[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. good morning and welcome to the u.s. institute of peace here my name is nancy lynn or, i'm delighted to welcome you here today for a very important and

quite timely program on iraq in syria, to some u.s. administration military leaders in the region. u.s. institute of peace was founded in 1984 by congressional leaders dedicated to the proposition that piece is very practical, it's quite possible, and is absolutely essential for our national and global securities. we pursue this mission by working with partners around the world with very practical ways on how to prevent and how to resolve violent conflict. and today we've organized a trio of events that will focus on iraq and syria to countries that are of critical national security interest for the united states. there are also two countries that have been wracked by violence, both of them brutally occupied by isis, both are subject to the continuing

competing interests of regional and international powers. they are two countries with very distinct challenges, but they are linked by a long and course border. they both have the continuing threat of isis and are both located in a very tough neighborhood. usip works in both iraq and syria. we work in complement the u.s. military, diplomatic, and aid workers as well as with our iraqi government and civil society partners and the kurdistan regional government and civil society partners in both iraq and syria. we have been on the ground in iraq since 2003 i was there actually last month and i was encouraged to see some very useful, heartening signs of hope and progress as we await the elections in may. i'm sure you have more about that and for many years, particularly following the rise

of isis, usip has worked with the u.s. and iraqi counterparts to spread and to prevent the spread and subsequent reemergence of conflict. so most notably we have worked to consolidate the recent successes of military action to liberate areas from isis. we have supported iraqi partners to broker and implement local peace accords. these local accords and places like to create -- to create have enabled iraq you to come together to bridge deep divides which were left deep in the wake of the isis occupation. and agree to solve problems peaceably. to work out the new grievances that resulted from isis and in many cases addressed decades or even longer old grievances. most important it's allowed many

families to return home. so i am especially appreciative of the partnership we've had with the iraqi k rg governments. thanks to our honored guests who are here with us today. we have supported the national reconciliation committee in the prime minister's office in its efforts and we provided the kurdistan regional government with conflict mitigation tools, particularly on fostering women's participation in post-conflict peace building. so we are now at a pivotal moment. isis is largely driven out particularly from urban areas and no longer holding territory and most of iraq and much of syria. and there is an urgency to sustain those gains. there's an urgency to up stabilize the region, the necessity of preventing the return of isis, and very importantly enabled the return of meaning millions of iraqis

and syrians to go home to begin what would the generations long process of rebuilding their lives here this has to happen against continuing significant internal challenges as well as while the competing interests of many regional and international players continue to play out. the stakes are very high. it will require closely aligned and coordinate coordinated effs the u.s. government with international partners and very important with our iraq in syria workers. so we will start today's program my first looking at iraq, then we will follow with the panel looking at the regional implications for both countries, followed by a networking lunch. after lunch we will finish with a very powerful conversation between combatant commander general votel, special presidential envoy brett

mcgurk, and u.s. aid administrator green. this discussion will be moderated by the u.s. institute of peace board chair stephen hadley, , previously the nationl security adviser under president bush. so i hope that you be able to stay with us for all three panels on very important topics at a very important time. so to start this morning we are quite fortunate to be joined by leaders from the region who will assess the current situation and discuss what's likely to happen next. i'm honored to welcome iraqi ambassador to the u.s., ambassador yasseen. the representative of the k rg, bayan sami abdul rahman, and our own sarhang hamasaeed, our director of our middle east programs. and we are quite delighted to have with us to moderate this conversation ambassador alberto

fernandez who's the president of the middle east broadcasting networks. ambassador fernandez overseas and manages to television networks, radio, at all of their digital and social media platforms. so his role is to provide critical news and information in arabic to the middle east and africa. previously he was a career member of the u.s. foreign service with the rank of minister counselor. he was foreign service officer from 1983-2015, and serve in many critical roles, and ambassadorial post. so ambassador fernandez, over to you. >> ninety three much. it's a real pleasure to be here to open up this important conference today which i think will be really powerful. we opened up with the panel on

-- [inaudible] you could say this is a pivotal moment in history of pivotal moments here this year is the 50th anniversary of the rise to power of the baath party and iraq, and the unfortunate july 17 revolution of 1968, saddam hussein entering government and 15 years of course marking last month, 15 years since the liberation of iraq and the fall of that regime. four years roughly since the rise of the islamic state and the fall of mosul. so certainly iraq is that it's fair share of pivotal dyer, serious moment in history. we are blessed, we really fortunate to have a panel that has deep roots in deep knowledge of the region committee of you know one of the challenges we face in washington is often we had people talking about parts of the world which they know in a very shallow and superficial way. that is not a problem today for

the conference and certainly not a problem with this panel which has a deep understanding of iraq and the region. fareed yasseen, and dr. harold kudler, voices deep inside of iraq, fully as it is as a place of tremendous challenge, tremendous problems and yet tremendous potential that it think we in the west often ignore eric so much is going on on the ground, beneath the surface that is easy to dismiss from 8000 miles away. there's a lot of good happening in iraq that is often lost when think of things like the corruption raids or the violence or political tension. we forget the kind of granularity of what is happening on the ground and the tremendous potential. and they understand iraq has have tremendous income great human cost, the human dignity cost the past years and yet how

iraq has triumphed, how the iraqi people, iraqi forces from the peshmerga to the iraqi security forces, the army, the police and others who bled and who fought and defeated the islamic state is something we forget the great cost to the iraqi people, but the tribe that resulted from this. all of these elements demonstrate the importance of this panel, of this conference, departments for the engagement of the united states with iraq, for me, it's important always highlight utterback is not a place that is won or lost. it's a place that is in play, a place that we have to engage with because it's important in and of itself for the u.s. and for u.s. policy. we will begin with five minutes from each person, then we'll take it from there. we were about a few questions and then opened up for you are as well. ambassador yasseen? >> thank you, ambassador.

i want to thank the usip for fighting the and hosting this i think very highly an important event and have tradition of doing these things. you're right, it's an important chapter four iraq. we have as you said defeated isis. i say you will find nowhere in iraq where the flag of isis flows it and, in fact, if you look at the flag of isis to remind you of the pirate flag, the skull and bones. so we have defeated that. we defeated them, but the objective really is not to defeat isis it's to prevent the rise of anything similar. i've often heard american friends tell me that we are concerned because we find ourselves right that in a situation which was similar to what happened in 2010. we had defeated al-qaeda and

undergone elections, and then ends went south. there's a big difference and i like to stress this difference. the surge that ended al-qaeda was carried out essentially by u.s. troops, and i'm thankful for the sacrifice and their efforts. the fight against isis was carried out by iraqis, the peshmerga, regular army. they paid a heavy burden in blood. so this is a victory where we really have a lot of skin and even blood in the game. we are concerned. we wanted to stick. in a strange way isis essentially bought us together i remember this famous quote by george kennan, speaking of communism. he said it contained in itself the seeds of its own decay. similarly for isis, if they had

confined themselves to anbar province and consolidated, i don't know, maybe you would be talking to them. but their ideology pushed them to do things that were unthinkable, unacceptable, you know, beheading americans, doing what they did to the yazidi women, all the yazidi men, dispelling the minorities from mosul. no one can accept that. we all united. we have defeated them. but isis if anything is a learning organization and they have morphed, in a sense we deprive them from territorial control. they have reverted to what they were previously, which is a terrorist activity. recently, for example, they set up a checkpoint and ambush that killed a number of iraqis

policeman. they also destroyed shrines near her. this means we'll have to continue fighting them. -- i have to say that the fight against isis was carried out about by iraqis would not have been possible without the support of the coalition headed by united states. they played a really critical and will continue to need their support and expertise to fight isis in the coming faces where you will have to move from terrain tactics, warfare, to intelligence, fusion cells, counterterrorism, things like that. ultimately of course in order to defeat them we will have to do two things. we will have to confront their ideology and that has publications as much for us as it does for you. we have to address the message but i think the u.s. government,

other major, international institutions should do something about the way the messages are being promulgated through social media. facebook, for example, for a long time was a global recruitment tool for isis. they are doing some work now but i think more needs to be done. that's one thing. the other thing we need to do is make sure that the population does not welcome them or approve of them as they did in 2014. and that means we'll have to focus on a number of issues, governance, economics, reconciliation. and also demilitarization. and there i think the united states can offer a lot of examples. for example, the famous g.i. bill that transform the united states army into the greatest economic reconstruction since

the cycle of war is something we can draw inspiration from. and i have to, in this venue, really salute the critical work that usip is doing in trying to bring in and strengthen and consolidate reconciliation in very difficult areas in iraq. and then of course i mentioned the economics. as many know we've had a conference that took place in kuwait last month. people there pledged $30 million help us rebuild. it wasn't a pledging conference. it was a reconstruction conference where for the first time the world bank actually held a special session for the private sector. why? because as you said iraq has potential. so we are hoping that this will pan out very quickly, and what

makes me feel very positive that this will indeed happen is one of the most important development on the political front in the region has been -- between iraq and gulf countries, that event party absent over the last ten years. that was initiated by a visit by the saudi foreign minister to baghdad. then we had delegations come in, including sports delegations. we've had a very important event in iraq which is a soccer game that took place in basra will repeat the sound is four-one. no joke. soccer is a religion in our back. barcelona and rio madrid, and sometimes it's good -- joking aside, we stand in position

where we're a lot more confident. we see this in the politics and have to talk about the politics because we are coming to elections in may of this year, on the 12th. one thing i like to make us throughout the travails with had throughout the last 14, 15 years since the regime change, we've had elections as constitution mandated all the time. we did not miss a single one. so we're going to hold these elections. they are going to be held under difficult conditions, but i can show you that there is great goodwill and strong-willed and iraq to make these work. we are taking all technical measures necessary to make sure these are fair and full proof elections. the iraqi government has officially asked for the united nations and other international organizations to come in and

