while congress is on break the c-span primetime features a wide range of views and topics into this weeandthis week a debate os greatness, healthcare and the centers for disease control and attention. we visit the press club for the future of news and take a history tour booking at the civil war. let us know what you think about the programs.

now today's washington journal in the next segment we asked viewers if they thought the united states should have kept troops in iraq and we got an update on the situation and open

phone line for comments on items in the news., r, this is about 40 minutes. v >> host: as we say that theyo base was playing out on the sunday show and among those shoe participating in the debate was the former u.s. ambassador james jeffrey on cbs face the nation yesterday.face here's what he had to say. >> guest: that's why they>> recommended that they stay on. s we would have had a betterbetter eqequipped army and the better i is on the problem was and weblem would have been able to do and d certain kind of operations but most importantly we would have. still had a stake in that country and we would have careda more this is basically an iraqi issue with the misuse of power but it would have been better if we had troops. >> host: former u.s. ambassador to iraq yesterday

mentioned a senator reid and senator jack reed, democrat from rhode island is also a senior member of the senate armed services committee. also on face the nation yesterday here's what he had to say. >> and in 2008 it was president george w. bush and the prime minister who agreed that all american forces would leave iraq in 2011. some people said president obama could have negotiated around that in the intervening years but once president bush and maliki had to clear the forces all of them would be out. it was very difficult. president obama tried to have a remaining force along the lines of what was in afghanistan. but i think once the decision was made in 2008 the troops were leading in 2011. has he contributed to the situation here? i think that's contributed significantly to the situation hasn't been the presence or lack of presence but it's been the

presence of maliki and the alienation of the sunni community and the politicization of the military. and the collapse of those old wasn't a lack of equipment or personnel. it was the leadership class into so in order to put the situation right we have to begin at the fundamental core which was leadership and iraqi leadership to defend and protect their country. >> host: what's happening around the country and in iraq right now we want to turn to anthony capaccio, bloomberg news pentagon correspondent. we want to start with the situation in baghdad. the reports being thrown out in baghdad and what's happening in that city this morning? >> guest: the reports are fragmented and there hasn't been

a lot of news organization coverage into the organizations don't have major presence. it's been confusing but it's going to add to the whole notion that the iraq he government is not worthy of u.s. support and that we should focus on eight and the kurds. this will play out but clearly maliki is holding on and that is going to strengthen the resistance of the citizens and lawmakers who feel like it isn't worth any pilot being shot down basically. >> host: you've said he's staying in power past the legal deadline to perform the new government. can you explain what's happening and what is the legal status. it's become the new prime minister. he obviously is fighting the

decision that had been laid out of the recent elections and this timetable had been in the worst of millions of iraqis. you get the sense this is a final thumb your nose at the sunni population in the united states. he had been a good ally for a number of years but this was the final throw of resistance and saying i'm not going out quietly into the night that it has military and political implications. >> host: good news correspondent. let's turn to what the u.s. is doing in iraq right now. what is the latest on the strikes, where have they happened and what are they targeting now? >> guest: we haven't had an announcement since yesterday morning. there's been it looks like seven or eight different stripes but you have to read them carefully

because they lay out one or two or three individual strikes into northern iraq area around the mountain area. what's pretty interesting is that my sources are telling me 9200 plane90 to a hundred planee circling around the cities with tankers and various navy aircraft looking for targets of opportunity kind of waiting. so far we are talking about hitting individual targets like the mortar positions, trucks, armored personal carriers that tells you the united states is a good picture of what is on the ground coming into the technology of it is so that they can take out the individual sleeping or stationary targets almost at will because there is no air defense threat but people

need to realize we are not providing the closer support for the pressure to. the u.s. is taking out individual targets that appear to be threatening the bill were the refugees on the mountains. it is a testament to the investment of the billions of dollars of tactics over the years. but it's also to the 50 or so intelligence flights that have been going on the last month and a half where we are getting a good picture of the ground. >> host: there is a headline from the front page of usa today, the airstrikes bring early gains in iraq. but one senior military official said the troops have gained control of the two towns in northern iraq but the militants have previously captured. what is the strike meant for the kurdish fighters? >> guest: this is the first

time isil has gotten their nose bloodied and they have to shake the confidence of the fighters and leadership that the united states can basically pipes to individuals and it's hard to tell from washington but we will get some information showing the pullback of the isil in those areas where the u.s. has been striking. and these are short-term tactical victories by no means is it going to apply that the united states or iraq can dislodge it from the games that it's made in the last month and a half. that's going to be very painful and long. but the technical victories on the ground. there is bloodying their nose and letting them know that the free ride of going through and bordering the artillery that may be over at the moment.

>> host: the u.s. diplomats talking about whether the united states should keep the troops in iraq beyond 2011 and whether that would change the situation on the ground. is that just happening all around the lawmakers and diplomats or the pentagon and other sources on the ground in iraq? >> guest: this is history. a bush lead out the mark that we were going to get. obama and the maliki government couldn't agree on the legal protections for u.s. troops. this is history. if they want to litigate it should be going into iraq in the first place which seems to be not part of the debate. it's blaming the current white house rather than the bush administration for going in in the first place. the iraqi army that we left was 220,000 strong. we spent $25 billion on helping build the military up. there is another 400,000 or so

state police and local police and national police. a huge force against the 10,000 albeit a very powerful force. so, you have to wonder what we got from the investment and whether we stay there or not. >> host: anthony capaccio is a bloomberg news pentagon correspondent. thanks for joining us on the washington journal this morning. we are asking you to weigh in on this debate is happening in the shows. should the u.s. troops have stayed in iraq past 2011? john mccain said this comment over the weekend the real story of obama's failure to leave residual forces in iraq from those of us who were there at the time linking to a foreign policy story back from 2013 that he wrote along with senator lindsey graham. to read a little bit from that story coming he and lindsay graham right nowhere was the obama administration failure more pronounced than the debate whether to maintain a limited

number of troops beyond 2011. the reason to keep around 10,000 to 15,000 forces was not for the sake of iraq alone but it was first and foremost in the national security interest to continue advising the interest and the influence in iraq. the administration should have recognized that after brutal conflict and they lacked trust in one another and the role was required to help them broker their most politically sensitive decisions. that's the story that he linked to yesterday that he wrote with senator lindsey graham. we want you to weigh in on this debate. the democrats calling in from michigan. good morning. >> caller: we are doing a bush cleanup and obama is just trying to maintain what was done with

the last administration to maintain what we started like your guest commented from the bush years. the different tribes that is basically what prevented us from being able to keep troops. maliki obviously had off. but it's and he was going to institute them once he knew we were not able to stay in their. finally russia plays a big part of this because of what is going on in serious. obama tried to allow putin to have more control saying how we want to better relations with russia. he wanted him to have a stronger hand and a step up what the syrian situation but he never

really had any intentions of maintaining or trying to control the situation and all of this is basically coming out of syria. russia is doing so much that it's basically disrupting the entire region. >> host: here is the story from today's financial times failures to the rebels in syria. the failure to arm the syrian rebels contributor to the rapid rise of the islamic militants taking over the areas of northern iraq according to the former secretary of state failure to help build up the credible fighting force of the people who are the originators

they were islamists and secularists and everything in the middle it must have been that such duchy harvests have now filled. weigh in on whether the u.s. troops should have remained in iraq. the factual panther writes on our flickr page the only way they wouldn't have started in serious to invade iraq is if we had a full military force in iraq forever. and ashley on our facebook page rights that we shouldn't have gone him in the first place but obama should have followed the timeline of the generals the reasons were political and now it's happening to christians there as genocide. and we want to hear from you this morning on the washington journal. we have a special line for the veterans of the war in iraq. we will go to the independent line calling from atlanta

georgia. good morning. the overall view of obama in the last year is the strike, the go but in general it's going to cost 300 plus thousand dollars to get them to speaking glitch. we aren't going to get anything out of this. do you think the situation could have been avoided? >> guest: like the person in front of me said you have to keep the force forever more. >> host: joe calling in from woodbridge virginia on the line for republicans. good morning.

