legislatessers have wanted to tear it down. rndn. te o bi wee ts. ..

what they did after words, wt was going on at the me. and so brought all that ou bag 6 ctnd reah. w aorkov tk me five years. it was one of the most rewarding and joyful times of my life. cot v go tom c-span.org / local content. omex t ther aist book obama and the middle east in which the international relations professor examines the

obama administration response to enge var meuring ints st n >> so good to be with you >> thank you for having me. >> and legacy your new book. >>e ere nowhat aro beomonhe thrsrmth tf odministration. a great deal of disappointment in many quarters. can we en begin talking wo.is a bav o i dk y cu oma presidency without discussing what i call the bitter legacy, the better inheritance between the united repoon yas the middle east, tha wears t uted

states sacrificed human rights and sacrificed repressive forces un strugin the sieti called 94 1 so age doneo m e so hd spi. this particular bitter legacy culminated in that septe ptem11. octiivod iasn d re iea was shed as a result. and this is why i think any particular dcued t rtularr lac. n w ew wwealut i e talking about in particular multiple wars and multiple fronts. the hundreds of thousands of american troops bating mli

thuntate das inre b sateg malndof uni es set back the credibility of the united states as a rational actor. the ited states of america baenng, aing, t leader exmegorr, ecomos t1, between three and $5 trillion, three and 5 trillion. >> and going to stop you on that. 's one of those numbers. and adinand writi t heang mberor s l 'sho nbe impolepren. ats trillion? i can't quite imagine a million. >> think about it. and barack obama came to my $7illion in der o amic eno tint

$700 billion. >> we don't have 700 billion. >> we did not have. >> no. we did not evenavhr tn wav snt. oe ey wro ne t about economic cost. it's about the opportunity cost. well the united states was chasin the ring bandsn afann a pisn, rl woi o le, enomic decline, and also the rise of the strategic and economic power, china, india, south africa, bzil, rk. iswhy ti m kentha inherited and what he has been able to achieve so far. >> that raise ofourse, the critical qstion. wee ing inrea er has iited t

er nor the sole,.s is l superpower. sunday been clear that the u.s. is the most importa are influential power in the region. it is now contendg in wle neayite ab inhate h t feat w iraq, we have the rise of iran and rkey that you described in the book, contening with each other and with others for riol thas easherng u. cldyedea t israel, but on these arab dictators for so long. so what do you think would have pridt, eit t aithnoer nstide l diar o, iupse, is the fundamental question, have

any options and what he has done? >>hi is ntuse rtul hauee dendthk,he . bein ofhe america's dominance. again, the beginning of the end of america's dominance is very much related t tellmeca reigpo is hj. beuse it had little to do with american security. cial engineering projects, backbaof tndg bottom- io cdit ized the damage that was done to america's reputation. also had a vivid sense of america's decline. th rlize tt ica s deg eg tta

raan t is e ungtocoin ihyany ofs were blinded. many of the left and the right barack obama has ner sdma. wrafoatesen 2 h aaysesd that he was a realist. a realist in the tradition of busch sr. and jfk, a this goes as aredent. heart of who he is evrosed, m on wd ar aus sie he wanted to go back. you really wanted, one particular point to highlight his legacy, he wanted tong it w bit w hdw n cseat/1 >> l lkha hi of q that people struggle to resolve

his even how much of a disconnect, not inactics or rese/1 baks the kind of prudent imperialism, if you will, that we had seen earlier. fundamtally seemed that the dien tnterf whme aere e interest in the middle east the oil, is real, and exion per,hatfrkets and sereonstei e nco c in,he neoc after nine / 11, and the perot obama. one o the m lsons ift. rechook a t

ements in the region and islamist movement and the war on sarah is what i call the structural destitution of pontinuity in american fei llnnndstn d ie tesns, und t il oorgn policy without understanding the structure of continuity. what we need? let's translate. at we mea by the institutional continuity in amicanorei pics itws t w a rtars. av t israel first glance, the oil and gas lands if, and u have america strategic inrestroad di tereouug thea backba started trying to basically undo some of the damage done by neil conservatives in pticular, he

me rdy contact and wle t dncal icysm. it's nonsense. this is not a lobby. the bucsillmecanystem whincles scialntt ouoroly hole,orgnolt surely has -- controls up policies made. i mean, if you really want -- i mean, myself, look at the team the sees, se obamaasrought. one oi nn sent vce. and this, by itself, the same people, the same voices, the sa paradigm, the same that t picy kps intsf. at warba w spl erroup, three

