>> i was not saying that. my 12 minutes was confined to what happened when hill big is affirmed. one of the last slides i had up there was those states with hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their insurance on set dates and i had him joe's slide saying here's the process states would have to go through. then i made the point that it would not take days to fix that. it would minimally take months to fix that. if the supreme court would rule probably in june, they do this with big cases, and there are no state legislatures in session. the governor has to call them into session and convince them to do this which i think would be easier to do in pennsylvania and ohio and new jersey and states that cut medicaid because they know what they would have to do and then states like texas would probably be defoliant because that is the way they have acted so far so what you

would have and what you are missing is the day this ruling came down and headlines in the new speaker's, we have a crisis, we have lot mess. this is terrible. the best that republicans could do would be to go into defensive mode in some of these red states or quasi red states and fix it as quick as they could because they have got this terrible political noose around their neck created by this. that is not a positive development or wonderful thing. it is a mess and they did it. and half of them are going to fix and half of them are not. you have a burden. >> give them different authority to say it -- >> but different authority? the congress -- >> house of representatives -- >> where you have a point.

the high risk pool idea is not controversial. >> we are talking political movement. if you were in the house and i was in the house we would have a chance. we are not. what is going to happen is the people who wanted to kill obamacare at all whole time will say we finally got a stake in the vampire's heart. the other ones will sad loss 600,000 covered -- i have to create a state exchange. >> a bunch of wonderful speeches looking at the 2016 presidential election and democrats think they have the republicans where they want them and screwed 8 million people and would not let imam of that box so i don't know where you think in 15 minutes this town will fix something this big and complicated when it took ten years. >> to get a subsidy now you can continue to get it.

we will work on at the nick six months and provide subsidies but not this way. >> you can meet over lunch and have this conversation because we are out of time. [applause] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon. thank you for staying here. we are going to have our last keynote address and then we will break for lunch which will be held on the second floor. our final speaker of the day is attorney general of oklahoma scott pruitt. he holds the marriage, the distinction of seeing the merit in this litigation before any other attorney general. he was first to challenge the irs disputed tax and spending in september of 2012 and last month fairly slowly a federal district court in oklahoma ruled for his case against the federal government. the obama administration has since appealed the ruling to the tenth circuit which will hear oral arguments in january. scott pruitt was elected attorney general of the oklahoma in 2010. is the official biography says as attorney general these dedicated to fighting corruption

which i assume would include illegal taxes nick, mandates and subsidies imposed by the federal government. scott pruitt established oklahoma's first federalism unit in the office of solicitor general to combat unwarranted regulation of reached by the federal government and has led efforts to wring attorneys general together to advance policies and legal strategies that protect the interests of their states from an overly intrusive federal government including a multistate lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the dodd-frank financial regulation law which is also a great concern of ours at cato. for seven years he was the managing general partner of the aaa baseball team in oklahoma city. some honest work. welcome to the podium, scott pruitt. [applause] >> i enjoyed my time as an owner

of triple a baseball. i was disappointed about the outcome of game 7 of the world series but we were rooting for the kansas city royals but it was a great ceres, great time for baseball is sometimes a mistake is made and david is from kentucky so he will understand this, when i am introduced, and i play baseball at the university of kentucky and i step out from the podium. people say you did play basketball and that is absolutely true. they recruit people little taller than i at the university but thanks to david for the invitation and michael as well. it is a joy to be here and general sailer, he and i have not had the opportunity to chat yet but it is good to see you and good have partners in teammates in the room. i want to offer -- you have had many discussions points on policy, the legal component. and before i get into the

specifics of oklahoma's case a couple policy statements i think are relevant. i think we need to remind our friends on the left that health-insurance does not equate to health care. sometimes policymakers that the federal and state level believe they can simply expand eligibility and expand coverage and somehow that magically fix all of our health care outcomes. that is not the case. at the end of the day you still need a physician and the treatment room providing care to a patient and unless a doctor is willing to take the reimbursement rates that are being paid to him or her, that will affect care. in the state of oklahoma, 14 or 15 years ago in the legislature the state of oklahoma expanded eligibility and increased federal poverty 200% or beyond and politicians all over the

state were able to say to constituents look what we have done, we provided more health insurance to those who needed it as if it was going to fix these health care outcomes. there were two doctors, pediatricians that were willing to take the reimbursement rate being offered under that program and as such, you predominately have long lines, delayed treatment for a those who needed it. we need to remind those in the policy debate that health insurance and health care are two different concept but also as this. as you expand the role of government particularly the federal government but government generally as a payer medical inflation will continue to rise in unsubstantial way. we talked about using these programs that are talked about, affordable care act, state level, need to curtail of low-end cost of medical care and it is a continued expansion of

the role of government which is working opposite of controlling costs so that is not weiner i am here. it is not what i do day-to-day, but it is relevant to my comments today and here is why. when the lawsuits were initially initiated by attorneys general and by state the original challenge to the unconstitutional allenby of the law, the affordable care act in march of 2010 you remember the criticism that was leveled against state attorneys general. it was a political case, to make the administration look bad. was an election year and attorneys general were being used as a puppet to challenge the administration to bring disrepute to the affordable care act. it was political. they also said was about policy, the fact that attorneys general didn't like the content of the law. i am will be the first to tell you that if i were in congress

at the time the law was passed, vehemently argue against it and tried to defeat it but i will say to you my colleagues including general seller when these lawsuits were initiated fundamentally they are not about politics and not about policy. they are about something more transcendent in my estimation. in its rule of law. fundamentally the cases that michael and generals seller and the state of oklahoma are involved in collectively is about something more important than one piece of legislation around health care and we seize this in other fields. david mentioned dodd-frank. we see it in the energy sector and the finance sector as i indicated and we see an attitude that permeates washington d.c. that agencies be leaving they possess the authority to improve upon a statute.