as a republican i agree with joe biden way back when that's when we have 150,000 troops we should partition the country three different ways. i think iraq would have been a safer and a stable place. number two, as far as the troops staying in iraq, yes i think that we should have left the troops to secure the country. i do not agree with your guest. the iraq he government i think his whole intention contained on ending the war and that was never an option for the obama administration. [inaudible] if we do not fight them over there we will be fighting in the streets of the united states of

america. thank you. >> host: that's a subject we will talk about in the next segment of the washington journal we will be joined by then lieutenant colonel of the rand corporation we will be talking to him about that subject and then also going on strategically on the ground right now. john waiting in arlington virginia on the line for republicans. good morning. when they made the agreement everybody getting out of the 2011 it was going to be hard for obama to say maybe not. he wasn't going to give up on having about legal authority over the u.s. personnel and we were not going to accept that. the second thing is they are not exactly 100% angels on this whether they -- when isil, they went in and grabbed from

basically the main government and everybody kind of ignored it is a little timebomb. i want to get onto mrs. clinton. the president said that one of the mistakes that w we we needed libya is that we didn't follow up and the fact is that when you overthrow the government or try to overthrow the government like we did in iraq and like hillary clinton supported you don't know what the consequences are and that was proven in libya and iraq and i don't see why it wouldn't have been proven in serious. it's a tense situation. like somebody said if you're going to do it right you have to put up three quarters of a million soldiers over there, make the whole society and be there for 20 to 30 years. >> host: what we shouldn't do is go back after we left the training iraq troops in the bush era must have not trained them.

especially want to hear from the iraq war veteran like you said we have a line that is to 825-85-3883. we will go to the line for democrats now. knoxville tennessee. good morning. >> guest: >> caller: thank you for c-span and the opportunity to talk. i just want to say that coming from the perspective of a former republican i used to be a moderate ronald reagan republican and there is no such thing as a moderate republican anymore so i'm i may democrats. i voted for mr. obama partly because he said he would get us out of iraq. i don't think it is the presidents fault that we pulled troops out of iraq when president bush had already made the agreement with the timeline and one of the things he said was to get the folks democracy. while can he came about through the democracy and if we were

going to let that country have sovereignty we could enforce our rules. all of the money seems to be for not when they are an army with their uniforms and weapons in front of isi. the president coming in now i don't think we are ever going to get out of there. we do need to stop being an empire in the world and bring our troops home. thank you for letting me make my point. >> host: keokuk some of the sentiment that you brought up and he wrote over the weekend iraq why should we defend the country that refuses to defend itself? senator john mccain is one of the leaders in this discussion. he was on cnn state of the union yesterday along with being active on the social media. here's what he ha had to say one

subject on that program. >> when the president of the united states says the last combat troop was out of iraq and by the way it's not a matter of whether but when he will be leaving power in the statements about how the war is winding down. it's a vacuum of american leadership all throughout the middle east and not just look at the israeli situation and others. but the fact is there is no leadership and the decisions have consequences. the failure to leave the force and our announcement that we are leaving the area in the vacuum of leadership especially in that part of the world we are paying a price for it. >> host: yesterday republican of arizona and member of the

senate armed services committee. committee. we will get to that line for the veteran. he's waiting on that line calling in from virginia. good morning. you are with us this morning on the washington journal. should the u.s. have kept the troops in iraq the onto 2011? >> caller: i just want to make a general comment is a general purpose to make this stuff work after our politicians get done and my comment is about this whole smart power thing. when hillary clinton came in it was going to be a whole new dawn and we would have smart power leading from behind which was an oxymoron. let's go down the list. libya that was good, serious. we are still waiting for north korea and if we think about the destabilizing effect of the foreign policy and the total lack of understanding at the

state department is just appalling. you talked t talk to some of ths and ask is that containment, selective engagement, some sort of piece of a détente strategy, is it some sort of a blocked theory lacks the answer like everything else it is just something that, you know it's really complicated and you want to get an advanced degree to understand but the reality is this america has lost prestige intand position in the world of course has slipped into a good time for a lot of folks to really think about this. it's not a bumper sticker slogan so before people start putting people back on the ground, they need to use some of the calculus that's available, maybe use some of that education they send these folks do and what is the value of the object and the amount of prestige that we are willing to actually sacrifice for this stuff and maybe figure out what the object is and they

can do that in the terms of the magnitude and the effect of the strategy and then take a look at some of these things because quite frankly it seems to be easy to sit there in congress and pontificate but the reality is we have a whole lot of people. it's obvious that there is a critical misunderstanding of the geopolitics. >> host: in the next session we will be talking about some of the strategy and tactic us. also want to share the front page of "the new york times" today showing an american jet coming in on the flight deck of the carrier of the george h. w. bush which is in the persian gulf where some of these operations are being flown from and also in today's "washington post," a piece by the president of the kurdistan region of iraq asking for an expansion of the airstrikes that arair strikes tg in iraq in the northern region about the kurdistan region. the president writes it to a schedule that we received

military support from the united states and others immediately. every day the terrorists are able to operate cranes a humanitarian crisis, description and hoarder. he writes every religion, state and community must voice its support for the civilization and humanithumanity in countries wia capacity to help first and foremost the united states must understand this is an urgent danger and act accordingly we must stop them now with air support and military could he writes we can't. >> caller: the question we should have never left. we should have kept your troops. we should have taken over the country. all of the legal tax and funds should be given to the american people. during world war ii, we took the

arabs were all on the german side. they lost the war. why do we still not have all of those loyal funds? and i believe that our country should take over and make a democratic government. but they pay their way. all funds of any war that we take part in will be paid by those countries. thank you. >> host: filed in florida coming in from huntsville alabama on the line for independence. good morning. as a retired veteran of the air force and army i trained soldiers and air force airman and army soldiers and let me tell you people something. this is why we are the greatest of the three o in the world

because our people love their country. they love their country deep down. it's in their blood and their history. you cannot train people in iraq and afghanistan to have heart and love of country. that's what people drop their weapons. we can stay 20 years training those people but if they don't have to care rustics and trades we are wasting our time going over and over again talking about training into some kind of advisors. we have to go over there and babysit these people? if they don't want to fight for the country than they shouldn't have a country. >> on the subject of the veterans from the war in iraq and afghanistan here's a story from today's "the washington

times" the government is paying three times as much in disability payments according to a budget analysis that says the war on tw on sticker was on hist troops were injured in previous conflicts. the disability has jumped from $54 billion last year according to the congressional budget office. those returning from the war in iraq and afghanistan received a disability check and whoever received a disability check has an average of 5.4 injuries compared to 3.6 per vietnam veteran and a 2.4 for the veterans of the world war ii and korea. they also have more payments than the average veteran and honey 00 -- 2000. on the veterans issues come here is the federal page of today's "washington post." the veterans are being planned

for a new memorial is in the works for gay memorials at the cemetery in washington will consist of three panels can be 11 feet high and 10 feet wide according to the, gay, transgender veterans and here's a picture of that some oreo with the rendering of the more you than companies the story. the national lgbt project has a site for the structure close to the grave of -- this disclosure led to the charge from the air force and inclusion of gay men and lesbians. if you want to read that on the front page of the "washington post" we had about 15 minutes left on this segment. want to get your thoughts on the debate that played out yesterday showed that u.s. troops have stayed in iraq and what they have changed the situation now?

