people would experience. so all i can say is, all i can say is we're looking at a situation of a protracted long drawn out conflict where the assad is being supplied with arms equipment, helicopters, tanks, artillery, and now we hear reports today of even actually russian troops being possibly moved into syria. versus people who are basically without any real means to defend themselves. it's not a fair fight. it's not a civil war. because all the military strength is on one side and not the other. at least we ought to give them a chance to have a fair fight. yes, sir.

>> many analysts see russia's support of assad a losing alliance. is there any way for us to see that as well or any way to convince them it is in their interest to abandon support for assad? >> thank you for that question. i've been a bit puzzled, too. the russians are very intelligent. putin is a very smart man. but they are being -- they are doing enormous damage to their image in the arab world. they are harming themselves dramatically. and i don't quite understand that. the only -- and i don't pretend to be able to get into now president putin's mind. but there is a certain nostalgia in russia for the old russian empire. this is their last outpost and port on the mediterranean.

this is in many ways to them a test as to whether this disease called the arab spring will spread to other parts of the world including places like chechnya which was put down with exceptional brutality. so i can't fathom all the reasons for the russian behavior as it continues to be. i hope that the president who i understand is meeting with president putin today will be able to bring about some change in their behavior. but in my view it's also part of a pattern of putin's behavior since the elections. the new find of demonstrators, jailing of people that and intimidation of the media et cetera, et cetera. that does not mean that i believe that the cold war is going to be reignited. it's not. but i also think we're going to have to take a much more

realistic view of our relationship with russia on the our ability to do business with them. . yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. senator. i'm from norway with the progress party. you said that a solution for syria might happen outside of the u.n. system. is that a road that leads to less u.n. involvement in the world? and is that a road that the obama administration is fearing? and could that be the reason for noninvolvement? thank you. >> what it really is the situation today is that russia and china in this case now have veto power other any united states policy or action that the united states might take. that obviously is not acceptable to the american people. we cannot, our actions cannot be governed by whether russia will

or will not veto a u.n. security council resolution. i mentioned in my remarks with kosovo. we went to kosovo without a u.n. security council rerz and we went there for the same reason why we should go to syria. and that was a coalition of the willing as we say. so i respect and admire the united nations security council. and the things that they do. but the fact is the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the security -- united nations security council. you've been overlooked four times. please go ahead. >> my name is tyler o'neill with the washington freebie con. my question is about turkey. with the act party successful last year in 2011, they seem to

have a shift toward islamist. do you think that their interests being coincidental with the united states would change in that situation? >> no, i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world much less the region. but i have voiced concerns as recently as last week at a breakfast with the u.s. turkey society that i am continued to be worried about the jailing of journalists. turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i've been worried about intimidation of opposition parties. i've been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister. a man who i respect and admire a great deal. but i also worry about

authortarian tendencies in turkey that far fran send islamic or any religious reasons. that is a matter of great concern. and we should continue to voice those. this jailing of hundreds of military officers is something that is really not appropriate for a functioning democracy either. and there are other reasons. could i do a couple more? yes. >> thank you, sir. i'm enter sweden. i really agree with everything you told about syria. it's really nice. but i have a question, what do you think about fact that so many people died and peacekeepers were there. >> i think it was a horrible event that most of us after world war ii thought could never take place on european soil. thousands of young people were

taken out -- young and old were taken out and ethnically cleansed. if there is any good news out of something like that it did galvanize the world into taking action to stop further acts of atrocity from taking place. i think american and our allies there's lots of other countries involved should be very proud that we stop that kind of butchery and ethnic cleansing that was going on there in that country. i think it's one of the prouder moments of our ability to work together with like minded democracies who respect human rights. yes. real quick. >> independent researcher. is the arab league, what is going on with them? could they be more helpful and what about saudi arabia? >> saudis i have heard rorlts,

published reports that the saudis are assisting in some ways. the arab league lebanon, obviously is under the influence of hezbollah. trying to think who else. there's a couple three countries in the arab league who have veto power that makes it much more difficult than it did for concerted action in libya. i know there are members of the arab league that are much more activity involved. whether the arab league themselves, it may be very difficult to get a solid position out of the arab league as opposed to the situation as it prevailed in libya. as you know probably the most unpopular person in the arab league at that time was mr. gadhafi.