to alter a statute, repeal a statute as long as the results are what we think need to occur and so long as we think it is what congress intended and i will get to that in the second we have the authority to change the reading of the statute to achieve outcomes we think are most appropriate. last time i checked that is not how our system works. last time i checked fifth grade civics teachers us the executive branch exists to enforce the law as passed by the legislative branch and when the legislative branch has is a piece of legislation that establishes boundaries for an agency you don't get the chevron difference, you don't get legislative intent. that is what is remarkable about arguments by the justice department. kevin to these cases as in oklahoma and say clearly congress wouldn't have intended this type of result. we were trying to expand access to health care and so we can't reach the statute that way. then why does the statute say

that? that is the tug and pull we have experienced in oklahoma and generals other as well, these issues about legislative intent, policy and politics have not driven in my estimation the lawsuits that have been filed. it is about rule of law and making sure agencies are accountable to the laws passed by a legislative body. our lawsuit in oklahoma, we actually filed a lawsuit in january of 2011. i would like in november of 2010 was sworn in in january of 11, i joined the coalition of 27 other states at that time, filed a separate mitigation in oklahoma. oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment in november of 2010 saying no government, federal government could compel the purchase of health insurance, and i individual mandate provision ingrained in the constitution so it sent our

constitutional provision against the aca in federal court in oklahoma. in january of 11 litigated the case and thereafter judged late stage in the case because of the the case going to the supreme court so it sat dormant until june of 2012. after the decision in june of 2012, we did what most states across the country started doing, evaluating implementation of the law. this is something that has to be said because of those on the left say we litigated this so much why we continuing to see litigation? the mitigation in 2012 that made it to the supreme court was about one thing and one thing only. did congress have the authority to pass the law? not with their agencies were implementing the law with adherence to the maine woods of the statutes about whether they have the authority under commerce was initially. the medicaid expansion was a big part of that. states won on that giving

instate the option, the discretion whether to set up medicaid but that was the constitutionality of the law of the original decision. our lawsuit is about something dramatically different. it was about something dramatically different as is general's other's and it is whether the agencies are adhering to the language in the statute so we started evaluating that in the august timeframe of 2012 and this will shock you but we learned these agencies were not, particularly v i r s so when we evaluated the health care exchange issue every state in the country had a decision to make as to whether to set up an exchange. was a policy decision. was not unilateral to the governor. was legislative and executive branch making a decision on whether to set up and exchange. congress incentivized creation of exchanges at the state level. why did they do that? they couldn't require or mandate

it, that would violate the constitution so congress did what they always do when they want the states to act a pretty good the way, they offered money and appropriated billions of dollars in the creation of exchanges and tied subsidies to the creation of a state exchange. i will say to you there was policy and political reasons congress did that. the policy reason is some senators particularly the senator from nebraska at the time the believed the federal exchange was a precursor to the single payer system and was concerned about that and wanted the state to have an active vibrant role, but secondly there was a political calculation by the administration. wanted to share the responsibility of the rollout of the affordable care act which all the states across the country, we now know why. they are not very good at it and they knew it now i didn't appropriate the money as they want all the states with the federal government working

towards this implementation. when 36 states that no. there was a problem. and unfortunately rather than go back to congress which is what the president and those who passed the aca should do to fix whatever portions of the law created this dynamic within the 6 states they know they took this attitude i talked about in the beginning, we are going to improve the statute or change the statute from their perspective and disregard section 13 even and say the subsidies could be issued in all 50 states respect of of the decision reserve to the states. that show fan everyone in this room. whether you are for or against the health care law or the affordable care act we should all care about an agency after the fact saying they have the authority and power because of a certain circumstances to change the law and that is what the irs did so we suit and amended and had the only live case in the

country from a state perspective august 2012. our case was dormant as i indicated. only the last case in the country, we went to the core, amended our complaint and brought the lawsuit against the agencies in question with respect to the rules the was adopted in 2012 by the irs and that is what we have been doing since that time. david made the comment that things were moving slow in oklahoma. i am glad we got a good outcome the last two weeks. it has been a period of time we have been litigating this ending courage about what judge white said. i want to bring your attention to comments judge white makes because in his opinion he addresses this political policy aspect because if you read the briefs in oklahoma they were filed by the justice department in my estimation there is more

policy discussions and legal analysis. it was more try to shame the courts and shame the states for trying to skill the statute passed by congress and what judge white said in response to those not intimations but literally statements that were made in argument and the briefs. rulemaking power is not to make law. these are direct quotes from the order. an agency's will making powers not to make law but only the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of congress as expressed by the statute and the course is aware of that the stakes are higher than they would be in another case. the issue of consequences has pinched upon. speaking of this decision to vacate the irs ruling might collapse case the majority stated we reach this conclusion with reluctance. this is a case of statutory

interpretation. it is what it is no matter which side benefits. such a case even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal does not that, quote, war to destroy anything. on the contrary of holding the act says -- to provide tax credits in state and federal exchanges if that is the legislative will. that should matter. it is great to hear a court in this country, a federal judge say what he said and i am hopeful that tomorrow we are on the eve of the decision by the supreme court to take up the case to provide a clarity that is needed across the country. 86 states that no to exchange. 36 states collectively made the decision based on statutory language and policy considerations and right now we

have uncertainty about the decisions that they have made. in citizens across the country including employers because we know the consequence is more often simply subsidies not being issued to citizens in your state. we know it also affects the employer mandate because if there is no exchange in your state then those subsidies can be issued and if there are no subsidies issue there is no penalty that can be assessed against the employers in the state. i would also submit something that is not talked about as much, the individual mandate is affected as well because under the affordable care act there are exemptions provided to individuals if your health care costs eclipse 8% of your annual income. the administration knew that as this law was passed, the health care costs would rise dramatically and they wanted to use subsidies to avoid the eclipsing of the% threshold.

and $700 in subsidies are not issued in 36 states not only is the employer mandate going to be crippled but many individuals across those states are not going to have to comply with the individual mandate so this is a critical critical lawsuit because it goes to the heart of whether this administration, these agencies that the federal level can enforce the law as set up at the beginning and it is desperately needed. the supreme court to deal with this use sooner rather than later and i am hopeful we receive the news about the petition filed by michael. we support that. i know general seller does as well and we will be there to support that any way we can if such order is granted but this is a consequential issue that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. i want to address this argument

that was made. a mentioned policy on the political side of the decision to bring a lawsuit and that was not the consideration or the focus but as we got into the litigation, the response by the justice department was that our argument was absolutely fanciful, it was absurd is the word that was used because of the impact it would have. data is very arrogant position, full of hubris as it relates to my can't believe a stage or plaintiff would bring this lawsuit against the federal government in this way and we found out about a video. the video was found, and the audio. we have the ability in oklahoma to do something pretty important.

