committees, exiled groups. you've got eight committees. a new civil society is emerging. it's beginning to coordinate, not just on the village level but between towns and internationally. that takes time. out of that will be produced new leaders. we don't know of the flickr city. they are over 100 malicious organized industry. they're not collaborating. there is no central command. maybe that will emerge. of course, the danger is it won't emerge. that assad will kill them, that this war will be very destructive and that rather than it being an organic process for national building, it's a process for natural destruction and that's what i think the fear of many syrians and that's why many asked for intervention. but i'm jumping ahead of myself. i'm going to finish why the dangers for america giving them. those are the dangers that we

can't really do this well. we don't know how to do it. and that there is a logic to allowing syrians to build a new nation out of this process of fighting. and that could leaders will emerge because they will be successful on the battleground than they will make alliances and they will suck up those militias today, will get eventually sucked in to one. and when that one is able to defeat the syrian army, it will be in a position to step into command and control of the country. so when you get the assad there will be chaos like it was in iraq. there will be a government in waiting, and a national military that can step into providing security for the people, making sure there isn't wholesale looting and people don't do bad things. that would be, of course, the ideal, and that would be the

rationale with the obama policy. there are other rationales, of course like he doesn't want to be george bush, multilateralism. the russians said no, we don't want to go against the russians and china. we went against the russians in afghanistan. should have let the russians in afghanistan. we went against the international kennedy and iraq. shouldn't have done. should have said too bad, we can go into iraq. america would've been better off. you can make a lot of arguments that, in fact, not taking a leadership would've been much better for america in the last 10 years, if we listen to the international committee we wouldn't have to trillion dollars worth of expenses that turned out to be not so good for america. so there are other reasons for arguing to stay out. let me wind down by saying, i was very strong for staying out.

i have begun, and many of my closest syrian friends, even alawite friends, have begun to say this is terrible, what's happening. he's a loser, he's lost, he's going to lose but he's destroying the country to look at many refugees there are. outside the country but internally they are hundreds of thousands today. those lives are being destroyed but it's going to be very hard to put them back together again. the damage to the cities, to the downs, to the people, is immense and it's going to get worse. and russia and iran are still backing him and that's partly because america is not. they argue send a cruise missile into the palace. that will finish it. the place will collapse like a house of cards. assad will deal. russia will understand america means business. the whole thing will come tumbling down.

now, of course, a problem with that is that it's wishful thinking. what if it doesn't happen that way? you get sucked in and then you have to bomb the heads of intelligence, the military headquarters, and then you begin to destroy the law. where does that end? that was the iraq argument, we'll just have some and the whole place will fall apart and it will reemerge happy. so, i'm very torn. i was a big advocate of nonintervention to let the syrians work this out. i still believe the opposition getting stronger every month. america has provided help to the saudis theoretical to provide the money and the arms. a division of labor and is but a good one. although there doesn't seem to be enough arms for the opposition. we've seen that recently. we've seen articles about

success stories, success stories today in the washington post. of course, there was the article about a town that's been living under opposition will very happily, christians and muslims. there's another article in the economist about libya, said nato wasn't so bad after the elections worked out, yes, it's a chaotic country, but the worst hasn't happened. maybe decapitation can work. the trouble is syria is such a much bigger country. it has problems that others don't have, along sectarian lines, that the leadership does not emerge, and alternative leadership. this process is in midway. the opposition has been getting stronger. you could say just be patient. gave the opposition a look at more arms, give them more help, they can do it. the fighting has now gotten to

damascus last few nights, and damascus has been lots of fighting, all around the outskirts. and so far this battle has been one of the angry young men in the country. it started with the poor countryside areas, whether it's -- which are known for their poverty. because they're the ones syria has failed the most. the upper classes have not joined in really, but increasingly they are defecting from increasingly the fight is moving into the cities. and when it does this regime will be completely overwhelmed. i'm going to end by saying the arguments for staying out, for not giving in, getting sucked in, our very strong. i think they are still compelling but i think the opposition is getting stronger every month. and the trouble is to regime is becoming more violent. it still has support from russia, from iran, and that's

allowing it, allowing the charteau to believe he can weather this in he can defeat. so the levels of violence at getting ever more horrifying. and at some point you ask where is the tipping point. i'm not sure we quite provided the we haven't arrived there for obama. it seems clear that we're going to stay out of this period for the next several months. and hopefully we'll see the opposition unify and begin to develop leadership, better command and control. and that they'll be able to do this on their own. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> we are going to open the floor to your questions. we won't take any comments, we just take questions.