major confrontations. three different occasions, and he basically lthehree r confrtaons. hi bau al, ead h hezee h t iest pal capital. he realized he had to take on the entire dysfunctional american political system and was unwilling to do so becau of the end of the daye was really - bark opl cnot j onc le vhe world for the dominant consensus that the establishment view it. >> i think that sounds absolutely rig, but i wder, e was a men wo belvehi thehr cti eyero t w i 2010. there was a great deal of media coverage about this question. is the u.s. being too tough on

ra? therwereccusioro tas s i t media, fcen tnk and from plenty in congress. they're all putting pressure on the obama administrion claimi youe being t tgh. no i ft, as y d ersour pl sbungtsf rst answer, no. and then the question. during that time we were being told, the american people were being told, obama is really my.ftet thwa pnehe major democratic pollsters. and one of the questions dealt with settlements. it gave people two oions. one o iae are thgh t bldhe t

questionumber two, israelis are building on expropriated palestinian land. the stlement should be torn down in the land returned to its orin owners. veryrovoay bit.ace,roca nees pcefark a'wn party voted for a number two. i think that was a stunning shift. okay. it's a moment in time, a snsh, buwhy you tnk ere wuce he mira t age plipion fact, changed, and that it was not bowing to be the same kind of political suicide to anefust. they h noe ysious >> meer u'bselor. the shift. the american presides he onrtuha anyvehat

president he takes on special interest groups wod pay a heavy price. the advisers have convincethem at tt ishe rli. ap sakorheew mmuns. iheen aflo at t -- and i said y polls. in fact another jewish mmunities have always bn prsse and a tro cieve aays supported a two-stage solution. >> the definitions. >> the reality i'm nalbo yog e rabbis.a

and opec does not speak for the jewish comnities it does nepseheewh thisoomni. tha i,nraasome view as part of a special and all-inclusive special interest repren anced tbe ls i tnkeso . the reality is whenever you take on a dominant paradigm you need to create a counter. yo need toreata cotuency fea a inlyngemt d itital and educating the amerin people. these are the costs and the benefits of the peace process. th j cni kve you ecate, not yo etehembohe f

i aen o i trying to undermine security. on the contrary, the united states has an obligation "to save israel om a vy partularointf vi est iccsillhthe ga a tnis. he oheay, does not develop the palestinians. you might end up with wt? with one state solution or a i't s tts oly. if te t-stage solution. i mean, what options. one state solution or the ultra right sang no. whi treas thisll t-sge ti given the expansion of the settlements, how dramatic it i.

650,00iseli seleho breang t lawveorni bu the qstn o bau etonepolio w a arthe state or democratic state is a big question. there is still the illusion that there maye still cou a o-stag sion omt. noegiaon, dat pressure. there was one line in your book that i was struck by. i thought, no, i don't think that's true. yoferreo in nhi she rhri nd of the day the two parties divided. netanyahu went home and be handed. iught, that can be rht bins oolrsilary

the existing promised to protect his role at the united nations, ensuring that no matter how many resolutions are passed no on is ev auallheldouable. hing a tens a thwa b misleading. at >> i'm glad you mentioned it. fa from being empty-handed. barack obama i his thoi.tndanl hl lued ll under the obama administration israel has received card launch. but me. this iow cacko quonthlni rwhyohe ean aue and debate brought obama from 9/11 made a stcert.ent a ptf

toic aart pde the arab-israeli conflict as an extensn of american security interest. on the first day fst telephe m w t heseto aut stn even the u.s. military, the first time the u.s. military would go public and say that resolution of the palestinian-israeli conflic has di impt the liv ide y t tha president obama first made, you know, the statement that the issue will be an important one, that is an old story buts atemt,ay o anw oha ycnt reflting the military you

cannot top generals saying, this is crazy. our soldiers are at risk because of israeli action. hiss ihe th.sli bal ntubry t cd the president's argument. this is a force, not only an extension of american security, it has a direct impact on our afann bauseheres and nss t whn e meecy, ul a t intelligence services, the cia in particular believes and the milita has come to believe thathis is a major strategic intest, d th's w urbity,he nlles bk a alarn basically is also a testament to the failure -- i mean, in international wa t d we call it th t

deouavbotv nj nyaulng t idt he wteouse and chale t ititials. in als it speaks volumes about who he is as president. owroad tonnsus? consensus. t' nro ea i is aorgny, lfmpos. that's why. you see, the entire world, to the entire world and even the americ security, we know wha e tl,h lu. onns i tls i u fgnict esin the consensus in

the world including the military and intelligence services. and also, baack obama, is not st bas whe le he rre unfoeldl o t statesman basically the politician tramping over the statement and i very strategic signifanpolicy challge that barack oma did toioti t b dmisat frhe i of palestine question and look a little bit more broadly and otheriddle east aspects ,ou entoth tth ofn khrgh ch a want to change as obamaook office. one of the questions i have had to doith theric o

