so we are closing opus colleges and regulating the remainder, restricting the right to work here and bring dependence, and making sure that all but the very best go home at the end of the study. and on that basis, of course talented students from around the world are welcome here in the united kingdom. .. mention his name you shall vote and so -- well it is going to

rather exchange the prime minister's question time. welcome question from the member. reraise individual cases, of course and often do so publicly but will assess which ones to raise and when to do so, of course. but the human rights dialogue that we have china is very important and it's important that in china there is an understanding of our deep concerns about many of these cases. rest assured, i will raising them. >> the gentleman will -- mr. christopher. >> in the cause of debt reduction, the government is reducing funding to the police by 30% in real terms over four years, can my friends, therefore, show me that also of the course of deficit reduction he will be insisting on the

contribution to the european. >> highly doubt what that would be. decide by single decision of government but is the balance between large figures determined in other ways. he can rest assured, however, we will be far better negotiating about it than the honorable member the secretary sitting there. when he was prime minister of the europe, they gave away 7 billion pounds. for nothing in return and that have failure on the negotiation and leadership that we will not repeat. >> does the secretary agree with the members when he was caught in the new journal saying the new economic argument for regional. >> i think there is a variety of users to speak about regional and local pay and all political

parties. they pointed out views the expressed on local and reasonable pay. it's also worth pointing out the last government in 2007 introduced local pay into her majesty's court and tribunal service. >> would my friend agree with me what a wonderful announcement it was to the future engineering jobs looking for 44 more jobs and -- [inaudible] 150 in the last two months. >> this u is indeed is the new honorable friend investment in this country. it is good news for them and surrounding area. it is good news for the long-term security of the country than we are prepared to invest confidently in submarine technologies for the long-term. >> thank you mr. speaker, can the foreign equity tell the

house how -- [inaudible] want to introduce this is the from the poem in 2009 which on both sides of the house. from that enormously the proposal of the last government want to hold in a central data base. it's requiring them to hold into the data. even though he uses the catch phrase, it is designed to be a criminal's nightmare and unless we update it unless we update our ability to detect terrorism to defect criminality in the country, that will have a serious effect. i encourage you to look at in detail. it is very important to maintaining law and order. >> amen! friend aware that the highlights of the olympics torch rely will take place on the sixth of july to be met by 2000 of the longest

period in the world with the iconic building. would my friend agree with me these it gives them an opportunity to come together and celebrate this government put in the great back into britain. >> with the arrival of the consent one of the highlights. [laughter] the other highlight being today passing through richmond. and i would would have loved to have been there to see it, but it that is one of highlights he is quite right this is an enormous opportunity for the country. we're looking to the games to secure a rebellion investment to attract an addition nam 4 million extra visits and to use the games to inspire more young people to take up, it is a great moment for britain. >> thank you mr. speaker. we know that the prime minister likes -- forgive me [laughter]

we know the prime minister likes to chill when it comes to french relations, she shouldn't he done the more [inaudible] approach. >> the prime minister always had excellent relations to my expense any president with france incoming with the new president of france. and we should welcome and applaud the standing in today are the largest for french people in the world and of course they're welcome here in the united kingdom whatever their government is doing at home. >> i don't understand would like to have been in richmond, he's paid the price of fame. he's had to be here in instead. we're extremely grateful to him. the business innovation and skills secretary cable.

british commons now as thigh move prime minister question time. aired live wednesdays at 8:00 a.m. on parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again at sunday night on c-span. and more information go to c-span.org. click on c-span theories for prime minister's questions. plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent videos incoming videos dealing with other international issues. friday supreme court justice ruth bather talked about the court's current term including the health care case. >> no briefs and arguments and citizens united has attracted more attention in the academy. particularly lying outside the supreme court. a line formed three days before

oral argument have convinced. some described it as unprecedented and may might be right if they number the press conferences, protesting counter protest going on odds outside the court while oral argument was underway. >> she spoke about press reports on the decision expected this week or next. >> aeroour deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors. my favorite among press pieces windsly observed at the supreme court. those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know. [laughter] >> watch the rest of the comments from the american constitution society at the c-span video library. >> on monday john mccain

talked about humanitarian crisis in syria and criticize the the obama administration's reaction. he call on the u.s. to more actively assist the syrian opposition. he spoke and answered questions at the american enterprise substitute. this is two hours. [applause] good afternoon. i'm michael, the residence scoop lar. it's my pleasure to welcome john mccain the senior senator from arizona. senator mccain is the ranking member of the armed service committee and the member of the security on the governmental affairs. he served 22 as the naval avenue yaifort before entering politics. when it comes to syria he has taken leadership on the issue not only within the u.s. senate and the entire government. he has distinguished himself as the conscious of the senate on

this and other issues. thank you senator mccain for joining us. we look forward to your remarks on the way forward in syria. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, michael. and it's a pleasure to be here, and back at aei i notice from the faces and crowd there are a number of interns who spending summer. i thought if there's a thing of reincarnation, i wanted to come back as the intern here in washington in the summer time. i know, that most of you are spending a great deal of your time at the library in congress on the weekends as well. it is a pleasure to be here. one of the foremost institutions in america in the world. i think is contributed so much to the dialogue and discussion and decision making that takes place here. and it's great to be back among many friends.

