his brother to read, write, and calculate, and his father, like i said, a well-educated scotsman taught the boys latin, greek, french, mathematics, history, and science, his mother taught him fine literature and turned him into an avid lifelong leader. obviously brilliant, and probably a genius, he read "the odyssey" in greek by the time he was 15, and he could converse with educated europeans. many of them couldn't speech english, but latin. he held on to his mountain ways as a cherished birthright. he took his musket and went hunting all through his life, played his fiddle for fun and relaxation with friends and

family throughout his life. a deeply religious man, he never drank except for an occasional small beer, which is what acalled low-alcohol beer. although someone told me that low-alcohol beer was 5% alcohol anyway. [laughter] >> henry studied law on his own. and in case after case he fooled opponents into under estimating his genius by wearing humble, home made farmers clothes and speaking in his own natural mountain twang. some judges and opponents lawyers, especially city lawyers, dismissed him. but jurors embraced him as one of their own and found for his clients. in his first case called the

parson clause, he defended tobacco farmers who couldn't pay taxes after their crops were wiped out. everybody had to pay taxes. didn't make any different if you are anglican or not. henry accused the church with abdicating it's responsibility to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. do they manifest their benevolence in religion? no, they would swipe the last bread, and the last drop of milk from her widow and orphan child, the last blanket from the bed. he left the jurors in tears, and angry. although, the judge instructed them to find the farmers guilty

of tax evasion. they awarded the church only one penny. the farmers exploded into tears and lifted henry on to their shoulders, carried them out into the square for a march to his father-in-law's tavern across the way where he did what he loved most, he picked up the fiddle and led the crowd in country music and dance. his astonishing triumph over the church of england won him national and international fame, and election to the state legislature. and that's where and when he began his lifelong fight against taxation without representation. and against big government. although he was a lawyer, henry was also a farmer. like most farmers, he believed what the earth yielded was a

gift from god. he owed not a blade of seed or grass to the government. virginia farmers believed the same thing. they rallied around when. when virginia became independent, they elected him the state's first governor. he went on to serve five terms. during his first three terms, he provided george washington and the continental army with the aid, military aid needed to win the war. after his war, he surprised his enemies and friends alike by proposing to resume trade with britain and allow exiles to return to their old virginia homes. his opens were furious, saying if they came back, they'd over turn the american government. henry laughed at them. the quarrel is over. peace has returned, and founders

of free people. let us have the magnanimity to lay aside our an tip thinks and prejudice. they are money-making people, they will buy the produce of our lands and supply us with what's necessary to feed our infant manufacturers. afraid of them? ha. we have laid the proud british line at our feet now be afraid of it's wealths? the legislature voted in favor of both henry's proposals, and the resumption of trade with britain, which other states refused to do, the resumption of trade with britain here in virginia enriched virginia's economy to levels never before seen in the americas. independents from britain left america's colonies in a lose-nit

confederation of 13 sovereign states, independent nations. each of them free to govern themselves as it saw fit, but ready to unite with it's neighbors against a common enemy. the confederation congress was a debating society where representatives of the various states came to discuss mutual problems. but it had no powers. it was imtent. no way to pay the war time debts. some were loans where foreign countries like france, and a lot of it was back pais owed to continental army soldiers and officers. george washington demanded that the state give congress taxes powers to raise the money to pay the troops what it owed them. the states refused.

after rebelling for more than 20 years against taxation by london's parliament, the states were not about to grant the powers to the american congress. and patrick henry led the opposition. i'll explain. patrick henry opposed anything that gave influence to governor and impose of individual liberty, and that put him in opposition to any permanent national government tax. but what henry called liberty, washington called anarchy. across the nation, revolutionary war veterans rioting for back pay. some states ready to go to war over conflicting territorial claims. washington believed only a strong government with a strong federal head could restore financial, political, and social ties. and that put him and his good friend patrick henry in direct

conflict. in 1886, three years after britain recognized our independence, an economic depression with a devastating drought to send tax delinquencies soars. they took up arms to stop sheriffs from seizing their properties for nonpayment. they burned down courthouses, marched to end property taxes, sound familiar? an end to all property taxes and seizetures of their properties. the confederation was disintegrating. many joined to call for a stronger national government to control the disorder. the confederation congress agreed and called a national convention to strengthen congressional authority. that's all they were supposed to do. although washington and other