after the video and audio came out clearly jonathan gruber said initially it was a mistake, he didn't intend what he said. always interesting that people say that. i know you heard me and i said those words but disregard the content and meaning of those words, didn't mean that all but the audio was found later and subsequent videos as well and we have some notice of supplemental authority in our case. it was still pending after the videos came down and the videos and audio were not part of any record in the country. kissel we had the luxury and latitude when the videos were produced to file a notice of authority and the judge made reference to it. in his order. here is what he said. i thought you would find this interesting. the state of oklahoma to supplement the record with statements by professor jonathan

gruber who is involved in the drafting. it is undisputed in january of 2012 professor gerber made the statement, quote, if you are estate and don't set up an exchange that means you're citizens don't get their tax credit. it is disputed whether the statement was off the cuff which you guys a drifter and a year today. goes on to say the statements against any argument that the statutory language might support a reading of incentivizing states and exchanges is nonsense me about a whole cloth. those videos and that audio, the capturing of jonathan gruber saying that the court in oklahoma said this absurd even justice department said is a result of the state's lawsuit can't approach that, one of the architect, consultants,

individuals that walked with the administration to set up the law at a time when the irs was passing their rule made a statement that he will be penalized if you don't set up exchanges, not have access to subsidies. that is pretty persuasive. with respect to where we are in our lawsuit. and the briefs will be filed and finalized in december 22nd of this year and the case will be argued in the third week of january so i am hopeful we will see a decision thereafter and that could also be something that follows the third grant by the corps with respect to michael's lawsuit in the d.c. circuit or the fourth circuit. it has been a pleasure to be with you today.

i am glad to be talking about these matters, important matters, matters of rule of law and i know i began their but i want to end their. because this issue of love lot is something i would never have guessed and i mean that sincerely. i would never have anticipated three or four years ago dealing with the number of cases we deal with on the state level of agencies having an attitude unapologetically saying they will act because they can. i understand that and any attorney in the room understands that, that is something congress must deal with. the delegation doctrine, congress providing they need to be prescriptive these days because of the license these agencies are taking but that is a story for another day. in other matters what we have is something different from

discretion. we have an agency engaging in a result oriented approach ignoring the statutory language and doing so at the expense of checks and balances and creating extraordinary uncertainty in the marketplace and it must be dealt with by the courts to send a message to the executive branch that they are not able to engage in that kind of practice not only around the affordable care act but other areas as well. i appreciate cato's leadership and the opportunity to be with you. i hope next time we get here we are celebrating victory in this important fight over the rule of law and i am thankful for that. thanks. [applause] >> we have a couple minutes for questions and i better call on michael can in first. link for the microphone. >> thank you for speaking here today at your leisure on the

issue. point of clarification. speaking and writing about these lawsuits none of these are my lawsuits and i'm not involved in any litigation. and the attorneys who brought them including deeper well with this in petition before the -- >> back there. >> no affiliation but i was wondering, what does that mean for your lawsuits? is it going to be completely pre-empted by king? >> what does it mean to whom? >> to your lawsuit, the oklahoma

lawsuit. is it going to be completely pre-empted by the king lawsuit? or is it still going to proceed with is going to happen with the lawsuit? >> it is likely what would happen if it was granted the tenth circuit would obviously cause when the supreme court makes their decision. >> it would cause our lawsuit to go into neutral unless we try to use procedural mechanism to join the king of versus barnwell grant which is possible and extraordinary but it is a possibility. [inaudible] >> the supreme court takes the case up and he shoots the

determination that the oklahoma's perspective, king versus bear well and indiana's perspective is the right view of the issue to preserve the state of oklahoma's decision not to set up an exchange and would of why the law as a result that subsidies would not be issued, employer mandate would not be assessed, we would adhere to the supreme court's determination. is that your question? [inaudible] >> is there any way that your lawsuit would be something happening with your lawsuit? the supreme court were to make a decision? >> these lawsuits are substance about the ability to issue subsidies through a federal exchange and if there is a determination by the supreme

court around the issue it would apply to indiana and oklahoma. .. to regulate insurance by making available affordable, non-aca qualified insurance contracts. >> well, i take issue number one with this argument deputy substantial disruption in a marketplace. michael and i were in a conference call earlier is week. i think this is the most

unsettled law and history. when you think about it, here we are four years post this law being adopted and signed, and i think most citizens across this country want to see it repealed, but because the initial challenge by the state i think it's unsettled. we have great uncertainty in the marketplace not because of our lawsuit speak with great uncertainty because agencies are engaging in regulatory overreach. i spent time with hospital administers in my state, one of who might ask, how are you making decisions about hiring personnel, planning fighters and future as far as how you do business? he said i cannot because the president himself and the hhs and others change the statute unapologetically retuned. so they can't plan which is what, why rule of law matters. i would take issue number one with this argument is somehow this litigation is going to be a disrupting force in the

marketplace as a way to help you. there's enough disruption in the market place already an attributable to our lawsuit. it's all about regulatory uncertainty. this will provide clearly. i think it will do something else, and she mentioned the state level. i think it will precipitate congressman what they should've done already, which is fix the law. and, and i know there are many in congress that talked about that, but this litigation will cause congress to have to go back and address the affordable care act in its totality because he goes to the ability of being able to enforce the law and to be able to carry out that which the law intended from the very beginning. i think it will cause congress to have to start over. and then the states can make decisions from there. but in the interim i think states are going to be in a very difficult position until there's resolution on litigation and seeing how congress responds.