provide international observers that will help prove that these are elections that are fair and strengthen their legitimacy. one point i will mention is that in these elections, , the debate between the various political parties is gradually shifting from identity politics to -- i really welcome sign. another thing, and i will close on that, if you look at the needs of some of the coalitions that are coming in in these elections, they indicate a certain confidence. we have the prime minister is running on a coalition called the victory coalition. there's one called the coalition of conquest. i'm sure there are others such positive names, and i hope that this will pan out and have an impact on the politics to come. thank you. >> thank you. bayan? >> thank you very much, and also like to thank usip for hosting

this conference, which is his excellency the ambassador said is very timely. it's an honor to be with his panel, as part of this panel. i think the ambassador has really set out the terrain and iraq, so i will focus my comments more on the kurdistan region but part of the wider picture in iraq. from a kurdish point of view, at the time we got to 2013-14, a relationship with baghdad was deteriorating. curtis dance economy was doing well. there was a flourishing society, media, and so on, but the relations with baghdad were tense and that of course isis came and everything was suspended. we all rightly had to focus on basis which was a threat to all of us, and we are all very proud

that isis has been defeated. but those problems that existed were not dealt with, and so today we are at this pivotal moment where we have those old issues still there. we have new issues, because isis i think touched on so many faultlines that already existed in iraq and syria, , but we're focusing on iraq. so that's the negative. on the positive side, we are heading for these elections, these elections are critical. the kurdistan he parties have decided to participate in the elections, and we hope that after the election will be able to be part of the discussion on forming a new government. and we believe that any new government in iraq should include the kurds, sunnis and she is, and will be a cross

sectarian, cross ethnicity government. it rings alarm bells for many of us in iraq when we hear some parties for some political leaders talk about it's time for mature terrien rule. it's time for whoever wins the majority to rule iraq. i think in a country like iraq where you have kurds, arabs, muslims, christians can use these, turkmen, syrians, yet so many other minorities, you have dispute over oil, over revenue-sharing, over budgets, over the states of some a military, militias are accepted where sometimes it appears the peshmerga are not. you have so many issues to have mature terrien rule i think would be a backward step and we're all hoping that the next government will be a reflection of iraqis society and will be

able to implement some of the aspirations of iraqi society. there is a danger of too high expectations of the new governments, as ambassador such as the program, and that we also have to manage those expectations. .. but this election and the formation of the next government is the opportunity to bring back

to a narrow circle point and i believe these elections are the opportunity for a new chapter. going forward, what are we looking for in kurdistan? as you all know, we have the referendum. this is both a euphoric and traumatic event not only for curtis man, but for all of iraq. now we need to focus on our future relationship because the constitutions have shortcomings in every group will find shortcomings that apply to missiles but is the way forward different groups, different religions, it sets out a structure for iraq, which hasn't truly been implemented.

if implemented, i believe it will strength in iraq. so we are looking towards a stronger implementation of the constitution. we still need to have some kind of a revenue-sharing agreement. not just for all iraqis. what about the sunnis? what about the people of bozrah? we need to every citizen of iraq to share in the wealth. we need to have, for example, in the disputed territories featuring security mechanism, which previously worked very successfully and i believe there are steps now towards that. we need to have a mechanism for dealing with the trauma that has been imposed on the people of iraq. all of the soldiers who were killed, whether they were via cd, terror, just the soldiers

families come every family would have to deal with loss. the people who face genocide, these irish shoes we need to deal with when we talk about the issue of justice and accountability for isis crime. this is another area where we automate to cooperate with the curtis man region will need to cooperate with baghdad if we are going to bring all of these people to justice. kurdistan and iraq still have a humanitarian crisis. curtis standalone today has 1.5 million syrian refugees and iraqis. that is still a huge population. that is still a lot of people to take care of. we still need to remember that while isis is being defeated militarily, we need the security cooperation and we still have

the humanitarian crisis and all of those people need to be held. that means a reconstruction program that frankly hasn't really begun on the scale that it should. i believe we need something like the marshall plan that would impose at the second world war. that is the scale of the reconstruction. not just the physical reconstruction of places like mosul and all the towns and cities that were destroyed, but also a rebuilding of our society. so i believe this election is critical. we need to build bridges between all of iraq. we need the confidence building and we need an era of coming back together after splintering into hugely fragmented society. i do believe that the united states has a critical role to play in the spirit i know many

americans are sick and tired of the whole story of iraq and afghanistan and soon they will be tired as serious. and i understand that, but we need you in iraq and how us recover from the most recent trauma we face. thank you very much. >> good morning. it's a pleasure for me and an honor to be such of a distinguished panel they will follow really closely. in iraq, it's definitely a truly political moment is a pivotal moment to look at in iraq itself, but also in the region and on the world stage and i understand the panels look at to some of those. stating within the boundaries of iraq, and after having visited

iraq four times in the past year and through our work, it is definitely evidence that there is an enhanced defense of national sentiment, mostly outside the kurdistan region about the iraqi nationalism in the military defeat of isis. now, that energy is going into the political space of the elections coming up in the process of the elections is mostly set. we can have a dedicated event about the process, but a couple of things will be critical in the process to the election, which is turn out from a widescale turnout is important for this election. in fact income in the platforms on which this election will be run. so far, the common theme is to want across sectarian blocs

before the election, but that is important to deliver after the election. we need a government that is formed quickly, a government that is inclusive of not only numbers of people, but also in delivery and a government that can manage the conflicts next stage of iraq and the complex next stage of iraq and that the ambassador usually says that iraq is a place where a lot of contradictions at the same time. the next government will find in iraq also had a more complex and in some ways dangerous place. it's a better place to build on at the place about the defense in the united states.

in iraq of 2018 is more to be a partner. i did not exist in 2003 because of the paralysis of saddam and the iraqi society in the previous years it was that i just miss. i think iraq is a better place. we do have partners in the government and also in the community. the second piece that is more complex and will remain the challenge. security come i think the iraqi security forces, kurdish -- murder have built a strong reputation for defending the iraqi people. but in the process, there has been the formation and fragmentation of the security lamp gave. the next iraqi government will have to deal with this problem.

the reconciliation and reconstruction building a to the ultimate goal of how you build that brazilians that in terms of government institutions, in terms of society and individuals at the path to get there is going to be difficult and will require help. we see progress in a .5 people that have returned home and we have a difficult number to overcome. to .3 million people who have to go home and have not. our visits to iraq and internally displaced camps and also communities have returned home. whether you are in the situations affected by isis or you're actually in basra were somewhere else for services, lack of opportunities and continue to challenge you. the issue of return, i mention the security part. one dilemma that the iraqi

government will have to overcome is the legacy that basis is leaving behind within the community and those individuals and families who have been accused of either be members of isis or affiliation of isis. one of the senior iraqi officials told us there's 90,000 for people accused of isis. not all those people are actually isis members. you could be accused of that for a variety of reasons. there are 36,000 people. that is a big number of people at the iraqi security system will have to deal with. that is a problem we had in 2012, 2013 when the sunni communities of iraq say it is targeting them and causing a good number of communities to be in attention in the iraqi

justice system didn't have the capability to process quickly and look into these issues. that is a challenge that will threaten. the local reconciliation comes in. national reconciliation. as an institute we have been what her speakers refer to is usip has enacted the space and we have been living the dialogue processes to create in the tel aviv province -- [inaudible] planes. the iraqi community is engaged. the tribal leaders that elicit minorities or women, the youth are engaged. they are trying to find solutions and reform all traditions to adapt to new reality. so there is a sense of fatigue with violence and with iraqi issues here in the international

community. they are turning that into an energy to find solutions. i know i'm not naïve. i'm not trying to paint a rosy picture. i can paint a bleak picture is anybody else, but i'm trying to give a sense of the positive energy you can partner with and help channel and elections give us an opportunity to jumpstart the political process and address some of the fundamental constitutional issues in terms of the framework of the country and the frontline aware violence breaks out, where extremism is trying to recruit. so this is something we can work with. moving forward i think for the international community, we need to remain engaged. that is what the iraqis tell us. that's what they deserve and that's what this process deserves also.

we've made a lot of progress again isis and putting iraq back on political track. we believe that this point were soon after the election, we are losing our investment and these are the dangerous moments for iraq overall. and we may back to violence and we do not want to do that. the region has competing agendas in iraq, building iraqi institutions will help the government stand on its feet and we have to preserve stability throughout iraq,. we need that in the region. they have issues in the south and with that, i will go du. >> thank you all. it will take now the moderators prerogative and asked the first

question. ambassador come and see new addresses to all three of you, you mentioned the military defeat of the bride that such a tremendous cost. you mentioned the challenge of ideology. in iraq today, what is it really the challenge of the idea, you know, this an issue of kind of that connection between iss and sunni arab population definitively broke and said that we move beyond that. what is the challenge we face with the ideological dimension, which also exists in the kurdish and other populations as well. >> if i may come in the extremist ideologies and iraq have always been, didn't exist.

they came in through the 1990s and open the door to them. but they always were marginal. these extremist ideologies were the engine that brought tens of thousands of foreign fighters to iraq. but in iraq, what we should focus on is to prevent the mass of people from accepting these insurgents because of their dissatisfaction with the services, the government, the justice, the corruption. so we have to address, like i said for issues. economics, governance, security. and there's one more.

