competing nation states. the same framework that lies behind the united nations. there's so many problems that the world faces that seem to require a global response. shouldn't we be talking in terms of an internationalism that emphasizes globalism versus this prevential discussion. >> to have that kind of initiative that you're talking about requires, in some way -- and here i'll agree with bill, it requires a shift in identity. it requires that people think of themselves not as citizens of the united states or a global citizen or recognizing -- you would need shifts in public opinion that would require people to think of this as a situation where, in fact, cooperation would be required but you aren't seeing that. if anything you're seeing the reverse. look at the european union for example.

it's in some ways the most ambitious project that existed to try to remake, you know, national identities into something larger. you know, sort of european identity of the notion that there's not just greeks or italians or spaniards but this european identity. if you take a look at the most parliamentary elections you discovered the exact opposite occurred. essentially you have actors on the far left and far right. both of which are within europe's boards and outside of europe's boarders doing relatively well. and, in fact, the only place where that didn't happen is germany and that's because germany's mildly insane policies that they instituted across the rest of the euro zone served them well and no one else well. so i think unfortunately you're still operating in a world where national identities or sub national identities trump any

sense of cosmopolitanism. >> just quickly. just from a political perspective, the american people are in a particular place right now, very skeptical as foreign interventions and i like that as a baseline but that can change and i think it's worth thinking about if not trying to cultivate some level of global citizenship rather than saying what happens out there doesn't effect us because in the event of another crisis, another attack, you know, i think i can very easily imagine americans being induced to support maybe not this year, maybe not five years or ten years but i'd say within a decade, being induced again to support something really stupid. so i think it is worth thinking globally and to come up with a,

you know, competing set of arguments for how u.s. security can be advanced through nonmilitary global engagement. >> i would just add that globalism and internationalism are zombies. they're walking dead. the sooner we bury them the better. the elites have assumed that because they, starting with the league of nations after world war i transferred their allegiance away from the state to the international super state that eventually the rest would do the same. in fact, people are transferring their loyalties away from the state but it is to smaller more concrete entities that actually have consent -- content and what is worth fighting for. it's what globalism really represents. let's cheer that development. >> thank you all for your attention. thank you to all the panelists. and we'll conclude this panel

now and we'll be moving on to the next part of our program in just a few minutes. thank you. [ applause ] >> the former iraq administrator paul bremer wrote about the possibility of sending more troops to iraq. he'll join us on the next washington journal and we'll talk to congresswoman loretta sanchez about u.s. options in iraq. she serves on the homeland security and armed services committees. later as part of our spotlight on magazines series, steven levey on his recent changes at the healthcare.gov website. you can join the conversation on facebook, twitter, and by phone. washington journal, each morning 7:00 eastern on cspan.

monday, gm recalled an additional 3 million plus cars for ignition problems. wednesday, general motor's ceo mary bara testifies on capitol hill to discuss the investigation into the delayed ignition switch recall. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3 and you can join the conversation on twitter. so the idea behind 250 and 250 is instead of trying to tell the entire history of st. louis as a time line or era by era we would absolutely miss vitally important things. so instead of trying to do that and failing we decide what if we just gave snapshots of st. louis history that would give people a glimpse of all the diverse things that happened here and they could use their

imaginations to fill in the rest. so we chose 50 places 50 moments 50 images and 50 objects and tried to choose the most diverse selection we could. we're standing in the 50 objects right now. this is what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of st. louis's history. it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries and of course the most famous, they were the largest in the world. and in the era of them talking about millions of barrels produced, they're producing so much beer, this is from an era when things were much simpler. in the days before they had cans or bottle caps they put corks in the top of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do

it by hand. it has foot pedals on the bottom. that's where the operator would push down with his feet to give the cork enough force to go into the bottle. it has three holes for three different sized bottles. >> the history and literary life of st. louis. the gateway to the west. and cspan 3's american history tv. this panel from the american conservative forum on national security focuses on cyber threats and what the fourth amendment means in the modern age. this is about an hour.

i am going to moderate this discussion. i am the political editor of the national interest. formally the editor and former ceo of cq. our discussion topic has to do with the political context of american foreign policy and i'm going to translate that into two questions for our panel lists. what is the state of political sentiment with regard to american foreign policy today and what kinds of barriers or opportunities does that pose for an alteration in policy directions from something approaching the neo conservative view that is pretty much dominated from the end of the cold war until relatively recently and moving toward a more realistic or realist or

perhaps measured approach? >> i do have a great panel but i have a few observations. i used to be a political reporter and one of my observations during those years as when it comes to foreign policy the american people tend to delegate to their elected leaders and to the experts hired by their elected leaders to a far greater extent than domestic policy. especially if it has to do with jobs. they're on it very quickly if things don't go well. but in foreign policy, it's more of a delegation with one significant provisal, don't screw it up. if you screw it up we'll pull it back. all of us read about vietnam in which the problems were such

that the american people very dramatically pulled it back. i'll say another example which i think is world war i. we tend to forget the history of that period in which woodrow wilson not only took us into a war that didn't yield the results that were advertised but he used the occasion for a lot of domestic policy making that were very delicate in terms of the economy and other things and lead to the 1920 election which was one of the great of our history. >> those are one of the examples of the american people pulling it back. it's possible that we are in kind of a mild example of the american people pulling it back. it seems to be happening in terms of where the american people are right now.

president obama indicated he was going to move in that direction but he pulled back because the american people weren't favorable of that might be exhibit a in that. but the question that rises now giving what's happening in the middle east in the media time frame is what happeneds in that process if we find ourselves in a serious crisis. and crisis being potentially islamist fundamentalism basically taking over large swaths of syria and iraq and creating a kind of modern. >> in that context, i'd like to introduce our panelists for this discussion. john is the senior editor of the new republic and contributing editor of the american prospect.

he has written widely in cq, foreign affairs, new york times, washington post. he is the author of six books, john. >> right. >> including the current book that's out now and has kicked up a certain amount of controversial dust. genesis, trueman, american jews and the origins of the arab israeli conflict. i'll introduce the other two. next we have the vice president for defense and policy studies at the cato institute. he has written widely including he had a by line in the new york times just yesterday. author of three books including the power problem 2009, exiting iraq, 2004 and my favorite i think is very interesting study, john f. kennedy and the missile gap also in 2004. and finally we have michael cohen who is a fellow at the century foundation.

