probably security people and the employee of the interior ministry who are destroying evidence. that is what many of the protesters think. in any event, this is part of one of those transitions questions. the extent to which you have a capacity for documenting a truth and reconciliation and so forth and so on. part of the point of burning all of that evidence is making it harder to do that. so, it may be that going forward you have a much more transparent era cravaack ordinary if you will kind of administrative apparatus that it is not clear that kind of administrative apparatus will be able to recoup the past. and the question of the past and who should be brought to justice is in fact a very complicated murky one. so i think as they say, that particular case may have been

lost in the fires. other ones like that may have been lost in the fires. but we will never know. there was some recuperation of some of this material and some of it had been shredded and we were kind of facetiously talking about the fact that has happened in the aftermath of the iranian revolution there were a lot of unemployed students that can piece together all the shredded material. that may happen in some circumstances, but the stuff that is burned is burned so i don't know what will happen. turkey as a model is something that you hear a lot actually in the united states. you don't hear it so much in egypt because i don't think they want to have any single model. this is going to be an egyptian project, so they want to take a little bit from chile and a little bit from turkey and a little bit from somewhere else and so forth and so on and construct something that is egyptian.

it may borrow disproportionately from one country or another, but people are starting to say about what happened in indonesia? what happened in other places? so the muslim majority clearly would matter and that is why people are asking about indonesia. but at this point, there is no sense of boquet this country shows us our future and i think that is quite deliberate on the part of those people who are trying to sort out what kinds of policy and procedures they want to advocate. the question of the youth and mrs. clinton. i actually didn't put much import in that. i think it is clear that mrs. clinton's visit was not particularly well organized and so figuring out beforehand who would be willing and able to meet with her and that is why i think it didn't happen. and so some of that, you know they left themselves open to apparently being disrespected if you well.

but i don't know that there is anything deeper to read into that at this juncture in any event. on the issue of the turnout for the constitutional referendum, the mid-40s may not sound like a lot to you but the turnout for the parliamentary elections in the fall was 5%. the mid-40s is pretty high. and in fact it was viewed as very high. people were very very happy. there were all these people who said i hadn't voted in 40 years, have never voted before and so forth and so on. so it may not have been 100%. but in many of the rural areas i think the get out the vote mechanism didn't actually operate and most of the people who voted actually wanted to vote. and the interesting thing is, they all said one of the things that was fun about voting as they did know how it was going to come out. [laughter] so i actually think everybody believes the turnout was pretty high and it was a very satisfying experience for those who enjoyed it.

as far as what egyptian americans can do now, i think there is a very important egyptian diaspora, particularly in the united states but elsewhere as well, and i think this is a time where it is valuable to people in egypt to see that reconnection, to see people making investments and back in the investment time. does not to be investments in money at this juncture. although, i am you know, not again being a little facetious, i think warren buffett is right and boy are there values in egypt now. if i were an investor i would be going into egypt and picking up these properties because give me five or 10 years, i would be a millionaire. and i think that is true

literally, economically about business but i also think it is true in general. this is such a good time to make investments as they say of time, of expertise, commitment, of moral support, of whatever kind of forces you have. this is a great moment to say yes, this whole community of what is estimated to be 8 million egyptians living overseas, who knows? to have that be part of these conversations and be part of the networks and so forth and so on, people in egypt love that. they love to know that people are paying attention and caring and so forth. so whatever your particular resources are, they would be welcomed back in egypt at this juncture. >> it on this very upbeat note, i think you will all agree that we have just heard a varying gauging and quite insightful recitation, so please join me in thanking lisa.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] former chilean president michelle bachelet discusses her position as the head of the united nations new entity for women's empowerment.

>> now discussion on the military action in libya with marc ginsberg, former ambassador to morocco. this is from today's "washington journal."dway >> host: between u.s. capitol and white house's the archives located on the constitution and pennsylvania avenue and mcgowan theater is part of thest archives complex were of course america's most important documents are housed. this morning we have a group of students from four states, part of the c-span close-up program here on c-span's "washington journal." they are all ap honor students and we are pleased to welcome marc ginsburg former ambassador to morocco senior adviser tots president carter on the middle middle east and now a lawyer in washington d.c. with apple worldwide. appreciate your time. >> could to be with you. good morning. >> what is our mission in libya

