>> ..

>> evening. thank you for your warm and then presence here on such a cold evening. i was anxious to introduce the three of us as the brothers, but this being chicago, we figured it might not be such a good idea someone might take that seriously. it's nice to begin with the little bit of a light-hearted comment. i hope to remember at the end to make another light hearted comment, but because everything else in between is not light hearted of all.

we have all been following this serious crisis from three years ago when it started out as a peaceful uprising, the civil war, regional war. finally, i think, a full boat to topple blonde genocide. i don't use that word lightly, but i don't know what else to call it one government aren't to the teeth is throwing everything it has at most of its population , civilian population primarily. yes, there are groups fighting the government now, and that is primarily due to the way the government deals with the of protesters at the beginning, three years ago. the u.n. has stopped. end it is partly because there

is -- it is not an easy task when you're not on the ground and high rise buildings are falling to count how many are dying and partly, and short, because it's been, after a certain number icky accounting. by lai own estimate at think we are probably at 150,000 right now. by way of comparison it took the lebanese 15 years of bloody civil war to get to that number of dead people. it could easily go on for another ten years. to take this 150,000 multiplied,

you do the math and tell me, is it genocide or not? now, i am stunned and tired of fighting about the u.s. national interest. i started three years ago in government and out of government saying it is in the u.s. national interest to do something in syria. i put aside the humanitarian not yet because you cannot convince people to view the right thing, but you can convince them to do what is in their interest. apparently i failed and others a failed on both counts, but the humanitarian one, it gets to appoint where you cannot ignore it anymore. i mean, what does it say about us when we have seen, looked at the holocaust, study the holocaust, all kinds of programs to make sure this does not happen again.

you have 9/11, all of us remember, you know, two buildings jobs to the ground and 3,000 people died. imagine if what happened in 9/11 is happening every day, not just that one. it happened once in the u.s., a novelist and forget it. these bombs being dropped by the syrian government on high rise buildings and homes sites and other places in syria, and as if you were sitting in chicago and these bombs are dropping every day, every day. this is what the citizens of syria living through. what kind of the world to we live in the we don't -- that the world does not cross over itself to stop this massacre from continuing. i think have said enough, but i need to get this off my chest.

i hope this stimulus the discussion here. one thing that i would like to start with, when something is internationally interesting and doable without a huge investment and, by the way, it is the right thing to do and still does not get done, what is the problem? >> this is exactly why are book is titled this serious dilemma because we did not see a very clear-cut black-and-white answer to the nightmare, and it really is nightmare all along the lines you just described. we're talking about suffering on such a mass scale in syria. that is only getting worse. all of the ironies of the

impasse at the end of august, the aftermath of the chemical weapons attack, the proposed chemical strike and the response to solve this problem, one of the ironies is that he actually emerged much stronger from what seemed like a crisis. he has emerged as a much more formidable player on the geopolitical stage. the killing has actually increased the violence has deepened. hence late august july-september with no end in sight. we are now in a situation where i would only add to the list they shared. this masturbation going on in

syria. the united nations is now estimating that possibly as many as 800,000 syrians and living in the starvation ages, that is to say, the seas areas of the country were there press, humanitarian aid workers cannot get in to deliver food and medicine that a violin needed. people on the brink of starvation, children dying of malnutrition. body zymase al qaeda to much up to -- people literally eating grass, weeds, and roots. they are times toted -- quoted one chairman in one of the besieged areas. on a good day we might have a few olives. many people have already died under the seizes, but as many as

800,000 could be and the brink of starvation. they can't get out, and humanitarian aid workers connected them with food and medicine in addition to the starvation you have the outbreak of polio. after polio was essentially eradicated that you have the outbreak of polio. a journalist argues the outbreak of polio in syria really shames the civilized world. what is happening? and so what is to be done? these areas are besieged, surrounded, mostly by the regime, in some cases by extremist militias. my own view is that we might not be able after three years of this geopolitical go around, after negotiations, not two rounds of negotiations and the starting today to mr. of.