he has been a columnist at the guardian. a blogger for the new york daily news. he's the author of life on the campaign trail which is about notable 20th century campaign speeches of consequence and he is also published widely in wall street journal, new york times, l.a. times, politico, et cetera. so john, over to you, sir. >> good. i'm supposed to speak here. you can all hear me. i thought the subject of this panel and of this conference had something to do with realism so i'm going to playoff that theme and i'll get around to pl ticks at the very end. >> there's a narrow version of realism. i'm not talking about the academic theory of realism or the diplomatic theory that resinate with public opinion.

that's the idea that america should only deal with threats that directly concern us but in places like syria, the middle east and ukraine we should keep hands off? i want to begin by saying why i think that that view which i think is prevalent and is reflected in a recent wall street journal nbc poll about the opinion about foreign policy, why that's not a good approach for the country to take and then i'll come back to it at the end.

>> we could say it's good because it will balance the israelis and there will be less chance of war in the middle east. the obama people could say it's bad and it will start an arms race. even though it's very, very unlikely that the iranians will launch a nuclear weapon at new york, it's still of vital interest to us because a nuclear war could most likely, i would say, begin in the middle east, if i had to choose a place in the world. oil, the world economy. so there's lots of reasons. and i think you can make similar arguments for a lot of the conflicts that we have engaged in that don't on the surface seem to directly threaten us. second reason is more controversial. there's a guy, a famous economic historian that had a theory about the world economy, that the world economy works best

when there's one big, big dog on top of it and when the currency itself reflects the currency of that country. and, you know, if you look at the history of the world economy, that theory works pretty well. i would make a similar comment about geo politics. about the world system. maybe a bipolar as well as a uni polar world. britain in the 19th century and the united states and soviet union in 1945, there's a certain advantage to the world. if there is a country, a big dog that exercises leadership in the world. now, the question is how? and that's where we get to questions about foreign policy and there's two kinds of obvious choices that are under debate. one i would associate with neo

conservatives, liberal interventionists, people that think in some respect that the way in which we can make ourselves most secure and the world most peaceful is to, in effect, create the world in our imagine. to spread democracy. to build, to help build nations that have institutions similar to our own or those of western europe. i think that there are a lot of reasons now to question that approach and i wrote a book called folley of empire that was about that because one of the first examples is woodrow wilson in mexico. but we've had a lot of them since and most recently we have iraq and even more and more recently is the example of libya where if you look at the news reports now, that intervention may turn out to have been a

disaster and mistake and to have left the country and the region in worst shape than before. so i think there's the neo conservative and interventional approach. there's something like the strategy that the british employed in the 19th century. and i think that in general, that is a wiser strategy even though it gets us in trouble to the event that we have to support bad people and bad regimes and to have reasoned for instance in 2003 that we were better off in the middle east with saddam than without him. a position that would have been very hard to sell in the united states. foreign policy making is ze patched for the most part from

the public. it only intersects at certain points partly because it's complicated and partly because it deals with long range and the united states is an island nation, a nation most of which is internal and doesn't have a view of foreign policy similar to the one i sketched out at the beginning. so foreign policy is at these two levels. an elite level and mass level. for the most part, that's okay. where it's not okay is when we get into questions of war and peace and armed intervention and in those cases, the public has to be brought in and it's often done in a most deceitful or dishonest way and i'm thinking of george w. bush and the iraq

war. in doing them we should pursue an option that's less likely to involve us in armed intervention. so that's my pitch for today. >> thank you, john. chris. >> thank you, bob. thank you to the organizers for putting on this even. i think picking up on some of that john said, i think it's typical or the norm in foreign policy is for the public to have a relative indifference to what is going on in foreign affairs relatively speaking and certainly relative to their domestic policy issues. this isn't all that strange because after all it has been

imp si emphasized a couple of times today already because the united states is secure relative to other countries around the world. unlike in the past, other countries when they had foreign policy disasters the country ceased to exist and you think back to the war and the men were all put to the sword and killed and women and children are sold into slavery. that's not what we worry about in the united states. so i think the public's relative difference to foreign policy can be explained by that to a large extent. but i think what we started to see over the last few years is not indifference but actual outward hostility and opposition to armed intervention and, again, there's a difference between kind of boiling down foreign policy to armed intervention but i also agree with john that on the issues of war and peace the public has to be engaged. that was not the case. one of the books i use as a jumping off point from my own book, the power problem, he said

in 2005 that the american role in the world may depend in part on americans not scrutinizing it too closely. i think that was a fair statement. i think it was an honest statement. but i just want to focus, briefly, on what we saw in late august and early september of last year. we had an incident in syria, obviously the syrian civil war was going on for some time. president obama earlier said that the use of chemical weapons would constitute a red line, what crossing that red line would result in he didn't stipulate. >> and at the time, in late august, there was a widespread expectation in this city that he would follow through on that, that pledge by some sort of military action. that was the -- all the reportings suggest that that's where the obama administration was leading. what did we actually see?

it was -- i have to admit, i was a little embarrassed that i was caught off guard by this. it's my job to study foreign policy and particularly interested in the politics of foreign policy and i could never have predicted the level of public opposition, bipartisan that rose up to stop what in secretary kerry's own words, i'm going to get this wrong. this was an unbelievably small or incredibly small -- a smaller than small military intervention. i didn't get the adverb exactly right but smaller than small and yet even a smaller than small intervention mobilized the public in a way that i haven't seen in studying 11 years here in washington and studying foreign policy frankly going back a couple of decades now. these sorts of instances are rare and the question is whether or not that will be a one off

sort of thing there's even the military intervention that will influence u.s. foreign policy going to waforward. a couple of months ago i reviewed bob gates' book and he refers in the book several times to the con trant -- contract on him. it's always about ensuring the public we weren't going to stay. we weren't in there forever that we were planning for the exit sort of thing. which if you know anything really cuts against the strategy because if you're trying to convince the people you're protecting in these countries, they want to believe you're sticking around and he had to worry about the public at home that was worried about us staying too long. so that is a constraint.

