coming up wednesday morning we will discuss escalating u.s. runs tensions with nebraska and the republican congress men don't begin california democratic congresswoman barbara lee. and if difference one senior national security correspondent, katie will williams. watch cspan2 news washington journal live at seven eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. afghanistan war veteran who is now studies of foreign policy at the cato t institute in this , regard tension between u.s. ad ron have reached new heights. civil question with maybe a complicated answered. and we get get here. >> we got here because were in escalatory spiral. being part of this that the united states but decided to push with maximum pressure campaign including getting the

united states out of joy.of action in the toronto. and so what that meant is that we are putting pressure on the iranian government and iranian government decided to respond in various ways. through proxies and other things. here.seen a spiralth you think back over the last couple of years you had to take her attacks in the gulf. you have the attack on the saudi oil facility you've had tightening of the sanctions and you've also seen like we saw with the contractor death. and then so you are staying a rationing of of these tensions. the way that i think a lot of people would have, is that we are on this spiral towards a hotter war. the question really is, what is next. in international politics uas yet to talk about the enemy gets vote the other side is about here. how does ron respond.

you heard people talking that there will be a military strike on a a military target. who knows, that could be bluster but it's anybody's guess. >> today's usa today, will foundation of defense of democracy, the killing was part of the maximum pressure strategy and did you feel what happened sdst thursday as part of the maximum pressure strategy that you guys will talking about. >> course we heard that this was something into response to an imminent dangeran to americans. so as part of a maximum pressure campaign, then suggested it was actually something that was planned much longer. and that would take some of the steam out of the argument that there was immanence that required this to happen quickly and that went out the kind of consultations and maybe we would've wishede for. >> is coming to capitol hill all

lawmakers tomorrow, senior lawmakers getting everything today. what questions should the bait asking of those folks. i think they should be asking with the plan is forward right. certainly there's going toat be some questions why at that.what is the intelligence and so forth. but really we should be focusing on what is next. from my perspective, the united states doesn't have a strong interest in continuing these middle eastern conflicts for the president has talked about ending endless wars. rationing up.cs what american interest here i think they are in the sense that are most important interest in the gulf, is to make sure that the global economy is unaffected by long-term disruptions. but is it necessary for the united states to stay and i think some of the political problemsnd in these regimes. going through transitions, the been roiled by in the gulf for a

long time including the united states war in 2003 is he wreck that really upset things. we do hear people talking about what we have to be worried about iranian nukes. that was kind of cooked in. what you did 2003 is known. and what he do about this now. what are our interest. i think our interests are pretty limited and therefore, doesn't require conflict and is required the united states to try to honeydew regimeto change. peacefully or otherwise and ron for example. and you've heard about talking about how they want peaceful regime change within you saw john bolton talking about seemed a little bit more aggressive on twitter really. really what is the question on the endgame. of course it might be different for for that maximalist activity. the main one strike around. that's what was suggested by john bolton street yesterday. on the other hand, others may

want to cut a on this. you've heard people talking about that leaked memo or whatever that was. yesterday it was quitele confusing. and ultimately, it was shown that this has brought the case. has brought going to be the policy going forward but what do two people want to do. do the one hit solomonic and then de-escalate or do they want to actually escalate to the next loophole to push that regime change. >> william river is our guest this morning the segment in the washington journal. if you want to join the conversation, go ahead and. independence, can: as well. the cato institute studying tereign policy and those two institutions, also in afghanistan it war veteran. would did you serve. >> i was there in 2008 and 2009 print is he very interesting time.

he was replaced by general mcchrystal. and you saw a kind of an increase in american forces while i was there. so the learning experience for sure. i am proud to have served my country. >> after thursday and the deaf and so money, you release a statement staying that the u.s. should use this to extricate itself from the middle east entanglements. what is that look like and where should we bee leading. >> the two foremost places we should be leaving and we can do that quite quickly are syria and afghanistan. afghanistan is he case in which actually the president and his team, investor have been working to find a way to execute ourselves out of that quagmire. and the fact is that we should be pretty proud of what we did ri afghanistan for america's safety) so i have three with their. one is to accredit hal qaeda a