we don't have a solution to the syrian crisis at large, but if you could just break off one piece of it, which is what our op-ed that will be out in tomorrow morning's new york times tries to do, if you could just look at this one crisis wears syrians, these are unarmed noncombatants. they are dying, starving to death. what can be done to get food and medicine the fourth of. >> the first buses that left at 80 people on them. then the next one had maybe two or 300 that were being left out. so this is some several thousand. this is just the tip of the iceberg. this is the worst part in a way because of the starvation in the way these people are under siege

sometimes just on the open. and that's the bigger problem than a humanitarian way the still coming down the pipe. starvation has hit those 6 million. it's on its way. now this might go with the money that emerged stronger out of these and after the u.s. first column of the fleet and then pull the back is his thanks a factor in why the u.s. does not do anything by way of a bold action? >> no, i would argue. i think the main reason why the united states has not gotten involved, because one word, rocker. we are a war-weary country after

iraq in afghanistan, anyone who thinks of another u.s. military engagement in the middle east sort of looks at that possible scenario through the prism of a rock, and it is completely understandable. we have had a debate in this country primarily and of august, early september about what should be done in syria after the chemical weapons attack. it looked like a bomb wanted to get involved. there were people that are you, look, you know, syria, as tragic as the human rights catastrophe is car really does not immediately affect american national interest. can be contained within the borders of syria. our heart bleeds for the suffering, but as a war-weary nation it is not in our national interest to take the steps that i needed to try and intervene in steer this conflict around. well, i have news for everyone. syria is now a matter of u.s. national security.

that is not my assessment. the is the -- leaving aside the fact and syria is destabilizing lebanon, georgia, a rock, the europeans are deeply concerned about syria is serious now is a national security crisis for the europeans. according to some reports the our 1200 angry marginalize muslim men will travel to syria to join various militia groups. what happens when they return? james clapper, the director of national intelligence in this country just released a statement saying that there are 7,000 foreign fighters in syria, 50 different countries and explicitly stated that syria is in national security crisis for this country. the secretary of online security police statement on friday. the people who argue that syria is a conflict, you know, over there that does not affect us, the syrian conflict has ripple effects. there was a report just on --

and the new york times on january 301st. a similar processes leading to a huge security concerns which is a lesson that we should have learned as a result of 9/11, sort of ignore countries far away thinking that they do not affect us in this clause to world and we can just turn away, referring to afghanistan back then. well, that is wishful thinking. syria is the new afghanistan. if you are not persuaded by the human rights, the moral and human catastrophe that syria has become, massive state sanctioned war crimes against humanity, if that is not enough to persuade you then there are very strong and compelling national security arguments that should persuade you. don't take my word for it. listen to what james clapper is saying to listen to what the secretary of homeland security is saying. syria is becoming a crisis for the world. >> definitely implicated in terms of the impact, the

spillover on the regional friends and allies of the u.s. it has also been determined by president obama early on that helping the transition toward democracy is in the u.s. national interest. it is not just the right thing to do. so that also is there, but then when people say, hey, it does not reach u.s. shores in any way, is that correct jack when we talk about the region and friends and allies, that is in direct. and we talk about democracy, that is debatable. but is it true that this does not reach u.s. shores at all? >> that is debatable and is being debated. what is interesting is the conclusions one is to draw from the picture that our intelligence agencies are paying more and more attention to the

al qaeda nation of the syrian nightmare. for example, ambassador ryan crawford drew the conclusion precisely because of this is on his asian and radicalization of the syrian conflict the united states should reconsider its relationship with president us on and see him as a potential ally in the war on terror in the fight against al qaeda. >> what is the third inning when he said that? >> no one knows more about this than you do because you think -- i think you're a very effective takedown of the ambassador's argument in the new york times. >> when we still have troops, he had his own wing of al qaeda that was facilitating foreign fighters going in.

these foreign fighters coming from yemen, pakistan, afghanistan, were going from syria into a rock and killing u.s. soldiers. and when we told the syrian government that this was happening and named names and said to arrest these people they said, oh, don't worry. this is just our way of infiltrating al qaeda to keep them under control. and when we knew of certain things that were actually going to happen, at tax as a result of these people supposedly the syrian government controlled and they would not do anything about it you had at one point the secret raid into syria that is now all over. and it was a raid by u.s. forces into syria to kill this guy. you can find him in which to pd

and places like that. and that is because we knew exactly what he was up to and we told the syrians, and the syrians would not do anything about it. so this was a case where american lives were direct -- directly touched. >> and there are no reports that the regime is coordinating directly with al qaeda forces in syria in their battles against the free syrian army. rea now in a situation where they're is a three way war. this is no longer read to sided conflict between the regime and the rebels. there's really no such thing as the rebels. it is now a three-way war with he and his killing machine in one corner, the free syrian army loosely speaking in another, and

now the third force which is the forces -- and there are many shapes of al qaeda and various militant islamist factions is sometimes fight each other, but this -- and this is not just of distinction to be drawn on paper. there are shooting battles between the free syrian army, militia, and al qaeda forces. there is no smoking gun that i'm aware of pointing to direct coordination by in the regime. we might discover soon that there is. those are the claims that the syrian opposition are making, but what we do know is that objectively whether he is involved in coordinating it or not, he benefits from it. this is a prime scenario. to have al qaeda rising influence, fighting, battling it out with the original democratically minded forces