now, the neo conservatives and the liberal hawks both have an answer to this problem and whether you look at it as a problem or not, it's a fact. the public is strongly opposed to military intervention. even the smaller than small ones. now the simple response is that this could be solved by leadership. you hear this all the time. leadership. strong leadership. if only the president or if only the national security team were committed to a particular mission they could bring the public along so it's solely a function of the lack of leadership, will, et cetera, political courage, pick your term on the part of the president and his advisors.

if we remember back to what franklin roosevelt was trying to do in what i think was a war worth fighting, his efforts failed. failed quite spectacularly. i recommend a great article on this subject several years ago called the deception dividend. so this is not a new phenomenon. what the public is strongly opposed to intervening militarily, there's very little that the politicians can do to turn it around, i think but people will continue to envolkswagen that because they could never prove the alternative. they could say the leaders didn't try hard enough. they didn't care enough. so you can't prove what happened. we're going to continue to debate whether or not public will is a constraint or not.

i think it is and it's a stronger constraint than it was five or eight or ten years ago. one last point there's one other constraint related to public will and that's the willingness on the part of the public to spend lots of money to support ambitious foreign policy. one that is not dedicated solely or even primarily to defending the united states in our national security interests but that is also postured to defend them around the world. that's been our posture for a long time. contrary to what you might have heard, i have a visual aid here. two new info graphics that cato produced are out there in the lobby that show that contrary to what you have heard, the u.s. military spending has not been gutted. the u.s. military is not on the

verge of obsolescence. we're not at risk of being swamped over by our adversaries. what you do see, however, is a consistent lack of will and not surprisingly on the part of our allies to spend much on defense. why would you? i would do the same thing. you're not inclined to pay for things that other people will pay for you but it's also true that in real dollar terms we're spending more today than we did on average during the cold war. more today than during the cold war. that is increasing pressure on the defense budget and military spending. and crowding out expenditures on equipment and on operations and maintenance. that's happening. that's very hard to stop.

the american people will more likely to cut it deeply to fund a larger military budget. we will choose because we can't do everything and we can't do everywhere. we can choose well or we can choose poorly and i worry that if we wait too long and figuring out what it is and we don't choose a grand strategy or something like it, if we don't make a conscious decision to adapt our foreign policy to these real constraints, then we will choose poorly. thank you. >> thank you, chris. michael. >> first of all i want to thank them for putting this event together. it's really been a great day of conversation. so i want to pick up a little bit on what chris was saying and i think first of all the focus

on syria is an interesting inflection point in american support for military intervention. it's actually an interesting one that i think not enough people have talked about it. such a rare occurrence that it occurred and it has a huge impact at least on this conversation about the future of american foreign policy. but i want to get a little bit of what chris was saying and talk not just about american support or lack of support for military intervention but the interest in foreign policy which if you look at the polls is historically low levels. it's not just the opposition of force. there's a broader sense that america spent too much. it's resources, too much time and energy overseas. i was looking at some of the poll numbers before came here today and i was struck by this from the fall of last year which shows that more than half agree

the u.s. should allow them to get along the best they can. in addition, 80% agree with the statement that we should think not so much in internationally terms but concentrate on our national problems and building up our strength and prosperity here at home. now 80%. in this country today when 80% of americans agree on anything it is a notable occurrence. considering the political polarization we have. it's a broad base. it isn't just democrats or republicans or one party saying this. these are views widely shared across political spectrums. there's not a huge partisan gap here. so i think, you know, the indication i think you should draw from this is that people are a little tired from foreign policy. they want america to focus on issues at home. i think it's interesting by the way that 80%, the last time it was that high was the early 1990s.

the obvious pair lrallel is its end of the cold war. they want to come home and the early 1990s were a pretty bad economy this in this country. akined to what we have seen over the past several years. not as bad but on par and i think that's also driving that. i'll talk more about that in a second. we should share burdens and this isn't a new view. people long thought that we should share global burdens. just seems to be at a much higher level than in the past. what i sympathy the most interesting about these numbers is the divide that you see between the public and the elites. so for example, half of the public, 51% says the u.s. does

too much in terms of solving world problems and 17% says that we do too little. if you ask them and these are cfr, council foreign relations members, 41% say we do too little and 21% say we do too much. that's a huge divide between elites and the public. and if you look at public priorities where people think our foreign policies should be directed, the divide is even larger. this was fascinating to me. the number one concern among americans and also generally among elites is terrorism. so there's a broad conception that we should focus on preventing another terrorist attack. for the public, the number two concern, they want to protect american jobs. 81% say this should be a priority in american foreign policy. among elites, it's 29%. that is a huge divide. it's the largest divide, by the

way in this poll. the only one close is climate change which elites think is more important an issue than ordinary americans and the odd element i think of this is if you look at american foreign policy, particularly in the last 12 years or so, there's very little focus on our foreign policy on jobs and the economy, right? i'm reminded of in the first gulf war no blood for oil. you heard this in 2003 in the iraq war. i think of that now and i don't mean to be overly flippant but i wish we thought this was about oil because then you could justify all the blood. but it's not. we haven't fought them for economic reasons. and i could argue that, in fact, wars have undermined our economy dramatically. there isn't a real connection between our foreign policy agenda and the economy which is what you would traditionally

think your foreign policy should be focused on aside from security. that's something that americans are responding to. so, you know, if you think about why we have gotten to this point, why americans are so fed up part of it is the military interventions, certainly hang over from iraq and afghanistan. and i am actually struck by, i was reading, maybe you're familiar with the recent cover story in the new republic about why america must continue to be a forceful leader around the world. and of course he warns against isolationism. the irony of course is the individuals most responsible in some ways for isolationism are people like robert kagan. the ones saying we should fight stupid wars and get involved in iraq again today, they are, promoting, in a sense, this isolationism on americans. if you look at the polling

today, this came out about an hour or so i saw a recent poll polling this on iraq. 74% of americans oppose intervention in iraq. 16% support. i'm surprised they found 16%. but maybe they're all related to john mccain. i don't know. but it was surprising. but if you look at those numbers, imagine what would happen if the u.s. were to get involved in iraq. there would be a significant backlash. you've seen this by the way already on the left. with groups like move on and other folks warning president obama not to intervene or there's going to be a backlash and it's going to effect the midterm elections and you've also seen, i'll talk more about this in a second but hilary clinton, hilary clinton who never found war she didn't want to support. i can't think of anyone in the last 12 years she hasn't supported and she saying we shouldn't get involved in iraq and that's a big deal that i don't think enough people are