sneak terrorist organization that could effectively hit the united states after 911. in two, the need to punish the telephone for the states sponsorship about a data hundred be need it to kill osama bin laden. we publish all three of those goals. what happened is that the mission craft. it expanded in her work expanded and then it became more w about crating a central government in kabul and throughout the country and it became about values promoting american values there paraded changing the nature of afghan. the difficulty there is some of those ants will at odds with each other. but also some of those ends are just unrealizable. part of that i think is hubris about what american power can achieve. a look we have a can-do american military affairs to do something, though do something and they'll do a really great job at trying to do that. there are some there american military can't solve and make it in afghan society is one of those in their some people there, would i t was there for example, the thought i could

really change afghan culture pretty quickly. i think that is really misguided. and he did at the time. that is something that i think that unfortunately i guess, in some ways because we have been sick there and is cost us a lot of we'll have and treasure. unfortunately the pot hypothesis has been tested in many ways. >> somewhere between 15000 troops in the middle east right now. here's the numbers from a recent activist report. afghanistan 40000 u.s. troops. 7000 more than 5000 in iraq. jordan close to 3000 inchoate, more than 13000 and among several hundred troops there paraded 13000 troops there in saudi arabia, they could be around 3000 troops are syria at this.less than a thousandis troops. turkey, an undisclosed number and several most spaces and then the united arab and some 5000 troops. what should the numbers be,

maybe not by specific country but in terms of toll in the region to continue to keep the u.s. safe and allow the u.s. to have the influence that has buta also do what you are trying to do to extricate us from some of these places. >> hunting goes back to some of those points printed safety. everything we do should be related to a market safety is on the conditions for economic noprosperity and if it has to do with the security of other partners or allies in the region, that is ourselves do those things actually carry up to it. because alliances and partnerships are means, not ends in themselves on a place like syria for example, the united states should go to zero mission i have any troops there. it's on the job of the united states government to protect the kurds. it's not the united states his job to try to mediate between turkey which is our ally or formal la in a very strategic partnership that we had to some of kurdish groups with it which in many ways don't share the values we do. it's not her job to try to

change the government of syria. our job there essentially was to try to decimate isis which we believe was a threat to united states. then john is largely been done and was left can be done by those local actors who share an interest inn a that's what you saw people come together for that mission and now we need to extricate ourselves. onions is because our military isn't meant to adjudicate political disputes around the globe. not necessarily directly contacted to our security andec safety. >> color waiting to chat with you. if the spread of minnesota. a republican. good morning brad. >> good morning john. wherein kind of a pretty big will is typical wherein but a lot of it stems from negotiating back, some years back and wanting to have such a great deal that we had an iranian deal that congress one you can prove,

and then obama decided he just wanted to take it on his own. to make the deal. holden never happened in fact there was more against is iranian deal which of the aca and network and a real bad position that we will president that went) congress and decided to do his own thing. but in an actual grieving he made, the make it sound like where such a great deal and a great thing for us but it wasn't would you don't, there will two sides interim where he would build a nuclear weapon and where you would do your nuclear testing cried closer to areas that will never ever going to be inspected by anyone so would they come back with staying is such a great deal, was a great deal.

>> brad. >> the fact is the diplomacy is the art. what ishe true. you have to try to secure deals you don't get necessarily everything you want. you try do you get what you can and what you need. the cases in the gc poa was the perfect deal. it did attempt and slow down the ability of around. to become a nuclear power. and from everything that i've read about this, from the ia, energy agency and some partners and allies, that this was having an impact and then would we got out of it, the problem is that a status on this this motion towards greater conflict as opposed to trying to slowly resolve some of these challenges in the relationship that that went out going all the way back to the 1950s with ron. as of this is he long-running challenge we've had back to the

cold war like i said, and it's something that's going do you get affected overnight. this one of the things about diplomacy. it is that kind of inch by inch slow process of trying to find ways to build confidence with each other and build some trust. will sides get something out of the deal the need meets their interest. in a tent diagram overlaps. so then we can move to something hopefully that will secure a broader piece. again a lot of times interest collide and that is something we shouldn't be surprised at international politics. we don't all share the same interest in values. some things are zero. let the fact is that this was an attempt to try do you get there. a sneak permit, no. but it was better than what we have now. there's an old staying that john taught is better than war war. and unfortunately, we're having to talk more more right now instead of the john job. >> to independence. dan, a democrat. good morning. >> good morning john.