within the syrian opposition. >> it is actually just more than accusations. when you had your own deeply embedded al qaeda, and that worked for years, it does not always just like that. it has to still be their operating. smoking gun or not depends on who is looking in where they're looking. >> there is a deeper political point that as been lost in the conversation with the political extremism and syria manifested and al qaeda. that is the point that al qaeda just did not emerge from a vacuum in syria. there is a deep and intimate connection between the failure of political democratization process cheese and the rise of political extremists. the relationship is basically one of inverse proportion. the more that there's a possibility, oh, a serious

prospect of pursuing political transition and opening up the political space, the more the fed moves out the less their is a chance for political extremism such as al qaeda to gain a foothold. and the more that political extremism goes up the chances for the process of democratization and political extremism has diminished. that was what happened with the arab spring. al qaeda had no message, nothing to offer to the people in the region. it is not coincidence with it picked tunisia. presence and popularity of political extremists of is marginal. the lesson in egypt is really a as democratization has diminished, after the coup d'etat you see a surge in violence. and syria is a case study in this. in the first year of the uprising there was no al qaeda, as a result policy choices that

were made by the international community to effectively abandon the syrian people and leave them at the mercy of the regime, this conflict has gotten out of hand. there is no opportunity, hope, prospects for meaningful political change. and so we're predictably seeing a rise of various islamist groups, some moderates, some extreme. it was completely predictable from the beginning that this would happen. have there been a serious chance to shift this conflict in the direction of a political resolution, a transition to political power that i would argue that the prospect from al qaeda to me and -- it would not completely annihilated, but that relationship has to be, i think, remembered by people. we should not simply have a conversation about al qaeda. it is happening because of political circumstances and choices that were made. >> okay. it is not just al qaeda.

different groups in the different shades command center, extremism. what is the situation on the ground? who is fighting home? and hal is the fight going? >> well, extremely complex. it is a mess. but i think actually the increasingly confrontational nature of this double battle going on, the fact that you have actual shooting battles between ultra islamist factions, some associated with al qaeda and the free syrian army, i think, brings enormous clarity and also gives the lie to those plans that you hear really been needed down rather cavalierly these days which is this common view that is emerging that, well, the

international community cannot do anything because it is -- it is either the regime or al qaeda. it is the view. it has been their narrative from day one when it was entirely false. it was a nonviolent, nonsectarian, broadly democratic uprising which represented a real cross-section of syrian society. he looked at those original seven to eight months of the uprising. there were many christians involved with the protests. there were kurds, there were secularists. that has -- no, at that time he was saying from 9/11 this is an extremist al qaeda foreign conspiracy. it was wrong then, but he intentionally made it less wrong every day partly by opening his

jails and letting some of the islamists he had behind doors out onto the street. >> in jail either. >> that's right. but the vacuum, the bloodbath. it was completely one way. now we are in the three-way. in the first eight months it was one way. it was a non-violent protest movement for who cut. live ammunition, bombing of bread lines, sniper fire. it was all one way terror system of violence. and that led to the army of the revolution. but nothing to get back your question, it is a complicated situation. the only silver lining, perhaps, is there is more clarity. i do not think you can say the entire rebel movement has been islamized or taken over.

you have actual shooting battles going on between non islamists and these other forces. it is very clear that there is a major war position taking place between the factions, and i think it matters who wins and two has the upper hand. >> is there any credibility to saying, oh, my god, al qaeda could take over syria and you have a series of rule by al qaeda. >> i think that is exaggerated. among all of the rebel groups there still on the extreme and committing a lot of funding. they may be able to hold a particular town, but of course, they can do that because there is no force opposing them. this area that danny just mentioned happened last month and today in the syrian town weather have been rival clashes were group publishes organized against al qaeda and push them out of town. that is without any support.

imagine what could happen, theoretically, if there was a syrian credit -- credible backing of the more moderate elements of the syrian rebel movement in the free syrian army i think they could sort of turn this war are round. not overnight, but the recent events i just referenced suggest that there is room for optimism. we have to be careful. al qaeda does have a certain strength goal on people's imagination, very understandable given what happened in 9/11, but we should not give them more attention than they deserve. mainly in human. and at one point it looked like they have aspirations to rule the country and raise the flag

over a certain town. i chuckled. but you don't this soon as they raise that flag local and other forces collapsed on them. they thrive as an underground movement. and then the situation of chaos. >> and you see that in syria. the syrian people in any context where there has been -- word al qaeda has made headway, there is pushed back above from the free syrian army and from the citizens of various areas of the country that do not want to -- you hear over and over, syrians say that kind of islam is not us. that is of syria, that is of syrian. >> and we saw this. in places where they became influential. the people turned against them. the rule like thugs. they don't have the infrastructure the former government.