overflow on the fifth floor and we take questions from them, too. barbara? just wait for the mic. we have the mic here. >> thank you. barbara slavin from the atlantic council. josh, it's great to see you here, and not just at e-mail. >> nice to see you. >> obviously obama doesn't want to get involved until after our elections, but life could intervene. what if the regime uses chemical weapons against its own people? we have seen reports that they're moving chemical weapons around. if there is a mass atrocity, what should be the response? >> obviously the public sentiment drives policy to a certain degree.

and these would create a groundswell of sympathy and horror at what the regime is doing, which is already of course quite developed. the question is can america improve the situation. and this is with the unknown. obviously, you're launching out, you know, if you do send a cruise missile into the house and begin to hunt him down like did gadhafi and ultimately kill him, how long will that take? and then what happens if the death rate goes up? that's the big question to get the death rate goes up, then does america say well, we have succeeded in our strategic objectives, and we can go home now and let the syrians sorted out, which is a little bit of what we done in places like libya and other places. that would be my fear. i don't know if america has the staying power. the regime is going to ratchet

up violence. it's going to come. i don't know if it's going to be chemical weapons. i doubt that. but who knows? you know, the level of violence is getting worse all the time, and it's clear that the intro, the bashar is living increasingly in his own world, where he is convinced that everybody is an extremist and that he is standing for good, and you know, the rows of the desert. >> we are taking a question from the overflow. is there any evidence, christian, jews, kurdish population of unsupported of the smc? since the change of leadership is the question, i think minorities in general, and it's hard to generalize, of course

have been support of bashar, and they are fearful of them -- islamist. is not the only place where people feel that way. i think that many have. i think many christians, you know, believe this regime can only so trouble from now on them. they're only hurting everybody in syria. because they are not going to win. there is no way for them to win. and the longer they stay, and syria is prevented from trying to get onto the next step, the more damage is going to be done. now i don't think the druze and christians will be targeted. when this regime comes to the the alawites could have the fearful but don't think the other minorities will be. of course, they are worried about the way of life that their way of life under the the assad regime is going to change. series has changed the syria is never going to go back to those

days. and it's a hard for anybody to get used to the notion that life is going to change, and the series will go through a period of chaos. and that's coming. and i think many more people today, a minorities, are embracing the fact they will have to go through that period, and better get on with it. i know more and more alawites, you know, have talked to me about the notion of something needs to be done, internal intervention. >> joshua, can you tell us the difference about the support that the arenas provide? we just keep on hearing iranians and the russians. the russians know what they send, but the iranians, what kind of support to they provide? >> is very secret. i don't really know. we have read articles about the millions of dollars iran gives. i don't think people know what the ages. it's clear that iran understands

that it is under attack. natalie buy america but by the sunni major states, saudi arabia and the gulf. it sees syria as the cutting-edge of a defense against this larger onslaught. and, of course, the west sees syria as the weak point for iran, if they can take in syria and they can. and our policy as a receiving change in iran as in syria. i think is a big domino field of this domino effect, that iran sees that they will be targeted when syria goes down. and i think russia and china believe the same thing, and i think that's why they made syria a cause that i don't think syria is that important for either country. what did you see his iran sitting there afterwards, and for china, 20% of the energy of course comes from iran. they've invested billions in iran. and i think it would be, they see this as a great act of

instability that if america goes in and has its way with syria, this is just going to keep the dynamic that is bad for china. i was in china not too long ago on an east-west confab energy think and i was shocked at the response that chinese diplomats returned to us and said, why are you pursuing this anti-chinese policy? we are trying to lift hundreds of minutes of chinese out of desperate poverty into the middle class and we need energy to do. our entire economic miracle is fueled on energy that comes from the gulf. you have put sanctions on libya, on syria, on iran, every single country we get our oil from you seem to find and put sanctions on a. this price of our oil, and it's going to cause our economic miracle to slow down. and that's hurting chinese people. now, we didn't returned to chinese and said we're the good guys, you're the bad guys did you are immoral and we're just trying to help the good people

in the middle east and heard the best people in the mideast and you are doing the opposite. you're helping the bad people and hurting to good people. and, obviously, you are two very different views of morality. they are concerned about helping chinese, and where concerned about helping middle eastern people. navy that's not quite the wages, but any rate, we had to have this argument over morality. he was moral. and our sanctions could. the chinese is clearly, they saw this as anti-chinese policy. that's the way they described. they said america is trying to hurt us. i think that's what they believe, and i think that syria is at the cutting edge of what they see, a position, larger position that will be undermined by american action. so this gets back to iran to iran clearly is the front-end of that and they see syria as, they convinced themselves i think syria is very important to them. they're going to subsidize it. syria had about $18 billion in reserves, 17, 16 months ago.