i usually try to begin my speeches as i just did with a joke or some kind, but when we're talking about syria, it's too horrifying, too heart breaking and too campus brailted. for fifteen months now, the syrian people have faced an onslaught of forces. it's estimated as many as 12,000 lives have been lost, some suspect that figure is even higher. and there's no end in site. to the contrary, assad appears to be accelerating his fights to the finish. amid all the violence, it's important to recognize that the clear trend is toward escalation both in the future and the quantity of the killing. assad has goning from infantry to snipers to tanks and are tell i arkansas tillly to massacre

men, women, and children. it happened lost month in the town of hula. we are now seeing a rapid increase in the assad's use of helicopter gunshots. where as the forces once sawlgt declared ground, they now appear to be 0 under orders to kill anyone and everyone they deem a threat. every reason to believe that aside will continue to escalade the violence, more mas considers, more use of helicopters, and perhaps worse weapons after that. meanwhile, assad and the forces continue to be rearmed by russia and iran. there are reports of iranian operatives on the ground to help assad with the killing and russia apparently continue toss ship heavy weapons including as hillary clinton stated the very helicopter gun ships that he is

using to strengthen bomb civilians. whether they are new or old, assad sent to russia to be reburr fished and have the blood washed off is a distinct without a difference. there is duoships and unit of -- and delivering additional ain'tship and anti-war craft missiles to help defend the assad regime. clearly, this is not a fair fight. amid all the aviolence in syria, he can cannot go numb to the human tragedy there. in april thanks to the special efforts to the turkish government, senator joe lieberman and i visited a camp in southern turkey. i've seen my share of suffering and debt but the stories those syrians told still haunt me. men who have lost all of their children. women and girls who have been

gang raped. children who had been tortured. and none of this, mind you, was the random acts of cruelty that sadly occur in more. syrian army defectors told us killing, rape, and torture, is what they were instructed to do as a tactic of terror and intimidation. if i get a little emotional when i talk about syria, that's why. when it comes do the administration's policy toward syria to say they are leading from behind is too generous. that suggestions they are leading. they're just behind. and it's december i ration the administration now appears to be placing it's hopes in the russian government to push aside from power and a yemen-like transition. this is the same russian government that continues to provide heavy weapons and moral support to assad, and refuses to

authorize u.n. sanctions on the regime and blame assad's recent slaughter of civilians on the opposition and foreign powers. want more basic problem with the approach is that the administration is already tried it. and moscow rejected it and sheet down the u.n. security could believe. what has changed to make things different now? what the president does not seem to realize is what president bill clinton came to understand in bosnia. a that diplomatic resolution in conflicts like these is not possible in the military balance of power challenges on the ground -- changes on the ground. so long as is a murder use dictator being it the russian or ashad believes he is winning on the battle field. he has no desire to negotiate. the same is true for the

supporters. whatever the reason and dispying the russian's repetition, russian government stuck with him for fifteen months. what makes us think that president putin will change cor now when assad is the dominant power on the ground. we are approaching a major point of decision, the plan which does nautical for assad to go has been a failure for months. the head of the -- security reasons. assad increasing reliance on helicopter gunships with is giving new impetus to cause for a new-fly zone. russia is unlikely to support a policy of regime change in syria. the administration's approach is being overtaken by events. fur more, the operation inside syria is increasingly forcing the hand of the civil civilized world to intervene on their behalf because they're growing

more effectively militarily. this is no thankses to us. public reports suggest that some of our friends in the middle east are arming rebel groups in syria. it may explain some of the recent reports that opposition forces have been able to destroy some of the assad's tanks and prevent the forces from retraining terrain. evidence that the united states should maintain a handsoff approach to syria. this is wrong. first, the fact that the opposition is in syria is doing better militarily thanks to external support seems to have value day what many have been arguing for months. they have enough organization to be supportable and the support can help them to further improve the organization and command and control. this is argument for the doing more notless to aid the

fighter. assistance now seems to be reaching the opposition in sir yab with this alone will not be decisive. it will not be sufficient to end the conflict faster. it may even just prolong it. nearly every syrian i speak with tells me the same thing. the longer the conflict drags on the more the radicalized it becomes and more the it turns into a sector yon civil war that the syrians alone cannot stop. finally, the syrian opposition needs to know that the united states stands with them and that we are willing to take risk to support them when they need it most. our current inaction denies us the opportunity to have influence with the forces in syria will one day inherit the country. we are seeding that influencer to foreign states that may not share our interest and values or

worse, to extremist groups that may not share that are hosest hostile to us. our lack of involvement in syria is not preventing the militarization of the conflict or lessening the risk of secretary violence or countering the appeal of the extremist groups. all of the efforts are happening without us. and without our ability to influence them. in short, the main reason the united states needs to get more involved in syria is to help the opposition and -- end the conflict sooner while they can secure an outcome that is consistent with the goals and hours. we should do so not for humanitarian reasons because it is a our national security interest in the words of generally jails, the commander of -- the fall would be the biggest below to iran in 25 years.

yes, there are risks to greater involvement in syria, the opposition is still struggling to get organized, al qaeda and other extremists are working to hijack the revolution. and there are reports of reprize l killings. these risks are real and serious. but the risk of continuing to do nothing are worse. if we file act, the consequences are clear, syria will become a failed state in the heart of the middle east threatening turkey. with or without assad the country will develop into a full-scale civil war that al qaeda and allies will occupy. violence and radicalism will spill into iraq. fuel conflicts that are burning in both countries syria will will turn into a battle field each back by foreign powers will

ignite the tensions from north africa, to the gulf and risk a buyer regional conflict inspect is the course we are on in syria. and we must act now to avoid it. u.s. action i envision would not be unlateral. it would be multilateral. we would work closely with arab and european allies especially turkey and the partners in the gulf. there would be no boots on the ground and only intervene at the request of the syrian people. our goal would be to help the opposition change the military balance of power on the ground, there by creating conditions for an end to the violence, the i departure of assad and the cronies. to achieve the goal we immediate to help the syrian opposition to establish safe havens inside the country inspect is essential for

a number of reasons. it is constantly said that the syrian opposition is disorganized. that may be true at the national and international level, but it's much less true at the local level. to the contrary, revolutionary counsels military counsels and local coordinating committees that have emerged in syria's across ? cities across syria are increasely sophisticatessed and effective. i have met some members and represents, they are among the impressive figures i have encounter the in the syrian opposition. nonetheless, if the syrian opposition to succeed, it needs an effect i have and unfying structure m some kind. it is unlikely that such a structure could be formed in syria until the opposition has safe haven. a place they can emerge from hiding, gather together in safety, select national, political, and military leaders

and organize themselves better as alternative governing structure not for the purpose of pushing him from power today but to prepare for the huge challenge of administrating and securing the country once assad is gone. that is what the national transitional counsel is able to do in bengal disci. the transition in libya is succeeding. its less difficult to imagine today how safe havens could be established in syria. indeed, some annalist suggest it may be creating some areas of de facto control in the country. for example in parts of province in areas along the turkish border and in the eastern border. it is quite possible that the opposition could soon declare parts of syria to be liberated as libyan rebels did and ask for

external help support in defending that territory. this is exact my what we should be helping the opposition to do. rather than insisting that we cannot act militarily, without a human security counsel resolution, as the secretary of defense recently asserted. we should follow president's clinton's example. we should refuse to give them action and work outside the security counsel to shape a coalition of willing states with the legislate mandate to intervene militarily in syria. many of our allies are willing to do much more. but only if the united states is with them. it's one reason told the "the wall street journal" last week, the turks in particular are looking for, quote, the ironclad backs of the u.s. and others. we should provide it for them.