brtd omalely spnaig h charisma, his ability to inspire is really unmatched >>nson bselns d ll, emp ty'rea i w i erf in the book to accept parts of the rhetoric as his real view. for example, when y talk about s desionboibya thhaenov hiy , sear sta, against military engagement in libya. there was aro-military, o-enme,pngt n ptila e darted s yokbrede obama starting very hesitant to

engage, but being persuaded because of the fear of a er o wheertns. ret aiced s ervi o. at the time that it happened, as you remember, the first french attacks actually w o tks theoe adhe ca t drath que t president obama's rationale was primarily because he was afraid if he di't back uphe europeans, brinirtiey thereanhe a t whd eaonderwiomhe suprt for the u.s. in afghanistan. now, do you see that more strategic party really think to t tiampse?s respondinpuly

sssenar amhewat operation. if seen a very limited amount of data. raba, so o -- peoe no. barack obama and his foreign-policy team from day one believe that america was to gage in the middle east, yo wts sat rearomis ica fe mee e pacic region. from day one. and in fact,he rousing rhetoric, the out reach that basically was lnchedy b a h oerl orhe,eally gnedheisri witthslorld and then began systematically to shift american foreign policy.

waaslyuces why barackbama erthed amro f in afghanistan. that's why he was deeply suspicio. the people around them, close nation security. in fact, it was hlary conatf edd use mnith at e o tay barack obama and the national security, you know what robert gates, and ablulyesident an arin eatys, w ao o s rlly psea particular. the whole debate, you kno ab lya.you have to do something hoe.l eerous

we will go after you, will kill you. >> he was speaking to the armed rebels, not sepate. th ia,an os, stent tb wld, yoru could duffy. so if you work, you're suggesting that we don't have the compte evidence. baonverythinthat we ow weatr tway om t o i o state, and that could be wrong, his hand was forced. the europeans. and look. the united states was not rectly eag. frcendin t a ue sdl i don't think barack obama was really keen to answer him. bu tuestnha prest

ov t raica etrt aror etit a seg ulnngs an t u.s. military and the security apparatus decided to support such a mission, in fact, his decision was at odd d tt's heot th tic backing, the framework thyodescribe quite brilliantly oowheco icly cneansh thhianguage about

democratization. going to force democratization. and i wondered reading it, do whotiv ooseay t mdial reat primarily by issues of power expansion and well? the democratization fran w out th ari peog t s port pnt. these are the least people i expect to talk about democracy, promotion to my demratition. i t bignt, vw the social engineering products. d pdu as a of

nsva auethit an tasrea, a rock was the weakest. 's a vy w re we made in your own imaget my, i t know, i don't really subscribe to a single cause. itheho nio weall a a oow t eat u states was an empire, is an empire, the

united states to welcome a yes, weakens the change socl reity. theeopl ain ynof lk question of transition, continuity not continuity, change, not chang,ne of t inhe n thats the so-called global war and terror, he made a great fuss at the beginning of rejecting the name saying this is in a useful term. it impes t m 'soorran bu inis aio,s w s s dend others, the number of drone attacks, for example, was more, twice as much caishathe bush

ministration initiated only with obama using much more emphasis on killing rather than capturing fo tt no v tag bat guna,llng re h sy cadn the same war as george bush with slightly different rhetorical definition. >> ain, meano ay coervaveouar a aeratlld le to do with outaeda. american boots on the ground in muim landsasaou ily vasmnt aai s its american. the a different one is to bring ameran troops home, to reduce

the u.s. military ftprint,nd thisason oisaj. tiacem mainabted iraq. they said, no, we won't give you legal immunity. they accepted a limited search, but we know barack oama does po iacrobaeec ra a morleal a li. he has given the security establishment natal tec fatsi omaaid i nts w. an a qda to be dismantled. do anything you want. we cannot document the extent anore. ecoperio fce thaty heas

ery pt qaeda does not exist as an organization. six of seven. it no lonr -s ceas to t aol rentook vey/11 w qaeda. that document the organization no longer ests, your talking about very, very few surviving poialose and i fear, i really do, and a talking as an american, i fear we might wake up a few years from now. th bw bacotentiig than c toie saay unhe d-19p 2001. pakistan, i mean, the extent of ra that exists.