this is what we need to do in iraq. on the ideology aspect of it, i think it is a global problem all of you need to address. >> i think we do have to be careful that we don't allow isis or al qaeda or any other form of islamic extremism or terrorism to gain ground in iraq. it has cost the iraqi society and kurdish society great deal. my own father and brother were killed by islamic terrorists. it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure they don't gain the foothold again. it does mean that our neighbors have to play a role after the liberation of iraq. syria became the conduit for every terrorist to make domain -- make their way into

iraq. we need our neighbors to play their role as well. this is not something we incurred a stand for iraq as a whole can fight against alone. it also of course does mean that we need the united states and the coalition's to stay with us. that is why earlier i made this appeal that the american people may be tired of being in iraq now for 15 years. do you play an important role. you play an important role diplomatically, politically and militarily. it's around interest to help all of us not to allow these ideologies to get a foothold. [inaudible] >> in iraq, there is ideology, but i think it is at a much smaller scale than many people think. this is a kind of danger that confined space and amplify and grow to a problem in the

government issue with the vehicle to which the ideology found space and can be amplified. now that is contained. the threat does not fully eliminated as they are. that is why the success of the electoral process, the government and the governance issue name to remain a priority and maintain a channel of communication between the government and the community to problem solve together and manage the next chapter. i will be the best, in my view, mechanism to prevent violence, whether it's coming from internal issues are coming to terrorist organizations. >> thank you good now we can go to the public to see who wants to ask questions first. please identify yourself and your is a and if you wish. this lady right here. >> thanks to all of you for doing this.

the "philadelphia inquirer." you mentioned that the neighbors have to play a part. i want to ask how you all envision the neighbors not causing future chaos inside iraq. can the u.s. play a role without being vader attempted to be pushed out by iran, by a new role for russia. can the saudi's and the iranians both play a role inside iraq without playing games on the soil. i'd like to ask if the u.s. holds out its 2000 forces from syria, how would that be seen in iraq and will that be seen as a sign the u.s. has no staying power in iraq. [inaudible] >> you can go first. [laughter]

>> okay, well you know, we don't want iraq or kurdistan to beat the theater for property warfare among our neighbors or anybody else. iraq already has enough problems recovering from decades of marxism and all the issues that we've had since 2003 and of course i says. so we have enough problems and we really don't need any more gifts from our neighbors. so, i think the rapprochement between baghdad and riyadh is important. i believe the relationship with kuwait has been improving. and kurdistan region we have good relations with their neighbors. the gulf countries with the biggest investors in the kurdistan region. we have a good relationship with iran and turkey. it may not look like that from the outside, but our leadership has always maintained a good

relationship. i do think the u.s. has a role to play and so does the coalition, not just the u.s. alone. a sudden wet straw friends area would stand a frightening message and explanation that comes with it that make everybody think yes, okay that is why. right now, we are just hearing a long exchange but that it the nation. and we don't know how it's going to turn out. i would say that we do need our neighbors, the neighborhood to realize that it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous iraq that is a good neighbor to them and plays a positive role in the middle east and in not come i include kurdistan as part of iraq, but also we have our road semi-independent relations with those countries.

at the end of the day, the international community, the u.n. all have a role to play as well. >> well, thank you. it is in the interest of everybody to prevent isis from reemerging. i think that is one of the drivers that rocked the saudi's back to iraq. they were threatened by isis. isis used to be -- it stands for the islamic state in iraq is teary-eyed. i remember they change their name to islamic state, meaning they targeted not only iraq area, but the whole mess tomorrow, including saudi arabia. so everybody has a stake in preventing this terrorism. with regard to syria, we still suffer from syria. still to this day we have been urging for jihadist crossing the

border into iraq and wreaking havoc. so as an operational first step, what we need to do is secure the border. this is something the united state and for the foreseeable future we need to realize and recognize in washington as it is in baghdad and bringing in favorable results. with regard to relationships between the other countries, it is in our interest to see the pensions are used in the region as you know we have laid a role in order to bring people together. in fact, one of the things the united date. one of the achievements of the state department was to help bring saudi's back to iraq. as you know, the saudi foreign minister went to baghdad, which

was an icebreaker at the request of the state department. so that is where we are. there is no question that we need to have a continued engagement with united state. people do not realize the cost that this war has in terms of our troops. i think the tip of the spear of the iraqi armed forces or the counterterrorism services come if they suffer a casualty rate of 30%, and they need to be rebuilt and strengthened and we need support of our friends and allies to do that. >> very quickly, i think the u.s. leading role is critical. i cannot recall a single conversation come is serious iraqi where i was not told from

the diversity of the community that the u.s. has an important role to play. i understand the same way we talk about not disengaging and about continuing support. i think we need to be careful about the past, the trillions of dollars in the troop engagement is not what those people are asking for. they are asking for support but the political processes to move forward to be inclusive and for building capacity. i think that is important and when the u.s. is not engaged, those processes will not happen and there is hesitation to the u.s. allies, whether in europe or in the region that they will not do the kind of role that they are playing now. the u.s. engagement were leaving engagement are not a heavy engagement is that the region is asking for her.

>> just an afterthought. i omitted to say what we were really looking for is a broader engagement to the united states. we are facing the reconstruction phase and would very much like to see the united dates private sector very much engaged. >> another question. right here. [inaudible] thank you, talking about what we need -- [inaudible] iran and its militia everywhere in iraq, in the judiciary. and now they are coming in the

next election also talking about foreign investors. they have confidence about the system. how did the investor make an initiative to invest in iraq? thank you. >> thank you for that. these issues were discussed at the conference in kuwait and engaged itself to streamline the processes and to make them simpler for the foreign investors, including setting up a mechanism that will follow the investments to ensure there is minimal corruption and efficient use of the funds. the point behind your question, which is the independents can only be assured once we have strengthened our is the two shins. unfortunately, we start from the very low baseline. iraqi institution have been completely wiped out by the

takeover of the baath parties and by the occupation. we are in the gradual process of rebuilding them and making them as secure as possible. i can assure you there's a good faith effort to do that. >> another question over here. >> good morning. doubt i'll amend. we can ask a hundred questions today, but let start with how do you keep your people on board as you have to go through all this recovery, all the groups in iraq, the shia are deeply upset about the lack of services in the sunni has been decimated watching the demonstrations in the north and they go without

saying. how do we keep these people on board with what will inevitably be slow and disappointing levels of recovery, even if it does move forward. >> do you want to take that first? >> scherrer, i think that is a really critical question. i'm going to focus on kurdistan in the disputed territories. people are very tired. curtis and in 2014 had several shocks. first, by minister mlicki cut kurdistan share of the federal budget comment then isis came and we were engaged financially in human life. we are with displaced people in it is now the humanitarian

crisis we still have refugees. that is impacting not only done because they can't go home. there are now four to six years old from syria. the health care system in kurdistan is under stress. we have more children in our schools than we have expect good. so after four years, everybody's out of reserve. there are no more savings for people to tap into. and that goes for everybody. it is not surprising that there are protests and we have to recognize the majority of these protests are legitimate in the grievances are legitimate. you raise a very important question in the kurdish leadership at least focusing on them, but i would say this

applies to every leader in iraq. we need to convey messages to the public that they believe in. i think there is an erosion of trust across the board between the public and the leadership and it's very hard to rebuild that trust. we can't keep making the same old promises. we have to make promises that really address the issues we face today and provide a solution that is realistic. we don't want to raise expectations that then lead to disappointment. this is a very important question. >> is there anything you want to add to that? >> this is one of the questions that keep me up at night. you do all this work and if you have no isis, no threat of terrorism, but the frustration of people that take down government local and otherwise. what we have found extremely useful is engagement of the

community can have a variety of and if it in building iraqi democracy presented in terms of managing people's frustration. the iraqis are set up in his trust cannot come by and ask. they have to see them build. the iraqi minority engaged in the budgeting process or they have engaged communities, identified priorities. they worked with us in this is pre-isis. a provincial government with the national government to passing legislation to enable those changes. they identify how much money as they are, what are their prey your deeds and they manage their own expectations in terms of what would work. so that model now trying post-isis to enable the minority communities. as a model, i have seen it

access and limitations, but we need to scale this up and provide processes for local issues to certain places. you need a wide range of those. he made the same thing at the national level. this process leads to agreement, disagreement need to be respect and implement it and for them be implemented, unique capacity. this is something that is lacking in the iraqi institutions that need to be worked on. >> will let you make your comment and then one short question. >> you're absolutely right. it's a difficult thing to do because expectations are so high. what the government has to do then is prioritized and try to achieve at least successive that will add to its legitimacy with the population. one thing it can do is listen and they are.