we should make u.s. air power available. along with that of our allies as part of the international effort to defend is safe areas in syria and stop assad from hairing them. once defending them they could pratt form to increase deliver ares of food and medicine, equipment commune equipment doctorses to treat treat the wounded. they could serve as staging opposition for armed opposition groups to receive battle field intelligence body arm and weapons to ammunition and train and organize themselves more effectively perhaps with foreign assistance. the goal would be to expand of the reach of the safe havens across more of the country. final part in the strategy we must think about the situation in syria in a broader strategic context. the events unfolding from lebanon to syria to iraq are all

part of country connected story. we must be thinking about how we could cap lose on the fall of the assad regime in syria to weaken and mar -- to strengthen lebanon sovereignty and independents. to support the -- not violence to increase the pressure on the government in iraq. to roll back the authoritarian power and counter iran. in all of these easteds, the united states and turkey share common interest and values and we need to be working more closely together than ever. but most of all, what is needed most is american leadership. if there ever were a case should

remind us that our interests are indevisible from our values it is syria. a few days after the mas consider, "the washington post interviewed a young boss knee man who survived the genocide in 1995. this is how he looked at the ongoing slaughter in syria. quote, it's bizarre how never again has come to mean again and again he said. it's obviously that we live in a world where needs are still possible. what's happening in syria today is almost identical to what happened in bosnia two decades ago. he couldn't be more correct. syria today is just like boss bosnia in the 1990's with one exception. in bosnia president clinton summed the courage to intervene

and stop the killing. it is worth recalling his words upon outing military action in 1995. i quote, he said, there are times and places president clinton said, where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war. where we can defend our fundamental value z as people and serve as basic strategic interests. there are times when america and america alone can and should make the difference for peace. those were the words of a democratic president who lead america to do the right thing. in stopping mass atoes tees in boss bosnia. i remember working with my republican colleague bob doll to support president clinton in that endeavor. the question for another check president today and all of us in positions of responsibility is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that

are made to us as the united states of america. and whether we will use our great power as we have done before at our best not simply to advance our own interest but to serve as a just cause that is greater than our interest alone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. senator mccain has agreed to entertain some questions. please wait for the microphone and introduce yourself and please, make your question brief. hello, my name is cay tee. i am the green youth party in the southed sweden.

it is a very wise person, he has spoken and worked really hard towarding a diplomatic solution to the situation in syria. and what he means is that you should always primarily export a nonviolent solution to conflicts. i was wondering why the united states on working hard for and implementing more diplomatic pressure against the assad regime. thank you. >> if you have any ideas as to how we can put more pressure on diplomatic or support him i would like to hear about it. certainly this administration has. but the facts are that it is now being acknowledged even by him that his plan is failed. even sobers have just gone back to areas where they would not be subject to attack. it is widely acknowledged that

the plan as some of us predicted would fail and has failed. so if you have any ideas how we can be more active diplomatically i would be more than encouraged to hair from them. the fact is, that this is a brutal dictator cho is willing to misconsider his own people and his people have risen up to to overthrow mr. aside. i believe the o only way he believes is if he believes he can't stay. thank you. [inaudible] undergraduate school of economics. i was interested because you mentioned iran and obviously with the bro vad dough between iran and vale and israel how do you feel syrian regime changed and what linked to that.

you mentioned it would be a great threat to iran in twenty years or so. it should provoke iron into some form of, you know, aggression action. >> i think the first thing that happens is that the connection between iran and -- and the influence in remember that is dray maltically reduced. i think the iranians have syrian as the only client state remaining. i don't think there's any doubt that with the loss of syria they lose their connection to -- their lose their influence over lebanon perhaps mr. mall key might think a little more often about how closer relations he should have with iran, and with that loss, it may put additional pressures on iran to seize their

continued development of nuclear weapons which as you know, is a forthcoming crisis unless the iranians abandon their efforts to build nuclear weapons which to far there has been no indication they have. this is a key and central part of the entire middle east and what happens here will have dramatic effect on the entire middle east as well. thank you. >> senator, i'm the daughter of one of the speakers. i'm syria. i'm a political refugee. i came here in 2006. we came from here for policy makers in the united states cannot afford intervening in syria as syrians how can we change that? the people are dying and see

democratically the yoit is demand db that's the main excuse they give united states every day. and we can't convince them. we feel hopeless. i agree with what you said. what can you give us. like, what can you do to convince that the military intervention that people are asking on the ground is what we need to end "the dictatorship" and stop the killing. thankthank you very much. >> i have to tell you that political realities in the united states. americans are world weary because of our long and protracted engagement in iran and afghanistan. a couple of thousands of young americans have give their lives. americans see our economy in a very bad situation, and that has

tended, of course, to lead to a more inward view and a lack of desire for involvement. i believe that the same arguments that you're here being made about syria today are the same ones that were made about libya we could get into a protacted conflict, it would be overtaken by al qaeda. my friends on both right and left see the same arguments. there's a more basic principal here. one is that we are not no one that i know of us advocating american boots on the ground nor unilateral action. i do know for a fact that the allies in the region are crying out for american leadership and no one that i know of wants american boots on the ground,