[inaudible] >> say what authority again to they have? >> you think states have that authority under the regulatory provisions of mccarran-ferguson act to make available non-aca qualified insurance, contracts for their citizens. under the aca when the aca is in place that would not preclude paying the tax. you still have to pay the tax are being in noncompliance, but could a state, do you think, have the authority to make those options of able to its citizens? >> i think the better question is would that suffice and satisfy the requirement ended affordable care act for qualifying health insurance. what we are doing here is not that, obviously, and so you would still have provisions in the law that requires employers to do what? about qualifying health insurance as defined by hhs. what would be missed is the

ability of the federal and government to enforce it. perhaps states could fill the void with some sort of tax, provide more care for their citizens but i don't think it's tied at all, the responsibility in the affordable care act. we could talk about off what if you wanted to it's not something i spent, that's just off the top of my head but i think that's what i would say to your point. >> we will take one last question. >> i think what he's getting at something like this. if your challenges are upheld and all of this component of the ac is no longer enforceable in states without a state exchange, and the premium, the unsubsidized prima goes above 8% of premiums for a lot of people, the mistaken authorized non-aca

complaint insurance just like they had before the aca, then people could buy insurance and it would be affordable, by whatever insurance they wanted, what have to worry about the ac mandates and they also wouldn't have to pay the individual mandate penalty and less of their income were so high that a compliant policy were available for less than 8% of the and, speak i love the hypothetical and i love the scenario. i guess what i'm saying is yes, they could but it's untethered to what is really irrelevant to the aca. >> that's the whole point. >> yeah, they could do that. spent all right, thank you, general pruitt. thank you to all of our speakers today. there's more information on this at a website, cato.org for those of you who are staying for lunch it's upstairs on the second floor. just take a spiral staircase or the elevator and all the yellow wall. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> a couple of live events to tell you about. first a discussion on the midterm elections and the latino vote. user from the president of the congressional hispanic caucus institute and the director of the hispanic media for the republican national committee. watch live coverage on the national press club at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and on c-span a conversation on oil prices. energy analysts and economists will look at the political and economic effect that lower energy prices might have and what it could mean for russia, iran and venezuela. live coverage from the wilson center at 10 a.m. eastern.

>> next the form on the militant group isis and reasons it's been able to expand its operations in the middle east. we'll hear from a former jordanian ambassador to the united states. this event was hosted by the carnegie endowment for international peace.

>> please take your seats. we are ready to begin. >> welcome to our panel on complicated coalition dynamics, fighting terrorism and other priorities. minus michele dunne. i'm a senior associate here in the middle east program at the carnegie down. one announcement before we start but we understand that some participants are having trouble accessing wi-fi. our i.t. team is working on this, but please be aware that if you have a smart phone and if you're more top of things than i am and you've already updated to i.s. eight, you will not be able to connect to wi-fi. there's a problem with that.

so at any rate why would you need wi-fi right now? with a fabulous panel for you to listen to, talking about the coalition against isis. we're going to begin at we go down the table here, first participant is soli ozel, professor of international relations at kadir has university. he the columnist, and he's been an advisor to the chair in turkey. abdulaziz sager is chairman and foundation of the gulf research center. unser, chairman and founder of the gulf research center. he's president of the group in information technology, aviation services and investment. and this time as a speaker our own marwan muasher, vice president of middle east at the carnegie endowment.

now, there's been a lot of discussion about the coalition partners and the dynamics, among them and the dynamics between them and the united states, for example, and out all of this shapes the willingness of the coalition partners to cooperate against the islamic state. and we welcome comments on that in this bill. we also want to go a little bit beyond that, a little bit deeper and look at the domestic developments inside these countries. because of course every country has its own unique situation that it brings to the situation. we want to talk about how each of these countries, how both the governments and the public's view, view the islamic state. what does it mean when the country in question, does represent a threat? does it received support? what kind of threat does it represent? security, political, cultural,

religious? and how do these perceptions shape what the country is willing to do in the coalition against the islamic state? we will also perhaps have a little bit to say about the practical military capabilities and limitations of these countries in participating in this coalition. there's also i think a little bit of an issue of a definitional problem against terrorism. you will notice the word terrorism is in quotes in this panel title and that's partly because there may be some differences between the united states and some of its coalition partners, and certainly among the different coalition partners about what defines terrorism, what kind of groups are involved and so forth. and we want to ask will that contradiction prove a serious impediment to cooperation? can we find common ground in any case? and just one brief moment of advertisement, i want to point

out that my colleague at carnegie, fred and i just authored this policy called u.s.-arab counterterrorism cooperation. it's outside on the publications rack. let's turn first to turkey, soli, because it's very much in the news now with turkey having allowed some at least of the kurdish portion murder through turkey into se ri pak if you could begin with some brief remarks about how you see turkey's position in this conflict and how particularly the domestic situation in turkey shapes what will and will not be willing to do. >> thank you. good morning. i'll do my best. now, as the number of conferences, panels, lectures that i attend increase, i see how helpless, clueless, godless

everyone is. and how everyone actually shares as part of the responsibility in the mess that we collectively find ourselves in in the middle east. not just the great powers as was indicated in the previous question but also regional actors and regional states certainly. so given that fact, although i personally am within turkey, someone fairly critical, actually critical of the governmengovernmen governments policies, vis-à-vis syria, and i have been that way certain for the last three years at least, i really think that there is a projection on turkey that is not altogether warranted about how responsible turkey is for a lot of the mess that is around. and i find a lot of the coverage on turkey quite informative, but a lot of it also really a bit,

if not biased, certainly lacking nuance in determining what the issues are, or giving it the correct interpretation. now, there is no doubt that turkey is at best a very reluctant member of this so-called coalition. it's certainly in terms of what it's primary purpose is ought to be. and as a result of that we have seen probably the unprecedented public falling apart of two main partners who keep on correcting one another's statements. if the americans say, well, one thing, the turks say no. the american say something will happen, the turks say something will not happen.