the way they control the streets is through brute force and very, very harsh values. >> unrepresentative of the serious trouble but they're disproportionately influential because they're better funded with their private foundations and forces which is a huge issue that needs more attention. and they get more attention because they have the spectacle -- they have an ability to produce spectacular events on the ground. but i think at the end of the day the number of people whose support al qaeda factions in syria verses the number of people who would support a, you know, the free syrian army right now or a democratic transition in syria that does not involve al qaeda.

if he were to go tomorrow, you would have a very serious problem on their hands. you probably have a civil war between the remaining two factions, the al qaeda affiliated factions and the non al qaeda affiliated factions that could go on for a long time. i mean, all of the syrian activists stark about having a program to get rid of those foreign fighters. how does one dislodge them? they have not set up shop in a way that is rather formidable. >> which are less the back of the longer this drags on the much more complicated is to try and bring about a solution and to, you know, pass it back together. >> if there is an agreement to

molests a geneva succeeds in getting the science to form a transitional government, what would happen next? how would that transitional government act to improve the security situation? >> is a good question, hypothetical question, one of the key elements as to be not simply establishing a transitional government that leaves syria to a post assad situation, with as to be a security plan in place. we don't want further chaos, particularly one of the legitimate concerns is there are minority groups that deserve protection. that has to be built into. that is why i personally as much as i support extreme intervention to turn the tide of the war for many of the reasons we have been talking about, but it is not simply enough, not simply a question of launching missile strikes, which i would welcome. there has to be a package deal in place that is partly military and also calls for, you know, respect and protection of

minority rights but stabilization plan and a plan for economic reconstruction. in many ways a model that i think it work here, it is not ideal one that is worth considering is the challenges that we are facing in the clinton administration with respect to the balkans. similar situation, massive human startling. three years the world looked away and the necessity of control. there are people here know the story much better than i, but then finally after three years, you know, clinton decided to get involved. to his credit no one is dying in bosnia today. far from a perfect situation. one can look back. i personally have a lot of criticism, but one of the good things that happened because of u.s. leaders was that part of the world was turned around. and the plan that was put in place was a political solution involving military intervention, but it also had a political arrangement integrated within

the entire package. i think if syria is going to be turned around 20 something similar. faugh. >> the worst group among the extremists is the isis. this is more than 90% foreign fighters. the steep the syrians to agree on a trustee for a transitional government and to step toward the kindle the borders among them. as a big security challenge. once they are unified and agreed on a move forward they can take care of isis. the latest news is already that isis is falling back from some of the areas. >> the benefit from the chaos

and insecurity that is characterizing syria. was there is an alternative there will be isolated. >> what we use the rest of the time for questions. >> please wait for me to recognize you. we will try to get as many questions as we can. we will start here. >> you gave the hypothetical that there was a successful mediation. let's take the other hypothetical that it is not a successful mediation. each of you were in a position to intervene or to try and do something to prevent a humanitarian disaster from happening and what would you do at this point? >> danny. >> this is exactly the topic of

the op-ed that we have in tomorrow morning's new york times. in my own view, just a press, desirable scenario vet my interlocutors have raised out, a transition into a post assad time, those aren't the hopes of the early days. beating from the rise in. it literally was not even discussed in geneva. precisely this is what my own focus shifted no to a more manageable piece of the nightmare. our own proposal that we lay out in this up that is that the u.n. security council has a resolution. france's already made suggestions that it is ready to take the lead on this end with this resolution forward. and the resolution to be latest

that these besieged areas that are not starving, hundreds of thousands of syrians, this would be directed not only to the forces of assad but any armed actors to interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid, blocking food and medicine from getting into the civilians. the idea is of c-span we know in reality. end very annoying to push the syrians to agree to any of this. they are blocked several resolutions already, three since march of 2011. so it might have to happen without the approval and therefore without the u.n. security council. then what happens? it is time to rethink their responsibility to protect us, like so were you have an intervention that is technically illegal but ethically and

politically legitimate in the eyes of most of the world. we cannot think of a good counter argument. i mean, tactically is one thing, but ethically what is the argument against allowing these humanitarian convoys and with food and medicine. should assad have the sovereign right to start people to death? we argue no. even if you cannot get the legal architecture together for un security council resolutions, there is a higher principle of state here and that assad should not be allowed -- and for that matter any rebel militia to stop the convoy. you're arguing for the use of force. the mere threat of force could be enough to make assad back off . the proposed strike set in motion a process so much he's travel very quickly.