van is calling from texas on the line for independence. good morning. turn down your tv and go ahead with your comment. >> caller: i don't think the troops should have stayed in iraq if maliki wasn't going to give them protection. he wanted to be on the iraqi government. i don't understand general mccain and lindsey graham. they ran for president in 2000. the republican party rejected him. he ran again in 2000 and then in 2008 and the people reacted him. he needs to quit trying to be president. the american people have protected him and he keeps running around trying to be president. he's not. >> the twitter page asks why

should there be an american leadership in the middle east we don't need them. so michael waiting on the line for republicans. good morning. .. of course we should have left a residual force. the little girl from tennessee, your guest from bloomberg, they are still trying to blame george bush. for years obama has bragged about trying to bring the troops home. now obama is blaming george bush for bringing the troops home? you can't have it both ways. who brought the troops home? obama, or george bush? david, from jonesboro, republican line. david, good morning.

i think that we should have obviously left the troops in iraq. understand it,te actually, when they indicated that they would be going home. trying very hard to make us believe that things that we had seen and heard her family . i don't understand why he is so hell-bent on doing that. it's obvious that they could around 13,000 troops. that's what the military wanted. the question is -- why is it that obama did not want to leave them there? one, you wanted to lower the defense budget. another, i think you wanted out. don't think he cared. he is a politician. he is very good at domestic things, giving speeches, but does military stuff he doesn't

like. the other people the national security agency don't know what they are doing and it concerns me. a few pieces of domestic "-- this morning, and morning, "protests follow the shooting of a missouri >> surveillance transparency act by a police officer in st. louis came after a struggle for an officer's gun and the police said in an explanation that was met with outrange in the african-american community. michael brown's killing ignited protest in fergson, missouri and hundreds of people gathered to question the police and light cana candles for the man.

news from hawaii, waiting for results in the hawaii senate race and here is "the wall street journal" story. it hangs on a few vote and the winner of the senate primary election in hawaii maybe determined by a few thousands voters who are unable to cast ballots this weekend after two polling sites were closed down after the hurricane moved through there and damaged the location. with all but two of the states 47 prestincts counted and the absentee ballots and the area that was postponed may determine the results of the race. should the united states have stayed in iraq? robert is calling in on the democrats line. governor.

>> absolutely not. i am a vietnam veteran. we stayed there many years and i was in the beginning at '64, '65, and '67 and we lost thousands of troops in that area. so why go to iraq and stay there? first of all, we should not have been there in the first place. now the war mongers are saying you should not have done this or that. we should not have been there in the beginning. and that is basically what i have to say. thank you and have a blessed day. >> and charles is calling in in from wisconsin on the independent line. good morning, charles. >> good morning. i wanted to say it is bad as far as humans are tricked to send other people's children's family members and friends to war and

when they come in in boxes the whole conversations changes. yes, we should have brought the troops home. if he would have stayed and waited later the same incident taking place now would have taken place later. until the people learn to take care of themselves they will always have the same situation over and over again. the mentality of people has to change when it comes to life and death. it isn't always about war. we understand war but it isn't all about war. >> a republican from california wrote over the weekend that the united states should have no permanent military forces in iraq no matter who is be headed. jim from georgia is on the line. thank you for calling. >> enjoy your program. always have. i have two comments.

one is we don't need to be there in iraq. those people have been killing each other thousands of year and will continue to kill each other. and the incident in st. louis where the young man was killed and i feel bad but there is no reason to burn down businesses and steal from them just to protest someone getting killed. i don't understand this country. >> jim in franklin, georgia. here is another story from the washington times on a 75-year-old spanish priest who became the first patient evacuated to europe with the deadly ebola virus and he is the first european being treated with the experimental drugs produced by a bio pharmaceutical company in california that was tested on monkeys and never used on human until two people were

brought to atlanta this week. according to the world health organization, 1800 cases of ebola have happened and 961 deaths have been reported in west africa. the new york times is writing about the ebola epidemic and it's board is noting how to go about how to control the epidemic and they write apart from toll of deaths it is showing how unprepared america is. if you want to read more on the board of new york times opinion on this that is in today's paper. trying to get to a few more calls in the few minutes we have left in his segment. matthew is in idaho for the

democrats. >> how are you? >> good. go ahead. >> i want to talk about the situation up in the middle east. we built that area up and had state department personal there asking those guys to do something and they did it every way we said. they helped patrol baghdad and have been on our side every step of the way and now they are in trouble. to me this is a separate issue if we should have gone into iraq. they have been on our side and hanging them out there is disappoi

disappointing. they need to be more robust. >> do you think we have more responsibility to the area? >> the shittes are trying to get their act together. there is not a lot of good reporting. you don't know the state of the sunni tribes. we don't know the ratio. the kurds have been with us the whole time and are trying to improve the situation. so when isil attacked them, to not be there in various ways, sends a bad message to everybody in the region and it is unfortunate and disappointing. >> for the next segment, we have

a retired marine officer talking about the issues you bring up so stick around. we go to john in tulsa, oklahoma on the democratic line. >> the concept of leaving, having or sending troops is simple for the american people. and john mccain and lindsay grahm here is the question i have to ask you raise taxes, we will send troops, raise taxes we'll invade people. if the american people want to do these things who is paying for it? we are supposed to pay for it because it is our troops. so raise taxes. >> and one more tweet for you from gary who right it isn't that iraqis don't love their country but they have no country. it is fabrication by the west.

>> the pentagon at a briefing today and we will have it on c-span at 2 p.m. eastern. join us when the american certified instiitute of accounting holds a conference. you can watch that live at 1:15 eastern on c-span. and more from the american institute of certified accountants. they will talk to the office of management and budget and talk about key management issues and challen challenges. that is live starting at 2:50 eastern on c-span. here is a look at how the house congress members are spending their time away from washinton.

new jersey's person said they are looking forward to welcoming fox to a visit of faa tech employees today. and the indiana said head to the va outpatient center to meet the patients and talk about the new va laws. and chris murphy tweets what he is up to. my pickles. it is 10 a.m. and i have accomplished more today than the senate does many weeks. we will continue to monitor congressional tweets and try to bring more to you throughout the day. all week watch booktv in prim type. tonight at 8:30 eastern and tuesday-friday at 8:00 booktv features a range of topics from foreign policy, law and legal issues, iran, and coverage from across the country and the best-sellers this year. call ost 202-626-3400 or e-mail

us at comments.cspan.org. c-span's prime time features a variety of topics this week america's greatness and the veter veterans and the world health organization. we take a look at the civil war as well. let us know what you think about the programs by calling or e-mail us. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter and join the conversation. >> join us tonight for american history television. we will hear advice from the founding father's personal letters with william crystal.

and then focus on alexander hamilton and the con cept of a man's honor. and then more elections and history with a discussion on alcohol use in early america. >> and more from today's washington journal with a discussion on the latest development from the united states aircampaign over iraq. on twitter. >> "washington journal" >> ben is a senior policy analyst at the non-profit rand corporation. and he is joining us to continue the discussion on the united states airstrikes against isil. is this campaign working so far? >> the air campaign has a tactical purpose and that is to protect the innocent civilians

trapped in the mountains in northern iraq and penetrate iss from going firurther north. it looks like it is succeededing. >> what is constituting success? >> that is the crux of the problem. now that we have started bombing -- what is the long-term plan? the president said this is an iraqi problem and that is true to a certain extent but if you are killing people you need a long-term purpose behind it. it is still an open debate on what that strategy is. >> you didn't support the airstrikes idea. why does that before what happened on thursday and friday? >> it ties directly back to the what the president said. this is an iraqi problem. you have the prime minister who

is unable to get a long-term solution to what is essentially a sunni uprising. because they have been unable to offer them an alternative, they will keep fighting, rather we are bombing or not. >> here is a headline from the u.s. today. talking about the bombing campaign while the heavy states and armor made it a potential fighting force the equipment makes the militants vulnerable to u.s. airstrikes. what happens when the targets dry up? is there an end point when there is nothing to bomb? >> that is at a great question. we are not sure the armor belongs to isis. they are missed in with other groups like the 1920 ber gade