i hopefully have a simple question. we've been told i here, iraq to leave the country. first we said we will leaving and then we will said we will not. my question is, is illegal for them out refers to say. after we've been asked to leave. thank you. >> sure, great question. one of the thingss about the legality issue is that international politics, and is an anti- arctic environment. no kind of higher governing authority they can of course actors to live up to you know what they agreed toy or what people consider to be international legal structure. so this estateur system. an ultimate there that arbiters of their own interest in security and whether they comply with the what other countries want and agree to. in respecting state sovereignty, using this in the breach all the

way back to the 1648 would the treaty of west australia formally quantify the storm. in the united states - >> was a treaty about pretty. >> what's interesting is it is relevant today. what you had in the 30 years war from 1618 to 1648, is he massive on conservation throughout you're up. it killed some people estimate up to one third of the population of central you're up at the time. in the 30 years. what they said is like, we have do you geta to a situation will not intervening in the affairs of other countries. as of the tree ofrs australia ct the notion of sovereignty that is essentially is king and his religion. because these will religious wars and power wars. and so that meant that one principality was going to try to dictate while religion was practice and another one. who is going to roll. of the domestic politics of that other place.

there was going to be essentially a peace treaty around hate we will do our thing you do your thing as long as we don't engage in aggression against each other we can kind of live in that situation. while the united states is been someone was largely rejected some of that was west i'm working last 20 years. would we have seen a campaign against rogue nations. do you remember back in the end of the cold war. people weren't looking referent and the mission for the united states the world nations doctrine emerged. we will going to go after countries we believe will led by road dictator dickerson with threatened international peace or stability. and then since 911, we also engage in those things. in some cases because we believe our safety was threatened and in other cases it was because we will trying to promote our values. t t think about libya. libya is an example will be violated libyan sovereignty. to protect people in the eastern

part of the country. now of course the lead to a regime change war and now libya is he basket case. arms flowed out and tariffs have floated in massive instability in places like mali and other areas. it's often times well-intentioned after or undermined in this really wipe the conspiracy of the west system was valuable because it kind of understood that things could get out of control and states will going to intervene quite consistently in the affairs of other states. we've seen it now in syria, we seen it and iraq, and so forth. >> currently, some 800 military bases, u.s. bases and more than 79 countries and territories around the world at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. what would you propose. what againin makes us safe. >> will a lot of those are necessary. we need to have a military that is second to none. i can deter countries from trying to harm our interests.

not someone who thinks that the world will be peaceful if we just left him alone. there are real dangers in the world that we need to confront and we need to largely, deter them. nuclear weapons on a big part of that would it comes to state actors. having special operations forces and intelligence communities keeping track and keeping watch. on tariffs organizations that have the intent and capability to harm us. that is really important. being said, some of these missions like i mentioned in syria, are they necessary and things like a rock like the color mentioned, iraq doesn't want us there and if our presence there is actually creating more headaches for american security and foreign interests, then maybe we should be thinking about getting out of those as well. afghanistan is another case where we have medicals there. the largely. i think we could pull ourselves out because now the costs are greater than thewe benefits will reaping in making this up about disengaging. we can be engaging in productive

ways. for example is one way there's mutually beneficial arrangements that happen between countries and people. the something we should do more of. diplomas diplomacy. to really try to wrestle with some of these challenges around the globe in a productive fashion. . . . i would like to thank for his statements and i think that he would be a great president. because the president we have right now is really starting to sound so dangerous, he has everything not what mr. ruger has just mentioned about being diplomatic and all of the other engagements on a reasonable diplomatic type,

all i know is that when i hear of what president trump has now done, leading us into war, there are a lot of americans out there that are fearful. thank you. >> do you have a definition of the trump doctrine? >> that is a 64000-dollar question right now. because some people would've said before this that maybe he had some instincts towards a more restrained approach. in terms of reducing some of america's commitments and ending endless wards as he talked about in the state of the union. but then being tough. but then also trying to cut through, and engaged and that personalized diplomacy that you saw with president kim. to try to deal with some of these issues that popped up in some ways because of some pretty tough rhetoric that may have set us back temporarily. but also because there has