our president can say one thing and then the next day we learned that because of a phone call with conversation with president obama, things have actually changed. the united states was not supposed to be helping people, the united states did help the qip. and quite frankly terms of alliance relations, this is a very in embarrassing site. so what one wonders, what is going wrong in terms of terms of mutation that must exist a twin turkey which again is the only country bordering both iraq and syria were to hold a big chunk of territory there's also a nato member with plenty of capabilities, not necessarily entertaining military. and its major partner, the united states, it is inexpressible to me that they have not managed to find a common language, or not

embarrassingly which in public in order to actually discuss what the problem. so that leads me to think there is really a big difference between the way the united states looks at what's going on and what, how turkey looks at what is going on. and to the best of my ability as i see it, obviously turkey's priorities are really different. when you look at the resolution of the turkish parliament that was passed, and you look especially when you read its preamble, it is quite obvious that for the turkish government, the pkk, the assad regime are at best equal threats. and some can argue, based on the number of times the pkk and the assad sheen are mentioned that these to a particular the assad regime are actually far more significant threats to turkey's

security, and certainly true of the condition or the situation in iraq and syria. now, there is no doubt that in the past when everybody was hot on thinking that assad would leave like everybody else and around the short period of time, the turkish government did in a rush commit some mistakes, made a lot of misjudgments and it has miscalculated its toleration of very diverse elements going in and out of syria using turkish borders, helping perhaps, help by certain civil society organizations within turkey. how this would actually boomerang on us. and i would argue that whatever turkeys falls might have been before, i think there is now recognition in the security community of the turkish state

that daish is indeed a major security threat for the turkish more. so you wonder why doesn't turkey do more, whatever more is supposed to mean. and i would argue that probably is the domestic repercussions of taking a more openly active part against daish that is bothering or that is making the turkish government hesitant. because at the end of the day, what they think is happening inside the country is that this general sunni sentiment that the previous panel has actually presented to us is also being shared by not a very significant part of the turkish population, and not much of a part of the turkish population. and although i have not yet seen

any poll numbers indicating that we're moving in that direction, there may be a rising taylor of sympathy for those, for the islamic state to the extent that it is being seen under attack by american bombs, by westerners or by the shia. therefore, i think the main concern of the turkey state in trying to find a proper strategy and proper tactic in dealing with the threat of i.s. is really have to make sure that the nonexisting importers between the i.s. outside the country and the i.s. inside the country, how that can be controlled, whether or not turkey will be winnable to terrorist activities within its borders by the i.s., should its engagement in the with the coalition forces be interpreted

as -- otherwise it could not be anything else but and, of course, today we have seen in the pictures, i still have to see photographs, howdy 160 peshmerga, mainly pkk peshmerga concert turkey and into coming to go into syria to help the fighters in kobani. quite frankly i have no idea how this is being seen and interpreted in the western part of the country within a the turkish public in general is sympathetic to what is going on because people indeed are going to be helped, or do they see this as an infringement on perhaps even turkish sovereignty. i have seen things that the government is under serious attack.

finally you've opened, michele, by suggesting that people, i mean the parties, different parties definition of what terrorism are different in that sense as i said the turkish government equates the pkk with the islamic state and, indeed, at one point the president even equated the pyd, which is not on turkey's a terrorist list with that because the pyd is an extension of the pkk within syria. that i'm afraid, that i think is the general way, the of the turkish public and that is what the government has to take into account before we can reach a common vocabulary with the u.s. administration. one final note. to the extent that the u.s. position, that is like contradicting everything that the turkish government says, and the fact that yet once more the

americans, american air force is bombing a neighboring country or population to the extent that it is seen that way, i really wonder what is happening to the image of the united states again in the country, which has not been very positive to begin with. and secondly whether or not this would lead to a new change in turkey where there has been a 19-point increase according to the german marshall fund center transit linux server in favor of nato and was not this would actually diminish that recently found love after long periods of decline for nato among the general public. >> thank you very much, soli. we will turn out to you, abdulaziz, to discuss saudi arabia, the gulf states. i realize these are all not one block so we really appreciate

the extent to which you can kind of these aggregate the positions of the governments and populations in the there is of countries, as well as saudi arabia, as a look at the daish threats. >> good morning ladies and gentlemen. thank you very much for inviting me to be on this panel. great to be back in washington. the soviet union invasion of afghanistan has resulted in al-qaeda. the u.s. liberation, some call it the invasion of iraq resulted in daish. that's what you have to question to the unfinished job the u.s. left in iraq has resulted in something like this, is the policy of isolation, is the isolation policy that was adopted and fully supported by iraq have created something like daish.

2003, zarqawi said i'm no longer a part of al-qaeda. i'm independent. my objective is different and i'm going to fight. it did not start today. 2003 was the root of as a card. 2006 we had the announcement of -- [inaudible] iraq focus, not iraq industry in 2006. so it gives us some routes before mid-2013 with the announcement of daish which is the isis as we call it. so getting that little bit of background saying it's not today but why today we are alert and why the creation of daish and what was the target for that one. i think along the isolation of sunnis in iraq, falling to much in the hands of iran, handed over iraq to iran, had the

domestic iranian influence with the sectarian -- have definite lead to the situation like what we see today in iraq. also in syria, you know, we have had some and redline, so many policies from the u.s. we understand the interest in the region. we understand the importance of the chemical issue, but at the same time after all that, still the moderate syrian, they were supported at the right time. saudi arabia was in august 2012 when king abdullah wrote a letter to the city and nation, why that time. because we took all the time to softly negotiate but after using massive violence, after the resentment and resistance was much more severe, after we had a united nations resolution, then the saudis try to push more and into the more on the issue of

supporting the moderates are in opposition to that remember there was no serious opposition. they were always under very strong notion that nobody can control. and just a day before that in 2010 i remember it was a delegation visiting washington trying to numb it was the no massacre. so it was around to be speaking light relation to king abdullah visited she. took aside to lebanon. they were all sorts of nice sort of relation but we reached the point where we started using massive aggression, u.n. resolution, saudi arabia came and stood very clearly the i was the one who may be said publicly that he said, i feel sorry that we have not given our condolence anand a clear position to our stream friends even prior to that. now, the daish never said anything about saudi arabia. go back to the literature. they never mentioned a threat to saudi arabia. why is that?