that are linked to the bath tub party. we know some of the groups seized the armor. there is going to come a point when it dries up but now we need to be considerate of who we are killing. if we are killing non-isis people what effect does that have on the community. >> you talk about who makes up isis and you wrote before that divisions exist within the islamic state or when it was still called isis. can you talk about if the divisi divisions exist still and if they can be exploited? >> the divisions will always exist in in the militant groups. they can be exploited. we want to focus on the divisions between isis and the

other groups that some represent a broader population of the sunni. if we can show them there is another way forward we might be able to pair them away from isis. >> can you talk about your experience on the ground in iraq? you know them well and worked in that region of the country. >> i was there and i stayed in touch with a lot of those folks and interviewed them over the six months and stayed in touch with e-mail and phone with several of them. they don't want to separate from the rest of iraq. they want to stay part of the ir ir iraqi nation. i'm not saying they represent every sunni. they don't support isis or al-qaeda in general but there is no alternative. so we need non-isis and supporting people for a clear future >> we are talking with ben from the rand corporation and he is with us for the next 40 minutes

as we continue to discuss the situation in iraq. you can call in on the republican, democrat, or independent line. we are talking about how the sunni's are viewing this campaign right now. can you talk about how the cu s curds -- kurds -- are viewing this campaign? >> this is a fascinating opportunity. because up until about three weeks ago we would have assumed the kurds were going to declare independence. now they have been incapable of protecting their own people, maliki is coming in with support

and there might be a realization that there is reason to stay within the iraqi state and that is good news for those that envision the whole state as the future of iraq. it can still fall through. the kurds i think are fear full for a reason. no one envisioned isis would be so close. >> what about the comments saying iraq should be allowed to separate into three countries? >> i disagree with that. it is a very difficult question and the right question to ask because it looks like it is three different countries. but when you talk with the sunni you understand why they don't want to be separate. they view themselves as iraqi first. most of them. they believe in the iraqi state. for some of them they believe they should control the iraqi state and that is debatable. but that view and belief propels

them forward to try to stay within the state. there are few resources. they would be disenfranchised from the government and the resources of the country and that would impoverish them. >> how do you breach the divide of the sunni, kurds and shittes? >> the trick is having a prime minister who has a vision for a whole state that protects minorities. it is going to be difficult for some sunnis to recognize they are a minority. that maybe decades in the coming. it doesn't look like the prime minister maliki doesn't have that vision and i am hoping he has a 180-degree shift or

someone replaces him with that viewpoint. >> anything on what is happening in the last 24 hours? >> prime minister maliki did win the election and he is reinforced with the army inside baghdad. i am not sure i would call it a coo. it seems like a rational move that he retains power. it isn't where i would want to focus the iraqi army. >> ben is a retired marine intelligence officer. didi wants to know more about the rand corporation and if you could explain the role of think tanks. >> we are a non-profit federally funded research development center so we have one leg in government and one in the private sector and we are are supposed to provide a

non-objective viewpoint. >> what do you do there? >> i work on intelligence issues and middle east. >> host: we will start with al calling from charleston, road island. >> caller: here is where the problem started. they sent bremer over there and the first thing he did was kick out all of the sunni who are running the government and doing a pretty good job. maliki is in there, who is a shitte, he is aligned with iran. the sunni were the buffer for us. they were the more democratic part i would say. i don't think we should be bombing them. maliki just needs to get out. he turned the country upside down. i believe the sunni are the backbone of what iraq is.

i will take your answer off the air. >> host: any thoughts? >> guest: those are great points. they were the stabilizing forcement i am not sure they were democratic but the prime minister blew the opportunity to bring togethers the state and bring it together. the shitte were on top with 60% of the population. in 2011, when he left, he had an opportunity to show the sunni and the kurds they had a place inside a new state and he didn't do that. based on my analysis he has done everything to further separate them. i am not sure the answer is another sunni state, but i think the shitte leadership could do more to be inclusive. >> host: was there a straw that broke the camels back for loosing the sunnis with prime minister maliki -- when did he

lose their approval >> guest: disbanding the army was a serious mistake. and the focus we have in the law followed the iraqis passed the departure of the u.s. forces. he still using that process to practure the sunni political movements and fractured the sunni leadership and in the recent protest movements in 2013 and early 2014 he moved with the iraqi military and security forces to physically fracture the heart of the sunni population in ombar and other prother

proveranceserances. >> host: steve is on the line. >> caller: my question is about the kurdish minority in turkey. if we give arms to the kurds in iraq isn't there an issue they will find their way to the kurds in turkey and how would that work? >> guest: that is a good question. the turks and the kurds actually have been on a path toward significant reconcilation so i think there is less concern there would be a new kurdish uprising. giving people weapons isn't the same thing as successfully arming people. if you hand someone a rifle you need to spend months training them. many kurds know how to use a rival but advance surveillance,

and artillery and other complex weapons that require crew service, that is not something you can do overnight. so i think the effectiveness not only against isis but turkish populations would be limited. >> host: alan is on the line for independents. >> caller: i have a two-part question and i think they fit together. the first part is at your opening remarks you made the comments that maliki seemed to be unable to find a way to bring all of these groups together and that caused me to ask is he unable or unwilling. and the second part is seems to me like we are willing to spend anything and any amount to build democracy in iraq and it appears to me maybe they don't want to

accept the democracy we are enforcing on them. am i wrong? >> guest: if you look at maliki's background, he grew up and lived under an oppressive system and he was the oppressed minority in iraq and there is a certain level of uncertainty that goes with that. he is who he is at this point. he may not be the right person to bring iraq forward. and the second question about spending we can. i think all people have the opportunity to represent themselves and not live under

dictatorship. it was said if you don't think arabs are able to live in a democracy you are racist. i think the iraqis are capable of having a functional democracy in the iraq. it might look different but it should include the protection of minorities. >> host: to the leadership comments in iraq here is a column in the new york times saying it is due to incompetent elite. these are political reasons. would you agree? >> guest: it is a broken system.

and the voters don't have clear plur pluralties. the shittes are fragments just as bad as the sunni and the leadership is badly fragmented and doesn't know who they represent or if they represent anybody. i spoke to sunni tribal leaders who told me they had very little power. i think that is true of many of the shitte leaders. and so they have to make very bold statements and a lot of times those statements don't make sense. >> host: have you talked to the folks since the air campaign started? >> guest: i haven't. they are busy right now. >> host: we have a guest on the republican line now. go ahead. >> caller: my comment is he

should rally. mccain was defeated and obama ran to end the war and there was consequences and we are -- another comment is this -- [indiscrinable conversation] otherwise they will not when a general election. . host: he brings up lindsey >> host: he is bringing up lindsay grahm and john mccain who senators critical of pulling

the troops from iraq. we asked the viewers that this morning and i think it could have gone either way. >> guest: there could be people criticizing the president for that decision as well if we had stayed. i don't think there was any good decision. if we had kept troops there, we would have a senior title ten military presence which is a department of defense military there and might have let us have a bit more leverage. we are fighting the fact there is no political solution presented to the sunni but they are not being offered anything at the tactical level. counter insurgency is trying to show the government is

legitimate. the iraq government is doing counter guerilla fair and that is going out and looking for people to kill and not trying to bring the population in the central government. and unfortunately that is what the iraqi government is conducting now. >> host: on the question of should we have left troops there. are there any historical lessons the united states should have looked to in deciding to pull out or stay? >> guest: we looked at the dynamics of insurgency ending and one case is it never ends until the root problems of the causes are addressed and in this case it is the disinfranchised of the sunni and two other things that were not addressed when we left.