all two the year when the russians proposed a deal to hand over the chemical weapons to just claim to did not have. add on haven't, but do they are. >> i no there are a lot of questions. >> cure is and know that something will happen and how great that syrian song. not an irony to see a chemical weapon. it is the power. so really that is what he would tell them because we don't want to do anything. >> let me ask you to get to the question. >> the question is assad is the man who is doing of the killing.

and behind it assad is russia and the united nations. we don't -- you don't want to do anything to stop the russians, then go to the united nations. i don't think without getting rid of him your going to get anywhere. i think that is what you're going to see. eventually the right to bomb syrian. >> serve let me bring it back up to the floor here. >> i think you raised a very important issue. just to bring it back to this op-ed, our op-ed deals with the symptoms come about the root causes. as you pointed out, the root cause of the conflict is the fact that in syria one family has been empowered for 44 years providing up to five presiding over a police state. the world stood aside and

predictably shifted the military direction. you have to deal with through causes. i am skeptical, but one of the good things about the geneva process, and it scored a key element is that the core of the process us to discuss and revolving around a transition to a post assad syria, a transitional government with executive authority. now, there is, you know, other elements to that process that are problematic, but focus of a conversation on how we get to a transitional government is the right way to go. assad has no incentive to come to geneva and negotiate anything. why would he come and negotiate his own this empowerment unless he is forced and pressured to do so, which is why i think we have to change the battlefield conditions. we should have gone a long time ago, is still on the table. many to send a message that we in the world and the west and the united states have a stake in this conflict. many to start backing more

moderate elements of the syrian opposition of provide them with better to various support. and then assad will be much more willing to negotiate. as long as he stays in power we will have a scenario where this conflict will continue. and he is not someone who is able or willing to negotiate anything is basically he is presiding over a criminal enterprise. >> and me, we have failed in the russian set failed to convince the regime of these humanitarian steps the u.s. have been talking about. if the people out of these dangerous zones. and i think one problem, if you look at the diplomatic and is that we are using the russians, the key player, syria, the shark, we are talking to aaronic a model we are talking about nuclear weapons. we should be talking about changing their behavior on the ground. that is the problem with our

democracy. they were not even invited. they're not being talked to. >> the me your right here, a guy and a striped sweater. right there. right there. right there. >> you mentioned that the use of force may have to be necessary. why would you say your home there is this what i think is an unfortunate perception says that it will just become another iraq ? >> the very first essay in our book is titled syria is not iraq it is written by and gentlemen at the brookings it's the institution and is an important message that i encourage everyone to read.

sorry for the shameless polk. but obviously the country matters enormously in this discussion. the shadow looms very, very large over syria. specifically what i mean is there probably would have been an intervention by now had it not been for the war. >> actually, michael warren, the former israeli ambassador to the united states said a few months ago something very poignant. in this conversation with diplomats in washington and policymakers he finds that there is a sort of shadowboxing going on in the room, the shadows of rwanda and bosnia on one side boxing with the shadows of afghanistan and iraq on the other. think that we hope that in the introduction. it is an evocative image and it

is exactly what is going on with respect to syria today. i would say that the differences between the two are vast. think of it this way. i note there are people in this room was very different positions on the war and whether it should have happened, let's put this way, in the case of a rock, has proved as saddam hussain was, mass murderer, at the time that the invasion was exposed there was no ongoing real time unfolding genocide or massive happening in iraq. there was a brutal stage, but it was not an unfolding humanitarian crisis. end the case for war, essentially it was fabricated,

some would argue rather deceptively. we don't need to really what happened with this compare that syria. you have resent you the opposite to read the have the worst humanitarian to pat -- catastrophe in recent history. you have over 100,000 people dead and more dying every day. yet there is no intervention. some would argue that we have actually overlearned lessons. i would argue that the people of syria are paying dearly and tragically for the catastrophe. >> this is an important point that comes up all the time. it is of fundamental analytical error. either we do nothing are we going with 150,000 troops and say they're for years. there are dozens of other options that can be used that will make a qualitative difference in shifting the tide of this war. our modern it syrian rebels, provide them with air cover or use our diplomatic skills are

much more meaningful way. if obama were to put a high level ambassador, send them to all the major capitals and use the threat of war to say that we're not going to stand aside and watch this conflict unravel. we will do it, mobilize. i think that would start things rolling. so this argument is completely distorting. if we get involved it means we have to go in with 150,000 troops in people with experienced. there are other options. >> here is gentleman right here, right in the middle of the room there. >> hello. good evening. my name is andrew live-in from harpercollins. my question was, can you go a little bit more to the sectarian elements if it is, perhaps, genocide, a lot of mass killings, what might be the goal