and what is the endgame?e >> depends on the u.s.. if you ask the french defenseme? minister is regime change in if u.s. president carter it is a humanitarian mission to prevent gadhafi's forces is a humanitarian mission to present -- prevent forces from harming innocent civilians. if u.s. the pentagon come it is to enforce a no-fly zone. if you ask susan rice and others, it is to join a coalition of countries that are willing to take this battle all the way to force muammar gaddafi to give up power and perhaps leave libya. you have an unfortunate in consistency to exactly what the goals and objectives are. and host: among the questions asked is what is the mission and how long will we be there? even if it is a limited focus, is still has potential up

costing americans blood and treasure. guest: it is clear that from the congressional perspective and the argumentation of whether or not the president should have consulted more widely with congress before authorizing the united states military forces to participate in the enforcement of the no-fly zone, the president has declared that the united states is going to take a backseat role in the coming days, but there has been enormous confusion among our other allies. arab league, britain and france, over who was going to be responsible for the commanding control of the operation, the military operation going forward. the french do not want nato. wants nato.s no the united states is largely the 800 pound elephant in the room when it comes to the capacity we can bring to bear in libya, at

least in the air. host: why go forth with a mission that does not have a clear understanding for who was responsible for what? guest: i think in some respects the president had hoped that while he acted belatedly, stopping the slaughter of what would have occurred at the united nations security council not voted to impose a no-fly zone on the country would have resulted in the human catastrophe. they have 1 million people. it would have resulted in thousands of people probably being killed. in some respects the president can declare mission accomplished and leave, because we did stop the slaughter. if the french want to take the fight all the way to the shores of tripoli, i say let them play. president sarkozy, wants to

lead the fight, let him lead the fight. host: you spent some time in the white house. what questions do you think he is asking today about this operation? guest: i think first and foremost is who was going to take the front and center responsibility for the commanding control of a coalition of forces that will enforce the no-fly zone number one? number two, are the french pushing us beyond our responsible role in libya beyond the coalition wishes and perhaps the other countries which is better participating in this? number three, how do we prevent americans being harmed as a result of the confusion over who will be responsible? it is a complicated mission. it will take time. but we sort of backed our way

into this military involvement, and now the president wants to step back, but he also has to take responsibility for answering the hard questions. is our responsible role to merely help coronate from 30,000 feet a no-fly zone? or is the mission of this engagement, a military engagement in libya under perhaps french direction going to take this fight that would lead in the end to having to place ground forces on the ground in libya to prevail against muammar gaddafi? host: we have high school students here. where did you go to high school? guest: i went to high school in egypt, libya, in west hartford connecticut. >> i am from alexander, a

virginia. through what history we have seen patterns of being inspired by other revolutions. i think it is pretty clear we're seeing this in the northeast. what do you envision the ultimate scope of these revolutions being? do you envision them growing to an even larger expansion? guest: it is a great question. i dare say those that i read who write about this cannot accurately predict this. obviously the constitutional referendum that occurred in egypt was a major step forward in giving them a major sense of participation. basically in libya this is civil war. theis largely tribal in natio nation that is confusing to those in the country and confusing to those outside of the country.

bahrain is filled with violence, as it is in yemen. there is a wave of desire among young people to have a federal life and overthrow the order that is preventing them from obtaining that. these young people like you wish to have the same things that you have, opportunity, opportunity to be educated and get a job. and hope the government would be responsive to them. that is why in some ways why this is so duty, and yet it will play its all in so many ways. host: in the 1970's marc ginsberg serve as an adviser to ted kennedy and an adviser to jimmy carter. he served as u.s. ambassador to morocco. sean joining us from san diego. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i want to first say

congratulations to all those students. they are our future of america, and bless each and everyone of you. i just want to say that president obama i believe is doing a little bit too late. i think there are a lot of people that would agree with me that he should have jumped on this little band wagon that the french have started just too late. we have the student uprising they're going, and it was very strong, and we should have been there for them right then and there. how many other countries are we going to start -- it seems like the united states is taking the police state role in the world.

how many other countries are we going to step into and start this where we are cord to take care of the people who we want their idealism working and not the previous regime? host: thank you for the call. why the delay? guest: i think in the end, in retrospect there are a lot of people responsible looking and asking why did we not ask sooner? now this rebel army does not have the capacity to fight its way all the way across the desert from bengahzi. we do not really know. we do not really know what it would take. we know that from the perspective of these forces fighting, the opposition forces, that they will not prevail

without additional military support. that is what the military says. why did the obama administration ultimately wait? i think because while the president publicly declared it was time for muammar gaddafi to go, his administration had no effective strategy to declare that objective. frankly, his administration needs to keep that i on the core strategic objectives in the united states. our involvement in libya should have been correctly -- should have been strictly humanitarian. our core interests are outside of libya, not inside. host: during your time in the region, did you ever have any interactions with muammar gaddafi? guest: not directly. i was asked by the libyan government when i was no longer in the united states government