talking about. the second element of this, besides the hang over from iraq and afghanistan, you know, is that americans think we should focus on problems at home. and if you look around this country today, if you look at the inequality and our really underperforming economy, poor job growth and wage growth, our crumbling infrastructure, the levels of organization are utterly dysfunctional. you know, to put it candidly, as the kids would say, america today is a bit of a hot mess. we have all kinds of economic and health related problems in this country that need to be addressed and are not being addressed. so i think for americans they would rather address these issues than further immerse ourselves in global conflicts. now having said all of that, all the poll numbers also indicate that americans still want us to be globally engaged. they want us to be a super power. they want to have their cake and they want to eat it too. this has consistently been american foreign policy. we want to be a super power but

we don't want to do all the things to be a super power. but i think the support is fragile and i think that it's going to be more of a folly than the past 13 or 14 years. if you believe the u.s. has a global role to play and needs to be involved around the world, fine but you also have to recognize there's elements to that and that some of the things that you want to do to enhance american leadership are going to blow back against you and harm the things that. i said people like kagan are hurting their own argument by recommending use of military

force and said they don't care about those issues. they care about going to war. that's their main concern but for the rest of us that do care about america having, you know, having an important global role and dealing with iran's nuclear program or pushing for, you know, trade talks in the far east, you know, these kinds of adventures are going to hurt that argument and that liberal internationalism that progressives have long supported and again i go back to the hilary example i mentioned earlier. i think that there is a sense, maybe, that this ideas are penetrating a little bit. i mentioned it earlier but i think the fact that hilary clinton again who is somebody that consistently worried about not appearing to be too dovish. he supported the iraq war. she supported the surge. behind the closed doors she supported syria. she supported libya. she has been a regular supporter of intervention and i think she

is sort oppenhef a certain mind that said we can't look weak on foreign policy. that she is now saying, no, wait a minute, let's step back is indicating to me that someone is getting that. i think president obama gets that. i think he understands it better than probably 99% of the people in this town that if you end up, if you continue to push foreign policy americans don't like, they don't support, that they don't want to see us do, then you're going to lose that critical support for the things that are important and i think, you know, if, for example, we move forward on something with iraq. if we use force against iraq, it's only going to give energy. not just to the opponents in our democratic party for use of force but also in the republican party as well. i think someone like rand paul, if i was rand paul's political advisors i would be -- this sounds crass but i would almost be cheering for us to do something because it would give

real energy to his critique on american foreign policy. on that note i'll end. >> do you think that rand paul and his people are that crass. >> i probably shouldn't say it. he is a politician. >> thank you, michael. if you have questions we would be more than happy to take them and we would ask you to step to the microphone. i have a question to start off for everyone and we can go down the line here. so let's say that the public opinion which clearly has brought about a shift in the last year and a half or so, it operates at such a constraint and bear in mind that the elites haven't come around. they may be coming around because they have their arm twisted around their back but

not in terms of their own thinking and we're not seeing anything in congress that is attempting to put constraints on the administration. nothing like our neutrality act of 1935 which was a very powerful thing. i think franklin roosevelt actually violated it. it was probably an impeachable offense if anybody wanted to pursue it. it was a major constraint. we're not seeing anything like that. so what might we see or should we see in terms of a foreign policy that reflects what michael is saying, the public opinion added to that we need to be a country in the world and diplomatically backed up by power but we don't need to go off and do these foolish things and you mention balancing and balance of power seems to have been in the last 20 years since

the end of the cold war. what role might that possibly play? let's start with you here. >> pick whatever you want. >> let me see about the choices you made. how does the administration perceive when there's such a public intervention. drones, cia, all of that stuff. that's where it's lead for obama. that's the -- that's the alternative if you want to be active in the world and then there's obviously problems with that. i want to go back to the syria thing because i have -- see,

being a leader in the world also involves credibility. i know this is a bad word because henry always used to use it as an excuse for not leaving whatever conflict we were involved in. part of the problem that obama got into both with syria and now with iran is this idea about red lines where he said we're establishing red lines and there was an odd political valince to that we should consider. on one hand the public is not for any kind of intervention but on the other hand, there is support for knocking off the evil guys. and part of -- i believe that part of the reason that palm balm got involved with the syria red line was in response to romney and mccain attacking him in the summer of 2012 during the

campaign and in august he says there's a red line and when the sere juans do it he does nothing and i thought that was a very damaging thing. so the politics are funny. i guess that's my comment. on the one hand, don't intervene but there is a kind of inclination where there is a real bad guy to support our doing something and we get into trouble that way and i think that obama has gotten into trouble that way. >> i think there is an inclination but it's mainly here in washington to do those sorts of things and the lesson, if you're concerned about credibility john is don't issue warnings or red lines that you don't have the backing of the public to back you up. now, in his defense, maybe he didn't realize just how much the public strayed away. but michael cited the scientific statistics on the gap between elites and the public and this is not a new phenomenon. this existed for a long time. i did a very unscientific survey

in late august, early september of the five sunday morning shows and counted 18 people favor intervention. three oppose. 18-3. >> in what context? >>. >> and a year ago it was a reminder, a very vivid reminder of just how disconnected the political leads are in this town from the rest of the country that pays the bills. and again, in the past, that public opposition didn't manifest itself. for whatever reason, the public did rise up and stop what i think -- i think obama would have gone forward, he would have had sufficient support in congress had the public not risen up in the way it did to enforce that red line in an

incredibly unbelievably smaller than small way and he would have checked off your box john that i keep my promises because i launched a military strike that checked that credibility box. he would have done that had the public not risen up the way he did. >> i agree that politics plays a role here. this was a main argument but it seems to me that the one thing obama is passionate about in foreign policy is -- >> what? >> nonproliferation and that's iran and you can see it some what on the issue as well. that may also explain the position he took but the public was against the intervention in syria but it was congress opposition that pushed them away from use of force. if you remember that, there's republicans that support use of force but become miles apart