because they focus on iraq and syria. this is a territorial interest. but the saudi, for instance, had we received any cooperation up inside saudi arabia by daish can like what's happened in jordan 2054 what's happened in syria or lebanon? no. why? because it is a distant second to finally ultimate they will reach the arabian peninsula. they will go to the gulf at first they want to focus their operational achievement in specific territory there. saudi arabia is being accused of supporting daish. i wish somebody would really -- daish, daish is the abbreviation of the i suspect this is arabic, you know, that one so it's the every translation of isis.

so saudi arabia issued two things. one, they trie try this if you t to come back to your country, we know how many saudis there have been that accuse the government of trying to get out, want to join the. they said we will listen, go back to the embassy in istanbul, and over yourself the you will have their treatment, but then we be sure a sort of list that we have identified the terrorist. the second said you have 30 days, 60 days, if you come deliver yourself to the embassy. then you have a fair trial. and we put up all the reg q -- regulation to a look at the isis there was no leadership in isis from saudi arabia. there is a participant from saudi arabia. we have people from bahrain and other gulf countries but the majority was from north africa. you have the chinese and islamic operations there, and the chinese are met about, how come, you know?

we lost the spring duck and the spring rolls but not isis. so the chinese have a problem there the germans, europeans, americans. but the big number came from north africa. there was no leadership in managing. yes, suicide, soldiers on the boots on the ground. al-qaeda can they target saudi arabia. they targeted the gulf state. they clearly made the operation of a saudi arabia to yemen to reinvent and get their act together come to be able to launch whatever they can against saudi arabia and the rest of the gulf countries. why did we participate on the coalition? i think it's a very important question. number one, there was a legitimacy without saudi arabia and the rest of the gulf countries but has been. we had to come out clearly same five things that daish is not

part of islam from what they're doing is wrong, they deserve to be fought and taken all the necessary action. saudi arabia participating legitimacy to this coalition that for the first time in history you have this huge number of countries acting from working together, fighting and nonstate actor there was greeted as a result of an unfinished job, as a result of a sectarian government that is taking a side and create a political platform or a platform that allow such a thing to grow there. so the second point on, what happened in mosul. it was a big mysterious story. how come a small united states group, even if they were 20 or 30,000 people take over a city like mosul. what we're hearing today, we're hearing we need to train, spend

billions of dollars before we get into the liberation of the second biggest city in iraq. i mean, this is something in words a lot of us barely looking at it. but on the participation, we had to show that this is our strong alliance with the united states and we will participate. they have done good things for us in the region, reciprocity, strong alliances but we both agree in fighting terrorism so we will do that when. if we need to support this coalition by providing airspace, flyover, bases, logistics, financial contribution i'm sure the gulf countries will be more than happy to it into this. but as a result of that we begin with a list of daish, before we were not part of daish target, a lot of the coalition we became a part of daish, the gulf

countries but as soon as they became, you know, boys and girls flew in order to kill or to dismantle some of the facility of daish can we became wanted by isis, daish, the same word essentially. so they became a target now for the. and the same time the threat extended now for isolated area in the north part of iraq close to that one, to the gulf countries as a result of what we are having to do. where do we stand on our turkish friends position? i think we could have taken turkey position not designed to be part of the coalition not to send our boys and girls to fight. but at the same time we decided we will go full-fledged with our american friends. we appreciate the lead of the u.s., the conditions -- coalition to put it together. somebody like me, how to look at the new national guard, you

know, phenomena established in the sunni area? i think my worry is very simple. we're going to have a shia militia, peshmerga in kurdistan, sunni national guard in some places. if they are equipped, then god knows what may happen. is that a description for separation? the united states is a federal, but for us separation will take place based on sectarianism and on ethnicity. so that will be the future problem that what we may anticipate and iraq. but our turkish friends, i think we agree with him on having no-fly zone, having a safe zone for the refugees, and third, train the syrian, make sure that enough training will be given to the free army of syria and decent, acceptable opposition to equip them and to enhance them and at the same time targeted the syrian government.

because it's one of the causes. it's so funny to look at how much the world is concerned about -- collett kobani, and at the same time assad still kind of 300,000 people, millions of refugees, the country was destroyed for many, many years to come yet nobody wants to get rid of us. we've go thought a red line was provided better session. we're happy to see some series engagement. i think today with the new coalition, with the new act together, new working together, yes, we all have agreed with the common threat we need to fight and to go for it. in a simple world yes, daish does represent the future but not immediate instance for the saudi arabia and the gulf countries but yes, it is a future threat if they succeed come if they continue, if they expand, if they are defined us as part of the coalition against them, then definitely we become

a target. i think it's extremely important to the act together and to fight our common enemy together. thank you. >> thank you, abdulaziz. and now, marwan, your turn to address how this looks from jordan. >> i will tried to address both aspects, how this session is fighting terrorism and other priorities. in fact, there are are known. so fighting terrorism so far is limited to fighting daish, even while countries of the region acknowledged that the problem of daish has not evolved and there are nonmilitary reasons why daish is a so strong. but let me focus first on jordan and its part in the coalition. it's interesting that jordan

today is a willing participant in the coalition. it was not cajoled into participating. the king has made it very clear that this is a cultural war, that this is a war within islam for the real dice of islam, and as such jordan is going to participate full force in it. and not only that but he made it clear that his preference would be that it would be led by countries of the region and that led by the united states. and so a very forceful position when it comes to fighting daish military. and jordan, even though it's a small country on the military front can actually provide a lot of support to the coalition in three main areas, logistical support, the coalition is already using airbases, particularly in the north of the country, intelligence support.