been some kind of freeze in many ways because washington has been resistant to change in many ways. so i think that some part of that is there. on the other hand what we saw with soleimani is certainly not an example of restraints. that's an example of taking a gamble and we will see what happens. does this mean that escalation or does this actually support the terrence against their regime. as for the caller i appreciate it, that's very kind. i have held one office i was a library trustee in my hometown. but i don't thinkin that sets me up for being president. >> where you from what your hometown? >> i'm from new hampshire i'm a granite stater. eleven up there. >> and with this this morning for about 20 more minutes on the "washington journal" william ruger taking your calls. this is linda taking your call. >> caller: trump should never have gotten out of the iran

nuclear deal. president obama got the ball rolling, it might not have been perfect, but he also, just like the affordable care act he said it will have to be tweaked, it may have to have some changes at different times, but at least you have a base to start with. and trump, his rhetoric, his just knee-jerk responses are very scary for manyan americans. and i think we need to be really concerned, there seems to be no connection with the executive between the president and the defense department with this draft going out. oh we made a mistake. i mean this is not, this is not kindergarten. and that's how it seems like they are running things.

>> guest: it is easy to be monday morning quarterback at the defenseti department the administration, governing is difficult. but i think in many ways this was imprudence. that being said, we have been making imprudent decisions for 30 years and foreign policy. so i don't think this is particular to right now. i think that the united states for 30 years has been engaging in types of activities that undermine security. these are our own goals. if you think back to kind of the ultimate goal of my life would be the iraq war. this was an unnecessary war fought under the pretenses that i am surprised people bought. but those that did it was false. the issue of wmds. the fact that we did not need to do that only unleashed a lot of difficulties in the region that have come back to bite us. if you think about iranian influence for example in iraq. that is a direct result of

hussein. if you think about the challenges that we face across the middle east and north africa, a lot of those forces are unleashed by the iraq war and our activities there. and again i supported the war in afghanistan and and there's other things we didn't need to do have done against the forces of al qaeda. >> host: here's bill. >> caller: i believe in the iraq. war, but what i don't understand is why the congress jump all over the president about what hee did, when number one he will was an iranian general ire agree but he was one of the top terrorist organizers in the world. and he broke his travel ban, they took advantage of it, are until we don't know yet, but

let's wait and see what our intel has to say if he was lining up another terrorist attack somewhere. anyway the president took action, gotot rid of them, and now i think the time for congress instead of jumpingit all over him and now the time they need to give him more power and authority and talk it over and get things ironed out. my thinking wrong? >> host: i don't think anyone should mourn the death of tran too. this is someone who had been a thorn in the stateside. and you can understand the motive for nations of iran, but that does not mean the united states should be happy aboutbe it, or when ucs hit some of those responsible for the challenges we did face when we were and iraq. and you couldn't disagree with the war in iraq and still not want to see harm done to americans and n hit back at

those who are doing harm to those to us once we go to war. that's an important distinction here. it's between disagreeing with actions of american foreign policy and whethere we should want us to achieve our goals when we get into these. in afghanistan i had a lot of problems with our approach, the counterinsurgency approach, but the fact is there are a lot of soldiers did and do the fact is everybody has been trying really hard to meet those goals. and so i think it is really important to kind of separate out a critique of american foreign policy, a critique of our maximum pressure campaign and if we should have sympathy for this iranian. >> host: call rear talk about authorization do you think thisis leads to the first use of military force in 17 years? >> guest: there does not seem there's a great enthusiasm for war around the country or on capital here.