? is a bill to eliminate or at least remove from the country and of of this in these and other folks, a larger components in a bargaining chip for peace. >> go ahead. >> if you have a sense of history minority groups and minority groups in the middle east, they have not always been able to charge. it is happening at a particular point in time for political reasons. you can focus on the political reasons if you want to understand this important problem of sectarianism and minority rights. a solution to of futures syria has to recall or around some accommodation for minority rights are protected, enshrined, and protected by an existing security system. the only lesson in history that we can learn is that syria is

not the first country that was struggling with this question of how minorities and protection in a majority society. broadly speaking it's a two-way process, democratization with the constitutional process that protect minority rights of minorities are finally able to gain protection. they have to be part of the conversation that had seceded the table. the india of breaking up syria and creating some allied-signal removing people, population transfers, and don't think that will work of manipulating sectarian sentiment, a great line and assad is performing the role of the arsonists and the fire. he is acting as the protector. there is no long term, i think,

solution for syria, particularly for the minorities. what do you do to follow that? the interim process until you get somewhere better, that's a difficult time. minorities have a lot of legitimate concerns. that has to be part of the diplomatic process in the negotiation, the conversation. >> would you make of the argument of the source saying that there may have been at a time very early on where u.s. involvement could have made a difference in their lives may be a window where we could have shifted it, but for all the reasons you talk about this has been to no good outcome. the u.s. does not have a particularly good track record

of getting involved in conflicts in solving them to our liking, if you will. especially given where we are, there is lessons. it goes back to where it started so what to you make of we are where we are now. there are many who are. what are these kind of interim solutions of the you are advocating that will allow us to extricate ourselves and the syrian people from this because we have not gotten involved in the right way. i think if we have got involved.

there are risks. there is no providing air cover and arm said it will all work out a way that we wanted to. there will be challenges to mull watching syria burn in not doing anything seriously is having huge consequences for the syrian people. leaked last week privately admitted that most of the policy is basically failed. chemical weapons are of the move them, there is no hope vegetable

produce anything. al qaeda is getting stronger. according to this conversation, the daily beast, he is arguing that the moderate opposition not allow this process to unfold and take a different track. i mean, you know, i know is that there are big challenges. >> i agree, but to give back to your question. that would have been in.

it would have been the time to intervene to the much more micro intervention focused specifically on protecting civilians for about a year ride with st. paul latta options were open him. the first six months when it was the place think you. one of the lessons of the

administration certainly must be that if you threaten the use of force you have to be prepared to then carry out that threat. you are talking about using the threat of force to try and bring assad to the negotiating table in this serious lake earlier talking abut using the threat of force to try and get that only the assad government, with the other players on the ground to lift the sieges of these areas so that humanitarian assistance can be brought then. but which country or countries have you identified that will step forward and make that threat and are prepared to carry it out and ordered a for the negotiating process as well as

try to make progress on a humanitarian issue? is clear the united states is not going to do this. it is clear nato is not going to do this. so where is the stake that view repeatedly called for? where is it going to come from? >> quickly, if the united states is not agree to do it, no one is if the united states agrees, in many countries -- in the case of libya, nothing could have happened unless the united states signs up for it. the united states was primarily a european operation. they led the campaign, but it would not have happened with of coordination from the united states. that is why the debate in this country is so critical. >> we are all making the u.s. should do something. i still say that there has to be some kind of use of force every

day. will we are judging is not exactly needing -- leading. just not being clever. >> there are signs that france and the you pair prepared to move forward with something like the plan of action that mother and i have outlined. the french foreign minister said when asked specifically how this resolution seems to be poised to introduce, would it involve invoking chapter seven of the un charter which would mean the threat of force to enforce this resolution. he was a bit cagey about it. it is not clear out far france is willing to go to mom but i think that there are strong signs that france and the u.k. are almost there.