wants unilateral united states action and the most immortal words in any view ever written all of us are endowed by our creator with certain inailble rights abelong these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the united states of america has shed the blood and spent it's treasure in all four corners in the world. many times it was in our interest as well. we need again to answer the call. far little encouragement, i think the administration is moving in a little bit in a right direction and the allies in the region are picking up the slack. yes, sir? thank you. my name is -- [inaudible] daily newspaper. my question for you is about the repercussion of arming and the

opposition including a safe haven for them as we report today there are actually recruiting -- [inaudible] in jordan, and kuwait and other places. could you have a afghanistan-like situation. >> the afghan situation, we went afghanistan because that's where the attacks of 9/11 began. we should never forget that. the second thing is, i've seen the movie before, yesterday jihaddists will come into libya. they will an election and 80% of the libyan people are going to vote. they're going have an election on july 7th. i hope to be there to observe it. one thing i can assure you of, the longest it is protacted, it more likely it is they come in and jihaddist and al qaeda and others. frustration and anger that and

casualties that the syrian people would experience. so all i can say is, all i can say is, we're looking at the situation of a protracted long, drawn out conflict where the bashar assad is being supplied supplied with arms equipment, helicopter, tanks, are tillly. it we hear of russian troops being possibly moved into syria. versus people who are basically without any real means to defend themselves. it's not a fair fight. it's not civil war. because all the military strength on one side and not the other. at least we ought to give them a chance to have a fair fight. can i go ? -- yes, sir?

our staff is on the way. [laughter] thank you. many russians is a losing alliance. while we have the differences with the russians, is there any way for us to make them see it. is there any way to convince them. >> i've been a bit puzzled too. thank you for the question. the return shans are very -- the russians are very intelligent. putin is a senator man. -- smart man. they are doing enormous damage to the image in the arab world. they are harming themselves thatmatically. i don't quite understand that. the only -- and i don't pretended to be able to get into now president's putin's mind. there is a certain -- for the russian empire. this is the last outpost and

port on the mediterranean. this is in ways to them, a test as to whether this disease called the arab spring will spread to other parts of the world including places like chesney ya which was put down with incredible speptional brutality. i can't fathom all the reasons for the russian behavior as it continues to be. i hope that the president who inis meeting with putin today will be able to bring about some change in their behavior. but in my view, it's part of a pattern of putin's behavior since the elections. the new demonstrates, jailing of people, and intimidation of the media, et. cetera, et. cetera. and it does not mean that i believe the cold war is going to be reignited.

it's not. we're going to have to take a realickist view about our relationship with russia and the ability to do business with them. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. senator. i'm from norway with the progress party. you said a solution for syria might happen outside the u.n. system. is that a road that leads to less u.n. involvement in the world and is that a road that the obama administration is fearing? and could that be the reason for an armed involvement? thank you. >> what it really is the situation today is that russia and china, in this case, now have veto power over any united states policy or action that the united states might take. that obviously is not acceptable to the american people. we cannot -- our actions cannot

be governed by whether russia will or will not veto a u.n. security counsel resolution. i mentioned in prepared marks, kosovo, we went there without a u.n. security counsel resolution and we went there for the same reason why we should duoto sir -- go to syria. that was a coalition of the willing as we say. i respect and admire the u.n. security counsel and the things they do. but the fact is, the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the security u.n. security counsel. yes, sir? you've been overlooked, four times. please, go ahead. [laughter] >> hi, my name is tyler o'neal. my question is about turkey. with the party successful last

year in 2011, they seem to have a shift toward islamism. do you think -- that there interest being consequences dent l with the united states would change in that situation? >> iblg that turkey one of our strongest allies in the world. many less the region. but i have voiced concerns as recently as last week at the breakfast with the u.s. turkey society that i am continued to be worried about the jailing of journalists, turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i've been worried about intimidation of opposition parties. i've been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister, a man who i respect and admire a

great deal. i also worry about authoritarian send tendencies in turkey that far transsed islamisms. and we should continue to voice the concerns. vail jailing of hundreds of military office is something that is not really appropriate for a functioning democracy either and there are other reasons. thank you. could i do a couple of more? would you mind? >> yes, sir? >> thank you. my name is -- [inaudible] i have a question. what do you think about so many people died and peace keepers were there? thank you. >> i think it was a horrible event that most of us articled world war ii would never take

place on european soil. thousands of young people were taken out. young and old were taken out, and quote ethnically cleansed. it galvanized the world into taking action to stop further acts atrocity from takes place. i think america and the allies there was lots of other countries involved. should be proud that we stopped that kind of butchery and ethnic cleansing that was going on there in the country. i think it's one of the prouder moments much our ability to work together with like-minded democracies who respect human rights. yes, sir? real quick. >> independent researcher. is the arab -- what is going on with them? and what about saudi arabia. >> saudis -- i've heard reports,

published reports that the awe i dids are assisting in some ways. the arab league, lebanon, obviously is under the influence of he baa will. trying to think who else. there's a couple of three countries in the arab log league who have veto action that makes it difficult than in libya. i know there are members of the arab league who are much more actively involved. but whether the arab league itself because of the vetoes of a couple of three countries, i'm trying to remember, but they -- it may be very difficult to get a solid position out of the arab league as opposed to the situation as it prevailed in libya. as you pow, probably the most

unpopular person in the arab league at that was mr. gadhafi since he dried -- tried to kill a few leaders of the country. i guess we have to stop. we have distinguished panel of leaders here. i would like to say, particularly there's a lot of young people in the audience. you dprom all over the world. -- you dprom come from all over the world. you come to learn and listen. i hope you go back and view it with the thought we live in a dangerous world still, and the one that is fought with challenging. it is a next generation of leaders throughout the world that can change from a bleak picture in some cases to one that is much more optimistic. i believe that your -- your involvement is the future of

this country and the world. and i believe that when i'm associatessed with people in this room i'm more optimistic when i leave than when i cam. thankcame. thank you very much. thank you. senator, a great number of issues and i'm thrilled we have a distinguished panel as with we have today to discuss the issues. we have in the audience members of every major faction of the syrian opposite. i want to extent my welcome to them. sitting next to me is amar he's a fellow and member of the syria working group at the foundation for defense of democracies, which is pretty much the most important working group there is

discussing syria issues outside of the u.s. government at this point of in time. came to amar as in the capacity as founder and director of the foundation, a grassroots organization that enlists local activists and citizens journalists to report on issues in syria and else woo where. sitting next to amar is brian fishman who i'm thrilled to, back. he's a counterterrorism research fellow at the new america foundation. it's safe to say that his work especially with the harmony documents has become a must-read for anyone that looks at radicalism within the middle east and the arab world. be it on iraq or more recently syria. i'm thrilled he can come here today to share his insights. next to him is my old friend david shanker and a former colleague of mine.