jordanians have a very strong intelligence services and they have infiltrated al-qaeda and isis, and continue to do so. and i think the intelligence support is going to be crucial in this campaign. and then the third support is going to come in terms of the network of contacts that the jordanians have with the sunni tribes in iraq in particular. the iraqi partners to was in jordan today's ago and toward arranged for him to meet with tribal sunni chiefs in which they pledged support, all the accord, they pledged support for the effort against isis. so in these fronts, jordan can provide a lot of support to the coalition. but does isis pose a military threat to jordan? i don't think so. i don't think so because as many

have said before me, isis has been successful where it operated in sunni areas that felt marginalized, that felt frustrated both in syria and iraq, that had grievances with the government in a failed state environment. where you have failed states in syria and iraq, isis has been strong. isis has not yet won a major war against non-sunni areas. it has not won one single war, and i don't think that isis is going to attack jordan across desert land, both in syria and iraq, again, a very strong jordanian army. i don't see that happening, and i don't think that is going to be the case. but isis, having said that, on the military front, i think poses other nonmilitary threats, not just to jordan but to the whole region. and it is in this area that my

concern is that not much is being done to address these nonmilitary aspects of the situation. one, isis has, i mean in terms of numbers, just to give you some numbers come in terms of core support for isis in the country, most analysts that i respect estimate the core support of the group in jordan to be around 5000 people. of these, around 1500 already purchased getting. this is a very, you know, of course approximate number. who knows what the real number is, i don't expect in terms of core support diehard ideological support in the country. i don't think extends beyond 5000. however, having said that, isis is becoming a rallying point against the establishment. so you talk to people and anybody who has grievances, not

anybody, but some people who have grievances against the government, not just in jordan, across the arab world, is using isis as a rallying point against the establishment. this is very clear to me in many aspects, just as an anecdote. a few weeks ago we had a problem in downtown were illegal vendors were setting up their shops and selling their goods and blocking traffic illegally. so what the municipality attempted to talk to them, offer them alternative spaces, and then eventually trying to remove them from these illegal places. they start shouting isys slogans. it is an issue that has nothing to do, okay, with isis.

but if isis is becoming sort of a counter force to the establishment in many places in the arab world, and that is worrisome. i talk to a lot of people since i've been back in the country, particularly from the new generation where unemployment in jordan, in many countries around the area, is over 30% among the youth. you talk to them and they clearly tell you, this is not our war. they don't see it as a cultural war. they don't see it as a war for values. they see it as an american war, you know, against the region. they think it's an american war against the region, they're not going to side with anybody. and that something that is also worrisome, in my view. isis has certainly hurt the reform agenda can not just in jordan and across the arab world. you talk reform now and many people will tell you that the

government will tell you, this is not the time to talk about reform. we need to worry about the military threat. so we are back to what i call a pre-arab uprising security node, where people are focused on one thing and one thing only, which is security. of course, they tend to forget that the end of that road was an era of rising, but nobody seems to be thinking along these lines. and everybody is back to security node what we need to do now is to protect isis militarily, finish them off. we didn't have plenty of time to worry about the other aspects. that's an argument that concerns me as well. i agree totally that isis needs be addressed militarily, but as many people have said, and even as governments in the region have also said that the recent isis has evolved in such a quick

manner is because of the exclusionary policies of some governments in the region. everybody talks about how maliki accurately so excluded the sunnis the political game and iraq. everybody talks about how assad excluded, and the, everybody else in syria. but while people understand that exclusion leads to radical forces such as isis, are they trying to do anything about it? in other words, our governments of the region trying to change course and adopt more inclusion its policies so that you do not reach the results of isis? none whatsoever. everybody again is in a security mode, as i said, where as people

understand and accurately diagnose the problem, nobody yet is doing or trying to do anything about the solution. that's the real issue, and the real concern in my view over the long term. isis will be defeated militarily, okay. they will not be able to expand beyond, i think, what they have done so far, but that's not the real threat. the real threat is to leave unaddressed a number of educational, political and economic policies that have led to the evolution of people like isis. we talk about an educational system that has failed in teaching people about inclusion and diversity and pluralism. is any effort being done in any arab country to have, you know, a fresh look at the educational policies of these countries? none whatsoever. we talk about the loss of

opportunity, of economic opportunity for our people which is leading many, particularly in the young generation, to flock to isis, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology but because they lack opportunity and they find in isis a way to address the economic need. are things being done to spur growth and adopt economic policies that move away from the system that is plaguing the arab world for the longest period of time? none of that is being done. certainly in the political atmosphere where there are clear examples, tunisia is the latest. two days ago, of what inclusion is policies can lead to in terms of stability and in terms of moving ahead in a rather smooth manner, and what exclusionist policies can lead to in syria

and iraq and egypt and elsewhere, despite the clear record of the last three years or four years of arab uprising, these huge wakeup calls, first arab uprising and second the evolution of isis, in my view, have not yet been internalized fully. the region is still talking about military solution. to be fair, neither the region northwest, particularly the u.s., have been good at not notice solutions anyway. it is easy to send armies to defeat the people. it is the easiest thing in the world, but it's far more difficult have a serious look, even over time, at the underlying causes that lead to the evolution of these forces. neither arab governments nor the u.s. have been good at this, and i would argue not much has been

done anyway in these two areas. let me stop here. >> thank you, marwan. i believe someone wanted to make a brief follow-up remark. >> i almost telepathically spoke. i will not abuse your tolerance for me. i just want to say, one comment in the previous panel we had four experts. he said he expected isis to basically break up. whereas joseph and others said basically it would be terrible. if experts whose daily lives are consumed steadying isis, we obviously cannot make up our mind as to exactly what's going on. and that really makes, not just analysis but i can prognosis that marwan has suggested is very difficult to come by, particularly with a western world that is in deep crisis and

the other two major powers, russia wanting to be a gamebreaker, and china just not willing to do anything positive, number one to number two, kobani. kobani is becoming something much more important than it could ever be, let's say three months ago, four months ago, on several counts. on the turkish issue it is true, in my judgment, the turkish government thought it would be really a good idea for i.s. and the pkk, pyd forces to actually tear each other down, or way each other down. and ultimately the united states did use air force, the air power in order not to allow kobani to form. that is exactly the time when i.s. start to move towards. that is, the kurdish region was protected which gives a sense that i think at least implied if not exclusively said, that from

the regions populations perspective, if it is just a single, just one clear american policy because american bald has been anything but clear or consistent, that is, we will not let the kurds be beaten up by any of the other forces that surround them. that doesn't bother me particularly at all, but if this is the perception, then the question that he raised, well, what about the 250,000 people who have been killed? remember, it was president obama i think on the sixth or seventh of january 2013, i'm sorry, 2009 who said in "newsweek," could someone please explain to me why the lives of 120,000 syrians are more important than the lives of three and a half million congolese who have been killed? and if you start asking those questions, then you cannot answer that, these are the, arab deaths and kurdish deaths are what you do for the kurds and