people and governments are really paying attention to what people are saying in iraq. they should address correction. that's a big issue people are talking about. another issue is mismanagement and one has to say that mismanagement probably cost iraq much more than corruption. i think looking forward, the holding of the elections in a fair and transparent way in itself will be a success that will add to the credibility. >> yes, right here. >> thanks so much for your sensitive commentaries. i just have a quick question for ambassador hamasaeed. can you please explain to us the makeup of the coalitions ahead of the elections because it means that there are some very unusual alliance is banned from studying the makeup of the

coalitions, and it seems to an outsider that the object did is to decrease or minimize iran's influence. so could you give us some idea, for example, prime minister mlicki was aligned and he withdrew from this alliance with nationalists and communists. just looking at this from the outside is very unusual. can you just explain and give us some insight as to how the coalitions are formed and perhaps with the objective is. thank you. >> well, the trend that people see in the formation of these coalitions as they are multiethnic and multi-sectarian. in other words, they constitute the cross-section of the iraqi population. more importantly than not, their discourse is multiethnic, multi-sectarian and in fact said that. you can see this as sort of a

consolidation trend that we have seen for a number of years great for example, mr. mlicki's coalition that won in 2010, iraq is young for a state of law. for your seder, the coalition of the supreme council was named the coalition of the citizen. people were respect to benefit his sins. we are going in this direction and they ink this current electorate season in iraq that we have is the alliance between the communist in the separatists. who would've imagined not geared this is one of the reasons people are actually hopeful that we are on track to move on identity politics to issues politics. >> thank you very much. thank you, all. this concludes our session. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible] >> the discussion on iraq in the area will continue after a 20 minute rate. we will bring you more live coverage from the u.s. institute of peace in washington d.c. hearing over the next verizon journalist, ambassadors and military commanders about the future of the two countries. while they take a break, let's take a look back at the conversation from earlier. >> good morning, everybody. good morning and welcome to the u.s.a. and judith eve. my name is nancy lynn ford and i'm delighted to welcome you here today for a very important and quite timely program on iraq and syria can abuse from the

u.s. administration military leaders in the region. the u.s. institute of peace was founded in 1984 by congressional leaders, dedicated to the proposition that peace is very practical and is absolutely essential for national and global security. we pursue this mission by working with partners around the world with very part always on how to prevent them how to resolve violent conflict. today we have organized a trio of events that will focus on iraq in the area to countries that are of critical national security interests in the united states. there are two countries that have been wracked by violence, both have been brutally occupied by isis and both are subject to the continuing competing interests of regional and international powers. there are two countries with very distinct challenges, but

they are linked by a long and porous border. they both have the continuing threat of isis and they are both located in a very tough neighborhood. usip works in both iraq and syria. we work in compliment to u.s. military, diplomatic and aid workers as well as with the iraqi government and civil society partners and the kurdistan regional government and civil society partners in both iraq and syria. we have been on the ground in iraq since 2003. i was there last month and i was encouraged to see some very useful signs of hope and progress as we await the elections in may. i'm sure you'll hear more about that. for many years, particularly following the rise of isis, usip has worked with the u.s. and iraqi counterparts to spread the

subsequent reemergence of conflict. the most notably, we have worked to consolidate the recent successes of military action to liberate areas for isis. we have supported our iraqi partners to broker and implement local peace accords. these vocal cords in places like tikrit, you know that have enabled the iraqis to come together to bridge deep divide which were left in the iraqi occupation and the great to solve problems peaceably, to work out the new grievances resulted from a safe and in many case address decades and even longer old grievances. most importantly to allow families to turn home. i'm especially appreciative of the partnership we've had with the iraqi government thanks to

our honored guest here today. we have supported the national reconciliation in the air's office and its assets and we have provided the kurdistan government but conflict mitigation tools, particularly posturing women's participation in peacebuilding. we are now at a pivotal moment. isis is largely driven out particularly from the urban areas and no longer holding territory and most of iraq and much of syria. and there is an urgency to sustain those gains. there is an urgency to help utilize the region and the necessity of preventing the return of isis and very importantly enable the return of iraq using syrian to go home, to begin what would be a generations long process of rebuilding their lives.

this has to have been against continuing significant internal challenges as well as competing interests of many regional and international players continuing to play out. the stakes are very high. it will require closely aligned and coordinated efforts across the u.s. government with international partners in very importantly with our iraqi syria partners. so, we will start today's program by first looking at iraq. and then we will follow but the panel, looking at the regional implications for both countries followed via networking lunch. after lunch, we will finish with a very powerful conversation between combatant commander general patel, envoys are mcguirk and administrator green. this discussion will be moderated at the u.s. institute

of peace or chair, stephen hadley from a previous national security adviser under president bush. i hope you will be able to stay with us for all three panels on very important topic that is very important time. to start this morning figures from the region who will access the current situation and discuss what is likely to happen next. i am honored to welcome the iraqi ambassador to the u.s., representative of the krg train to and sarhang hamasaeed who is the director of our middle east programs. we are delighted to have the best ambassador alberto fernandez who is the president of the middle east broadcasting network port nbn. ambassador fernandez oversees

and manages out for a canal kora iraq and all of the digital and social media platforms. so his role is to provide critical news and information in arabic to the middle east and africa. career member of the u.s. foreign service with the rank of minister counselor. foreign service officer from 1983 to 2015 and served in many critical roles in ambassadorial posts. ambassador fernandez, over to you. >> thank you very much. it's a real pleasure to be here at this important conference today and it's powerful and its impact. we open up this panel on a pivotal moment in iraq. this is a pivotal moment in the

history. this year is 50th anniversary of the rise to power of the party in iraq and the unfortunate july 17 resolution 1968 and 15 years marking last month since the liberation in the fall of the regime. for years roughly since the rise of the islamic state in the rise of multiple. we are blessed and we are really fortunate to have a panel here that has deep roots in knowledge. one of the challenges we face as we have people talking about parts of the world which they know in a very shallow and superficial way. it is certain and problem today for the conference and is certainly not a problem with this panel that has a deep

understanding of iraq and the region. ambassador yasseen, ambassador of the rock med and ambassador sarhang hamasaeed are voices that have deep insight and see iraq fully as iraq fully outfitted as a place of tremendous challenge, and yet tremendous potential that i think we in the west often ignore. so much is going off on the ground beneath the surface that is easy to dismiss from 8000 miles away. there is a lot of good happening in iraq that is often lost when we think of the violence for political tension. we forget the granularity of what is happening on the ground in the tremendous potential. we understand in iraq that it suffered tremendously. the great human cost, human dignity cost for the past years and yet how iraq has triumphed the iraqi people, the iraqi

armed forces from the rotation or go to the iraqi security forces, the army, police and others who defeated the islamic state is something we forget the great cost the iraqi people bore and a great triumph that resulted from that. all of these elements demonstrate the importance of this panel, of this this conference and not mislead the engagement of the united states with iraq. for me, it is important to highlight that iraq is not a place that is won or lost. it is a place that is in play. it is a place we have to engage with because it is important in and of itself for the u.s. policy. we will begin with about five minutes from each person and then we will take it from there. we'll put it up for you all as well. ambassador yasseen. >> thank you, ambassador. i want to thank the usip for inviting me in hosting this

important event. they have a tradition of doing these things. you are right is an important challenge for her back. we have as you said defeated isis. i say that you will find nowhere where the flag floats. if you look at -- [inaudible] , how we defeated them, but the objective is not to defeat isis. it's to prevent the rise of anything similar. i have often heard american friends tell me that we are concerned because we find ourselves right now in a situation which is similar to what happened in 2010. we have defeated al qaeda and undergone elections and then things went south.

there is a big difference that this surge that ended out qaeda was essentially that u.s. troops. the fight against a service for carried out by iraqis. the? a, the regular army. and they paid a heavy burden in blood. this is the victory where we have a lot of skin and even blood in the game. we are concerned. we wanted to stick. in a strange way, isis actually brought us together. i remember the famous quote. he said that it contains in itself it on decay. similarly for isis, if they had confined themselves to anbar providence, i don't know, maybe

you would be talking to them. their ideology pushed them to do things that were unthinkable, unacceptable. you know, beheading americans, doing what they did in killing all be in the dmn. the minorities for muslims. no one can accept that. we are united. but isis if anything is a learning organization and they have morphed in the sense that deprived them from territorial control. they have diverted what they were previously, which was an insurgency terrorist activities. they set up a chat client and ambushed and killed a number of iraqi policemen and they've also destroyed a shrine near kirkuk.

this means we'll have to continue fighting. i have to say that the fighting at isis was carried out by iraqis, but it would not have been possible without the support of the coalition headed by the united states. they played a really political role in the continue to need their support and expertise to fight cases in the coming phase is where you will have to move from terrain tactics, warfare, too intelligent, counterterrorism, things like that. ultimately of course in order to defeat them, we have to do two things. we have to confront their ideology and that has implications as much for us as it does for you. we have to address the mass edge, what i think the u.s. government and other major

international institutions should do something about the way the messages are being propagated through social media. you know, facebook, for example, for a long time was of global improvement. they are doing some work now, but i think more needs to be done. that is one thing. the other thing we need to do is make sure that the population does not welcome them or approve of them as they did in 2014. that means we have to focus on a number of issues. government, economics. reconciliation. and there i think the united states can offer a lot of examples. for example, the famous g.i. bill the transfer of the united nations and the united its army into the greatest economic reconstruction engine after the second world war is something we can draw inspiration from.

and i have to really salute the critical work the usip is doing to strength and then consolidate reconciliation in very difficult areas in iraq. and then of course i mentioned to economics. as many know we've had a conference last month. people they are pledged about $30 million to help us rebuild. it wasn't a pledging conference. it was a reconstruction conference were for the first time the world bank held a special session for the private sector. because as you said iraq has attentional. so we are hoping that this will end up very quickly. what makes me feel positive this

will happen is one of the most important developments on the political front in the region has been between the united states and iraq that have been far too absent the last 10 years. i was initiated by a visit by the saudi foreign her and without delegations come in, including sports delegations. we've had a very important event, which is a soccer game that took place in basra. where we beat the saudi's four to one. no joke. soccer is a religion and we have barcelona and madrid and sometimes -- joking aside, we stand in a position where there's a lot more confidence. we see this in the politics and

i have to talk about the politics because we are coming to elections in may of this year on the 12th. one point i would like to make is that throughout the last 14, 15 years since regime change, we have had elections as constitutionally mandated all the time. we did not miss a single one. so we are going to hold these elections. they are going to be held under physical conditions, but i can assure you that there is a strong will and iraq to make these work were taking on the technical measures necessary to make sure these are fair and foolproof elections and the iraqi government has officially asked for the united nations and other international organizations to comment and provide national observers that will help prove that these are elections that are fair and

strength in the legitimacy. one point i will mention is that in these elections, the debate between the various political parties is gradually shifting from identity politics, which is a really welcome sign. another thing and i will close on that is if you look at the names of the coalition that are coming in, they indicate the prime minister is running on a coalition called the coalition of conquest. i'm sure there are others such positive names and i hope this will have an impact on the politics to come. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i'd also like to thank usip for hosting this conference, which

is his excellency, the ambassador said is very timely. it's an honor to be with this panel, a part of this panel. the ambassador has really stood out the terrain in iraq, so i will focus my comments more in the curtis dan region, but part of the wider picture in iraq. from a kurdish point of view, by the time we got to 23rd team, 2014, a relationship with baghdad was deteriorating. curtis stands economy was doing well. there is a flourishing society media and so on. the relations with baghdad were tense. and of course, isis came and everything was suspended. we all rightly had to focus on isis, which was a threat to all of us. we're all very proud isis is being defeated.