david is currently the fellow and director of the program on arab politics at washington substitute for near-east policy. he previously served in the secretary defense as the country director, the pentagon top policy aid on the arab countries, including and especially syria. he's the author of several books relating to arab politics. last but now least, we have another author. lee smith who is the senior editor at the weekly standard and the defense of democracies. he's the author of many books on arab. many were publied in 2010. without fur ado since we have so much to discuss. i'd like to turn the floor to amar. >> thank you very much, michael for the kind introduction and inviting note event which comes

at the crucial time for syria as effects on the ground continue to ak accelerate and the situation continues to go out of control. it highlighted a plan of action on syria, i think we in the opposition can easily endorse because of the response to something the country has been talking about and the demand have been made. we hope that finally this administration will become more proactive about the situation and move faster than it has been doing over the last few months. if the current administration to wait until after the election, i'm not sure there will be a syria. it pains me to say that, but if you exam the situation on the ground right now, it is a situation that is seemed to be

heading in the way of partitioning a country. plan a. is to try to keep control of the country, trying to crack down with russian support and iranian support on the protest movement from the southern city to the northern end. at the same time it seems to be implementing a plan b. that calls for the liaison of a majority onslave along the coast and the central parts of the syrian and the plains and cities. if is ethnic cleansing campaigns that are taking place, we see it happening in homs city. more than half the population of that city, almost 600,000 people have been displaced since the beginning of the evolution. and we are seeing a cities and

towns that seem to toward driving people to the east and toward the river. we are seeing campaigns in places that cement to ethnically cleans the area from the sunni population. and we are seeing in other areas in the mountain areas, we are seeing basically the province and ethnic cleansing that already cleared several population there in the mountain. there are several more to go. and the sunni population in other places are under virtual seize surrounded by check points all over the neighborhoods and every night and we have videos to prover it.

in fact, there is a sort of a lack of terror campaign that takes place malicious tobaccos in the naiiveds -- it seems to be only a matter of time before there would be an attempt at ethnically cleansing the neighborhoods as well. we are seeing it being implement l. the sort of imagination. we have the visuals, the facts there are a lot of basically foreign journalists who have managed to go to areas and describe what's taking place in details. it's not -- i have -- [inaudible] a year ago now it's something that you are seeing being implemented. it seems to be the plan if there's going to be intervention and if assad is going to be forced out of the area, the right to take control over the piece of land.

with the control of homs city in particular. it is the place to which all major roads connect south city north city, and east and west. by controlling hosms homs city by partitioning into a internal city -- [inaudible] partitioning into different counseling. a south, a northeast, and a north. if the opposition does not congeal in the area we might see each one of these regions split into different areas. it might end up with one sort of state that is supported by an protected by the russians. and a multiple of ethnic counsels developing up over the country. this is something that is now being worked out. of the crackdown that he is leaking and the international --

the [inaudible] the inability to form the a policy and stick to it on syria. this is really why -- and i will not repeat basically what the plan -- [inaudible] but this is why it's important to be implemented now instead of waiting and waiting and waiting. because time is not on the side. it has never been on our side. and had there been a more concrete action taken back in may, when we and june and july when we were beginning to see how violence overs is willing to embark on and -- [inaudible] taken by force. i think that was the turning point, the international community has chance at the time to say no, we are not going to allow that issue a warning after that to the intervenges will be hell on the -- held on the table there was a lot of --

[inaudible] there's no intervention and that gives the go ahead to continue to pursue that kind of quality. now, we don't have the luxury of without thinking about the intervention. the country is being partitioned. waiting for allow for the partition to actually take effect. there will be a precaution that will be felt in lebanon, jordan, turkey, and perhaps in israel. the civility of the region is in stake. they are waiting and bryan will say they are beginning to infiltrate the country. time is not on our side. the time to act is now. and i call on the administration is that what i understand all about the calculation of elections and so on. but there are larger calculation

at stake here. the political interest of so many countries including this one and the humanitarian issues are at stake. we can't wait anymore. the time to act is now. with this i conclude. >> thank you. i want to thank michael for having me here and aei. ly talk about the sort of increased or the reflection we see that seem to indicate a larger agree had i did presence in syria. i want to step back. i think i'm going to be a little bit of a voice. i'm not nearly optimistic about the prospect for military action to produce the outcomes we would like to see in syria. and i do think that agree had i did elements are likely to development. i think there are going to be very unproductive effects across the region. i think that there is a role for

more active american presence there, but i'm skeptical, frankly, that military action would produce the enden states we would like to see. good intentions adopt make good policy. bottom line. i think one of the things that interests me about the debate about syria is the historical analogies we use to try it understand it. it's something we do. we ask is syria libya, bosnia or iraq. what the consequences how do we understand what sorts of actions what our abses will produce in a situation like that. it's no surprise we pick and choose to fit the end argument we would like to make. the big difference with syria about all of those places with the exception of iraq is that the stakes are much, much higher. for all the reasons that senator

mccain laid out. the opportunities of a successful outcome in syria are higher. and the risks and negative repercussions of a bad outcome in syria a lot higher. the purpose is in the goals we would like to achieve are well known and senator mccain made te ..