we were doomed to have a fracture because thievose thing. >> host: matt is on the independent line. >> caller: i want to manager the statement collin powell said you break it you own. we went into the iraq on false pretense and gave them trillions in equipment and training. now we have isis with the most advanced tanks in the world in their possession. how can these people who were supposedly terrorist, uneducated, how do they get in an abrams 1-a and run it? we are brombing our own equipment. i live in new hampshire, 1.4 million population and 600

homeless veterans living in the woods. it is time the united states build their own democracy back. i appreciate what the rand corporation does, i read reports, and i believe you are rash and the corporation as a whole is non-partisan. but we sent the boys and girls over there and they came back with massive scars. i hope these homeless vets -- they live in the woods because they are frightened and scared. why don't we let them kill each other and when we are all done maybe we can straighten it out then. >> host: i will let you comment. >> guest: i served three tours in iraq and i have many close friends who are veterans and a lot of them suffer a great deal so i sympathize and i will leave it at that. in terms of the armor, i didn't

know that they had seized abrams tanks and that is a possibility. they are focused in one iraqi division for the most part. what i saw in open source reporting is they have seized t-55 tanks or versions below the t-72 level. those are not the most advanced tanks and they are versions of the tank that are barely functional. they don't have advance sighting so they are easy to use and operate and you can see them used in africa and middle east. they do present a good target and the question is are they all isis fighters running the tanks. >> host: and in terms of the hum vees we have seen pictures of, are these the most advanced ones

on the battlefield? what do we know about the specific equipment? >> guest: all hum vees are kind of mead med ocher. they can be taken out with mid-range arm guns like machine guns. even if they had advanced tanks we can deal with that. the problem is the population and their interagaction with th population and the support they have. the center of gravity isn't the armor, equipment and technology. it is the people. as long as the sunni are disinfranchi disinfranchi disinfranchised and have support that is what we need to worry

about. >> host: john is on the line from the independent. >> caller: he is talking about the sunni, shittes, and kurds. this is an islamic state. they are fighting a religious war. they have christians on the mountains they are trying to kill. not shittes or kurds. this entire community should wake up to that. and we are a country of open borders. and in about two weeks we will have hundred thousands people surrounding a hundred yard football field -- how easy target is that. we need to focus on that. >> guest: we are doing everything we can to protect people being massacred but they

are absolutely killing sunni and shittes. they have killed far more muslims than christians. that was the trigger for the president to act but i think we should be equally concerned about the fact they are killing muslims. it isn't because we want to invest ourselves in the problems around the world and i think not just the unit of the world but the instability and fracture of the middle east and how that could affect the united states. i think it would be disastrous from the oil production and the instability and impact on the global economy. there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of united states citizens that live across the middle east and american embassies that would be vulnerable as well. >> host: can you talk about the

iraqi army and why they collapsed in the face of isis? >> guest: parts of the iraqi army collapsed and it was the parts in the north. there were infiltrations by the sunni some say. a lot of the armies held together in the south and the west. this is an army that was purpose-built to include all of the different ethnic minorities and sects to bring them together. it failed in the north to some extent and appeared to succeed in the south. as the army defends baghdad to east and south it will become a shitte army is my concern. that was very off putting to

people who view this. >> host: is baghdad under threat still? >> guest: i think the number of shitte there would make that a difficult issue for the state. they might have some success in western baghdad. but the concern is amount of panic they can cause by approaching the porborders and degree to which they can bring suicide bombings into the city to conduct damage and third is their ability to disrupt the baghdad airport. that is a symbolic and practical concern for the government. >> host: what are isis targets

outside of baghdad itself you are most concerned about? >> guest: the fact they seized the dam in mosul is concerning because that could lead to serious problems and kill a lot of people. we conducted a survey in the marines in 2003 and looked at what it would look like if they blew up the dams. it would be catastrophic and that is a real issue and it worries be a deal. >> host: freddy is calling in from michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is i keep continue hearing a lot of people support the war, especially people like john mccain and lindsay grahm, and i want to know if the american people wanted war, why don't they reinstitute the draft and raise taxes on all the

americans? thank you. i will take my answer offline. >> guest: the draft does exist. people still have to register. we don't need to call people up for service to accomplish the mission we are conducting in iraq or around the world. we have sufficient volunteers. i don't think it is necessary practically. it would force the united states government to pull everybody in and ensure there was national support for what we are doing there. the other problem, freddy, is what is war? are we in war in iraq or taking military action? that is a semantic but complex question. >> host: that leads to peg's question from twitter. is the strategy in iraq containment of isis or stabilization in iraq?

>> guest: i think we are trying to protect the people. i don't think we have an up operation beyond that. >> host: joe is on the line from the independents. we will hold on him. michael has a question from twitter. is there any political figure or group that is a unifying force in iraq? >> guest: that is a great question and unfortunately the answer flight is no. they don't see a sunni leadership that is able to represent the population. the shitte coalition is held together by negotiation. you have maliki's and others groups and they disagree with each other on very fundamental

levels. the kurds are unified but when you look at the separation between all three groups it is more complex. so the answer is no right now. >> host: let's go to washington, d.c. good morning on the independent line. >> caller: my only comment is how seriously are we considering a blow back when we enter these countries? you know, the same people now calling us back into help this humanitarian crisis are the ones that led us in there in the first place and people that have generally considered themselves anti-war are supporting the government and president. so what is your answer? >> host: state your question again for us. >> caller: if you could comment on blow back in general.

>> guest: blow back in the united states or in iraq? >> host: we will go with inside the united states. >> guest: iraq has always been a controversial place for the united states. we have been involved in iraq for decades. so has iran, so has russia and so have a lot of other countries. this is not something that americans kind of take lightly. most people have hardened viewpoints and some maybe changing but this is always going to be a controversial issue. >> host: there is an article today talking about the president's statements that the airstrikes in iraq will likely be a long-term project fueling the anxiety between democratic allies. there are reservations about the

mission from even long-term friends like dick durbin who said escalating this isn't in the cards and neither the american people are in the business of escalating this conflict. democratic activist were less likely to accept limited intervention quoting the executive director of two anti-war groups saying we cannot afford another unwinable war. let go to alex on the line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think the invasion of iraq was the biggest blunder since world war ii. that said, i don't think we can ignore the role teran played in

this. the influence has caused a lot of problems with the sunni and the domnation of power by maliki are the root causes of the problem. i think if the united states wants to find a way to resolve the crisis they need to demand the removal of maliki as prime minister and the eviction of the tehran regime. i wonder what your guest says about this. >> guest: in terms of removing maliki, if he is the democratic leader in iraq and we established that process, we are hard pressed to call for the removal without upsetting the idea that we gave lives and treasure for to put in place is

faulty and we don't like him and simply want him replaced. that is something i think we should avoid. in terms of tehran, they are played a disruptive role. iran and iraq have a long and ugly history. the irans have been undermining the iraq government for a long time and the iraqis have been doing similar things. i am not sure what we can do with iran. we are in the middle of a delta dismantle their nuclear power process and this conflict has given the united states an opportunity to find some common ground with iran and we are fighting the same foe right now. >> host: brenda is on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning.

i want to thank you for your service, first. my question is have you spoken to many of the military personal that did serve in iraq and what their feelings are about this situation? and their feeling as to whether they feel going back for -- with the people that are being murdered. would this be a situation where they would feel strongly about serving in none of the world wars but maybe a military land operation of some sorts to protect these individuals. thank you. >> guest: thank you, brenda. those are good questions. as a veteran of the iraq campaign, i am emotional sentiment about that campaign. y to separate it. i will say my colleagues are concerned about what is going on. we give them an opportunity to

stand up and have a cohesive democracy and as of now, at least, they have blown that. but that perspective allows me and my fellow veterans to look at what happened and saying it wasn't all in vain. >> host: is there hope or just frustration? >> guest: there is always hope. iraq is going to evolve as time moves forward. this isn't going to stop at any point. there is an interesting perspective about mutually occurring exhaustion. and he thinks two groups fighting, shitte and sunni, are not going to solve the problems until they are both exhausted from fighting and then you can

have real negotiations. but we have not hit that point. so the question is how do we look this go? this could apply to gaza and israel. and we had a caller ask why don't we let them fight it out. and that is an option and might be a path toward achieving the exhau exhaustion but the question is what is the cost? they have access to weapons and extreme violence and i think the results could be disastrous. >> host: and concerns on if it spills across other borders as well. >> guest: it already has. the islamic state isn't operating in iraq alone. they don't see the border. they don't believe the treaty border between iraq and iran exist they have said.