they were not dealt with in what today, we are at this pivotal moment where we have those old issues still there. we have new issues because isis i think touched on so many fault lines that already existed in iraq into syria. so, that is the negative. on the positive side, we are heading for these elections and they are critical. the curtis family parties have decided to participate in the elections and we hope after the elections we will be able to see part of the discussion on arming a new government. we believe that any new government in iraq should include the kurds, sunnis and shiites in the acrostic tearing ethnicity government.

it rings alarm bells for many of us in iraq when we hear some parties were some political leaders talk about is time for majoritarian roles. for whoever wins the majority to rule iraq. i think in a country like iraq where you have kurds, arabs, muslims, krishan, syrians, you have so many other minorities. he had disputes over oil, revenue sharing, budget, over spaces of some of the military. militias are accepted and sometimes it appears that patchwork are not. you have so many issues to have majoritarian rule i think would be a backward step and we are all hoping the next government will be a reflection of iraqi society and will be able to implement some of the aspirations of the iraqi

society. and there is a danger of too high x editions of the new government. so the ambassador said before we were coming and that we have to manage those facts but haitians. .. >> good morning. good morning. i would like to welcome you back to the second panel of today's discussion on iraq and syria. my name is michael. on the vice president for the middle east and africa programs here at u.s. institute of peace. as nancy lindborg open the

session this morning, she mentioned that we are at a pivotal point with regard to the future of iraq and syria here and so this whole day is devoted to answering questions, what is that going to look like. in this mornings program, first panel focused on what is going on inside iraq directly but it didn't take very long for questions to ask, were asked about what happens with the neighbors and the neighbors impo iraq. this panel opens up that aperture a bit more and it will directly ask questions about iraq in syria in the neighborhood. so to lead the discussion i'm glad to introduce kevin baron who is the executive editor of defense one, and kevin will open with an introduce the panelists. >> thank you. thanks to usip for putting together a great day of what i

expect will be very newsmaking, especially in this next panel coming up. it's 11:30. we have a hard stop at 12:30 for lunch. i'm instructed to let everyone know, so we'll do some talking, say some space for questions at the end, but we do have great panel and the timely panel to talk about the region. we have someone come experts on turkey, on iran, on russia, on the internal groups in iraq so we can get to all of it. i'm kevin baron, executive editor of defense one, and if you don't know us we are at the national security rent of olympic media, a sister to the atlantic. on the pentagon reporter for the last ten years, so my perspective come straight from the military coverage of this region. i just went to iraq and syria with general votel and usaid director mark green, or administrator mark green, in january. we went up to raqqa, spent a day

in baghdad. needless to say, i was probably as shocked as i think they might've been to the president last week say that very soon the use will be pulling out of syria, and to be followed by with a freeze of funds for syria, when just at this moment as we heard from the last panel, when the ground war is nearing completion or at least is getting close to completion. a lot of people thought. there was a future tv started and a lot of stability, stability officers, stabilization ops, mild low version of reconstruction that would require a whole lot of funding. i sat with general votel outside of raqqa when he pounded his fist on the table and said the world needs to do more. we need more funding for this region to secure the gains as a military had helped him syrians, kurds, iraqis, arabs, the

coalition win back from isis. so that's a set up to the moment we are at. sorry we are, with the president makes this tape and we are all kind of i think on edge to see whether not we should believe him. if this is a real policy directive or offhand comment but the money freeze is a real directive. we have something to talk about today. i want to open it up to her panels, so introduce them briefly, have doctor mark katz from george mason university and his field is russia. mona yacoubian from usip is focusing on series was written for us at defense one also. next to her, doctor elie abouaoun, the director of the countries at usip and at the foreign alireza nader, rant and part-time function in consulting will bring us into the conversation as well. mona, , i wanted to start with you.

to get your reaction to this poem we are in with the present and what it would mean syria, some of the most important neighbor to iraq right now, isis mission and what would it mean if this went to a sudden pullout of what's been the reaction to the freezing of funds? >> well, thanks, kevin, a good morning alireza. i think it's important to understand the two events of last week, the president statement of the freezing of funds come first in context of where are we right now in syria? i think syria is that a dangerous inflection point on the ground here certainly in terms of the counter isis campaign which has stalled somewhat on the ground. kurdish partners of the u.s., their attention has been turned to the north and the west, the kurdish compound that was recently taken over by turkish forces. there's a deteriorating security situation in the east.

a u.s. soldier was recently killed in an ied attack. a key interlocutor for forces on the ground who's been working to bridge arabs and kurds to get on the ground was assassinated not long before that. we have a very dangerous moment on the ground in syria, and at the same time we were at this critical inflection point with respect to u.s. policy. clearly we're at a key crutch . in terms of which direction the u.s. goes. if, in fact, we do precipitously pull out from syria, i think that will have significant impact on our ability to sustain the wins against isis thus far, and more and poorly help stabilize. >> let's talk about that for a second because the argument for a pullout is in a very crude entryway is to avoid another

iraq. look, we win, win to go back in, you had to take it isis and pull it and, frankly, that's what this president was elected four. he went out on the campaign trail, talking backstage and we said when the president says we'll go take your isis and kill those bad guys can he get huge applause lines. when he says we'll pull out of that region he also gets huge applause lines. if that happens, is it not a benefit of u.s.? if not, who is it a benefit to? who are the winners? >> the answer to that argument is the reason not to pull out is to avoid another iraq. and by that i mean when use troops withdrew some precipitously from anbar and from iraq in 2011, without really fully having the area stabilized, that set the conditions for the birth of isis. i think in some ways the lessons learned from iraq informers and why it is important to maintain

a presence on the ground in syria. it's important for people understand that this is not a huge footprint. it's a relatively small footprint, 2000 or so troops, and it's largely depend on this model of working by, with, and through partner forces on the ground. it's not an enormous commitment of resources or manpower that it is strategically critical. >> if you can go big to rush or turkey, but let's say with the kurds for a little bit -- let's stay. alireza, maybe you can talk to the different minority groups that's at stake here, focusing on syria perhaps that there's been a promise to the syrians to stick with it. general votel said in january when we were out there that his mission is not just to the completion of the territory when over isis but is to the end of the geneva process. now we are at a moment there's news today of another meeting commit between their rainy and

the russians and the turks and the alternative passages. what's the response at least in the kurdish realm out there in the region to this discord of what's been happening on the u.s. side? >> thank you. i think as an institute of these we always try to put on the table the importance of the civilian engagement. that would go hand-in-hand with any military strategy. this applies of both iraq, syria and other places. from the perspective i think that engaging diplomatically, economically and socially and many other aspects come with the kurds and other groups operating, in this case northeast in syria, and all parts of syria, it's a very important effort that should not be ignored or underestimated. within that brought broader seg engagement comes the short minority, minorities.

minority groups are part of the origin of both iraq, syria, lebanon, other places in the region, and addressing the issue of the safe and dignified life of these minority groups is very important for the future stability of the region. it's equally important for the future security and peace framework later on. from this specific angle of how to deal with the minorities, i would put forward two important elements. i would be happy to elaborate later on. one of them is the governance models that should be put in place in these regions in order to get rid of the obsolete and archaic nationstate model. that doesn't apply to the region obviously. the second one is to encourage and support the minority groups

themselves to revisit some of the cultural paradigms that they been embracing for the last 50, 60 years or even more. most importantly the one that always put in the west, to support the monitor groups against other groups in the region. i think this appeared on to shift a bit and we need to go, to go to a different paradigm that is more inclusive and that gets rid of the zero-sum game logic that some minority groups have embraced. >> that's what i find with what we heard the iraqi ambassador said on the last panel that there are no political parties forming based on something other than textbooks and he is climbing they are more inclusive, that all our multiethnic notches in a makeup bank in the policies and what they're saying. >> in iraq as the ambassador pointed out, we clearly see

signs of a ship from negative base politics to issues base politics. my fear is this might be easily reversible if this is not sustained by a governance model. that needs to be put in place and this is where i see some reluctance by some groups in iraq to engage into this effort. >> okay. so that's one data point ff things are different this time around for a post complex iraq to move forward. mark, i wanted to ask you. going back into syria and thinking of it the was a u.s. pullout, special a quick one very soon as the president said, the very quick take was that helps russia. probably exactly what they would want and it's the voice of american involvement in syria will allow russia to get in the first place. what your perspective on what that means and what it could include been going forward? >> certainly i think the initial

reaction with the one of great happiness i have a feeling they are also maybe a little uncomfortable. i was in moscow the in the february at the middle east conference, which sergey lavrov addressed us. what was very clear that and him and the other russian speakers was that the american support for the kurds and turkeys and happiness with that was seen as an opportunity that, for russia to exploit, in other words, the prospector degenerating turkish american relations is something that they are very happy about. i think one of the announcement that the u.s. will be withdrawing from syria, if nothing else, this removes a degree tension between turkey and the united states, or at least perhaps that's how it is thought of. obviously at the expense of the kurds, but that this is no

longer something that moscow will be able to exploit. the other issue i think is that russia and iran, they been working together against several different adversaries including the united states, but they do have tensions, differences in syria and certainly a u.s. withdrawal might tend to heighten this. it's not the kind of attention i think that's he's trying to eliminate limit the other in syria but i think there is a competition for who's going to have the upper hand. i have a feeling, it there's any sort of turning behind the decision to withdraw u.s. forces, is perhaps with the idea that this might promote russian-iranian discord i think it will promote some degree of discord but i'm not sure it's going to lead to an all out struggle between them.