>> the enemy i think will perceive that as an effort to overthrow the regime, and at that point perhaps options come on the table that we don't want to think about. you know, attacks against western troops in the region, the last time we intervene in this part of the world, a lot of marines died. and those type of things are a real possibility. so the enemy gets a vote. i think that leads to an outcome which is really military intervention to push assad out. at least that's what's on the table. there are real negative repercussions for all of us, right? there are some cost to the benefits i think are known. the costs of the situation, i think it is a growing jihadi group in syria. the most major at least announce

group, is releasing information via jihadi propaganda outlets. it's not a stronger. this is not a group that can compete with the major opposition groups. jihadi organizations in general are not in most places viable competitors for political power. even when they start to gain political power they tend to shoot themselves in the foot. that's not what i'm suggesting. jihadi's will not take over syria. what they do will make a lot more worse. they will make things a lot worse because they make the assad regime and his supporters position a lot more entrenched. because it makes it much more difficult to get to that point that senator mccain pointed to where you might have a negotiated solution. where if you can balance, create more of a military balance, the assad regime and his immediate supporters would be willing to cut a deal because the jihadi's out there don't want to overthrow the syrian government

because it's a brutal dictatorship. they want to overthrow it because they believe that the folks in government are apostate and fundamentally deserve death, right? and as brave as the vast majority of the syrian opposition is, i am and convinced from historical precedents that they will be able to control the small jihadi element and that an army. it makes the situation a lot worse. it will make a negotiated solution with assad very for difficult and i think we have to recognize that fact. the situation in city with jihadi's is worse than the situation in libya, period. the situation in libya i think i blown out of proportion. there was not a major jihadi element in libya four years. and david essentially crushed it. the problem and a syria is -- because they were useful to funnel people into iraq over the last several years. so they're reaping what what they sow. these are not good people, but

there is a reality on the ground i think where the jihadi threat there is much more dangerous over the long run. for all those reasons and also because the proximity to a neighbor, iraq, whether it is still an active al qaeda element, that is still quite capable, and kills people by the many tens when it feels like in baghdad. select couple of questions, right? what comes next? the goals are clear. the purpose of military intervention is clear. what we want to achieve your i think it's pretty clear. the issue is whether or not these kind of mechanisms are going to get us where we want to go. i'm skeptical that they are. what comes after? i think jihadi groups are going to be able to organize in syria. i am not convinced that there will be a cohesive government structure afterwards. i would like to more of out that, but i think that what

we'll see age of a lot of countries in the region. right now they all agree a sake go. i think senator mccain pointed to the. i don't think they all agree what should come after. let's say assad false, to the saudis, the turks, the iraqis, do they all agree on what's going to happen or will they support their own proxy? i think that's probably more likely. what will happen with chemical and biological weapons? if push comes to shove, would assad use them? if he falls today matriculate to al qaeda? how do we control those? we can't pursue a direct and demonstrative policy of getting rid of assad and less we have good answers to those questions. that doesn't mean, look, you know, there are folks are worried about the impact of the united nations. that's not my concern. my concern is what are the unintended consequences of these actions, and do they undermine u.s. national security? and regional security.

i worry very much about the saudis in particular. some of the rhetoric seems to indicate that they are tolerating some of the traveling jihadi types am i good to see. let's be clear, the folks want to go get on the ground to fight assad today that are crowded from around the region, five years ago these were the people going to and part to blow themselves up at checkpoints. right? very similar to times of dynamics. we have to be very careful i think with allies in the region that we don't open the door to that kind of snow. are is an argument to be made there that we should engage more actively as part of the quid pro quo that would crack down and limit the abilities of those type of groups to act but we need to keep our eyes open to that possibility. i think ultimately here, i am very bearish on syria. i don't see a lot of good outcomes here with, with or

without military action. i think this is a very ugly and dangerous situation. i think that our efforts in the international community need to be focused on limiting human suffering as much as possible, but also limiting the spread of conflict to iraq to lebanon, and more broadly, and that square is where from a strategic interest i think we need to put out interest. or put our efforts. and i thank you very much. >> thank you, brian. >> michael, thanks for hosting this important panel. and senator mccain, it's great. i've got nothing else to say. i could stop right there. it's hard to believe for me that we are approaching the one year anniversary, august 18, when president obama actually called for syrian president assad to step down. and nearly a year has passed since that call, about five months since they'll advise a

non-plan, which we died, basically rolled back the teeth of the arab league plan what you think was a sensible plan. this was a mistake. it was folly. particularly because the plan didn't even call for assad delete, which the president had done. in fact, when kofi annan was interviewed about the short after introduced the plan, about whether -- he said this is up to the syrian people to decide, as if the syrian people ever had a state for their own future. it was never going to happen. the assad regime would never allow demonstrations. it would never stop murdering innocent people. it would mean the end of the regime, period. the assad regime is not going to participate in its own demise. here we backed the plan. that was february and that was right after the russians and a chinese veto the toothless u.n. security council resolution, and is heralded the start of the

massacres really. they were being massacred all throughout, but this is when a certitude take off. following the developments of the time knew that the annan plan wasn't going to work, but we didn't have, we still don't have, a plan b. we hear a lot about a plan b. back in february after the mass killings started, the administration actually leaked that it was planning a plan b on february 28, 2012, the cnn crack pentagon correspondent barbara starr got a scoop from a senior u.s. official. she said the pentagon had drawn up detailed plans for military action against the regime. or have it? you have to consider the remarkable statement, and i could you to go look at it, a quote -- the remarkable june 7 statement from chairman of joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey. general dempsey was asked to

quote unquote give us some idea about how a big military operation would be required to stop the killing of syrians, of civilians in syria. general dempsey answered, know i can do that. i can do that because i have to know what the outcome is. so utility outcome is and i can do a plan to achieve that outcome. then he goes on, he says tell me that you want regime change in iraq. how me divisions, how many airways, and i know how much i know what it takes. tell me that following the regime change in syria you want me to restore order, the nation's stability ops and i know what that looks like, so anything at this point vis-à-vis syria would be hypothetical and the extreme. i can build a plan and less i understand the outcome. didn't president obama's eight and august 18 that assad had to go? this is june 7, 2 weeks ago, the general dempsey is basically saying he can't plan because he doesn't know or doesn't

understand the outcome. this is remarkable. it seems that general dempsey is lacking any civilian guidance regarding the instead of what we want to reach in syria. right? assad is gone, what is going to look like, what should we do. the fact that it took more than a year, or that more than a year since they still have this kind of guidance is indicative i think of the ambivalence of the highest level of the nicest government about what to do in syria. but time matters. you heard from senator mccain. the longer the fight continues, the more bad things will emerge. radicalization, you have the islamization of the recall. we are seeing this. you're watching youtube and i watch a lot of youtube, you can tell, the trend here in what is going on on the ground. now, of course the more and more move to al qaeda on the ground, al qaeda fighters after territories, it is not a surprise. this is home base in a way for many of the jihadists.