since he had tried to kill a few of the leaders of those countries. i guess i have a stop. we have a very distinguished panel of leaders here. i would just like to say, particularly there's a lot of young people in this audience. you come from all other the world. and you are here i think to learn and to listen. i hope you'll go back with the thought that we live still in a very dangerous world and the world that is fraught with challenges. but it is the next generation of leaders throughout the country -- the world that we can change from a bleak picture in some cases to one that is much more optimistic. i believe that your involvement in a cause greater than your own self-interest is the future of this country and the world. and i believe that when i'm

associated with people like her in this room, i'm much more optimistic when i leave than when i came. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> the senator has raised a great number of issues and i'm thrilled that we have as distinguished a panel as we have today to discuss these issues. we also have in the audience members of every major faction of the syrian opposition and i also want to extend my welcome to them. sitting next to me on my right is a leading syrian human rights and prodemocracy activist and author. he's a fellow and a member of the syria working group at the foundation for defensive democracies which is pretty much the most important working group there is discussing syrian issues outside the u.s. government at this point in

time. i came to know amar as in his capacity as founder and director of a foundation, a grassroots organization that enlists local activists and citizen journalists to report on sociopolitical issues in syria and elsewhere. sitting next to amar is brian fishman who i'm thrilled to welcome back to the american enterprise institute. he's a counterterrorism research fellow at the new american foundation and i think it's safe to say that his work specially with the harmony documents has become a must read for anyone that looks at radicalism within the middle east and the arab world be it on iraq or more recently on syria. so i'm very thrilled that he could come here today to help share some of his insights. next to him is my old friend david shanker and a former colleague of mine from my days in the pentagon. david is currently the fellow and director of the program on

arab politics at washington institute for near east policy. he previously served in the office of secretary defense as -- the pentagon's top policy aide on arab countries. he's also the author of several fantastic books relating to arab politics and last but not least, we have another author lee smith a senior editor of the weekly standard and a fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies. he's the author of the strong horse, power, politics and the clash of arab civilizations published by double day in the year 2010. without further ado since we have so much to discuss, i'd like to turn the floor over to amar. >> well, thank you very much for this introduction and inviting me to this be event which comes at a very crucial time for syria

as events on the ground continue to accelerate and the situation seems to be out of anybody's control. the remarks of senator mccain were spot and as far as i'm concerned and he highlighted a plan of action on syria that i think we in the syrian opposition can easily endorse because it corresponds to something that we've been talking about and the demands we've been making for quite a while now. we hope that finally this administration will become more proactive of the situation and will move faster than it has been in the last few months. if the current calculations in the administration is to wait until after the elections, i'm not really sure that there's going to be a syria after the elections. it pains me to say that. if you exam the situation on the ground right noi, it's a situation that situation for the partitions of the country.

assad's plan a is to try to keep control of every part of the country of course he's trying to crack down as violently as he can with russian support and iranian support on all the protest movement and owl communities from the southern end of syria to the northeastern ends to the northern ends. he seems to be implementing a plan b that calls for the creation of a majority otherwise enclave along the coastal areas of syria and also in the central parts of syria in the plains and central parts of syria and homs city. if he is -- the ethnic cleansing campaigns that's taking place, we are seeing it happening in homs city in fact more than half the population of that city almost 600,000 people have been displaced since the beginning of the revolution. and we are seeing a series of

shelling of towns and other areas that seem to be orchestrated towards driving people toward the east of the river. we are seeing campaigns in other cities that's meant to ethnically cleanse the area from the sunni population. and we are seeing in the coastal areas in the mountains along the coast we are seeing basically also an attempt at ethnic cleansing that already cleared several territories will in the mountains, but there are still several more to go. and the sunni population in places live under virtual siege basically surrounded by check points all over the neighborhoods. and every night and we have videos to prove it in fact, there are is sort of a lack of