nato conference just ended. think of howakis - oon mki theolicles. juorfferenr officers to my revolt brewing within the pakistan's security service. realesow b t suaonmilitary non ast ais geut. mn, peonkt a injuar ahast and pakistan, yemen, somalia. weretalking about dozens, according to the u.s. military, the war anderror, unteerrosmsures. owithors, ir ing j so even though american forces might come home from afghanistan in the next one year or two, counterterrorism measures will gon. the dronettac thastitt erasal t. eend

the legal and the moral. none of the cost. >> the human cost, the black. eangow a t ssit goiot uer ininwh y w g for each truckload of goods that go into afghanistan or later the begin to take kids out. dasts nowinghat ea t in bergin,0 he. , i in to happen. going to rely on the northern supply rte which is all the other dictatorships. the notion tha is pak mite n tomhere rits r, they boil people to death. it's an extraordinary thing. my question has to do with spnghe whinebateha youre

patailaryt y ptadento chicago this weekend, but wiout apparently iserious meeting with president obama, is that why he is stickg to a rdin cahili i mag ndisai rtd esn paanmynarniin e u.s. counterparts about the revolt brewing among junior officers. american generals have also spoken, inclung, i mean, bert gat t past.cirffesn t thela u no classnd pakistan is average most of these loan radicals and militants and adjournments, most thoeuratl. co t gal

qaeda because they're angry. what im suggesting is that we really have not had the debate backob thn,he lal ctaut ot ioeor we atoren or kistani civilians have been killed, whole families wiped out as a result. and now in human theres another debate taking place ndle americahe di wl qnow fin rab u toe t big point, barack obama, if i was sitting, realizes tha one untaou terrorist att o the s idy iman inaal cu, quon andthy go far and beyond. republicans cannot even. foto pol qst.lly preempted the

irly i doc arutn economy. this tells you howeeply anchored barack obama's foreign-policy. >> butoesn thaeanhe riemev and bto urki a check by escalation on this scale were talking about civilian casualties on this scale that what we are facing ishe at itesnse of g o an airliner, maybe they can't do that, but terrorism, the nature of it, the instrument of the week. >> ihink the difficulty in ic, a y m m tht ofmics aeortn really caution the american

public about questions of cos taan feiy and d l ben on is to be inpo truly. and the debate, i have a chapter alst eryingln local branche. tack toeran w theyith a call from. and one of the lessons i learned out of my research, their is betwn gn and tlink rcti a t ruition so the wave discuss it in the united states, home don't to of homegrown radicalism,e are cadeche b el.

nghare course, misguided, deleted young muslim men. that is a reality. the reality is, we need to derstand why, what has en t s quiossha ki, arla ann,ngfgnian ated, more and me on talking the majority of basically migrating to militancy . there is no debate. th mnstr m, bad. th n yk sai it. somehow counter-terrorism is creating more terrorists. that is a reality come back to your question about obs cyee lalh d pt flae w estheger question, the greater queion, the costs of not really been

addressed for debated. >> absolely. and when we get to the queion osine eain f y oe log at human and environmental costs and a financial cost, it did not go very far. as you say, because the will was beg fohtn crear arndhe de, the midst of a massive economic crisis both here and in europe, dramatically having an immediate impact on people's lives. th mitolerso isxampe sdi f yr, nolrs. that soldier actually qualifies for food stamps. the salary is so low. all the rest of the costs are to t evething into ahaan mo t sseri

obl tig b d you think that is enough to change that does cars so that it becomes possible for historians, for acami ca ttot o t mhe ca pple this differently now? >> i don't know. i really don't. i don't sense. miryudt even in terms o the bgealehan il. because of barack obama's interest in the national security, back obama has also les, to ecehisay, to gat li, mb t li doc h a ofrsere e n that the military wi have to pay in the next ten years are so, but the numbers, we're talking aut really very minor

numbers. meano marelyalki abo yobo - hw. ergh fouoothig now, the budget that was just passed their recently, a majori of democratic members ofhe house of representatives bara obama's p ved thfsttt f hoo dha ihe context? >> this is -- it's wonderful to see. you are absolutely correct. as president barack obama t prenll ans is p. is p. enth question, ironically, on the question of afghanistan. he knew better thaheur woro t ct kasueioor steeheam ti.