leaders pleaded with patrick henry to attend, he refused. he was not going to do anything to build a federal government. and in his absence, the constitutional convention under washington's leadership staged what amounted to a cue data. they wrote a new constitution that united the states under a new government that had most of the powers of the british government that americans had fought for seven years to overthrow. patrick henry was outraged. what right had they to say we the people? who authorized them? the people gave them no power to use their name. that they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. the federal convention ought to

have amended the old system. for this purpose, they were solely delegated. the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. as this new government stands, i despise and appall it. i speak as one individual, when i speak, the speak the language of thousands. 23 years ago, i was supposed a trader to my country because i supported the rights of my country. i say now, all privileges and rights are in danger. the new constitution needed approval of nine of the 13 former colonies to take effect. but even if 12 of them had approved it, their new government and nation probably would have been impotent without virginia. the richest of the former colonies. when virginia's radification

assembled, patrick henry led the opposition. the galleries were packed with farmers, trappers, a lot of them from the country in buckskin. they were henry's people. they adored him and he adored them. here's a revolution as radical as that that separated us from newton. the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished. all rights are rendered and secure, if not loss. if this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freedom? no, they shouted from the galleries and banged the butts of their muskets on the floor. henry demanded it contain a bill of right to guarantee individual liberties and amendments to limit government powers, federal government powers.

he demanded that congress have the approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures before any -- enacting any tax -- federal tax. henry was as angry as he'd ever been during the revolutionary war. the constitution is said to have beautiful features. when i examine these features, they appear to me frightful. where are your checks in this government? there are no checks. no real balances. they are based on a supposition that were american governors shall be honest. show me that age and country with a rights and liberties of the people were based on the chance of their rulers being honest men, and i'll show you a country that lost it's liberties. if you are american chief, be a man of ambition and abilities. how easy it is for him to render

himself absolute. the army is in his hands. my great objection to this government is that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or waging war against homegrown tyrants. well, henry lost his battle against radification when james madison made a deal with moderate anti-fedrates, he pushed for the bill of rights in the first congress. and he did. then to try to bridge the great divide between federalist and anti-federalist, they offered patrick henry a choice of number key posts in the new government, secretary of state, appointment as u.s. senator, ambassadorships, even chief justice of the supreme court. henry refused them all.

not because he was disloyal to either washington or the nation. he revered washington and he loved his country. but few men in those days could afford to go into federal public service so far from home. congressman earned less than $10 a day and had to pay all of their expenses. henry was a farmer and part-time lawyer who needed every penny that he earned to support his gigantic family. before he fathered 18 children, before he died, these were not accidental births. henry loved his first wife who died after bearing six, and he adored his second wife who bore the rest of his children. he absolutely and totally with his whole heart -- all of his heart and soul adored every one of his children. he couldn't get enough of them. he loved playing with them, telling stories, playing fiddle while they sang and dance and

jumped about in circles around them. he taught his boys to ride, fish, and hunt. when they were small, he took them riding on the horse with one boy behind him and another one in front of him. friends walked into his house many times and found him in the words of one, lying on the floor with a group of little ones climbing over him in every direction or dancing around him with mirth to the tune of his violin. the only contest seems to be who could make the most noise, the children or the father? henry was wonderful with children. he was a wonderful man. a kind man. who didn't drink, didn't curse, went to church regularly, believed deeply in god and righteousness, and in the goodness of man and in justice. and justice is what patrick henry sought to achieve throughout his life. justice for himself, his family,

his neighbors, his state, his nation, justice for all. which brings me to the question of slavery. a question that many americans and most europeans i've met completely misunderstand. even many historians insist on calling slavery an american institution. slavery was not an american institution, it was spanish, french, and english, and we inherited it from them. in the early 1700s, before the founding fathers were born, 50 years before george washington was born, in the early 1700s, virginians voted to ban slavery. but the british government of good queen ann over ruled them because the royal treasury depended on revenues from british slave traders.