>> a pullout would necessarily mean everything is hand over to russia and that it's overproduced on divided syria, still have a conflict that needs to be solved, , to get to a piee eventually. >> good point. and, in fact, that is the one thing that russia actually does what the u.s. to play a role and that is with regard to the reconstruction. certainly the russians, they don't want to have to pay for this and i'm not sure that they can. one of the arguments that they have made certainly on the previous middle east conference was peace and security in syria is a global public good and, therefore, the rest of the globe should contribute toward it. many american saw this as a shakedown, but they want, in other words, this is one degree of cooperation with the united states that they really want because if the u.s. contributes

to this and a lot of other actors well as well. so they seem to honestly think that the consent of bring this about and, of course, trump's announcement sort of i should imagine would cause further doubt about this. maybe the russians might respond not quite so fast. >> the irony of that is the u.s., i making the same call, general votel again in raqqa calling her to the roasting we need help but the world won't, because they don't have permission, , right? they don't have assad's permission to do it and baby assad would give into the russians but the world won't because they can't. ali, jumping with this on your perspective on iran and how they are reacting and what the prospects are for them to take advantage of this. >> morning everybody. i think this is great news for the iranian leadership, for the iranian regime because the islamic republic has expanded so

much effort and resources and lives in syria in order to protect the assad regime. this really would contradict president trump's goal of countering iran in the middle east. president trump has said that he doesn't like the jcpoa. he wants to redo the agreement but also wants to counter iran in the region. this this is a key area for irao exercise power and expand its influence. and it comes at a very critical time for the iranian regime, given that iran is expensing really unprecedented internal unrest in december 2017, there was a major uprising in iran. it's still ongoing. everyday there are reports,, demonstrations, civil disobedience in iran. just in the past few days and

iranian province inhabited by the minority arab population has experienced major protests. there's been major violence in the city. there's immense pressure on their meaning regime, but i think if the u.s. withdraws from syria, then that will release some of the pressure. one reason for iranians incident against the regime and the past few months has been this very wide perception and iran that the regime is been a iranians of money a place like syria and iraq wind and that rain is wheo the streets in december that was one of the major slogans. basically expressing why the regime was spending the money in these countries. this really benefits the iranian regime more than anybody else. if the u.s. really wants to counter iran in the region, it

has to stay in syria. it has to support the kurdish groups it has been supporting. iran is very concerned. the regime is very concerned about kurdish independence movement in the region. they played very key role in putting down the kurdish attempts to become independent. general so mommy of the kurds force was the key figure who defeated the kurdish effort and the regime is right now looking to do the same in syria with turkish and russian cooperation. >> certainly in russia is been noticed that these demonstrations in iran have anti-syrian involvement aspect. this is frightened the russians and what they are very frightened of is there will be some change in iran that would lead iran to withdraw from syria because even though they're competing for influence in syria, in fact, iran is

applying, and its allies come a lot more the ground forces. rash issues running the air war. the russians don't want to be left in syria by themselves. in other words, they piggyback essentially on the iranians. i think, you point to think something that's very important, but the trump announcement will benefit the iranians get on one other if it puts real pressure on the russians because of the russians, they just don't have good relations with iran. they also have good relations with saudi arabia and the gcc and with the israelis. we have anecdotal evidence suggesting what the russians tell the other audiences is that you don't like iran in syria? is a good thing we are there, isn't it, to keep them in check for you but the point is that with the u.s. withdrawal, the question comes up can russian keep iran in check? and if they can't this is going

to very negative impact on israel russian relations, , saui russian relations and these relationships are very important for russia, in other words, the russians can't keep iran and checked in syria, then it just shows that a rush is perhaps not the great power that it claims to be. >> i think, if i can cut in, that's a key point that we should really consider because the israeli government is very concerned about the iran regime building databases on its northern border. and if the u.s. isn't there to keep a balance of power, then i think that increases the chances of a conflict, a military conflict, a major military conflict between iran and its allies on the one hand, and israel on the other. >> right. i don't think there's a question, u.s. is ready support. the something to remember. if u.s. pulls out of syria they are still a lot of places in the region a very robust numbers.

what we are not drink much yet is turkey, the crossroads of syria's future go through president erdogan. motor, talk to us about, a little bit about -- motor -- i'm not sure how to start but how come the united states can't get turkey to stop? >> one recent come take a step back i think in some ways, we are perhaps is the most dangerous and perilous moment thus far in syria's 70 or complex, precisely because were been talking about, the danger israeli is running confrontation but more urgently the looming confrontation with the turkey. i think president erdogan has been very clear that turkey will not tolerate a kurdish entity in northern syria on its border. from the turkish perspective, that is the true existential threat mostly even that isis. so that's in part what prompted turkey to invade and now take

control over, and president erdogan has been very, very clear that if the kurdish forces are not pushed out, that they will move on it. this is setting up truly a confrontation potentially between two nato allies, the u.s. and turkey, you have iran and the syrian regime and russia also not far. this is a flashpoint that has both regional and global reverberations. and not clear and does moment of great uncertainty that u.s. policy and our posture in syria, not clear how exactly we're going to deal with this very urgent and immediate threat. >> the threat i think it's it's say the only reason to have pushed is because the u.s. is a bear. like you said, that's the absolute conflict point. i assume they get pulled and the changes all of northern syria.

but if it doesn't is what i want to ask. if it doesn't happen and trump-pence talk off the ledge this meeting today or by whomever does it, a lot of people who did it seems like with the national security at least, but i don't say that flippantly. trump, general mattis assiduous how, not just secretary mattis, other generals have said to me when they meet with the trump you keep thinking talk to them 30 mitzvot something and you listen. he will understand issues. he's not a foreign-policy guy, not a national scaredy-cat. that's the case with gitmo, the case with native when he came to that and maybe that will be the case this time around. how do you see a future of syria? we need to get to iraq but this all comes around. how do you see the future of syria playing out to get to geneva? if not geneva, what else? how can this possibly in any way that is peaceful, all the

concerns turkey is, all the desires from russia, all the desire show iran and probably all the desires of assad himself? >> at an impossibly tall order to be quite honest. i wouldn't profess to tell you how that happens. if anyone does know, there's clearly a job waiting for them. look, i think there's a real issue that we do have to continue with front and center, which is tensions with turkey and how to do with this inherent contradiction in our policy that began when we make the decision to rely on kurdish forces who have been the most effective and reliable partner on the ground in syria to fight isis. now that inherent contradiction is really come into full focus. i think the u.s. needs to in many ways perhaps step up its diplomatic gain and get more creative on how to find a way to thread that needle between

satisfying and understanding turkish concerns at a particular turkey has noted it was promised that when the kurds came into mendez to clear ice as they would retreat back east of the euphrates privilege that was done as they have not. that is raised repeatedly. at the same time we have relied heavily on a kurdish partners on the ground and there's some real importance to also fulfilling or playing a role in ensuring that their aspirations to some degree also fulfilled. what does that look like? i think the u.s. really needs to think about how to navigate those tensions and find some creative solutions and begin to satisfy turkey, maybe it has to do with greater diplomacy are trying to rejuvenate the peace process that ended in turkey in 2015 between the turks and the pkk. and finding some modus that

allows, that doesn't without the entire counter isis mission to unravel which it quite well could if this isn't resolved. >> it's almost a question, the next panel, mark green, general votel, brett mcgurk, those are the senior guys in charge of this region right now. is that not accurate to say? up until mike pompeo comes into state, assumptions he sails through confirmation, john bolton is now just got to the white house, but if this is -- absent all the other global crisis in the world but does it meet some, would help that some higher level leadership from the united states in any direction, or is it just too complicated? >> i think we do need to develop a coherent strategy for syria that lays out what our key priorities are and how we aim to fulfill them.

it has been driven by the counter isis prerogative. that's been priority number one oath of the president obama -- >> that's narrow. that's the simple mission. >> it's not so new. i think it's quite complicated. i think that's what we're learning and answer some of the alarm bells are going off, that it's not merely about liberating territories from isis pick pics also about stabilizing that territory and insuring a begin to address the underlying grievances that gave rise to the group in the first place. so how do we do that and also play a leading role in terms of the diplomacy and bringing some sort of political settlement to syria and ensuring that the neighbors are all engaged as well in that over all overarching solution. >> which to iraq. ali, how come you mentioned iran earlier and maybe recall that

this came up a a bit in the lat session, but i think the simple want on iran, with inside iraq still is at iran is a metal the influence of u.s. is worried about it. give us a of myth versus reality of how much i rent is an metal and iran versus, i mean and iraq, versus to an acceptable level these are neighbors working together for some united states is going to swallow the health and deal with it. >> i don't think meddling describes what the iran regime is doing in iraq. it's a key player in that country. when we look at what iran is doing, it has established an infrastructure for long-term influence in iraq. the same way it is done in other places by supporting hezbollah in lebanon, for example, and training numerous militias in syria.