terror campaign that takes place where militias drive through the neighborhoods shooting into the air and trying to terrify the population. it seems to be a matter of time before there will be an attempt at ethnically cleansing these neighborhoods as well. we are seeing this scenario implemented. this unlocks imaginations. we have the videos. we have the facts. there are a lot of basically foreign journalists who have managed to go to these areas and describe what has taken place in nauseating details. it's not a hypothetical scenario anymore. it was a hypothetical scenario a year ago. now it's something that we are seeing being implemented. if assad seems to be the plan if there's going to be intervention and if assad is going to be forced out, the fall back plan is to take control over this piece of land. the problem is with the control of homs city in particular, homs city is the place through which

all major roads connect south via to north syria and northeastern syria pass. so by controlling homs city it's not just a partitioning into an internal syrian coastal syria, it's a partitions into different time zones, a south, a southeast and a north. if the opposition did not sort of congeal in these areas we might see each one of these regions splinter into different time zones. we might end up with one sort of state that is supported by and protected by the russians. and a multiplicity of ethnic can tones developing all over the country. this is no longer a hypothetical scenario. this is something that's now being worked out. as a result of the crackdown that assad is leading and of international -- the inability to formulate a policy and to

stick to it on syria. this is really why and i will not repeat basically what the plan that was enunciated by senator mccain is, this is why it's important to be implemented now instead of waiting. time is not on our side. it has never been on our side in this revolution and had there been a more complete action adopted and taken, you know, back in may when we and june and july when we're beginning to see how violent of a course assad is willing to embark on that is when hama was retaken by force i think that was the turning point. the international community had the chance at the time to actually say no, we're not going to allow that and to actually issue a a strong warning after to assad that intervention will be on the table if he continues on this course. instead there was a lot of dithering and we've heard a lot of statement by so many countries including the head of

nato saying no, no there will be no intervention that gave assad the go ahead to continue to pursue that kind of policy. now we don't have the luxury of continuing to wait without thinking about the ramification. the country is being partitioned. waiting will allow for the partitioning to actually take effect. there will be preprocushions that will be felt in lebanon and iraq, jordan and in turkey and perhaps even in israel as well. so the stability of the region is at stake. and the wrong actors are waiting and perhaps as brian will say they might actually be beginning to infiltrate the country. so time is not on our side. the time to act the now and my call on this administration is that while i understand all about the calculations of elections and so on, but there are larger calculation at stake here. the geopolitical interest of so

many countries including this one and humanitarian issues that are at stake and we cannot wait anymore. the time to act is now. with this i and turn the table to you. >> thank you very much. i want to thank michael in particular for having me here. i will talk a little bit about the increased or the reflections we see that seem to indicate a larger jihadi presence in syria. i want to also sort of step back. i think i'm going oh be a discordant voice. i'm not as optimistic about the prospects for military action to produce the outcomes we would all like to see in syria. and i do think that jihadi elements are likely to benefit from the situation there. i do think that there are going to be very unproductive effects across the region. i think that there is a role for more active american presence there, but i'm skeptical,

frankly, that military action can produce the end states we would all like to see. good intentions don't make good policy. bottom line. i think one of the things that interests me about the debate about syria is the historical analogy we use to understand it. this is something we all do as human beings. we sort of ask, is syria libya, bosnia, kosovo, iraq? what are the unintended consequences? how do we understand what sorts of actions -- what our actions will produce in a situation like that. it's no surprise that we all intuitively pick and choose to fit the end argument that we would like to make. the big difference with syria about all of those places with the exception of iraq is that the stakes are much, much higher. right? they are just higher. for all the reasons that senator mccain laid out. the opportunities of a successful outcome in syria are

much higher and the risks and negative repercussions of a bad outcome in syria are higher. so the purpose and the goals we'd like to achieve are well known. senator mccain made the arguments well. weaken iran, hezbollah, limit the murder of civilians, the wanton murder of civilians we know is occurring. we did hear a plan from senator mccain. right? a goal ultimately to limit president assad, creating a safe zone and increased military support to rebels. i think one of the issues that i want to point out is i think there is a very, very important risk of mission creep here with the creation of safe zones in particular. i don't think creating a safe zone is an option, frankly. i think it would be very, very difficult to keep that as a mission over the long run because that safe zone is not going to limit the murder of civilians outside. it's going to produce a backlash by the enemy at that point, the