to travel to tripoli and spend time with the foreign minister, as well as their minister of intelligence come before he give up nuclear weapons to explain how the united states foreign policy would act in the wake of that type of decision on the part of the libyan government. there had been a careful, collaborated effort to begin that process. like anything else in libya, it is a tribal society, and what muammar gaddafi has done is turn this into a dictatorship for no one was able to make decisions without his own personal approval. >> i go also to thomas jefferson high school. i wanted to talk about historically american responses to foreign civil wars. in response to the civil war that occurred in spain. basically the american government was mutual, but groups of americans go over on their own, dying voluntarily to

help out the conflict. as you say, we do not have any direct threat to the national security of libya, but perhaps we and your opinions -- the europeans have interests in oil reserves. maybe the oil companies could help out there. guest: it is an excellent question. throughout history americans have voluntarily picked up and go and fight on behalf of peoples around the world who were seeking to be free. some of them fought on behalf of the communists against the government when you have the russian revolution. the same held true in the french revolution. i do not think there are too many americans that would want to pack up and invade the shores of tripoli in order to involve themselves in the civil war in

libya. i think part of this is there is an unfit to be -- infinity factor at work. this has somewhat been undermined by what has become a military struggle between two sides inside libya. unlike the uprising in egypt that generated enormous interest around the world, and young people using non-filing means attracted the interest of the media and the american people, and we commend those young people for engaging in non- violence, but this has transformed itself from an uprising that occurred in tripoli into a full-fledged civil war between two sides, where in some respect the ideals of the revolution has been lost and what has become a military more or less stalemate. host: it seems the primary

mission is to educate americans about politics, which is why we are pleased to have a group of students from four states. we are at the national archives complex. our guest is marc ginsberg, as we discussed the military situation in libya and more broadly in the middle east. another question right up front. >> i am from thomas jefferson as well. i was wondering what your opinion was and how the middle east problems could be affected in the long run? guest: this is a very unsettling dangerous time for the united states in the middle east. we have core, a strategic interest that are being undermined while these revolutions proceed. what are those interests? the cornerstone is the bending

and in forcing the egyptian is really peace treaty, camp david accords, and building a peace between israel and its neighbors. all of this is being made more difficult as a result of the revolutions in the region. we're watching 11 on slowly being annexed by hezbollah -- lebanon slowly being annexed by his belovhezbollah. and the price of oil is affecting everyone in this room and their parents, because the instability in the middle east creates instability in the oil markets. as long as there is instability in the middle east and countries are wary about what is going to happen, then it will drive up the price of oil. at every step of the way, while we are certainly interested in these revolutions, we need to keep sight of what the core

strategic interests are in the middle east. i am afraid the president obama administration has taken eyes off of what the core interests are. it is a 24/7 job, and i am afraid they are only spending 12 hours on it. host: i want by show of hands, how many of you think we have a responsibility to be in those three countries? how many say yes, and how many say no? joining us from port washington, maryland. caller: mary joe. why is it whenever president obama does anything it is scrutinized in a really bad way? i also want to say president obama choice to take human life over protocol. everyone else seems to be worried about what the constitution says.

i applaud the president for taking life over paperwork in words. thank you. host: thank you for the call. we had a discussion about the constitution earlier. guest: i respect the fact that this is a difficult time for the president in the middle east. while i want to see him get it right without having to further undermine the understanding of what we should or should not do in the middle east, again, my reminder to this white house is that it needs to focus on the humanitarian mission and to encourage the french and others to step further up to the plate. the worst thing that can happen here is that we want to say that muammar gaddafi needs to go, and at the same time, if he still stays in power, is cents an enormously challenging message to other revolutions in the

middle east, and it makes the united states look even weaker. host: let's go back to the boehner.rom john vad he said it is my hope you will provide the american people in congress with a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objected, and purpose of our mission. guest: i think the speaker was initially supporting the president. if i were in congress, and back advising senator kennedy, i think i would be asking the very same questions. the administration has not held the corps obligation to the american people to define the mission in libya when it itself is confused over what the mission really is. it is speaking out of so many different voices right now, and it is inconsistent with our

ally's goals that there is a rightful part on the part of congress over what this mission is. the president owes it to the american people to say we're not going to engage on boots on the ground, supporting redeem change. our job is to merely support the no-fly zone, and to not continue attacks or support a tax that seem to be supporting the rebels and their efforts to drive all the way to tripoli, unless the the way to tripoli, unless the united states decides