were opposed to syria but democrats were even more opposed to it. or even as opposed to it and that is what convinced obama to not use force and for the record, i think he deserves enormous credit for that actually. he made a series of one after the other and not seeing what that meant. and then getting caught behind public opinion but i have a hard time thinking of any other recent example or historical example. if you can name one i'll be great of a president saying i'm going to use force to maintain my credibility both domestically and internationally and then saying, you know what, i'm not going to do this because i don't have support for it. that's unprecedented and is a reflection, i think of a, how badly they misread public opinion but how savvy a politician he is to realize this

is a disastrous decision. and maybe what's driving this is i think poll situations are waking up to where americans are on this. in a sense, voting for use of force against as sad would seem like a political slam dunk. okay, fine, it's a pin prick. smaller than small. it's not a huge political -- not like use of force against iraq for example and yet you had -- i mean, broad majority in congress and that tells you about where the conversation is shifting and that some poll situations are catching up to this reality. >> step to the microphone. >> yes, absolutely. >> hi, i'm michael brandon daugherty and michael you mentioned congress's opposition being key in preventing smaller

than small intervention in syria. does anyone have a clue how the foreign policy preferences of the elector could be expressed in an election involving the exe branch, which actually has this. in 2008, it was two years after the thumping for republicans over iraq and yet they nominated john mccain. in 2012, there was a candidate, kind of announcing a foreign policy that was about jobs and everything. john huntsman, he said that our future was in the trade routes of asia, he got zero response. it was a flat line as far as electoral politics is concerned.

and he's nott an outsider. this was an insider, ambassador to china, someone deep in the foreign policy establishment. but there was no traction on that. so is there any political veiliance, or is the executive branch in its nature, the interventionist branch of government and has antibodies for that? >> go ahead. >> that's a great question. democrats have won a majority of votes in the last five. the one they didn't win, 2004, in which foreign policy played a major role. one of the things that i think is not appreciated enough, at the end of the cold war, it was a boon for democrats. they were seen as a more hawkish

party, to be able to stand up to the communists, after the fall of the berlin wall and the soviet union, that argument faded. so republicans came up with a new boogeyman and they gained some political advantage from foreign policy. but in general, foreign policy doesn't play a huge role unless you're in the midst of a conflict. who knows what will happen in the next two and a half years? i hope we're not in a war. but i don't think it's going to play a huge factor. where i think it could make a difference and where you've seen it make a difference is on the -- between the two parties. within the parties. so in 2008, no question barack obama won the democratic nomination, in large part because of his opposition to the iraq war. there's no question about that. that's what gave him a political -- >> opening. >> -- opening, right.

it was a vulnerability hillary never dealt with properly. what i think is interesting to think about is whether or not in 2016, whether this plays out, how this plays out in the republican party. i'm loathe to sort of suggest that republicans are going to go for somebody who is an isolationist like rand paul, because it goes against how republicans think on foreign policy. but when you have john mccain, dominant in the foreign policy and that's driving where republicans are on foreign policy, i wonder whether it creates a backlash in the party and allows someone like paul to gain political advantage. who knows? i think the next election will be about the economy, as most elections are. >> i just add one thing to what michael just said. first of all, foreign policy doesn't usually factor in elections.

there are a few rare exceptions, 2006 being one and 2008 because of what happened to barack obama. i think you're wrong in 2004. the iraq war was a drag on george bush. he underperformed where he should have been given the state of the economy in 2004. the other reason why it didn't matter as much, he was running against a guy who voted for the iraq war. there was not a clear distinction between the two major candidates. and in some respects, kerry, the whole, i was for it before i was against it, which republicans seized upon with gusto. so if there is a real choice, within either of the two parties, or mainly i presume within the republican party, or a clear choice in foreign policy between the leading democrat and the leading republican, then foreign policy might be a bigger factor than you would otherwise

expect. >> yes. >> could i ask you to go to the microphone. >> i'm moving with difficulty. >> i'm sorry about that, but the audience on tv is going to want to hear your every nuance. >> i'm norman birn balm from the nation. before the syrian decision by the president, something happened in a small archaic country across the atlantic which we mostly know from masterpiece theater. the british parliament acted out a scene from masterpiece theater and took a majority vote after quite an interesting debate, not to intervene in syria.

i don't know very -- no very large pro portion of the american public looks at c-span, but somehow the news must have gotten to people. and it must certainly have come to the president's desk in his morning intelligence briefing and had some influence on his decision. but it was quite a a remarkable sequence of events, because it did seem to turn obama around. obviously it meant that he couldn't count on much european support on that. the germans certainly weren't going to go in if the british didn't. was not convincing, this was -- [ inaudible ] to napoleon. so what did happen? >> gents? john? >> what did happen? i mean, i agreed with the point in the first place. i think the british not going along was the single most

important thing. and i think that without that, the french were ready. the planes were on the runway. i think they would have done something. then he decided he would submit the whole thing to the public and it blew up in his face. so i agree with you, norman. >> yeah, i agree. >> thank you, norm. let me pose this thought, because we're talking about a sense of political reality and a sense of political sentiment as it exists in the country, but we're living through very dramatic events in the middle east right now. the president has suggested, he's being wary in terms of timing, but he's suggested he's going to take some action regarding the emergence of isis in iraq and what that bodes for iraq and syria. to what extent do you see any

change as a result of these developments, either in terms of the elite and how they feel about what needs to be done, and in terms of popular sentiment in the country? >> well, i would say quickly, bob, that the elites haven't changed. they were in favor of intervention before and are now, generally speaking, and the public remains overwhelmingly opposed. in the little polling there has been done confirms that. now, that's not to say that there might be kind of opportunities or circumstances in the iraq case where the precise use of force might actually be useful for degrading isis's capability or blunting their progress. and i think that was -- that was also part of the problem with the syrian cases. there wasn't a clear military solution. what exactly were these pin prick strikes supposed to do? so i think it is possible they could make a case for military action, but of a particular character and very, very small in a good sort of way.