i think that is because it is limited to the humanitarian element. if you open up the big picture of toppling the regime, siding with the rebels' commander using a post assad. you're not going to get a sense. if you can limit it to this one question of getting food into the besieged areas, all of a sudden you'll see more countries signing on. >> allot. want to move. your coming to the end. you have been patient. >> what are the implications to other countries in the region, turkey, saudi arabia, is well. this seems like there is going to be something. >> probably the best person to answer that. >> the implications were clear early on. they have all started to happen. first of all, the spillover into

lebanon, / for and against the regime. there is a proxy war already taking place. to the extent that we have been working hard to build a decent politically neutral state, this is already fallen by the wayside he is holding on to and following good strategies, i think, but internally there are things made the break apart. turkey already has some repercussions, kurdish related, but also islamist related as well. there is also a proxy war going on the border already.

it may go back worse than it was a few years ago. now, israel for the first time has a fight on its border. this is a result of the continuation of chaos. there is no going back. he can no longer guarantee the kind of if you want to call instability, a kind of arrangement that existed before. he cannot go back to that. as you heard now, he is responsible for the deterioration, but the israelis of a tenuous situation, which they never had before. that is going to continue. the best way to end this is to reach some kind of compromise and have its dentition government. >> we have time for just two more. you have been patients.

>> you know, two years zero assad must go. no action has been taken. >> the president said that assad must go. does intend still being have enormous problems with the united states and credibility in the region? ..

trying to deflect serious organization attention because there's this process as long as he can while people suffer on the ground, so i think we are in agreement. they once described his relation with the come trees as a game of tom and jerry. i think that we are seeing the geneva essentially. >> raise your hand so she knows. >> i think that you short-circuited the discussion of iran. the motif of president obama appears to be a grand bargain

even though traditional allies like saudi arabia. iran will do everything in its power as i see it to keep a assad from power and if we remove assad from power it undermines what obama is trying to do. >> we did have enough time to discuss this, but there were lots of the discussions and they were stronger earlier on than iran was willing to see some kind of a change in this area. they didn't want bashar as a person. if the senators could somehow be taken into account how many might consider, but we are not even talking to them about that. so i problem in the deal with iran and nuclear weapons is that

it is self-sufficient on the nuclear weapons itself and it is not at all comprehensive in that the problem with iran is the behavior in the regi and the confrontation with saudi arabia. we are not even talking about these issues. if we were coming would at least have a chance. i'm not saying that we would necessarily succeed, but there were lots of voices in the region and elsewhere saying iran can be all, but you need to come with them with a proposition. and we haven't been able to do that. >> i think it is a sad situation because, in fact, it might be a little different from the deals. i think it's a good deal and i supported the democratic struggle in iran that was the subject that we did previously. the democratic activists in iran had a great support in the u.s. for interesting reasons to talk

about, but on that deal, but process might actuallthatprocese working against the possibility of progress in this area. in other words, the human rights watch takes this argument is that the united states because of this window they could get a deal with iran it is very cautious and very reluctant to push these other issues. that isn't the moment for that. the tragedy is the czar to good thing that would be good to push in the direction of allowing the aid for example. it's also important to strike a deal with iran, but these deals are working against one another. they are at odds with one another. >> do you have any comments before i close quick >> i agree on that last point. thank you all for coming.

>> i'm here to tell you that actually does. we need to take this much more seriously. we need to have a debate in this country about syria and the affecting of not only the middle east but now be the world. and i'm hoping this will be the start of a much longer as word of national conversation on what causes a should bcode added shoo stop the killing in syria. >> it's interesting looking at who they have assembled into their arguments. please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] at the convention center that is located in maryland national harbor. several authors will be signing books including senator paul, all over north and former maryland governor. march 15 and 16th, the tucson festival of books takes place at the campus of university arizona and yothe universityarizona ande coverage the following week on c-span2. from the 19th through the 23rd of the festival of the book will

take place in charlottesville virginia and many offers including james swanson will be present. and booktv will be wiped from the los angeles festival april 12 and 13th. for a complete schedule was us know about the book fairs and festivals in your area and we will be happy to add them to the list. i wanted to pick up talking about the buck as the posts ask what are we doing when you were writing those posts, and i think there are ways in which the format is changing the nature or at least some aspect of the advocacy and blending some older categories. so the post here that made up

the book and think about how in particular they may be changing the constitutional debate with the material in this book being just one example, the first public example of how this might happen, and what led me to think about the book this way is i happened to have the page for the book on my desk and an article that you may be familiar with. the emeritus professor at the university of michigan on the criminal procedure and then in the 1960s, when he was a young academic he wrote a review of articles rethinking some of the basic understandings of the nature of the constitutional criminal procedure which had been a very narrow up to that point. he came along and said i think