at the time, there were only 25,000 slaves in the virginia. they had been shipped to the caribbean to grow cocaine. the ban at that time, might have permitted, most if not all of the slaves here to sail home to africa and aboard the growth of slavery. in the next half century, virginia's many appeals to end slave importations brought nothing by the objections by the three successive king georges. by 1770s more africans passed the atlantic than europeans, albite involuntarily. the slaves had grown to 200,000. the slavery issue that our founding fathers inherited had grown insol yulable. to export them now is impracticable.

ironically, the increase in the slave population proved more of a burden than a benefit to tobacco -- virginia's tobacco planters. remember, slaves were -- they couldn't speak english when they arrived. they were illiterate. most of them are unskilled. slaves had fewer incentives to work than peace workers up north. and as they fathered children, or aged, they added enormous numbers of nonproductive infants and elderly to the population that the planters still had to support. almost 1/3 of george washington's nearly 300 slaves at mount vernon were nonproductive. but washington still had to house, clothe, and feed them. there is not a man living, washington said, these are his

words, there is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than i do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery. it's an evil that requires an remedy. like most virginians, most tobacco planters favored ending slavery. straightforward abolition would have been as cruel, to set lose nearly 200,000 -- mostly unskilled, illiterate, semilit rate people, 1/3 of them children, equaled numbers crippled and elderly, men and women to set them lose was unthinkable. where would they go? what would they do? eat, house themselves? the urbanized north had relatively few slaves, and offered an array of apprenticeships in craft shops and manufacturers, villages,

towns, and cities to import a range of skills to freed slaves. the south was a land of vast plantations. one after another, budding each other, the road out of one plantation led to the road of the next. there were no towns and villages. the only available work was for field hands. although he owned as many as 75 slaves, patrick henry was one of virginia's most outspoken slavery opponents. the ones he owned, he never brought or sold, they were attacked to the farms they bought. as governor, patrick henry sought to ban slavery, proposed legislation to ban it. legislature refused. the conflict of his moral opposition to slavery and his

ownership of slaves tore at his heart and soul throughout his life. he was a close friends of the quakers. he fought for their religious freedom as he did for the baptists. and he was he was -- he became y good friend of the quaker leader, mr. presents, and he wrote this very sad letter. would anyone believe i am the master of slaves? i will not, i cannot justify. is it not amazing in a country above all others fond of liberty, that in such an age and such a country, that in we find men professing a religion, the most humane, mild, meek, and generous adapting a principal as repugnant to humidity as it is inconsistent with the bible and destructive to liberty. i believe a time will come with an opportunity will be offered

to abolish this evil. if we cannot produce this wish for a reformation, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenti and pity. it is the further advance we can now make towards justice. as i said earlier, henry believed deeply in justice. and that's why he opposed big national government so strongly. when he called for liberty or death, he was calling for liberty from all government oppression, american as well british. he believed that big government by it's very nature was unjust because of it's distance from the people who's lives it touched. he believed in only those who lived, worked, and owned property should determine the needs of their people in their community and the amount of taxes they should pay. which is why he opposed the

ratification of the constitution. he predicted the failure of the constitution to fully protect individual rights and states rights and it's failure to limit federal government powers to tax and wage war, would restore the very tyranny that had provoked the revolution against britain. unfortunately, his struggle for states rights sewed the seeds of succession and eventually the civil war. which in turn, ironically, provoked the growth of the large federal government that he so despised. although the first congress yielded to some of henry's demands for protection of some individual liberties, it rejected his imposed -- his demands to impose strict limits and safeguard state sovereignty. within months of taking office, that first congress enacted a

national tax without the consent of the state legislatures as parliament had done with 1765 stamp act. then in 1794, president washington fulfilled henry's prophesy of presidential tyranny, but sending troops into pennsylvania to sue press protest against federal taxation. just as king george and his prime minister lord north had done in boston in 1774. many called henry a prophet at the time. since then, a succession of presidents have led the united states into undeclared wars without the consent of congress has henry predicted. and congress has enacted hundreds of laws and imposed dozens of taxes that have extent the government intrusion into every area of american lives and homes. again, as henry predicted.