nobody ever saw it, but that must have run out. they are still paying salaries. they're still think the military. they are still some subsidies. so it's unclear where syria is getting all its money from. it's going to be turning to iran and i think that's the main place where iran will support, even with all of this talk of iranian soldiers and hezbollah. i don't think that's true. i think both were helping with military intelligence without putting soldiers on the ground. >> in the back. >> please be very brief in your question. >> my name is muhammad. i'm a human rights activist. good to see, josh, and good to hear that you are thinking assad is going down. my question to you is, like any

other government -- [inaudible] when it collapsed, but intervention or without intervention. so are we not going to avoid this kind of thing, and comparing that intervention in iraq and afghanistan, because nobody is taking troops on the ground because this is a counter argument being used here in washington, d.c., just to prevent the americans. we're going to another ward and senate our troops, we are sending some to libbey. where is -- [inaudible] >> first of all, whatever side you're on i want to defect to it. i'm just saying because mohammed was a refugee place in oklahoma city. no, and friends of ours called me up and said can you help the guy. peace in oklahoma city. and i guess that was, that was

the ground for needing help. but he came to our place for a number of dinners and we had a wonderful time in oklahoma city. i'm glad to see that you've done so well, and i've always been on your side. yes, i know the arguments that no-fly zone and just a few well guided cruise missiles, the libya model. hunt the guy down and kill them and it will be over. we will do the rest. you just don't know what's going to happen, that's the trouble. the well laid plans, including america feels for. obama feels like it's other things to do. america is exhausted with the middle east. they are tired of nation building, and it seems like a fool's errand. and what is more from hillary clinton keeps on saying we are winning.

strategically i think everybody in washington believes that we are going to fulfill our goals. i think everybody in the opposition believes that their win. this every month we are getting stronger. so there is no compelling interest to intervene. you can ratchet up more weapons, help them win faster. you can give them better intelligence, do things like that. of course, our policy is to starve the regime through sanctions and see the opposition money and arms. and we are doing that. and so you try to moderate that by squeezing harder, more and more sanctions, which is what america is trying to do and trying to shame rushing out into joining and so forth. and then, of course, get saudi arabia to provide more arms. and get better intelligence. that's the game america's plane because we don't want to get into iraq or afghanistan, and libya is different. people have convinced themselves somehow. it's possible you would bomb and the place would fall apart very quickly and a new government would emerge. that would be the best of all

worlds. that's your argument. and is very compelling the trouble is i think america has decided their winning anyway. so that the syrians do the heavy lifting, and you will heard iran and n. in fact, going slow has certain benefits which i outlined, which is that this is an organic process. you can't hurry it along. you're a member of the smc, or you work for a brief moment, and you don't get. i don't know why, presumably because you didn't like what was happening up there. and this is coming in, i could turn to you and say look, making a believer. unite. get along. don't disagree over the most fundamental things like how much islam we will have more are outsiders good or bad? do we want a leader from here or there? so the sense of a lot to do to convince the west to be more interventionist and assertive.

>> josh, a question from the overflow. [inaudible] what is the implication of this? >> well, people have been announcing civil war for longtime. i think syria is in the civil war in many ways. it's not an gushed increase and it will be all whites against the rest. it's not there yet but it will evolve in that direction. and i guess the implications are, our legalistic for taking people to world court and so forth because its crimes against humanity, that i don't really understand all the little things that there are legal ramifications because you can take people for crimes against humanity more easily it is not a recognized government. if it is seen as a civil war.