you don't duplicate ads. that really complicates diplomacy for all concerned. that does not resolve, that's my lessons, does not absolve any other regional actors, the turkish state included, from their responsibility in a bloody mess we find ourselves in. but if this is going to be where major issues of the world are going to be discussed, i really think one or two look at those from and not strictly american perspective, but a larger one. >> soli, i want to ask you and turn to a follow-up question. i had one for you too, marwan, but a different one. and you have bridged to a nicer. first of all i want to ask whether turkey embassy saudi arabia, although we can also ask this but other gulf states, are they participating in the coalition to the extent they are primarily because they want to use it as a bridge to get the united states and other

international powers to address the problem of bashar al-assad in syria? is that the primary strategy? i would also like to ask you to say something about, both of you, but particularly you, abdulaziz, from the point of view of saudi arabia up to marwan's point about youth grievances and, unicode you have a tremendous youth bulge in the region can even in a wealthy country like saudi arabia there is youth unemployment, underemployment, lack of the matchup with opportunities in the economy, and so forth. to what extent do you think decision-makers in saudi arabia and the gulf look at the problem at daish? do they make the connection that marwan is making, that maybe we need to do something to address youth grievances so that they will not be susceptible to the lure of groups like isis, like

daish? >> the rest of the gulf countries supported the coalition, there were amongst other issues, i think there were two points which were very important to number one, we were hoping that this may lead the u.s. to believe that getting rid of bashar al-assad are fighting this year regime is actually important, and this will give us a better sector in the. if not, assad will make a mistake and then the u.s. would have to respond to unfortunately none of this has happened. so again, the big question is, did the coalition airstrike achieve its target? yes, it may help a little bit in containing, destroying some of the facility, getting rid of some, but is it going to achieve? i think if i go back to the

general petraeus when he said, the iraqi has a bad history with americans. being heavily involved in trying to fight al-qaeda. as a result of that nobody took care of them. they were left, killed, abused. the family was destroyed, and then this is a result of pashtun the sunnis, iraqis don't trust the american nor the maliki government. maliki didn't defeat the use a different position and unfortunate today and one has a very tough job to prove himself away from his policies and say i'm going to look at issues. this is why he tried to send a positive signal to the region, particularly to saudi arabia. i think yes, we do agree we do

have problems, we have issues i've many of the countries. we are not the only country who hasn't unemployment issue but, of course, being a key state, we will have given the political right and reward for the economic benefit. today they're asking what is the benefit of today the want of housing, jobs. all these people when they come back with our education, they want to make sure that there is job assurance. so again, if you go through the analysis of the number of people that went from saudi arabia, joined the isis, you look at the age group, look at the position, tobacco, do they have job. i was surprised people from one family, 12, 13 have joined. it means not necessarily only the jobs issue and the economic situation, but it is beyond that. to see there is justice, a

feeling of somebody, you know, gave up support, a government that has an isolation policy. you have to compile it together so this is why if you want to fight the assad today and i reckon you need to go back to the sunnis own. and you to talk to them, give them comfort, you need to assure them they will not be isolated. they will not be pushed out of the government. they will have equal opportunity. the people in the prison will be released from the maliki government that he put them there all. iran influence that, the united states have policy, handed over and goes in place to iran. so we need to make sure that the containment and anything in iraq issues, definitely saudi arabia position is very clear. we are with the unity of iraq. we did not wish to seek a

segmented, divided iraq. and here by the way it's a similar interest of our right. i ran the light is a unified iraq but ruled by the shia, by, unicode their own people, but on public they would like to on the kurdish issue, minchew -- mention without issue. we are not happy to see german or other company with additional equipment because they occupied took and it is a big debate of that city. it's an arab city. the kurds still think there's a majority but they would use that, though use the support of the u.s. to make sure to do that under the peshmerga control to make it a kurdish city. i think we're playing with fire here when we use economic interest, when you use a city

which is considered to be an arab city given to the kurds, not dealing with the issues. i think isis target is united states of america and iran to these other two because somehow they see strong alliances between the two. >> but there was also, i mean, you blame the united states for having believed perhaps that the syria conflict was containable. and it has obviously a test of size in the region to something far longer or larger. so now you're speaking of the islamic state as if it is containable and not really a problem. >> it can be contained if you gain back the sunnis but if you give them money, 12,000 people as i told, a joint isis in the war against al-qaeda. they thought within. they were left out. all the shia and militia they were appointed in the defense

department or the sector to department. how can you not blame them for not trusting? >> thank you. >> i kind of different because, i mean, i do think that there's been quite a number of serious and very consequential failures on the part of american foreign policymaking in the particular issue. but i also think that the regional, the states of the region have utterly, utterly failed to actually come up with any kind of constructive solution to a problem when the united states was not around. and at the end of the day everybody wanted the united states to come and use the air force so that everybody could have an alibi. so without solving the iran saudi arabia geopolitical game, which has been thought through sectarian hatred, i really don't think we can get anywhere without engaging, without engaging the russians any peace

process but i would don't think we can get anywhere. so if we could just taste those realities and then i think we will be better off. >> okay. just a quick question for you, marwan, and then we will open up to questions from our participants. marwan, you're talking, just sort of contrasted tunisia with the rest of the region in terms of the democratic process moving forward their, as opposed to the rest of the region and so forth. but there was this interesting article in the "washington post" today about the large number of recruits to isis from tunisia, and talking about actions, repression against, following terrorist attacks inside of tunisia. so how do you take this apart? i mean come inclusion is important, youth engagement is important, but it's a complicated matter in these polarized societies and we see that this country, even with its promising young democracy have

still have a problem of radicalization of youth. could you address that? >> i mean, tunisia, what is happening in tunisia does not suggest that they are a perfect ideal fully functioning democracy. these are the real problems and will continue to have real problems for a while. ..