it mmembs his party. >> and he had a general. >> of course. >> that was against the surge. why did he not cheese that geral? andhis by itsf tha hekst hade choices. the military and the consensus as allnt, ci mak bi to absorbent permission can't process information, people know who he is. the questions he was asking, the stns, the ueonhe cg im ay w w d'tw. wreit nbe ngng from 80,040,000. and my take on it, i come back to the question,ow local poti t a aea

tahm ty >> tarad eropns ut mity of the consensus within the military. the military came him. scn. prret ts, ea, he is a consensus. plus -- and that is why i don't understand. setynk honmes to t niol t w onssio the , veoue ws anhiele as a decision maker, in foreign polic, repy i n ry iori omt consistent even in

broc omarod iclic. brock obama accepted the military position. the elite. put in place by thed at if i w nor ps 0,000n >> that's exactly what barack obama is talking about for afghanistan, 15 to 20,000 troops , mainly apparently green fi oearril fce, ouil ama ant u afghanistan. presumably sometime in the future. the government, the parliament po aheeaery

ak it means that there is this kind of consensus for a permanent u.s. militar presence w,ouhi imy iltsel franalndcomi other political interests. making sure there is access to pipelines, whether it's the whre psses ntas to aor toosio rica is never leaving afghanistan. before he resigned, left office he said america will ner e anicatl paularid ghisis tos ile and vulnerable theaters, not just because of the taliban,

the question of policy hasn't, they have convincedhemselves that afgni td at c nve ghtaec wi l hend 18dut fgnist and i think it is this conception of afghanistan as a potential theater where by the allies of al qaeda would cate anherase,lyhe onicn, ino n ecic even now we're spending an average $100 billion. theily thnssooostl ts wanev aor. >> that's right. i know that there is this unrstanding that every military is always fighting the last war. i st of uerstt, b theea i king thrny othere

militantrganization or terrorist organization needs a physical space to train in the era of the iernet? /11ttotur st eyra irg ma?tththha if that taliban came back would be pretty terribleor people in afghanistan, but it's already pretty terrible. what did ty bie? dar oma bie al aomba eralre. is have no progressive vision. that is wha is sad about afghanistan. anhe w likyloodsh aar a r ernews again, the way the argument is distracted is that n just al

qaeda ceemeoalanre. averibed t the global list transnational g have this document. the whole idea, don't surge amicros, ry , ynosfe tops them. the lead between 15,000. you wage a war relentlessly. eyze t because t wao pnter i i kstaktathe ann ter is the taba.alu tin the ergcef a kha

eyerct, ou ll know. that is why. i mean, this is why it seems. thalanav a d i h wtt survive al qaeda because they have paid dearly. the history of the relationship between the taliban and al qaeda aryrahth prenamace. vey ew, what to you think barack obama believes will be his foreign pry ier pma tec skenf testes cse di. how did he define national interest? are they diffent thanhe

de b geoert th w mamaeaou ece a israel, the concern about oil, the concern about stability. is tt still -- is that the real reason preside back a er shi e hif d tonswer this particular question more than once. his realism is really the pocyer of ari basn muant colltive security, democracy promotion. e middle east itself, again, irstniaid,sd. nations, really was a classic

realist speech that represents the consens, israel as a arnd m sbili thes ollathe t t q ventnd military zeal. able to find the largest military, talking about -the mti -- hin ac aeding u.s. military footprint from muslim lands and the dismantling al qaeda, beginning to shift the debate in muslimandm repo tme teheusor ateiol lacy n will have nothing to do with the middleast. barack obama will be seen as the first preside who is an aging esent,acic n est.

wndop i eiyeyillee e psinthat shifted u.s. foreign policy priorities from europe and the middle east. he is in asian president. >>heasnzioment th ango rlnt face of what u.s. involvement in the middle east to look like. do you think he's going to pull that off? >>o, i don rs ob s ring fce o mubarak : he said bil w a m ohe thdiris. sulsee he welcomed and embraced the

arab uprisings. his speech on may1th 2001 in hie state deptmenwas realy era. rethua asevny corete initiatives, and the economic plans, not talking about american money. he has never shown any global in order to help the transition ciie ll hera d rasfhegyia m seicalell silent on saudi arabia a suppress the aspirations of the peop. sra ape 1101 dottt in arabia itself. so in this particular sense because, coming back to the conceptual underpinnings of this policy he does not believe in mocr promoon toerns.c

eliethveow prd h dight ahe uprisings and t revolts. he said in an that think that's healthy. he said, you mustake ownership of your ownts. ep a hhyise, e. o cdiy ay aelctual debates in that part of the world from america, america'role to question, governors, itituis haeninheb. da to argue this particular point. barack obama's presidency has indirectly helped to shift the debate inhe araborld fm toyllow v clyr. shift of priorities. i think brought obama has in a very small measure contributed

to this particular shifte are as n bndnstithlaed ts. bethoc andg hiiiftsi h o personal story. s axtray bo xt vyio re i aar eru sg scng president obama turning, pivoting away from the middle east, leaving behind a region upsingate brht by t fmy n si ps turkey and an that are not accountable to the u.s. new possibilities for reasssments, perhaps, in anseuesend palestine bause the