that democratic house is trying to talk about limiting the president in stead of giving him a blank check or more limited authorization. but you would be surprised, you don't know. if unfortunately there are counterattacks, and american forces are harmed, then you could see a greater call for a more forceful response. and i think that is why we need to get up this escalatory latter. we need to find ways to engage productively, to take us down a step in that spiral, because again, do we really think war with tiran at this.in our history is a good thing? is it going to make us safer? where other challenges abroad. this is a national security strategy that talks about the importance of great power and competition. and everybody knows that really meant china, brushes a basket case it's not a great power for great power competition.ge but the administration wanted to push that way, just like obama did with the pivot to

asia. but we have been unable to extricate ourselves from these quagmires in the middle east. so i don't think there is a lot of desire to sink ourselves in deeper. >> host: about 15 minutes left with william ruger at the cato institute vice president of policy and research and with us this morning taking your phone calls. richard is an amorous new york, republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. ruger i want to ask if you think we might get back to what now sounds, what i could say kind of naïve -- or from the past. but as a veteran from a previous war i want to ask whether the public could ask for a return to the day when foreign policy, when politics ended after waters edge the foreign policy was a bipartisan matter and to raise

the stakes even further, we got back to the situation were congress really embraces its authority. it's coequal authority to make foreign policy then actually delivers a foreign policy or outlyingn- of a foreign policy as to when we go to war and when we don't. when we have diplomatic encounters and when we don't. and beyond that, if we can get back to the rules that are attributed to temple weinberger and colon powell that what we do go to war, unlike what george w. bush did in 2003, we have allies, we have public support, we have a massive force, and we have an objective. and we get out when it's over. these things are inarguable, but we see presidents of both parties sort of stumbling in, and also being oblivious of what they sayas they are doing. whether it's lyndon johnson,

or president obama and hillary clinton in libya, or more recently george w. bush in iraq to talk about this on hussein without a clear plan of what came "after words". >> host: richard thanks for the call. >> guest: we are having great questions from the callers. you mentioned that collin powell issue. that's issue of congress as being coequalnc branch of government is an important one. i article one section eight of the constitution gives congress, put some of the driver seat when it comes to warmaking. and unfortunately, for a long time, all the way back to the beginning of the w cold war. even earlier, you could say you've seen an erosion of congressional power in this area.er and you might think this was simply because of executive

power, executive branch grasping. but is also bit with complicity of congress. i mean congress has wanted in some ways to africa ate its authority in this area. i think it is a real dereliction of duty if you will. because congress should be willing to stand up and take votes on whether we go to war, and the framers vision was they would be a republican wisdom around these most, the most important decisions we make is a government. war and peace, life and death for our country. the fact is that congress has allowedth the executive ranch to make all these decisions. they can say look there were some raining and in the 1970s with the war powers resolution, i think there is a decent argument that the issue with that is not what conservatives days butt it ties the hands of the president and that violates article two powers, which by the way article tool is not clear about what the president's

powers are. the article one is. but the fact is the war powers resolution one of thely challenges is it gives up too much power to the executive branch. i mean why should the president be allowed to engage in conflict abroad that is not merely defensive without congress authorizing that? especially when there's not uteminence. and again the constitution does allow that if that americans are being attacked or the united states is being attacked, than the president has the authority to repel. but in the case like syria, this is an unauthorized war there is not a question of time. it's not like it we don't do something now new york goes up. this is something that congress should be in the drivergo seat on. the same thing with yemen. if we were to rewrite the war powers resolution vote to add or take t away? >> guest: one question to something like that actually necessary? be just going back to article one section eight. i want to the challenges of

course. >> host: article one section eight is congress has the ability to declare war. >> guest: not just the ability but that's its power. in our system of government is a system in which there are newman aided powers that each of the branches get, and it's not as if the constitution is silent on that. while that means that other branches can do it they will. the fact is that congress should be in the driver seat on declaring war. and then the president makes war. but the court again is trying to stay out of these fights. in a variety of court cases during the cold war when a lot of this started to come to the fore, we kinda punted on this. and you know that it's been a challenge because then what instruments does congress have? congress has a lot of blunt instruments to deal with the executive branch with executive branches of violating, and its view with the constitution says. it can gauge impeachment. that is an extremely blunt instrument as we have seen

recently. and so, in some ways we need to kind of rebuild the culture in which the american public expects six representatives. they expect them to engage on these issuesto and hold them accountable. but again foreign policies on a pocketbookue issue and a lot americans don't pay much attention to it. so it looks to elites here in washington to get the cues, and the cues for a lot of the cold war and post-cold war period have been well he's thede commander-in-chief, the president should deal with this. and if it goes wrong then congress can complain. they like to do that and but it can go against washington to do that instead of running on its tough vote saying yes yes i authorize the war on yemen and this is what happen. but instead theyd can blame the president or the military. >> host: lotto calls for you this is a democrats for you. >> caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. as a former veteran of 22 years in the u.s. army, i am