assad regime. the enemy get as vote. the enemy will perceive that as an effort to overthrow the regime and at that point perhaps options become on the table that we don't want to think about. you know, attacks against western troops in the region. hezbollah attack. last time we intervened in this part of the world, a lot of marines died. those kinds of things are real possibilities. so the enemy get as vote. that leads to an outcome which is really military intervention to push assad out. i think in my mind at least that's what's on the table. there are real negative repercussions for all of this. right? there are some costs. the benefits, i think, are known. the costs are of the situation -- i think there is a growing jihadi group in syria. the most major at least announced group is one called jaba del nuzra. they have typical propaganda

outlets. it's not a strong group that can compete with major opposition groups. jihadi organizations are not viable competitors for political power in most places. even when they start to gain political power they shoot themselves in the foot. that's not what i'm suggesting. jihadis aren't going to take over syria. but they will make things worse because they make the assad regime and his supporters position a lot more entrenched. it makes it much more difficult to get to that point that senator mccain pointed to where you might have a negotiated solution, right? if you can balance, create more military balance the assad regime and his immediate supporters would be willing to cut a deal because the jihadis out there don't want to overthrow the syrian government because it is a brutal dictatorship. they want to overthrow it. they believe the folks in the

government are apostates and deserve death. right? as brave as the vast majority of the syrian opposition is i'm unconvinced from historical precedent they can control the small jihadi element in that environment. it makes the situation worse. it will make a negotiated solution with assad very difficult. we've got to recognize that fact. the situation in libya was blown out of proportion. there was not a major jihadi element. for years qaddafi crushed it. the problem in syria is the regime tolerated some elements because they were useful to funnel people to iraq over the last several years. they are reaping what they sow. these are not good people. but there is a reality on the ground, think, where the jihadi

threat is more dangerous over the long run. for all those reasons and because the proximity to a neighbor, iraq, where there is still an active al qaeda element, that is still quite capable and kills people by the many tens when it feels like it in baghdad. so a couple of questions. what comes next? the goals are clear. the purpose of military intervention is clear. what we want to achieve here is clear. what comes after? jihadi groups will be able to organize in syria. i'm not convinced that there will be a cohesive governance structure afterwards. i would like to hear more. what we are going to see is a lot of countries in the region. now they agree assad should go.

i don't think they all agree about what should come after. say assad falls. do the saudis, turks, cutteries, iraqis agree or will they support their own proxy? that's more likely, i think. what will happen with biological and chemical weapons? would assad use them if push comes to shove? if he falls do they matriculate to hezbollah, al qaeda? how do we control those things? right? we can't pursue a direct policy of getting rid of assad unless we have good answers to those questions, right? i'm not -- look. there are folks worried about the impact on the united nations. that's really not my concern. my concern is what are the unintended consequences of these actions. do they undermine u.s. national security and regional security? i worry very much about the saudis. in particular, some of the

rhetoric seems to indicate that they are tolerating some of the traveling jihadi types that might go to syria. let's be clear. the folks who want to get on the ground to fight assad traveling from around the region. five years ago these people were going to anbar to blow themselves up at checkpoints. right? it's very similar kinds of dynamics. and we have to be very careful, i think, with our alleies in triage that we don't open the door to that scenario. there is an argument that we should engage more actively so they could crack down and limit those groups to act. we need to keep our eyes open to that possibility. i think ultimately here i'm very bearish on syria. i don't see good outcomes here with or without military action. i think this is an ugly and dangerous situation.

i think that our efforts as the international community need to be focused on limiting human suffering as much as possible. but also limiting the spread of conflict to iraq, to lebanon and more broadly. that squarely is where from a strategic interest we need to put our efforts. thank you very much. >> thank you, brian. >> michael, thanks for hosting this important panel. senator mccain is great. i could stop there. hard to believe for me that we are approaching the one-year anniversary, august 18, of when president obama called for syrian president assad to step down. nearly a year has passed since that call. it's been about five months since the ill advised ananne plan we backed which rolled back the teeth of the arab league plan which was a sensib