to come up with a different term besides unbelievably small, but -- targeted. >> one of the things about this that's interesting, there's an argument to be made for use of force in iraq. i'm not going to make t but i think there's useful argument for it. there was a useful argument for syria as well. i did make it, although i'm not sure i still agree with it. the problem is, the bad cases for war, and the good cases for war, are not going to have any popular support. the syria thing is fascinating. you saw such opposition to what was basically cruise missiles and air strikes. no one talked about americans on the ground. nobody. nonetheless, the fear of this spiraling into some bigger conflict clearly inflamed a lot of americans. and i think on iraq, this is, again, i go back to my earlier argument, the internationalists who want the u.s. to be active

around the world, they are shooting themselves in the foot by -- that's how bad their argument is. they're taking a crowbar and hitting themselves too. [ laughter ] the reasonable cases for use of force are not going to be heard by americans who do not want to get involved in another stupid war. and every single time that something bad happens around the world, like crimea, your response is, we have to use force. it's like the little boy who cried wolf. at some point, people just tune you out. we talked about this with the elites. somebody who is not an elite, maybe i just don't realize it, but it's not a foreign policy elite. i'm just sort of stupified by the disconnect between the way the elites talk about foreign policy and the reality of how americans feel about it. this has always been the case, but i have never seen anything like it right now.

[ indiscernible ] and the reality of where americans see this. and i think the elitists need to catch up to the american people on this issue. >> i see we have a question. >> my name's abraham, editor with an indian magazine. i had a question on the impact of the alternative media because i closely follow the debate regarding syria and my opinion, the mainstream western coverage was superficial. so to understand the situation, i turned to russian and syrian sources. what i was so surprised by, was to see ordinary americans who had no ethnic ties to syria, posting links to russia today, or syrian perspective, and as far as i know, this is something fairly new. so i was wondering if you could talk about that. >> go ahead, john. >> i don't have anything very interesting -- i'll just tell you, on syria, i, like joshua's

website, he's a professor from the university of oklahoma, there are available sources if you don't want to have to rely on the russians to find out what's going on in syria. that's the -- i mean -- >> that's a fair point. and it's not entirely new phenomena, maybe it's just the first time syria was able to manifest where the phenomenon of the mainstream media losing his strangle hold on information, again, a long-term process, but it may be that the syria case is one of the first times it's resulted in something that you can grab a hold of. >> and watching some of the iraq coverage and some of the people, paul bremer was on yesterday. [ all speak at once ] he's on television. that's like interviewing the captain of the hinden berg.

i can't imagine how anybody could think -- but these people end up being leaned on in these situations. so i understand why people would to find alternative sources. >> we are at the end of our time. thank you, michael, chris, john, american conservative, and thank you all for coming. [ applause ] >> former iraq administrator paul bremer wrote "the wall street journal" recently about the possibility of sending more u.s. troops to iraq. he'll join us on the next washington journal. we'll talk to congresswoman loretta sanchez about u.s. options in iraq. she serves on the house homeland security and armed services committees. later as part of our spotlight on magazine series. steven levy on the health care website. you can join the conversation on

facebook, by twitter and by phone. washington journal each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> british prime minister david cameron appears before members of the house of commons during prime minister's questions times live coverage at 7:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span 2. >> the thesis of the book is that there's a whole group of people in america, a big swath of america, that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion, i think, for either party. particularly, though, i would argue the republican party. i call them blue collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people, most of whom don't have college degrees. folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and

responsibility. people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. so you say, well, those are conservative republican voters. in many cases they're not. a lot of them aren't voting at all, because they don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have, and trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. >> former pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate rick santorum argues that working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. and this month in our online book club, we're discussing "the forgotten" man. a new history of the great depression. join others at book tv.org. television for serious readers. >>, john negroponte, former

national intelligence director discusses the situation in iraq and options for a u.s. response. from washington journal, this 45 minutes. >> john negroponte is a former u.s. ambassador to iraq, he joins us now as we continue our discussion on the militant uprising in that country. you started your service in iraq a decade ago as insurgents were trying to destibl az the country. how does the threat today compare to what you saw first hand back in 2004 and 2005? >> well, i think things have really changed a lot. probably the most important thing is that we withdrew our troops at the end of 2011, so there's no u.s. military presence, nor is there the kind of diplomatic presence that we had previously. so we're no longer, say, an honest broker in the situation, and i think that was very important both militarily and

politically. and the other thing is that the situation in syria has gotten so bad since 2011. and i think part of what we're seeing happening in iraq today is really the spillover of the situation that has been developing with isis in syria over the past several years. this is the islamic state of iraq and syria, also known as the isil on this map, here from "the wall street journal" from over the weekend, the black section there is this approximate area that isis wants to make into one continuous threat -- one continuous state. there was a threat that you weren't dealing with back in -- >> well, we were dealing with it in a national form. it was inside of iraq, in the form of al qaeda in iraq, and we certainly had difficulties with al qaeda in iraq, particularly, you'll remember they took

control of fallujah during that time, there was a big battle in late 2004, when the united states marines regained control of fallujah. then years later, general mccrystal and his operations forces succeeded in eliminating altsar kay, the leader in iraq, and as many have said over the recent years, al qaeda was decimated or dealt a serious blow during that time, but i think now the sunni extremists, if you will, the extremist phenomenon has gotten a second wind because of what's happening in syria. >> and for folks who are less familiar with isis, can you tell us from how we went from the attack that killed alzachary and what we have today? >> i think what's happened is,

they went down to very low numbers, and the situation in syria started brewing and these same extremists took up arms against the government of syria, then they started moving back and becoming more active in the sunni triangle of northern iraq, opposed to the government in baghdad, and they took a foothold, you may recall, earlier this year and last year, back in fallujah again and in ramadi, in the western part of the country, which is a predominantly sunni area of the country, and now most recently you've seen these rather spectacular attacks, starting with mosul, which was also a troublesome area, even during the time i was there. it was kind of a divided city. on one side of the river was the hardline saddamists sunni extremists, the other side was kurdish control, because it was

closer to the border with kurdistan. so mosul has always been a problematic area, but it's a tremendous development for a government of iraq to lose one of the most important cities in the country. >> is the threat that you're seeing today, to the central government in baghdad, is it greater than it was when you were there? >> well, first i think it's greater because the government has actually lost control of some of these towns. fallujah and ramadi and the anbar province have been under the control of the extremists for quite some time now, now you see this prosecution of their activities from mosul southward. so i'd say yes. we would have been very disturbed during the time i was in iraq had so many cities fallen under some kind of enemy control. and i think that we did a