even george washington and alexander hamilton would be appalled at the extent to which government has intruded into the lives of americans today. for better or for worse. government today is in our bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, our kitchens, garages, tool sheds, in our workplaces, cars, trains, and planes, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe. in our lakes and streams, our mountains, our skies, and the ground beneath us. the hands of government, too often the hands of corrupt officials, reach into our pockets for more tax dollars every day during our lifetimes and even after our deaths. more than two centuries ago, patrick henry warned americans against every one of these government intrusions.

if i am asked, he roared, if i am asked what is to be done when the people feel themselves intolerably oppressed, my answer is over turn the government. in a constitutional way. as we saw in the recent elections, a lot of americans still agree with patrick henry. patrick henry died here at his home in red hill at the age of 63 in 1799. but the roar of the lion of liberty still echoes across our land. if we wish to be free, we must fight. and we must vote. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [applause] >> god bless you all. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> and i think you'll take questions now. >> indeed. >> is it necessary for the microphone to come before the audience? were all right. okay. >> i'll answer any questions who's answers i know. [laughter] >> yes, ma'am? >> there was a law passed in virginia against the importation of slaves. i forget the year. but then, and especially in this area, people began to sort of traffic in almost breeding slaves to sell to the ready market in the south. >> that began to happen after the transition of the economy from a tobacco economy into a cotton economy. >> yeah. well -- >> the cotton economy opened the doors to all sorts of abuses for

slaves. because it didn't take any skills to plant and harvest cotton. >> i guess my question is, and it sort of have to do with the former home, where pinel, the owner, was a friend of henry, and pinel was very much involved in the trade. i mean it's almost like sort of an evil place although i think it still exists. how could he be so marvel about it and then he and pinel did the canal using pinel's slaves in the stanton river so they could get the product down the stream? it's to me kind of a conflict of what he believed. >> he was conflicted all his life with slaves. but what was he to do about

them? turn them loose, what would they do? where would they go? how would they eat? here they had jobs. they were fed well, clothed well, housed. i don't know if you visited the slave cabin out here. they -- all of their needs were fulfilled. they had days off each week. and at most plantations, the slaves became family retainers. at the washington home, washington trained almost all of his male slaves in crafts, carpentry, roofing, by the time he died -- and he freed all of the slaves in his will. by the time he died, four of the five farms had slaved as over

seers. martha, by the way, trained a lot of the girls, seamstresses, to do all of the things that women did in the household those days. not anymore. any other questions? yes, sir? >> the fight for the ratification on -- how strained was the relationship between washington and henry? they had been close friends before. and how did that strain their -- >> well, it -- it basically it ended their closeness. they never lost respect for each other. this was a debate in which i think the intelligent people on both sides of the debate realized there was a lot of right and a lot of wrong to both arguments. even patrick henry agreed that the articles of confederation

and the old confederation congress needed strengthening. there had to be a way to pay back congressional debts. what he wanted to see done was what the confederation congress had asked the constitutional convention to do, to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the union. and what henry -- the proposal that henry supported was to give congress a limited powers, limited by time and renewable powers to impose a 5% duty on imports. which would affect anybody who brought imports and that tended to be the rich rather than the poor. and give that for five years and renewable. they would have some source of money to pay their debts, number one, and number two, if they needed to accumulate cash, if

they needed to do so to raise an army in the event of an attack by a foreign enemy. he was for that, and he was for giving congress the right to regulate international trade and trade between the colonies, between the states. remember these were independent states. and the reason for that, is our trade was deteriorating under the confederation because foreign powers, france, nations that were friends of ours, had to negotiate a different treaty with each one of the independent states. they got tired of it, and it didn't work out because even if they had say a trade agreement with new jersey, well, the goods had to go through new york or philadelphia, and new york state or pennsylvania would charge duties on it and in the end, it would affect the economy of new jersey. so he was in favor of those three things. but that was it. he saw no reason for the federal

government to intrude on state sovereignty. yes, sir. >> first, they had the state conventions to decide to have the constitutional convention. and i remember reading, i think, that in virginia it passed the very narrow margin, maybe three votes or something. >> right. >> and some of the other states it was very close. i wondered once they got to the constitutional convention, how close was the voting there? >> the constitution convention came first. that was to approve the language of the constitution. and that was pretty overwhelming vote in favor but it was not by unanimous consent as it says in the document. that was governor morris' clever language. george mason, of virginia, and governor of massachusetts, and