there are an estimated 50-100,000 iraqi militia men that are one way or another under the influence of tehran. the popular mobilization units that were trained largely by iran to counter isis are still playing a very influential role in iraq's security. they beneficially integrated into the iraqis security and armed forces. the receiving a budget from baghdad and getting funny from iran at the same time. when we look at general selva money, he is very close ties to leaders of several of these militia groups that have become very prominent in iraq and not just militarily, they're running an iraqi election and they are fighting on behalf of the islamic republic in syria as well. so i ran has to build a major

infrastructure using iraq as a country to exercise influence throughout the region, at the as is so competing with -- i don't think it would be simplistic to say that i ran completely dominates iraq. i think the iraqis forces who want to push back against the iranian influence. even the prime minister of iraq, a body, has been described as somebody who wants to create a balance between iran and the united states and iraq and was to push back against having influence, but every new machines if it's an iraq is tremendous right now. but i think going back to an earlier question, i think it's a little cliché at times to say u.s. needs a strategy for the region. but i think given everything happening in iran, there are opportunities that the u.s. could really take advantage of to create a comprehensive strategy to counter their ran

regimes influence in the middle east. and i think it president trump could see that by withdrawing from seed that would undermine the whole strategy of countering iran and possibly a possible -- policy could be considered. >> the administration has a strategy, lisa they claim they do. h. r. mcmaster gave at least one speech laying it out, they want to counter iran's funding of terrorist groups around the region, they want a missile shield. they want to pull out of the iran deal whether or not it hass easy to do with missiles. they laid out several points that a policy point that come like with lots of things the trump government are different from what he tweets or says. is that not enough? >> i don't think you to focus on what's happening inside of iran. because iran in some ways, i would argue, is in a pre-revolutionary stage for pre-rebellion. it's experiencing major unrest

everyday. i don't say the doing anything about it. counter the regime in the region, the u.s. has to do things with the iran as well in terms of its public broadcasting, information operations, renewed sanctions against the revolutionary guards, interdicting iranian weapons supplied in houthis. i know the u.s. has been doing some of those things but as an outside observer i don't see a very tight focus on iran. >> turn it back to iraq though. what the u.s. can do or isn't doing. >> iraq is a limited opportunity. iran has made major inroads in iraq but but i think syria is y vulnerable spot for the iranian regime, and pulling u.s. forces out and abandoning the kurds is going to hand a victory to iran. >> ali, same part of the

conversation, competing alliances, which would return to washington or tehran? >> definitely an important element afforded them. if i want to build on what ali just said, i think what we didn't in the last years in terms of u.s. engagement, long-term approach. this is the edge that irene is an of the region actors have been able to bring to the table. if there's something that needs to be introduced now within upcoming your strategy or plan or whatever i think consistency are important. one important part of it is working with the committee's themselves including the minority groups. understanding how the iranians build their model in lebanon and other places would definitely take you to the boards of the community level. the arenas did not invade any county dictated not that significant military resources in lebanon or other places.

they just work with communities, with leaders, education institutions, with religious institutions. they boosted the fourth economy sector. there are lots of lessons to build on. to embrace a similar approach that would help counter this expansion. >> that's an argument against freezing fence in syria. that's the argument for everything that's a nondefense come all the diplomacy, all the soft power that you can get into. >> i wouldn't comment on specific decision but i would like to say as a sit in beginning, the sibling engagement is an important part of any strategy in the region. >> we will the next panel make the case for that. mona, iraq's future. >> i wonder if iraq really is potentially in a moment of

opportunity, having emerged from the struggle with isis. i i mean, one question is to wht extent those who have lived under isis rule, sunnis come have been utterly and completely turned off from that ideology or the other i think is the point is come up in the only are panel -- earlier panel, this move towards come together on issues, on governance related questions, as opposed to buy sect or ethnicity. so in some ways again, this is the middle east and its iraq so we have come everything is a bit caveat it, let's see what happens with the election and where it goes from there but in some ways, in may, in some ways iraq could really offer a very important example to others in the region that i struggled with

extremism, have struggled with governance issues. there's a long way to go. there are issues with corruption and other issues that came up in the previous panel. let's keep an eye on it and see whether there's some positive right spots that should be nurtured and i can actually ideally illuminate a path for others in the region as well. >> mark, i want to ask about russia's russia's interest open-minded audience will go to questions next, if you have been, inc. of them, catch my eye. anything is on the table for this panel. so give us a short brief of russia's interest and iraq and what their most looking at and how they want things to turn out. >> i think rush is doing pretty well in iraq. everything that they feared they were going to lose when the u.s. was intervening in iraq 15 years later, they have had gained it. they are selling arms. they have lots of investment in the iraqi petroleum sector.

they are navigating between the irbil baghdad relationship. they are doing fine and i think that one of the things that is appealing i think two different iraqis actors about russia is that it's neither america nor iran, and that it's an ultimate source. there is no actor in iraq that relies more on russia than anybody else, but the nice thing about russia, for the iraqis, is that russia will work with literally everyone. it's quite interesting that they were against the u.s. intervention, against the downfall of the regime. they opposed everything. they should get along quite well with regime that the u.s. helped raise up.

that i think is, their policy toward iraq is actually more an example of their broader middle eastern policy that is our policy in syria. that obviously have, they have chosen a side. they are very engaged, but in iraq as elsewhere they don't want to completely choose sides in any given conflict, just as you don't between saudi arabia and iran, between israel and iran, between saudi arabia and qatar, , between the various factions in libya, inhuman. that they work with everyone was willing to work with them -- yemen. i think this is -- so there engaged in the back and i think that as elsewhere in the middle east, outside of syria, a lot of impetus for russia policy is essentially commercially driven. to this extent they have done very well.

people thought or said russia really made a mistake right after the kurdish referendum signing and oil agreement with the krg, and that three of the five areas in which it would to take effect, the baghdad government took back and obviously the kurds can't actor there. and yet the baghdad government, in fact, is working with them in these areas as well. i've long thought they were going to delete it baghdad some of the managed not to do so. they had managed to balance their relationships between baghdad and irbil remarkably successfully, i would say. >> all right. i will get some questions in the audience and i would be remiss if i didn't call on dog all font city nice and upfront and community for us. if anyone who may have something to say about iraq right now, i'm sure it is you.

what are your thoughts of a state of iraq right now? i ask you, you're a long time veteran of this country come of this problem and were at a moment of american exasperation with being there and having to have a future which what allowed the president to say hey, we're pulling out, and get that big applause. >> that stuff the question i sit up to ask but i have very little add to what boehner said. the signs are very encouraging, let's see what happens in may. -- mona said. those two signs to look at. i also want to follow up on what mona açai but turkey because that's the piece of the top we're not talking about. just look at this map you so kindly put behind us. we had the iranians come pretty close to what the relationship is with them. we have the saudi skunk this initiation it's all in with them so we okay. the egyptians a problem, out of the next right now. that leaves the turks and we seem to have a historic come historically bad relationship with the turks right if it strikes me again just looking at

this map, it's going to be hard for the united states to act effectively in this region if the only people to work with our the saudi. the only major i went to work with our the southeast. even if we believe everything we hear erdogan, even if we take that to worse case we still managed to work with other people who are even less savory. how do we get our relationship with turkey back on track so that we have another relatively friendly power in the region we can work with? >> good question. >> well -- >> i like to read from others beside you pick you make yourself pretty clever had, start. >> i'm happy to kick that down. who wants to take a? i'm not an expert on turkey. it's clear that just you'll the title of today's overarching panel, our relationship with turkey is very much on front terrain. i think we saw this coming. as i said before, he gets of the strategic decision that was taken in 2014 to rely on the

kurds. that set us up in many ways from where we are. that doesn't mean it's unresolvable. and again this is what i think diplomacy has a critical role to play. turkey has some very legitimate concerns with respect to kurdish, the kurdish insurgency in its own country, the role the pkk place. it's concerns about terrorism. but at the same time i think it's essential that as you know, our policy in syria will not succeed in turkey remains so deeply at odds with us. the turkish border with syria is a long one. it's an essential partner in terms of some of the stabilization and she managing assistant that needs to flow its way into syria. for me the question is, really want for diplomats to sit there and understand and layout what are the key concerns that turkey

has? how do we address those concerns in a way that doesn't completely sell the kurds down the river but that also again yield some level of stability. my own sense is that the image import or maybe largely lies inside turkey, which is to say that there is i think an important need to rejuvenate the turkish-kurdish negotiations that have been going up until 2015. i think without resolving that, that they question or at least putting it on more stable footing, it's very difficult to satisfy turkish angst when it comes to what's happening inside syria. >> but i don't know if turkey can satisfy u.s. banks. i don't think this is a one-sided issue. if you look at the erdogan government, , what is suing in turkey really matters. it is undermining secularism come has committed and islamist form of government.