interpretee with the presence that we had and the work we were doing with the iraqi forces, we did a pretty good job of keeping control of pretty much the entire country. >> and you said the current situation is creating strange bedfellows in the region. your thoughts on the u.s. cooperating with iran as they try to stabilize iraq? >> yeah, well, i said strange bedfellows in the sense that obviously the government in iran, being a shia-dominated society, and a shia-dominated government, run by shia clerics, has a certain degree of sympathy with the shia predominant government in iraq. so in that sense, politics makes strange bedfellows. should we be pinning much hope on coming to some kind of negotiated understanding with iran? i have some questions about that. because i think their interests

diverge from ours, and i'm not sure what they can add to the mix. i don't think baghdad has a problem with iran. the problem baghdad has is with sunni extremists and other sunni-dominated countries. so i'm not entirely certain what could come of all that. now, one way i could see involving iran, and this is something we did vis-a-vis afghanistan, was to form a regional group of countries. in afghanistan it was called the six-plus-two, a group of regional countries, plus the united states and russia, in this case, i believe, who consulted periodically about the situation in afghanistan. i think it would be good to have some kind of regional grouping which involved the neighboring states of iraq, to get some regional involvement in what is going on. that way you get some of the other big stakeholders, turkey,

saudi arabia, jordan, in addition to iran, involved in talking a little bit about what everybody's vision is for iraq going forward. it wouldn't be an immediate solution. >> would the sunni and shi'ite split, with that split, would that cooperation work among these different countries? this map shows sort of the split in the middle east, the shi'ite populations, the countries with larger shi'ite populations like iran here in more darker red. more sunni populations, the lighter colors over here. so could there be regional cooperation on this issue, or would there be too much sectarian tension. >> a very good question. and up until now, that has not been easy, but that's the point. and the point of diplomacy. you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with people who have a different point of view from you. so it seems to me, it would be

good to get the various stakeholders around the table. i don't believe that's the immediate solution to the current crisis in iraq. that's a much more pressing situation they think requires immediate measures to respond to the security situation that the iraqi government is facing. >> a tweet from the president of iran on this topic as this has developed over the last week or so, the situation in iraq. hassan rouhani writes, where did isis come from? who's funding them? we warned everyone, especially the west, about the dangers of supporting such violent and reckless groups. do you remember these warnings? >> i don't recall the specific warnings, but certainly they have no interest in seeing the isis get strong. now you've seen from what's happened in iraq in the last few days, soon they'll be able to self-fund. they're not going to need outside help if they're roping

banks that they've said to be doing. they already have millions, if not billions of dollars. >> we're talking about john negro ponty this morning on the washington journal as we continue to talk about the situation in iraq. republicans can call in. democrats can call in. independents as well. if you're outside the u.s., you can call too. richard writes in on our twitter page, does iraq's neighbors have no stakes as to what isis is doing? >> oh, i think they do. and we already talked about iran. i think they're concerned about that. certainly turkey. who are the big stakeholders outside of -- you know, on the borders of iraq? turkey, for one. and i think they have a strong

interest. they're already very involved in curt st kurdistan and the northern parts of iraq. jordan, if iraq experiences a catastrophe, they might be the ones who are affected next. so they're certainly very involved. saudi arabia is a stakeholder. and there's some concern that at least some saudi elements have been providing support to these isis forces. and i think that if there are saudis who are doing that, i think that's a serious mistake on their part. but, yeah, everybody in the region has a stake, because if iraq comes under some kind of isis control, i think that's going to have repercussions way, way beyond the borders of iraq itself. >> let's go to john on the phone from florida. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead. >> caller: my comment is, you told a woman that you're non-biased a few calls back, but

this guy's a show for the oil companies and the bush administration. they could google mosul deck and find out a little history of what's going on over there. you have this guy, and now you're going to have some clown from the american enterprise institute which is a coke-funded right-wing group. >> we're talking about the ambassador about his time in iraq to give us perspective on what's going on now. can you talk about what your work has been since you left -- since you were ambassador. >> well, i retired from the state department in 2009, and i've been a consultant with mccarty associates, a company that advises american companies doing business abroad. and also i'm on the faculty at yale university where i teach courses on diplomacy and national security. but to the point about oil, and this is something that the caller might be interested in

knowing, i discussed the issue of oil a number of times with president bush when he was president, and i think he bent over backwards to try and demonstrate that oil was not the factor driving our policy towards iraq. and it isn't to this very day. this has to do with the makeup of the middle east. of the political coloration of the middle east. the stability of the middle east. but certainly i've never felt particularly like i was a shield for the oil companies. >> let's go to jonathan in winter park, florida, for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, jonathan. >> caller: i think that iraq presents a greater threat to the united states' security today than it did when we went in originally. and if that's the case, then shouldn't we be going back there

in greater numbers than we originally went in with? >> i think certainly if isis succeeds in taking over iraq, that would represent a very serious threat indeed. i think it would be -- it would be a good chance where the next 9/11 or the next serious terrorist attack on either the united states or on our interests abroad might come from. but should we go back after having spent so many years there and spent so much blood and treasure? i certainly don't think we should go back with boots on the ground and combat forces. i would favor -- i would have favored leaving a residual force behind in iraq to provide some intelligence and logistics and other kinds of advisory support. unfortunately, we weren't able

to arrange that, as our last troops left at the end of 2011. and i think in part, we're paying a little bit of the price of that. but i do believe, while we shouldn't go back in, in large numbers, with boots on the ground, that it would be appropriate to provide selective, military advice and assistance to the iraqi government right now, in its moment of dire need, to help it deal with the critical situation that it faces. >> and what would that look like? >> well, it could be drone strikes. it could be air strikes. it could be intelligence support. all of the above. >> and what's your opinion of the prime minister and how he's handled the situation? >> i never knew program malachi very well myself, because he was prime minister after i left iraq, but he's been a survivor and he's been a survivor within

an elected political system. he's the product of an elected congress that has chosen him. and he has been quite effective politically. i think there's a criticism which has some merit to it, which is that he's not necessarily been inclusive enough in his approach to forming a government, and his approach to politics, and that may have been a contributing factor to some of the violence that is occurring now. but i don't think isis in iraq and syria was created simply because nouri al maliki wasn't inclusive about his government in baghdad. i think it developed for reasons independent of that. >> we're talking about john negroponte, the former ambassador of iraq. going to richard in florida, on our line for democrats.