edmond randolph, governor of virginia refused to sign it. mason said he'd rather have his right hand cut off than to sign that document. there was a good deal of opposition at the constitutional convention. then the problem was the election of the members of the state ratification conventions. and in -- first of all, only white, male land owners could serve in office or vote. so that limited the vote. and in the case of pennsylvania, none of the small farmers had any representation at the constitutional convention. these were all very wealthy bankers from philadelphia. and patrick henry pointed that out that the people of pennsylvania were robbed. they had no say at the constitutional convention and in

the final ratification process. they had no say in that process. it was a stolen election. down here in virginia, fortunately, the farmers did have some representation. they had already fought for that in the early days of the legislature. but patrick -- james madison made a deal with the moderate anti-federalist to switch sides at the last minute. he promised he would push for the bill of rights if he won election in the first congress. and he did. and there were something like 70 or 80 proposals for guarantees of individual rights. and he boiled them down to 12. two of -- 10 of which were approved by the states. but the 10th amendment, which supposedly was a sop to states, the protection of states rights

did not protect state sovereignty. and within a few years, john marshall and the supreme court stiped the states with what sovereignty they had left, and the civil war did the rest of it. >> how far along with the process before they sought to pull jefferson on board? wasn't he in the opposition early on, and then eventually -- >> yeah, he tried to straddle the fence. and he wrote a famous letter saying if he was -- he was then ambassador to france. and he wrote a letter to the -- i think it was to washington, i have forgetten. he wrote a famous letter saying if he was an american, he would approve and encourage nine of the states to approve the constitution and four of them to refuse until passage of a bill of rights.

so he was neither for nor against. he flip-flopped. >> for more on author harlow unger and his work, visit harlowgilesunger.com. >> john dower is the author of "cultures of war war: pearl har, hiroshima, 9/11, and iraq." professor dower, what's the similarity between pearl harbor and 9/11? >> well, that's where the book began when 9/11 happened. headlines all over the u.s. said day of infanmy, some of them quoted roosevelt famous eight day which will live in infanmy. immediately people said surprise

attack, they used the word comi quasi. they went back to pearl harbor. then i'm an historian of japan. i started thinking about the war. then it got more complicated. then it spun into failure of intelligence, surprise attack, then it started to get into world war ii where you had the fireman picture raising the stars and stripes that iconic picture. and it was iwo jima. so it went from pearl harbor, 9/11, into world war ii. and then they chrisened the world trade center, and then we

are in a different dimension of world war ii. it began with 9/11 and infamy, and it become much more complicated. >> tie together hiroshima and iraq. >> well, the real tie is hiroshima and 9/11. that's -- that was the real tie. because ground zero is an atomic bomb phrase. that was the original association. that led into the question of terror bombing or deliberately targeting civilians, and that's a practice that comes out of world war ii, the air war and world war ii, you wanted to destroy enemy morale of the angelo-americans, england and the united states. and it was done in germany, and japan culminates in hiroshima. ground zero '45, ground zero

2001 was the link. the iraq link is wars of choice to begin with. because we go from 9/11, this war of choice by the islamic terrorists, to the japanese war of choice earlier. and there's a parallel. and then suddenly we have a war of choice against iraq. and then we have a terrific failure of intelligence in iraq. just a disastrous failure of intelligence on the part of the united states. so then you've got pearl harbor, which was a japanese tactical -- tactically brilliant, strategically idiotic thing. you have the war of choice of the islamists. then america is doing of war of choice. i'm a historians. i wanted to understand it's not all the same. but i wanted to see how you could do -- think comparatively about war. then every side is starting holy

wars and wars always have been with us in our modern times even with our new technologies, and i really wanted to wrestle with -- it was a wrestling. i had to try to figure some things out for myself, some questions that i hadn't asked. >> vietnam is not a focus of your book, why? >> it's not a focus of the book because there was simply not space to do it. the vietnam figures in as one the major culture of war. it's mentioned in passing in a number of ways, vietnam figures in both as a place where you deliberately target -- targeted noncombatants. vietnam figures in a different way in the failures of intelligence, and i write about this at some length. it's just the subtitle could only be so long. and it wasn't that i was going back to vietnam. but the striking thing in the

failure of intelligence was that in vietnam we had basically the united states lost in an insurgency, and after vietnam, we seized to study counterinsurgency in the united states government. it was dropped from the military academies. it was dropped out. we weren't going to get involved in that. and there was no preparation for what we encountered in iraq and in afghanistan. afghanistan figures in, of course, also. but i focus mostly on iraq. and there, the failure of intelligence on our part was extraordinary. why? so i was trying to think of this over time. one thing this does, it takes you to think comparatively about the u.s. in ways, and a little bit make people uncomfortable.