really deeply concerned of what's going on in our country here. main regards to pulling our soldiers, military members at will, it's really sad deal when we as mr. rutgers spoke so eloquently about our branches of government,er and the way they are supposed to work. basically itto appears to me right now that we really have like a one-man band dictating every single thing that is going to take place with our nation. i was a drill sergeant at fort benning here several years, these are young kids that we are deploying in harms way and yes they took an oath to defend our country and nation from harm.

our politicians feel that they need to do that.t but again, going back to our branches of government, when our government breaks down as i see that theyve have currently, we are in deep trouble. it is as serious matter and i am just taken aback by it. >> host: okay thanks for the call. >> guest: one way to honor the sacrifice that our veterans make, the ultimate sacrifice that some may, but just the sacrifices of families having ictheir members deployed, about the hardships of being away from their home and having to fight in these often times hairy scenarios. it is to make only sending americans in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. and again i think our approach of the last 30 years has gotten away from that.

the net to often people here in washington have been willing to send men and women from around the country into these conflicts without a clear strategy, without really appreciating the alternative approaches that might actually be better, it's pushing the easy button if you will. and i think that the afghan papers that the washington post published recently really shows you kind of some of the rot at the core of our decision-making and our strategic leadership. >> host: what was some examples in your mind from those series of reports? >> guest: one of the things is look at what the inspector general talked about and it was just very clear that there was a massive waste, that there was not a clear sense of how we are going to achieve our goals, and i applaud the inspector for kind of making sure that he was keeping the eye on what was happening

there.o so we had a better accounting of this. so i think one of the challenges when you have such a huge defense industry when you include the defense department's budget plus the care and other departments of energy. you're talking but a trillion dollar budget. it is really hard to have accountability around those kind of numbers. thefor a long time pentagon was not able to appropriately and effectively audit itself. and again an audit is not going to change the problem but the biggest problem is the american culture as needing to be engaged everywhere and to really be trying to shape and dictate the nature of the international system. often times atti great cost and in a way that does not match up to our most pressing :challenges.

>> host: jon socks socko has been on c-span 26 times include several times of this program including may of last year when he came on to talk about efforts on reconstruction and afghanistan calls as well. you can see that on our website and a video library on c-span debt.org. katy texas willie republican you are next. >> caller: good morning the problem is the syndrome kind of makes it a disposition. because we are not at war, at least in our minds as u.s. folks. the problem is i ran, and the minds of at least their leadership, maybe not some of theme young young folks. but in their minds they have been at war with the great saints and quote unquote for decades. so that's what makes this a difficult issue. and also somebody mentioned about the trump doctrine. i would've thought like many truck voters that the trump doctrine would have been one

of kind of like a coil or snake words all or most of the u.s. assets, including troops, civilians, and intel assets come home. until we are facing a domestic threat from abroad. and then we put all of our efforts together like a snake andd we strike to get rid of or to solve that particular issue. i would think that would've been the trump doctrine and i would like to see mr. ruger could comment on that? >> guest: i like the imagery, on the navy uniform we are allowed to wear the navy jacket which is a snake that says don't tread on me, right? so that idea of being kind of strong and powerful but really kind of careful until you actually have to strike is something that rings true to me. this is the realism and restraint is a grand strategy to the approach that we have

been using for the last 30 years, and i think that is kind of a hallmark of it. be strong, keep an eye on the world, hit where you need to, but don't stay past your kind of born on or welcome date. don't stick around and engage in things that get us over our skis andly get us into things that are not necessarily helpful and that sink us into these quagmires. it's. >> host: this is james in independent. gooder morning. >> caller: good morning thank you for taking my call. i have two questions for mr. ruger. i appreciate your comments. number one i don't appreciate the categorization that we are going to war with iran. i don't think anyone in the administration wants to or thanks that we are going to war with iran. and i hope we don't go to war with iran. i don't think that was our intention. we've heard the debriefing