it isn't directly countering u.s. interest in the region. it's working with russia and iran. it was the conduit for islamicists going to syria to fight against the aside regime but that really contributed to the violence in syria as well. and erdogan government has consistently blamed the united states for its problems. the coup attempt, for example. that's not to say the u.s. is at fault but when you look at turkey, i wonder if it hasn't changed to such an extent that its interests are to longer compatible with use interest in the region. i don't agree saudi arabia is only country the u.s. is working with in the region. there are many countries that the u.s. is working with, but again is there a country like iran and turkey that are actively countering use interest, then the question is what kind of relationship with

eu's have with them? we know what kind of relationship the u.s. has with the islamic republic and animosity towards the united states will not go away anytime soon. i do think turkish reached that point, but it can potential and i think the characteristic of turkeys clinical system and the characteristic of turkeys leadership really does matter. >> my thought as you are speaking, mona, the idea of renewal talks might be one of those few places that could be a u.s. entry to doug's question, to helping bridge or repair relations with turkey but at some point if the on american control. everything that is going wrong in turkey, that's going to erdogan. how much of this, let's check our hubris at the door for a minute come here we are in washington talk about what the united states can do for this gigantic region and what we can't do. that's my question is how much

can this administration can right now due when i took home lots, you know, staffers of dod and state who's to sell look, u get into these jobs, you've been in a.i.d., there's a wonderful, you'll a lot of ideas, to get there and you spend 80% of time reacting to the news of the day and the firehose coming at you. you know, how much is the united states in a way stuck at the divisive follies of the countries were talking about and the politics going on at how much can the united states really do at this point with his team at this moment? >> i would just want to say that to the extent that trump's announcement of withdrawing from syria doesn't just have just domestic politics logic on an actual foreign-policy one, that the aim of it might, in fact, be to reduce turkish american tensions. the u.s. is gone, think probably the one government that is a special happy is erdogan.

one of two things will happen. if the turks move in to syria and defeat the kurds, then suddenly there's a big turkish presence in syria and this puts it at odds with both iran and russia. that's not such a bad thing. or turkey doesn't defeat the kurds. turkey gets involved in something longer than it had bargained for and then suddenly it's going to need the united states for mediation, perhaps between itself and the syrian kurds. i don't know if that's the logic -- what it seems to me is that, it makes sense am looking at trump's policy towards europe, the europeans should pay more for their defense, not us. similarly i think with, people are concerned about iran, why should the u.s. be the one to undertake the heavy lifting, but those in the neighborhood do so. it seems that announcement has income foreign-policy logic, it

seems to me this is what it relates to. >> that's almost the president words exactly, let them deal with it. again, that's what he ran out and got to the white house on. question from this gentleman right in the middle was the first up. >> intel analyst and a former diplomat. turkey could've solve this problem five years ago has one of the best military in a row. they did nothing. we are stuck with going for another ally or two, and that's how we wind up where we are today. i haven't got a lot of sympathy for turkey. turkey views ypg and pkk is one of the same. the u.s. and use them more nuanced even though they both put up posters. is it possible that -- one kilometer along the border might alleviate some of turkeys concerns? and what happens when american

airplanes drop american bombs using american satellite imagery actually kill a couple special forces soldiers? what is the trump administration do in that old nightmare? >> you ask about the prospect of a safe zone on the ground and u.s. friendly fire casualties? okay. >> i'll touch on the saison question. that frankly already exist to some extent. the euphrates and shield which is a pocket in syria that is bordering on turkey that the turks essentially have taken control over since i think spring of last year, is essentially playing that role as is potentially now this -- but first of all, i'm not a military strategist, but a one kilometer buffer zone is not going to do. we were not -- it would not be significant enough. we do have to bear in mind again

the other kurdish held areas to the east of euphrates shield which the kurds, which are kurdish majority and the culture not going to simply melt away. so my fear is that without diplomacy and if the u.s. should withdraw, i were not the turkey will take over but you basically opened up a whole nother front and a whole nother conflict in a syria that is already laid with conflicts and this would be a turkish kurdish with all kinds of other proxies and actors hitting involved as well. i don't think the answer is buffer zones or safe zones beyond what turkey has already established. again, i think the answer is really more in trying to understand where that common space is. there must be some sort of diplomatic solution the begins to address turkeys concerns with respect to kurdish terrorism as they call it, and that also allows, addresses the need for

stability inside syria. >> does anyone want to comment on the front of fire? >> i think the bigger concern is, would be more on ground action than the bombing campaign has individually slowed just because, there are fewer targets, and the concern was if they're going to be more and more intense grant engagements with the remaining isis elements, that those will be hotter possible, individual battles that would involve still you a special operators of any stripe which would result in more casualties. we had a casual over the weekend of an ied. there will be more casual is one way or another. the next question, appear, this woman. thank you. >> we had a panel actually yesterday on see where we were talking about some of these issues and i agree it is a very pivotal and dangerous moment.

i would like to point out that during the first decade of akp rule that was actually, turkey established under foreign minister, the former foreign fon minister of trade relations with syria. turkey also had quite good relations with the kurdistan regional government of iraq. of the four different countries we have kurdish minority, the country with which turkey arguably had the best relations was the krg be correct. the country also closest come have the greatest amount of autonomy and had regional government, et cetera. it's not inconceivable that turkey would accept the fact that in northern syria there is predominant kurdish population, and to establish, to sort of find a way to live in peace with them. through trade relations, through diplomacy. these are not necessarily ideas from washington, from the united states but this happens within

the akp. as mona has rightly pointed out it was under erdogan's leadership there is a cease-fire negotiated, between 2013-2015. we need to find a way for turkey to solve this problem internally within turkey. and then resolve the conflict within northern syria. i would be curious to hear your thoughts as to how we could do this, but again this could be done with the akp, with erdogan because if we look at their previous policies, they had established regulations. they had good diplomatic relations with both iraq and syria. >> an open question i guess on how to get to that point of negotiating with turkey about, especially through kurdistan. >> i think your suggestion makes

perfect sense. i would view that as an aspirational goal well down the road but i concur with that notion that it's not inconceivable. for me i think the most important starting point is to again figure out a way to at least rejuvenate talks, at least start talking again. and again as i said previously, i think that front and center on this whole kurdish turkey question is moving forward with resolving the issue of insurgency inside turkey and begin rejuvenating discussions and peace talks as a beginning to de-escalate the situation. without that, it's virtually impossible to imagine given the proximity along turkeys border how you could find some sort of common ground with respect to syrian kurds in turkey. >> we are being told it's time to rep. again 1230 thymic there's another event for a lot of the panelists and audience are reminded to tell you, is welcome

to lunch as well, but be back in your seats by 130 thymic profit for the start of the big final panel. your final thoughts on iraq. i'll put a generic statement out but feel free to take what you like. it's simply convince the american people why the u.s. needs to continue. i think it's a simple question were often take for granted in our fields the one here constantly and the feedback we get from our readers, which are so many people, that's what the president is playing to again what he says the things he said last week, enough is enough, it's not the united states problem and look at the rest of the region. cataract isolate itself from the rest of his problems and is it different, a new time around, should there be hope? >> can i start? two main reasons very quickly. the first one is iraq is still -- [inaudible] the second one is that what's happened in iraq and syria in

the region is going to hit the u.s. interest at some point, whether the u.s. interest in the region or the u.s. national security here back home. so for this obvious i think it's important for the u.s. to play a role in stabilizing the region and finding the peace and security framework that i mentioned before. >> quickly. >> the same reasons, withdrawing from the middle east is not an option right now. but for the foreseeable future, if the u.s. withdraw some iraq and see what is make the problems worse. the rivalry between iran and saudi arabia is going to heat up. it might be a military conflict between iran and israel. if this conflict in the persian gulf, oil prices could be affected. the u.s. economy could be negatively affected her that i mean meaning reasons as to why the u.s. should stay in these countries -- many, many reasons. on every optimistic about the

iraq elections in may. i think that iranian regime will try very hard to sheikh them. given its past successes i wouldn't be surprised if successful in many of the iraq elections now as well. that's really one major reason the u.s. should maintain their influence that has in iraq today. >> mark? >> i would concur. i think, although america's continued involvement in the middle east is not going to solve the regions problems, we know that withdrawal could lead to them becoming are far worse and much more difficult to manage. the middle east is the home of so many of the world's population, muslims, our relationship with the entire muslim world i think is something that we need to be careful about just the banking, that it's not going to be better

for the united states if that happens. as painful as that is that the cost of continued involvement i think are far less than the cost of withdrawal and what could result afterward. >> mona. >> i would not have much more to add to what's already been said, only there to say i think it's incumbent upon all of us on the stage in many in the room, we must acknowledge it that many americans really don't fully understand or see fully the value of these kinds of engagements, particularly i think the soft power elements of what the u.s. can do. i think it's incumbent to do more outreach, in other words, is not only what we do in the region that it's also how it's understood here in america and that it is really important to play that in for neural. >> i fully support that as a journalist, and i look forward to the next panel after lunch, which as i told the organizers

i'm thrilled those people have agreed to come on stage, on the record and on camera to tell us exactly what they're doing because this is their job. thank you to our panel. thank you to all of you for joining us and making the discussion richer. [applause] we will see you after lunch. [inaudible conversations] .. [inaudible conversations]

>> the discussion on iraq and syria will continue after the lunch break. we'll bring you more live coverage from the u.s. institute of peace in washington d.c. turn in the next panel about how stabilized iraq and syria after races. bought a break for lunch, some of the conversation from earlier this morning. >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the u.s. institute of peace. my name is nancy landlord and i am delighted to welcome you here today for very important and quite timely program. on iraq and syria, and the u.s. administration military leaders in the region. u.s. institute of peace was founded in 1984 by congressional leaders, dedicated to the proposition that pieces practical, quite possible and absolutely essential for

national and global security. we pursue this mission by working with partners around the world, with very practical ways on how to prevent and how to resolve violent conflict. today come with organized a trio of events that would focus on iraq and area two countries that are of critical national security interest for the united states. there are also two countries that have been wracked by violence, both have been verbally occupied by isis and both are subject to the continuing competing interest of regional and international powers. there are two countries with two very distinct challenges, but they are linked by a long and porous border. they both have the continuing threat of isis and they are both located in a very tough neighborhood. usip works in both iraq and syria.