the previous name of the state refers to the whole of the area going into the iraq and depending on where the border is and further south in saudi arabia and lebanon. they are in syria, lebanon and have support in the philippines and indonesia. so they are growing and a cross border problem. >> host: low is on the line for the independents. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. my question is collateral damage. if an individuals who are not involved and we kill them striking those who we believe are involved do those individuals who are not involved, i think you call it collateral damage, are we liable? can they sue us for killing

their children and family? >> guest: yeah, that is a very good question. there is a lot of analysis on the laws of land warfare. certainly the geneva courts are referred to and you can look them up. i think that is a possibility we would be liable. but you can interept it a few ways. we want to reduce the collateral damage but it is impossible to eliminate it. there is a chance when we drop a bomb or fire a weapon that we could kill innocent people. and that is a grave decision. >> host: dale on the independent line is calling. >> caller: you said you served

in iraq twice. that is ridiculous. rules of engagement. it is if we want don't want to win we want to stretch it out. same ways with vietnam when he had rules and engagement. we issued 30-caliber weapons to them and they used it on us. same in afghanistan and iraq. where is the may palm? they talk about the caves and the rocks and how hard they are to get to. you want to have a game like we are playing games. either go and do it. or forget it. >> host: as you answer that question, what do we know about the rules of engagement the united states put on the new mission in iraq? >> guest: this is a structured,

very cautious, top-level targeted effort using the most advanced surveillance technology equipment. they are not dropping a bomb unless they are about 100 c confidenco confidant this is an isis target. as far as killing everybody that just turns everybody against you. that approach does cost united states lives sometimes and it is a terrible trade off. >> host: carol is on the line for democrats. good morning, carol. >> caller: good morning. i have four parts. didn't iran build an airport before the end of the war? sense it is a global -- since -- economy how many oil companies have interest in there?

and you said the turks are okay arming the kurds what about the other name they had problems with? >> host: let's let ben answers those questions. >> guest: carol, i don't know about the airport in solder city. it is a dense area so i don't know if that is the case. oil companies in these countries, many countries are infested have the security of iraq over the long-term. and are the turks okay with arming the kurds -- they are the name for the semi official kurdish army that is under the control of iraq -- it isn't

really, but there is little chance they will turn and fight turkey. >> host: roger is on the line from charlotte, north carolina for democrats. >> caller: i am a military veteran myself. and my thing is when we first -- i am in desert storm. and news was showing up about we had an opportunity to kill saddam during desert storm and when collin powell was targeting the forces there, the decision was not to take him out because we didn't haven't a situation where he had to stay and baby sit and we know there would be breakdowns of people taking over the country and we supported saddam during the '70s and '80s when there was fighting between

iran and the shittes and sunni population. and after the ten years of the war, we put a force in that that would rise up. and the third question is why is it we are putting the troops at the tip of the spear when it comes to making any decision if anything happens in the middle east? it is always our country doing it alone. there is never british allies or anything. we are stretching the soldiers too thin. ... too thin. point, when are we going to give the responsibility over to our allies? there have been other

questions about where our allies are in this? guest: i have not seen official reporting but i have read open-source reporting that united kingdom and france are providing direct support for humanitarian efforts and they may also be providing certain -- intelligent support. the united kingdom and other allies, 60 countries provided troops, money, and equipment and lost a significant number of soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. i think our coalition allies have been in error side. they may not advertise it as much. want you to comment on scott howell's column in today's "washington times."

>> host: the problem is there's no visible plan with moral clarity about the imperative of civilization. what's needed is not half measures, but real leadership that encourages allies to stand with us in winning hearts and minds about the value of life and in sustaining a comprehensive strategy to defeat the islamic state ask related terrorist organizations. >> guest: my belief is if you provide people with an opportunity for democratic representation, for protection, for inclusion in the state, they will not support groups like i.s., and groups will become simply a terrorist organization that can be dissected ask killed. and that is the best hope, is that the government of iraq will provide that hope to reduce disenfranchisement to the sunni pop belation, to the kurds and -- population. >> host: senior analyst at the rand corporation. check out their work at

rand.org. appreciate you joining us this morning. >> guest: thank you very much. >> the pentagon has announced a briefing later today. we'll have that live for you starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> join us later today when the american institute of certified public accountants holds a conference including discussions with inspects general for the homeland security department and the pentagon. you can watch that live at 1:15 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. and then later it's more from the american institute of certified public accountants hosting a discussion that includes officials from the office of management and budget. they're expected to talk about key financial management issues and future be challenges. that's live starting at 2:50 eastern also on c-span. >> here's a look at i how some members of congress -- at how some members of congress are spending their district work period away from washington.

>> we'll continue to monitor congressional tweets and try to bring more to you throughout the day. >> all week watch booktv in prime time. tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern and tuesday through friday at 8, booktv features a wide range of topics including foreign policy, law and legal issues, iran, coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country and the bestsellers from this year. and let us know what you think

about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or you can e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> while congress is on break this month, c-span's prime time features a wide range of political views and topics. this week a debate on america's greatness, veterans' health care and detectives there the centers for disease control and prevention. we visiter the atlanta press club for the future of news, and we take a history tour looking at the civil war. c-span prime time monday through friday at 8 p.m. eastern. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> join us tonight on c-span3 for american history television. at eight, we'll hear advice from the founding fathers' personal

letters with author william kristol. an hour later we'll focus on alexander hamilton and the concept of a man's honor. at 9:40 it's lectures in history, tonight's theme is political unrest in the early american republic, and at 10:30 a discussion on alcohol use in early america. >> a look now at some of the key trends in the recovery of the job market, specifically we'll discuss the replacement of full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time positions. from today's "washington journal," this is about 40 minutes. >> host: harry holzer is a former chief economist at the labor department who now works as a public policy professor at georgetown university, joining us to discuss the current trends in the u.s. job market and how those trends are impacting the economy overall. professor, the latest jobs report somewhat hard to read, more than 200,000 jobs added but

the unemployment rate ticking up from 6.1% to 6.2%. gives your 30,000-foot view of the u.s. jobs situation right now. >> guest: overall, i think it's getting a little better, and i think the improvement is starting to gain some steam. we've had six months in a row now of job growth over 200,000. now compared to previous recoveries, that's still not spectacular, but it's a lot better than we've experienced in this very slow recovery. so i think there is some increase in speed. the uptick in the unemployment rate, that might happen because so many people dropped out of the labor force, they got discouraged and weren't finding anything. those people might start the come back and, of course, when you're out of the labor force, you don't count as being unemployed. when you come back in, you do count. so even as the labor market gets more steam, we might see the unemployment rate tick up, and that's not necessarily a really bad thing. >> host: so what are the problem areas in your view when you look

at these latest numbers from the labor department? >> guest: people are starting to worry about two things. number one, the overall pace and will we continue to stay in that 200, 300,000 range per month? will we pick up speed, or will we have another stumble? we've had false hopes several times in this recovery before, so part of the question is will the good news continue and maybe even get a little better? the other thing people worry about, of course, is not just the quantity of the jobs but the quality of the jobs created. so far a lot of the jobs have been in the retail trade, the low end of the service sector, and those are often lower wage jobs than the ones we lost in the downturn. so the question is will better paying jobs come back not just in the professional sectors and health care, but also in the places where people without ba degrees can get a good job in place like construction, manufacturing, some parts of health care where for technicians and things like that. so, and a lot of the jobs so far have been part-time as opposed

to full time. so we're looking at the quality of jobs and how much they pay as well as just the quantity. >> host: all trends we'll get into this in segment of the "washington journal" this morning. president obama touted the latest job creation numbers. here's a bit of what he had to say earlier this month. >> this morning we learned that our economy created over 200,000 new jobs in july. that's on top of about 300,000 new jobs this june. so -- in june. so we are now in a six month streak with at least 200,000 new jobs each month. that's the first time that has happened since 1997. over the past year, we've added more jobs than any year since 2006, and all told, our businesses have created 9.9 million new jobs over the past 53 months. that's the longest streak of private sector job creation in our history.