these guys spent years going into syria, out of syria, go kill americans in iraq, come back through syria to go on conjugal visits back and home. we know this. this is home. they are familiar with it. at the same time assad's strategy has been really heavily dependent on using the scare tactic of al qaeda in see. the longest goes -- the longer this goes on the longer it has taken be a reality. so that's a problem. unlike another trend, unlike the national scene council which i think is a basket case. the free syrian army is becoming effective on the ground. the operations are becoming better court needed and more lethal. they're killing more tanks.

sometimes in the not so distant future, and i think we're seeing it right now, they will control territory. the assad regime can't whole territory. while it's a positive development it may spur mass defection, it will also be ungoverned space which al qaeda likes. as result some wmd, some of the chemical weapons, 40 or so that the mdc sites in syria that contain gas, vx and mustard gas may start to go somewhere else. we don't know. these are weaponize, a very large advanced and nasty program. they also have production of facilities and hamas. the third trend that we're seeing, ethnic cleansing. there are two purposes why the assad regime is doing this. one is they are clearing sunni

villages and allied areas. unlike washington, the assad regime does have a plan become and that land is to create -- they are going back and clearing out areas in places like elsewhere to make sure that there are no hospitals in the air. the second reason they're doing it is that massacres on the scale they're doing days, hastens civil war, and they want a civil war because if it's an insurgency, they can pick sides. but a civil war, hey, we don't want any of that. domestic stuff. we can get killed. the first when it comes to mind is lebanon in the 1980s. so civil war for assad is a good thing. it keeps us away. it is inexplicably i think on our site are real lack of urgency. not only to end the slaughter, but especially given the potential strategic benefit of assad's fall, vis-à-vis iran in particular. what do we do in the future about this. a shortcut, i think senator

mccain has a right. we should be getting more assistance to the free syrian army, including command and control. and this means boots on the ground. not a boots on ground in see the boots on the ground in turkey. i'm talking about special forces, one lieutenant colonel, a handful of majors. this is what they do. they go win and they organize. help the free syrian army to be better organized with the command and control, and make sure that we don't have what looks like libya in the end. with hundreds of militias running around using -- refusing to disarm. as the center said, a coalition of the willing. not just the friends of syria. we should start playing coalition military operations

with heavy emphasis on arab forces. the uae and qatar were instrumental in the libya. they are on the side here, to. so russia, iran and venezuela are at thing without u.n. consent. they are not seeking our consent. to send weapons to give the same people. i don't think we have to seek their consent to help the syrian people defend themselves. we can't let our iran policy be held hostage, sorry, we can't let our syrian policy be held hostage to russian cooperation under law. we can do both. we should also stop, i will conclude in a second, stop we string turkey. turkey in the past, according to tony, great colleague and friend, back in february, sector is a clinton with turkish foreign minister, and he put forward a set of measures including creating a buffer zone, humanitarian quarter, a

plan for organizing and equipping the free syrian army. secretary clinton told her turkish counterpart no less than three times, according to tony, we are not there. so we are straining the turks from doing something that is beneficial. he wants political cover. they don't want to be out front on this. now traditionally turkey has not sought permission and wants to go kill kurds in iraq or syria. right? they want, to act in a national interest as they see fit. but i think we really have to help the turks to be the best turks they can be here. they think that's in the international interest to go create a buffer zone. we should not be constraining them. if the turks are genuinely interested in taking a leading role, we are certainly not doing it. but we shouldn't be stopping them for doing it. a buffer zone would i think be a watershed for the syrian opposition. i think you would hasten the fall of the assad regime. finally, what we should be doing

is the recognizing the syrian government. like libya do. turning over the keys to this three embassy to the syrian opposition. these guys are not legitimate anymore. they are finished. there's no talking with them anymore unless they want to talk about going to venezuela or iran or moscow. i think the beyond pale and i think we should act like other nations like libya. thank you. >> lead. >> thanks. thank you, david, and thank you, brian. it's a pleasure to be a hit with the. also it's a huge thrill, exciting to be here with senator mccain. as michael noted, i work at "the weekly standard" where i think for much of the last year i've been writing political articles attacking the administration over its three policy. among other things that a special on syria policy. so this afternoon i fear us going to try to be less

polemical and try to open things up for speculation, ask some general questions. the particular place i want to focus on was once into mccain was talking about why the fall of assad is important strategically especially regarding, especially regarding iran. and that's actually one thing when we come to questions later, that's one thing to keep in mind because we keep talking, and this administration keeps saying that iran is essential, that iran is a central regional issue. and other people say as well, including domestic adversaries of the administration say that iran is central. but what about, the questions i want to ask, or the things i want to look around our to try to explore, peace out very briefly, frequently, if that's the case, if people really regard iran as a central issue, or for our syria policy or confuse three policy, suggests something else that made iran is

not as important as many of us have been saying it is. so i'm going to start with one comment quickly come a very important issue that brian race when he was talking about the our would be concerned about al qaeda and other jihadi to my sense i is that this point a big concern for the alawites it's not for foreign fighters, it's not local islamist. it's just regular sunnis. what's been happening over the course of the last year come including the campaigns of ethnic cleansing which both ammar and david have spoken quickly about, this is a big deal. we saw what happened, we saw what happened where i believe the majority of the victims came from one family. isn't that right? they came from one sunni family. so what -- [inaudible] right. will we've seen happen over the course of the last year is is