>> the front. just wait for the mic, and identify yourself. >> my name is mohammed and i'm syria and airtime from damascus. i in fact grew up in the same neighborhood. very brief question. how do you think these christians do not have power. how do you explain christians make up only 8% of the population in the first half of 20 century, they are secretion prime minister at that time, and then since we are in the post objectivity era and our knowledge is objective county think the fact that you're greatly one to post the same is affecting your analysis in any way? thank you. >> at me take a second part first. [laughter] you know, this is been a running theme, i am married to an alawite. my father-in-law served in the syria navy for 40 years.

he became a major general, or something like that. he joined, when he was a young man, there was no education in his village until 1947 when his grandfather built the first school, and at grade four, fourth grade he was able to go to school, and he got down and he got in the navy, which is what alawites did. and his proudest pitcher is in the living room is him being handshake by -- because he was graduated from alexander. there was no naval academy in syria and it was unification to use a big arab national and has been ever since. loves not sure. he retired about 20 some odd years ago, and has been much enacted drinking t. on the

balcony. there's no role for people to retire in say. being married to an alawite, i'm not going to deny. i know alawites. i understand them. but my idea about city were really formed well before the. my ideas about syria were formed from going up in beirut and the living and teaching at beirut during the civil war, when i watched christians and muslims kill each other in big numbers, and people who are very sophisticated. then i watched the iraq war whenever he said oh, we all love each other, we're going to get along, just knock out the regime and it will be good. it didn't happen. and living in syria, my first year living in city wasn't 1981-82.

in the dormitories in the city of damascus and it was the year of hamas. i watched syrians, every room in my dormitory was divided by but there was a through z. room and we talked about mike is the this was the truth room. it's all the people visiting would be from. from the same sect or the same village. and it wasn't the people would come and visit from different facts that they would change the conversation but if an alawite want to know i can tell you, the conversation changed her medical. and there was this world of different communities. and that's what made me so worried about syria. because yes this regime held hostages but there's never any pollution the assad regime ruled by force. and it threatened to turn, as assad did come he threatened to

turn since into 100 afghanistan's if he was taken to the that threat turned out to be real. and the country did break apart along sectarian lines, and it's paying an incredible price for it. i didn't have allusions that they would be a very hard landing to my first article i wrote in april, the beginning of april of last year was there is no soft landing for syria. and then my second was deeply sectarian regime, and most of my searing friends attacked me bitterly for saying these things. and you're one of them, okay. and i still love you. okay, but they couldn't believe i was saying these sectarian things about this as i because they didn't leave their society was sectarian. and it wasn't because i'm trying to protect the alawites, i don't think so much, although clearly i do feel for alawites. i understand them and understo

understood. but you want to avoid having lived through lebanon, watched iraq, you are hoping, the hope is that syria can somehow avoid this kind of terrible destruction to its society. i was fearful, and the minorities have had their foot on the next of majority for 40 years but there's no doubt about that. you were just praying it would be a soft landing somehow anti-we have a hard landing in and it's going to be harder. that's the really i think, it's not that i am married to an outcome all that clearly has may be more sensitive to minorities, i suppose, but i am very pessimistic about the future of syria. and that's what made me so tentative about wanting to jump into and i wrote my dissertation, most of my writing, and i saw how, you know, the golden vision of syria, the nation that was democratic until the stupid alawites came and ruined it, is

a wrong vision. it wasn't like that. the sudanese ruined it for themselves first. now, i'm being over dramatic to i don't want to blame it on sectarian things but it isn't an innocent syria out there. that's waiting to come back. i guess that's -- this sort of underlying sense of pessimism about nation building in iraq, lebanon and syria, which is what really informed my reticence about jumping on board with the revolution. >> joshua, no follow-up, sorry. joshua, nothing -- sorry, nothing. not another word. there is a question from the overflow. [inaudible] spent al qaeda will try to make as much hay out of syria as they can. there's no doubt about it. al qaeda was present in iraq but, of course, america's everybody who attacked them was

okay. assad is doing the same thing. is not being original. and they didn't believe the americans when they said it and i don't believe assad when he says it. that are al qaeda in syria, i don't doubt it, but they are not the major factor. they are not a dominant factor. many people say we went into anything, there be no al qaeda because syria is going to get radicalized. i think syrians will find, with time. i don't know if american stop them from radicalizing. we didn't stop the iraqis radicalizing, and that was an argument for going into iraq that we're going to stop the war on terror by creating democracy in iraq. that was our major intellectual argument for going into iraq. we did not stop any of the. we didn't create democracy and any rate, i'm not going to deliver the. i think it's there but it shouldn't be the overall, a lot of people are kind use it as reason not to get involved in syria, and