>> host: and is this something to be optimistic about, or is this just a reminder of how deep that jobs hole was due to the great recession? >> guest: probably some of both. i mean, the recovery has been painfully slow. we're now in our sixth year of recovery formally, but the recovery has been modest, about 2% growth in gdp per year and jobs have been in that 150-175,000 range of new job creation for so long that when you finally hit the 200-300,000 range, you're excited about that, and we certainly hope that comets. but like i said -- continues. but like i said, in previous recoveries simes you had 3-400,000 a month that was more the norm. so it's much better. it's an improvement. we hope it stays at least at this level or maybe even picks up a little bit. >> host: and are americans optimistic about these numbers? there's a story from yahoo! finance that talks about some of the recent polling on it, the headline why americans are so goopmy. guest: there is clearly some

pessimism there. things goingerent on. there is often a lag between when a recovery starts to pickud >> guest: well, there's clearly some pessimism there, and i don't think you can deny that. there's different things going on. there's often a lag between when a recovery starts to pick up steam and when people start recognizing it, and that lag might be playing a role. but i think the other thing is there's long-term trends in the economy that don't have anything to do with recovery from the recession, and that trend is towards lower wages and more difficult times, lower earnings for people that don't have at least some higher education. and that's a somewhat separate issue, i think. and i think when people, certainly, they worry about

their kids not doing as well as they did, some of what affects that is the long-term trend in the economy. so i think people are feeling it from both ends, but the short-term recession-based difficulties and the longer term trends and, of course, there's some legitimacy to both sets of concerns. >> host: so even if jobs numbers are looking good in recent months, these other factors are the drags on the economy. >> guest: they can be. i think forces like technology and globalization, i think, are starting to have huge effects on the job market. they actually have for some time. and i think in the long term those are good things, they enable us to buy products for cheaper and have higher quality products. in the short term, it might cause people to spend less money where they used to spend money and make the recovery from the recession a little more difficult. and i think maybe that's contributed to the slow pace of the recovery so far. >> host: we're talking to harry holzer, former chief economist of the u.s. labor department,

professor at georgetown university. we're talking about the job market and the u.s. economy overall in this segment of the "washington journal," we'll have a special line for those that are unemployed, 202-585-3883 if you want to join the discussion and you're unemployed. that number, 202-585-3383. otherwise republicans can call 202-558-3881, democrats 202-585-3880 and independents, 202-585-3882. we'll start with tim calling in from palm desert, california, on our line for democrats. tim, good morning. tim, you with us? don't think we have tim, but we'll go on to anthony in clearwater, florida, on our line for dependents. anthony, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just, you know, with the dismantling of our infrastructure in the united states over the last 20 years, i just want to know there's this

new global, this transpacific partnership and transatlantic agreement partnership. how is that going to affect the jobs in the united states, and is it going to be a partnership, or is it going to be a new global governance that people have to supersede their individual rights for? >> guest: i'm hoping it'll be a partnership. i think global trade is another one of those areas where it's mostly good for everybody, especially over time. but in the short term, you know, some people will lose their jobs when we allow in cheaper imports. and, again, i think as long as we have strong job creation in other parts of the economy, that's okay, and we can do some things to help workers who lose their jobs adjust. overall, global trade is a good thing. it increases our exports as well as our imports and the hope that both of these things will happen. >> host: when you say some people will lose their jobs, is the united states usually on the losing end in sort of the short-term jobs equation on these kind of global agreements?

>> guest: you know, it varies from agreement to agreement, and i think both things go on at the same time. people in export industries get more jobs, people in industries where there's new imimportants coming in might lose them, and, again, we should probably do more to help people get new skills and make that transition and give them better supports in the short term. so i'm hoping the net balance will be positive of those actions and sooner rather than later. >> host: as we said, we have a line for those who are unemployed. patrick calling in from miami, florida. good morning, patrick. >> caller: good morning. how you doing, sir? i just happen to be looking at the labor statistics and i was looking at the three week or four week seasonal average net number comes out to 295 -- 93,000 people that filed for unemployment. i'd like to know how does the president of the united states state that there are jobs being created when there are so many

people that are statistically -- it's factual -- filing for unemployment, and we're saying that there are jobs being created? but that, you know, that 293,000 people that filed for unemployment on the first time, that's not factored. to me, that's not creating any jobs. >> guest: well, it turns out that's always true. that's always the case that even when the economy's at full employment, you always have new jobs being created and old to jobs being destroyed. you always have businesses being shut down or reorganizing the workplace and you have start-ups and businesses expanding. so you're always going to have some of that each when the economy is really strong. and the truth is 295,000 jobs or people filing for unemployment, that sounds like a really big number. it's actually not a bad number. during the can depths of the recession, that number was over 400,000. so the fact that it's under 300,000 now, most economists view that as a positive sign as

long as the economy's creating other jobs in other places to pick up those workers which it now seems to be doing. >> host: since we'ring into the numbers -- delving into the numbers, 3.2 million people defined as long-term unemployed. can you talk about that number a little bit and is that something we should be concerned about? >> guest: the quick answer is, yes, we should be concerned about that. this recession and the slow recovery has created a lot of long-term unemployed which is defined as being up employed for at least six months or longer. and that's a problem because those people have her difficulty getting back in -- more difficulty getting back in. now, the number has gone down as a percentage of the total unemployed. it's hard to tell how much is because people are getting jobs or dropping out of the job market. but, yeah, the long-term number is definitely a concern, and those people will probably need a little more help than others getting back in the market and finding new jobs. >> host: what was that number

before the great recession hit? >> guest: um, before the recession hit it was -- i don't know the exact -- it depends as a fraction of the overall employed. that's how we usually measure these things, and before it was usually 20%, in that ballpark. it jumped way up to over 40% at the depths of the recession, and now i think it's somewhere in the low to -- low 30s. that's improvement, but there's still too many people in that category including some who aren't even captured by the number. >> host: mark is up next in ohio on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span audience. harry, i just wanted to ask you, you know, you hear tons of economists always talking, and what gets me is they very rarely mention the, you know, we need growth in this country. that's understandable. everybody understands that. but they never say that, you know, to attain and especially what the republicans are always talking about, you need five,

six, seven, eight, nine percent growth a year. they never mention the toll this has on the natural resources it takes to keep that sort of economy going. and that's, that's what really concerns me. i just, i just don't understand because at that rate the natural resources just don't have a chance to replenish themselves to keep a good, vibrant economy and also to keep some natural land going that everybody enjoys for relaxation which you need from this crazy world. so please answer that for me. >> guest: well, mark, you know, you raise an important issue, and that's how do we balance our need for economic growth with our need to protect the environment and deal with climate change, which i think is becoming a more serious problem all the time, as well as some of the issues you raise. the answer is we need both. we do need to have economic growth to create more jobs for all these unemployed workers, and we do need to do more to