tomorrow as i understand from the administration about all of the pluses and minuses of this attack. i think we should stand back and not prejudge the whole impact of the situation. number two, go back to the iraq war, i know it is been highly criticized. would you rather have saddam hussein empower with a nuclear weapon and rocketry to deliver it on israel which was his stated goal when he was alive. that is what we would be having now if we had not gone through the iraq war. it was a mess. but now we have at least we have a republican iraq and we have citizens participating in. >> guest: sure i think the question of is where pressed president trump goes is not

clear of course. we have seen a president that i think hasns some instincts towards being more careful about getting into and staying in some of these conflicts. and so what i would love to see is for the president to try to push forward on afghanistan, to extricate ourselves from there and a polis fully out of syria. and one day to get out of my rockwe so we don't have these vulnerable targets there that could be hit like that base for the contractor was killed. and to provide a flashpoint for usi iranian relations. and i think really trying to focus our self on great power competition is a move in the right direction. that is a much better approach than i think these kind of wars like we saw in libya like we are seeing in yemen, like we are fighting in syria. and that would be better. and i think the other thing i want to.out is the abuse that i am expressing here are

interesting to the audience, there are a lot more people out there sharing these things. if you think about some of the activities of groups like defense priorities or the new quincy institute. or you are seeing people like a matt gage, rochon, people on the different sides of the aisle. you're seeing different sides and more it conversations. we should've had this conversation when the cold war ended. unfortunately did not have that conversation that we needed to. what is america's proper role in the world? what are we seeing a straight craft. and now we are saying that break open. and i think that trump was less a cause than a symptom of that debate we are seeing now. but the fact is he has broken some of the china, and that has been productive in act sense it's kind of a creative disruption if you will. he is challenging some of the old assumptions about alliances and alliance burden sharing.

about how to do some of the diplomacy and whether weet should be rethinking our commitment to these endless wars. i don the other side you people like david betray us talking about how we should stay in places like afghanistan and he doesn't say forever, but generationally. and those are two very different visions. and i think we really need here in t the united states and in washington to have this kind oft intellectual fight about what should america do going forward. and i think that look it's not a simple answer. there are b good arguments on both sides which is why we need a robust marketplace of ideas. but we really have not had that in washington for so long. think back to i the iraq war. were a lot of the questions you imagine now about that? with those questions being debated? they weren't really there is kind of a rush for everybody to support that. and then look what happened. now i think it's a little bit healthier and it's going to be more healthy going forward because e of the fact there is more energy going around about alternative visions.

a couple places you can read ruger's work is at the charles coke institute.org@cato.org. we appreciate your time and come back again and talk to us down the road. b-2 thank you and thanks for all the great questions. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning will discuss escalating ironic tensions with nebraska republican don bacon. california congresswoman and defend senior security correspondent katie bo williams. watch c spans "washington journal", live it seven eastern join the discussion. >> we are having some technical issues for the campaign event for elizabeth warren. we will try to bring it to you

later in our programming schedule or have it available online with the rest were 2020 campaign coverage. hi everyone i'm adam cook and i'm a 2018 c-span student winner. and i'm here to encourage you to continue to wrap up this competition as the deadline is getting right but you will sometime. this is actually about the time i started filling my documentary the first year entered. i am in the d.c. offices right now and i am just going to tell you c-span wasn't it incredible opportunity for me to it express my thoughts and views about political climate in the current days as well as connect with some local and state leaders. and go for office. i am truly excited that you are interested in this and are pursuing this, because it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and i'm so excited you're all taking it. >> there still time for you to enter the c-span video competition. you have until january 20 to create a five to six minute

documentary that explores the issues of what you want the presidential candidates to address during 2020. we are giving away over $100,000 in cash prizes with the grand prize of $5000. for more information go to our website student cam.org. >> next senate leaders mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer talk about the impeachment process from earlier today on the senate floor. >> every day that has democrats refused to stand behind their impeachment deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who change choose to take our nation down this road. you can't say that we did not warn them, you can't say they didn't warn themselves, it was less than one year ago that speaker pelosi said and peach mint is so divisive, so divisive, ues