it's not saying it's all the same. but also, it lifts it out of the bush administration per se when you step back in history and look at the bigger picture. you are going back to world war ii, you are going back to other things at one point in the book, i end up in the philippines at the turn of the century, you know, when the u.s. conquered the philippines in 1898 and early 1900s. all of the rhetoric was there. i have a line in the book that you want to find the ghost behind the ghost writers for george bush, go back to the philippines. the rhetoric and language is all there. so to think about war as a culture is very pain -- it's painful because it's asking very hard things about us as human beings. not just -- not by the americans or something. it's not -- it's about us as human beings in a modern age where we have war with us all

the time, the technology may change, but somehow we are caught in this coil. and it seems hard to get out. and i do it at levels of both the individual and the institutions. and so at the end, i came upon talking about concepts of pathology, and individual pathology and functions. very, very hard things to wrestle with. took a long time. but that's where it ended up. >> speaking of george bush, have you or will you be reading decision points, particularly the chapters on afghanistan and iraq. >> well, i haven't read the -- i read very, very extensively in memoirs by everywhere, memoirs investigative journalist, reports leaked from the bush administration, and i made a decision to keep working on the

book to the end of the bush administration. that's when the research stopped. i will look at his autobiography, certainly, but i hope i can move on to a subject maybe that's cultures of peace, or cultures of something else in the future rather than go back to this right now. >> professor john dower has already worn the national book award for embracing defeat. he has been nominated for 2010 nonfiction category for "cultures of war." >> hugh pope, where did you get the title "dining with al qaeda?" >> it's better than eating chinese with al qaeda.

very soon after september 11st, i was sitting down with a missionary from the al qaeda camps where south of the saudis who were on the jets that struck the world center and here in washington had been. and the dinner was -- it started off with him saying i'm going to kill you. i said do i assure you it is not necessary. i speak arabic. after an hour, i convinced him i was a person that wanted to hear his story. in those days, you could still be innocent in the middle east. i learned a lot about what he thought, and the people on the planes, and very difficult for americans to believe they have normal lives back home. but they did. that's what my book is about. humanize the middle east. not to justify terrorism, but explain the context.

>> how is it that you hooked up with him in rio? >> as usual, i had a friend that gave me a contact. and suddenly, someone is introduced. end i was lucky, my colleague, wall street journal, danny pearl did something that was a little bit more like an ambush, but not much different, and more danny had his head cut off. i feel very lucky that i got away to tell the story. >> and what did you learn from your contact? >> i think i learned that the way -- the reason that he wanted to kill me after the start of the interview was that he believed that i wanted to kill him. and that is the key thing. you got to remember that in most conflicts when you fraud, it feels much more when you receive the prods than when you give it. that's the main lesson, when america is conducting military

expeditions all over the middle east, and plots with clones, you should be award that is felt by the people there. it's not just what is being felt in america that's matters. >> hugh pope, are you still in contact with anyone associated with al qaeda? >> no, this book is partly the reason that i gave up journalist. 25 years a journalist in the middle east. after the iraq war, in which i was the only correspondent from my newspaper going to baghdad and trying to explain to americans why the war was pointless, logically unsound, and would blow up in their face, literally, not being taken seriously at all, and finding that actually journalist, yes, it makes a difference. i'm so happy i was a journalist for a long time. but ultimately win couldn't go on with the old system in the

middle east. i have a british passport. we've done a lot of damage in the middle east. i work for the wall "wall street journal" which supported the war. i'm going up to the middle east, talk to me, tell me your story, make a difference. i felt it did make a difference in the past. i felt it stopped making a difference. so i resigned. i joined a conflict resolution ngo. i like my work now. >> exploring the many worlds of the middle east. thank you hugh pope. :