protect the environment. and those things respect necessarily in conflict -- aren't necessarily in conflict if you have the right policies. you can do things like having a carbon tax or having zoning to protect the lands that you want to protect. and that encourages us to have smarter growth and cleaner growth. it doesn't, doesn't destroy the environment, doesn't lead to more climate change. now, i think the politics and the poisonous politics at the federal level, i think, have kept us from doing intelligent things. almost every mainstream economist that i know, republican or democrat, favors some kind of a tax on carbon. which would encourage us to have growth that's less carbon intense i have and would, therefore, do less damage to the environment. the politics of that are poisonous. frankly, the power of the tea party movement and the antitax on the republican side has limited our ability to do smart things like that that would protect our economic growth but shift it in a greener direction,

and that's how we could have some of both. >> host: debates about that topic in particular playing out on capitol hill in recent months and years. let's go to marshfield, wisconsin. james is calling in on our line for independents. james, good morning. >> guest: yes. i believe the best jobs creation program would be the complete elimination of the corporate income tax on american profits, but only tax profits made outside the country. this would be so simple, and it would eliminate so much cost and burden on our economy. >> guest: well, i wouldn't go quite as far as you would on that. i think if you just eliminated the corporate tax completely on domestic production, you'd lose a lot of revenue. and despite the problem with that tax right now, that's a relatively progressive tax. it hits shareholders harder.

shareholders overwhelmingly tend to be upper income people. but the part i agree with you very strongly about is our corporate tax structure is in need of reform. right now we have very high corporate tax rates compared to the rest of the world with a lot of loopholes. that means some companies pay a lot of that tax, and some companies pay a lot less, and that discuss encourage a flow overseas. so what i agree with you about is that we need some kind of smart corporate tax reform that brings those rates down at the same time we close out a lot of the loopholes and we deal with this issue that the people are starting to call inversion where it's in company's interests to move enough of their production overseas that they can get out of paying american taxes. so a smart corporate tax reform, i think, should be pretty high on our policy agenda right now. >> host: boringfileclerk on twitter says despite the government telling us that we're experiencing such growth, why doesn't the average man feel this? that leads to the cover story of this week's christian science monitor, whose bull market is

the headline. one of wall street's longest booms in 85 years boosts the rich far more than the rest of america. that story includes a chart talking about the uneven recovery. that chart showing the change in net worth per household from 2009 to 2011. for the lower 93% of americans, the change in net worth has gone down 4%, and for the wealthiest 7% of americans, it's gone up 28%. >> guest: you know, that's an important issue, and to some extempt, these are two separate problems. the recovery, where you're looking at the quantity of jobs created and the overall growth versus who benefits from that growth and whose incomes and assets are going up. we have a huge, huge inequality problem in america, and it just seems to be getting worse all the time. now, some people don't regard inequality as a problem at all. as long as we have equal

opportunity, we shouldn't worry at all. we don't have equal opportunity, we should try to do more to get it. i think that's very troubling at at this level, and that's true. people lost a lot of wealth in the 2009-2010 downturn. for lower to middle income americans, moe of that -- most of that wealth was in their homes. these homes took a big hit, and we've only recovered 30, 40% of that value so far. whereas higher income americans have most of their wealth in stocks and bonds and other kinds of financial instruments. they've bounced back very nicely. so so one more example of things going very well for the rich and not nearly as well for the middle and lower income americans, and i think we should worry about that a little more than we do. >> host: here's the cover of the christian science monitor. bull market, who's riding high, is the cover story there. if viewers want to read it. we're talking with harry holzer, former chief economist at the u.s. labor department. he's with us for about the next 20 minutes or so taking your calls. we have a special line in this

segment for those unemployed american, 202-585-3883 is that number. let's go to jeff in warren, arkansas, on our line for independents. jeff, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i had a question for your guest. i was wanting the know what percentage of the population is directly dependent on the government, dependent on government spending either directly or indirectly for their livelihood? first category people being directly employed by the government; two, people working in a heavily government, industry dependent on government spending such as health care or defense, and three, some form of assistance, disability or etc. that's my question, thank you. >> guest: well, i don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips. the answer to that's probably -- just the number of people who get some kind of government with benefit, you know, mitt romney talked about the 47%. the number's probably in that range. now, let's be careful because you're lumping together apples,

oranges and baa bananas that when you do that. all of the elderly in this country get social security and medicare. so immediately those folks go in that category. folks on disability, folks who are either working for the government now or have worked in the past and have some kind of government pension. or veterans getting their health care through the department of defense. so when you add up all those categories including current government employees, you probably do get a number in the ballpark of 50%. but before we get upset about that number, i think a lot of those are kind of if you separate them out, a lot of those are categories that most americans would say that's reasonable for those people to get the compensation that they're getting, and if we're unhappy about that number, we should think carefully about exactly who do we want to take off those rolls and how will we do that. >> host: idaho is next, john's calling in on our line for republicans. >> caller: good morning. how are you, harry?

>> guest: good. >> caller: my name's john, i run my business for 25 years, and when nafta was voted in, i had 1 employees. -- 13 employees. and, you know, small business, you're like a family. i know free trade is good for american corporations, but you ask the american public right now, it's killing our economy, our jobs, it's destroying the infrastructure of the small communities in america, and people like you and our representatives that make these trade deals or study these numbers really don't understand the big problem. you can ask a republican, a democrat or an independent, and we need some real help out here. and we're not really getting it. and do you have any input for me or my family and my little business? >> host: professor holzer, as you answer, were you ever involved in putting together a trade deal when you worked at the labor department? >> guest: no. i was involved in efforts to help workers who became unemployed as a result of that. i wallet to say i have some -- i

want to say i have some sympathy for the call. almost anytime you have an increase in international trade, some businesses are going to get hurt by that including some small businesses. at the same time, other businesses are helped. trade usually increases our exports as well as our imports. it makes our economy more efficient overall. and there's been hundreds of studies on this by economists, traditionally trade tends to raise living standards in the country, but there are adjustment costs, and there are people who can get hurt, and those people need more help. they need more help, the up employed -- unemployed workers need new skill training and help getting back on their feet. and we've also got to headache sure that the playing field -- make sure that the playing field is more level. i think this is at criticism that is reasonable for some people. because countries like china keep their currencies undervalued, that tilts the playing field with trade in their direction, so they end up doing a lot more of the exporting, and we end up doing a

lot more of the importing. i would be sympathetic the some efforts, it's hard to achieve, to level that playing field more and get the currencies more in line with what they ought to be. and then i think maybe you see more exports going on and that balance between exports and trades and the positive effects of these new trade agreements, i think, would become more apparent. but there are short-term costs, and we should be doing more to help people who bear that burden. >> host: jim on twitter wants to know your take on the impact of raising the minimum wage. will job loss result? >> guest: so i have signed a public statement by economists supporting a federal minimum wage increase gradually lifting it up to $10. as an economist, i do recognize the economists always worry that when you do that, you force businesses to pay a higher price, they'll simply buy less labor which means they'll hire less workers. there's been dozens and dozens of studies op that. some studies find a small negative effect, some studies

find a zero effect. my guess is that if you you were the federal minimum -- the bump the federal minimum up to $10, you'd see some job loss. the congressional budget office said up to 500,000 jobs could be eliminated over three-year period. that's about two months worth of new job creation spread over a three-year period. i'dsorry to see that job loss, but the benefits of the higher minimum wage would benefit anywhere from 16-24 million workers: so, again, there's a trade-off as there often is in economics. i think the number of people benefiting is much, much larger than the number of people losing their jobs. and so i would make that trade. but, again, i would do it cautiously. and the $15 minimum wages in seattle and san francisco i'd be much more reluctant to endorse. >> host: gilbert, arizona, is next. ray on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i've got to say that i really believe that the trade agreements is the heart of ou