kind of impression that the civil war has been going on much longer than a year, that the civil war basically started when the alawites came to power in 1966. for better or for worse, the country has, say has lots of -- sectarian issues. let's be frank about it i'm probably the civil war than going off a long time and we've seen different episode of the fun. we saw in 1980. we sought other times during the '60s. we've seen a lot of this fighting. so what we've seen over the last year is we have seen an especially hot episode of this fighting going on. to me that's what the issue is. it's about the sunnis and it's about the alawites. it's a secretary in war and it's ugly now and it's going to get much uglier. the reason i raise the is because i think one of the interesting things that we've seen happen in this debate is a lot of the times the ideas, the id of the regular sunnis who live in syria, regardless of their religious belief, this has

been aligned frequently with al qaeda. this is been going on for quite a while. these are different things. there is no doubt as david was talking about that al qaeda and other sunni fighters have been an issue in syria for a long time, and over the last decade this is primarily the responsibility of the regime who culminated and nurtured these various relationships. so it's hardly surprising now that many of these guys should still be a round. and one of the things that i wanted again, put forth speculate about it, do we know who is controlling these groups right now? we didn't know for the last decade when they're going into iraq. i happen to believe that most of these guys who ascribe themselves as sunni groups are really sunni fighters. but they are actually operating according to their own plan. that's an entirely different question. how much control does the regime have over the last 10 years? how much control does the regime in damascus have over the sunni groups right now? we don't know that. maybe this is something we can

talk about later, but i think that we don't know that. that's what i would put forth. let me come back to you or you quickly now. y., or in the framework of iran, why does the administration still say it doesn't know if there are suitable receive pms of weapons on the ground in syria? again, one of the concerns is we have heard them quite clearly say we are worried it will wind up in the hands of al qaeda. the last thing we want is for to wind up in the hands of al qaeda. partly for political reasons, but also actual real military reasons as well. we don't want these weapons floating around like a lot of the weapons that went into libbey are floating around now, some even in the gaza strip. this is not something people won't happen. again, i want to warn you on, or one all of us, on the allusion being made between ideas of al qaeda and sunnis generally. why can't the administration make this distinction after a

year? is this a reflection of the american intelligence community, that the american intelligence community still after year has no idea who the good guys are, but the bad guys are in syria, i think they probably have something of an idea now. the most important thing is the administration made a decision and said, the president has made a preference of his policy to identify the good guys in syria who will be going to back and who are going to arm. i submit that the american intelligence community would come up with a pretty good idea of who we should be backing and he we should be arming. the fact that we are not arming these people suggests it is not that we can't find them. it's not that we can't tell the difference between al qaeda and the regular sunnis. it's that we probably don't want to. and again, i would say what does this mean about our iran policy? if you had general mattis saying the fall of -- it would

represent the greatest setback for iran in the last 25 years, i happen to believe that's pretty accurate. senator mccain articulated very much the same, and senator mccain also put a finer point on it describing his mola. look, i mean, syria represents hezbollah's strategic depth. it's also a supply line hezbollah has an awful lot of arms on the. so now -- no matter what, even if assad would topple today they have a lot of, you probably have in of missiles and rockets for more than one round with israel. we don't know but they have a lot of weapons. nonetheless, for hezbollah to lose it strategic ally and it strategic depth in syria would rip is a huge setback for the iranians. and the iranians recognize this. this is one of the reasons why i think there's probably, we should probably let credence to the reports that are both irgc fighters and hezbollah fighters right now in city. in order to keep the regime

afloat. it's also interesting what this is about how the regime is doing militarily. if there are foreign fighters according to the regime in syria, does alawite military position look like? anyway, let me go through this very quickly. again, if we believe that the iranian come if the iranian threat is that significant, why don't we look for an opportunity to take on the iranians were ever possible? especially and, as everyone is saying, that there does not, david said there should be boots on the ground in turkey but not in syria. no one else is calling for a american troops syria right now. the idea is though essentially backing a proxy force in syria. the administration has said, they have been quite clear single, we are not moving towards the attainment and

deterrent. preventing that range in getting a nuclear weapons program. in either case, what that means is not just a credible threat of force, but the actual use of force as happened during the cold war, backing proxy forces. so again i'm not too sure why we are reluctant, why we are reluctant to back the free syrian army. one possibility is one possibility is we don't think we think that syria is a distraction but we think that iran is much more important. and this may be one of the reasons why russia, why we've given russia a leading role. we expect the russians to deliver the iranians over the next two days, and over the next few days to begin with but then over the rest of this negotiation process. the other possibility, and i'm going to close with this, the other possibility is we actually do not think the iranian nuclear program, i think, i think it's

an argument, i haven't heard the argument made by the administration but i can see the argument would be made, but that the iranian nuclear program just isn't that big an issue. if the iranians, if history is have a problem with the, let the israelis deal with it. but remember, what our issue is, our issue is not what i mean the american interest. it's not protecting israel. the persian gulf is, as martin kramer has called, american laid. this is our interest. and who is there? it is inhabited by sunni powers. so the idea now we are turning against sunnis, that we keep alighting sunnis and al qaeda in syria, i think that says something about our regional policy in a way we perceive the iranian nuclear program generally. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, lee, and david and brian and ammar. what i would like to do is immediately move on to q&a. just a couple of notes before we do. when you're handed the

microphone please state your name and your affiliation. i also believe in what i called jeopardy rules. which is if you have a statement to make, phrase in the form of a question. and what i'm going to instruct our panel for those who might be tempted to ask multiple questions is, ask as many questions as you want, they're only going to answer the first questions we get as much back and forth as possible and we have a larger and less many people as possible can ask questions. yes, sir. up front. >> thank you for the great empirical assessment. i'm a teacher. i wanted to go back to cindy mccain for a second. i was struck by his call to action which seems to hinge on, i'd like to quote him, we hold truth to be self-evident, all men are created equal with untenable rights. this seems to be at the heart of the american exceptionalism argument. but what's striking about this, and i want to ask the entire panel, this argument is, idea that one nation is hitched to