we are reading this history wrong. we should think about a new role for the supreme court and he wrote down articles published in the traditional journals and in some cases the chapters in the book and new ways of thinking about the constitutional possibility of them are in the right into the decision in the 1960s as part reflecting an idea that he had that the fifth amendment shouldn't be limited to the courthouse, it should also apply in the station house during interrogations, and that is the argument that he had laid out. and there was a sense that you have going back looking at the articles from the 1960s and then the supreme court decision that followed that he was planning a role in changing the terms of the debate. the academic voice would say here is a new possibility, and then two or three years later the supreme court would come out with a decision citing in some ways echoing the idea that he laid out and that was an example

i think of an academic sort of engaging in what you could consider advocacy support, sort of a way of opening up the courts to the possibility. and in that case it was basically a political liaison and liberal academics pushing the court in that direction. and i think there are ways in which we saw with the blog post in the conspiracy as a mirror image of god, sort of academic opening up new conservatives against putting labels, pushing the law and offering ways of pushing the law in a more conservative direction so there is sort of a prior example of some of the ways in which this dynamic occurred before and even though there are some civil liberties believe the similarities one is the time element and looking back at the 1960s, she would write an article and then it would cut out a year later and there would

be a change in media hiv or time window and the internet changes all of that. so, one change which is worth reflecting on this obvious today but stunning 20 years ago is the fact you can even get opinions quickly. i was in law school in the mid-90s and at the tim have theo look mostly waiting for opinions from the library it could take a couple days or weeks or months to come out with opinions if you wanted to know what the court had held, and of course today it is frustrating if the judge released an opinion at 10:00 and sometimes you have to wait until 10:15 or 10:30 sitting there hitting refresh, refresh. [laughter] yes, it's outrageous. and then if you are an academic with a lot of time and think i want to write on this opinion and i have to get my opinion out

and you are thinking in terms of minutes or hours and not days and weeks and months, it is suggested to become instantaneous, and that counterpoint is instantaneous, too. looking through the posts in the book any of them are on the same date over a perco with two or three days and so effectively it is occurring in real-time, and in a very public way. despite that anyone can read and an all conspiracy that builds up the readership over a decade. they could want to follow over new cases and go and read about it and read a counter argument if you are really bold to go boo through the 500 comment and you can add comments all in real-time. and the speed element is new. one aspect of the case is how the perception of the argument

and the arguments themselves are morphing in real-time and the public attitudes about the arguments were changing in real time and it was happening really quickly and i suspect this is an example of how it is going to be through the new world we are in and the second point i want to make about this is that the blogs allow an interesting makes not only of the role of the scholar and advocate, but the scholar advocate and the litigant. so there was a 2009 law review note called ex parte lobbying which raises an interesting question about the ethical when it's under the legal ethics rules of blogging and is the author says if you have a blog that focuses on reading and you have sort of an infinite resource to offer any particular case, by the time the briefs are filed as they can kind of be an

afterthought of the blogging that makes it the term in the debate and if only one side is blogging them one side eventually gets the file of infinite reach they can keep writing about it and are there limits on one side's ability to blog about the case even the blog posts can be kind of amicus briefs or emeritus in disguise and i think the concerns are kind of overblown because ultimately people are discussing the case in the same way somebody could write an op-ed or have a press conference about the case and the blog posts are kind of an extended version of that and i think at the time you can have a very high profile cases the blogs changing the nature of the debate on the pending cases and that if there are blogs a lot of people in the legal community are reading, you could have posed that kind of change the understanding of the issues into sort of th and sorte issues in the way that i remember when i was a supreme court law clerk i read blogs.

the other clerks did, too because they were the people interesting in the pending cases and if there is a blog post about the case you are working on you are going to be interested in reading it if it might be relevant to what you do. you might find it. so, we are seeing a kind of interesting blend where as i said at the america brief becomes another round of what can happen in the blogosphere and in the affordable care act case that is a fantastic brief but if you follow the blog post, there was the sense in which they were kind of repackaging and slightly altering arguments that have been debated in the public's fear for a long time and i suspect that it's just a gang going to be something that we have had have been more and

more in the future and to kind of wonder with this opinion court litigation would look like in 20 or 30 years you could have the official blog and then there is a brief that it filed in the case and justice scalia would only raise the brief on the court. [laughter] you can imagine others would say if i want to know the extended version of the argument or i'm interested in a specific issue of the book there are a series of blog posts on this issue you can go to that if you want to know more. i don't know if we will have the official post from the case or if there will be like the doj blog where they have their own version, but i wonder if they would actually play in this role. in my mind ultimately that would be a good thing because if you don't want