good evening. >> caller: good evening. >> turn down your tv and go ahead with your question. >> caller: okay, yes, my question is, back in shock and awe era, there was no such thing as al qaeda. that was coined after the war was started. so why are they keeping going, trying to make us believe there's something called al qaeda in iraq, when there was never such a thing? plus, the fact, shock and awe, you said that the iraqi people would be waiting with open arms. they was afraid of saddam hussein. that turned out not to be true. this war was a fake war, and it's still going fake. and it was definitely oil-related. thank you. >> yeah, i mean, i think you raise a number of points that have been made over the years. i think the question now is, though, do we want to really

litigate what happened before? i think there's some merit to some of your points. but in diplomacy and policy and politics, you have to deal with the hear and now and the going forward. and the issue, it seems to me, for the united states and for the region, is what does one do at a time like this when a legitimate government, a member state of the united nations that has been a friend of the united states for the past decade, what do you do when it faces a critical threat of this kind, that threatens to undermine, or is undermining the very existence of the iraqi state? we do not have an interest in isis succeeding and in chaos reigning in the country of iraq. nor do we have an interest in seeing a group that -- a

terrorist group that straddles the border between iraq and syria, govern in that part of the world. so, yeah, there's some history there that's going to have to be sorted out. but in the meanwhile, there's a very specific dire situation being confronted by the government and the people of iraq at this very moment. and how should the united states respond to that? >> is there a role here for the united nations to take the lead? does it have to be the united states? >> well, i don't think it has to be exclusively the united states. we've already talked about the regional players. i think some kind of regional grouping, even if only to consult diplomatically about this situation would be a good idea. there could be a role for the u.n. in various elements of the situation, perhaps in legit mating certain actions that are taken, monitoring the human rights situation. you already see that the u.n. --

united nations human rights council and watching very carefully what this isis is doing because there have been reports of atrocities and massacres of iraqi soldiers. would there be place for iraqi -- for u.s. peacekeepers? i'm not sure. there's still a residual bad taste about the united nations in iraq. and i'm not sure they would welcome united nations' involvement in the form of peacekeepers at this point in time. >> sherry in ft. worth texas, good morning. >> caller: good evening. >> go ahead, sherry. >> caller: i was just calling because i was kind of concerned about the weapons and the monies in baghdad if isis is headed towards there. nobody has discussed that. could you comment. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> right. well, as you mentioned, weapons and money.

they've already captured quite a lot, it would seem in mosul and some of the other towns, as they've been heading southwards, but i'm not sure it's going to be as easy for them to attack baghdad. they'll get pushback. in fact, i think you're already watching some kind of real mobilization against these attacks on the part of the iraqi government and their supporters. so, i do not fear at this point in time for the security of baghdad. although i do think there's a heightened risk of some sectarian violence in that city, not unlike what happened back in 2006, 2007. but as far as some kind of takeover of baghdad, which is, afterall, a huge city, i think that would be very difficult for isis. they're not ten feet tall. and i think after all, a sunni

extremist group, fighting in a country that is majority shia. >> do you think that these tensions between sunni and shia in iraq, after so much bloodshed, after not just what's been happening in recent weeks and months, but years ago, can they ever form a cooperative government. >> well, i think that was where we played -- i mean, it's a challenge. it's very difficult. particularly with the overthrow of saddam, these political forces were unleashed that had been repressed for decades. so i think they surfaced in very ugly ways. but the united states played an important moderating role. and one of my successors in iraq, mr. ambassador ryan crocker, just the other day was saying, america was sort of the indispensable balancing element in this whole situation. and i think that we could play an important role in brokering

some of these differences between iraqis. we could still do that. i hope that we will be continuing to play an active role. ambassador crocker suggested that secretary kerry ought to give some thought to going out there and lead a diplomatic effort to help bring together the different political factions. we've been able to broker those kind of arrangements in the past and i think we could probably be helpful now. >> here's how the piece put it in "newsweek." the american plan was for iraq to be ruled by a cooperative government. but this idea of cooperative leadership between the hatfields and mccoys was always destined to collapse. hundreds of years of war were not going to set -- were not going to be set aside just because the west demanded it.

>> right. so that's a description of the problem. but what's the solution? it seems to me the solution is elected democratic institutions, like the legislature they have. they have to develop a culture and experience of working together in some kind of a democratic environment. and since this government and this political process is so new, i think they can use some outside help in brokering the differences between them. but i think the author has got a point when he says, this is an enormous challenge indeed. >> let's go to susan, waiting in vernon, rockville, connecticut. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span and thank you for letting me be part of the conversation. good morning, proffessor negropon negroponte. you said we don't have a vested interest in chaos in the region. but according to samuel huntington's theer, that's in

the best interest of the u.s., to make chaos in the region. c-span had a speaker yesterday that talked about the conflict in the north of iraq, but the oil production is still going on. so that's really in our best interest. because we're able to get the oil, we got them fighting among themselves, which was our plan, by the way. and i would advise everyone that's listening and maybe even everyone on the program, this seems like a timely time to watch the movie "no end in sight" if you want to understand what our did and what our long-range goal is. our long-range goal is happening. >> would you like to respond? >> i think i would simply say, as i mentioned earlier, the overthrow of saddam unleashed a lot of political forces, and it's been a challenge to corral those. our notion was to try and encourage it in a democratic pluralistic direction. that has proven harder than we would have liked. but believe me, when i was serving in iraq, and when my

successors were, i don't think -- there were never any instructions to encourage violence and instability. we wanted to help ensure a stable, prosperous, and a democratic iraq. i don't think that goal is impossible. although right now, it is under great stress indeed. and it remains to be seen what exactly is going to happen in the weeks and months ahead. but i'm pretty confident was one thing, that if we don't make some gesture of strong support for the government and people of iraq, i think there's a greater chance of further chaos than if we were to come to their assistance at this particular time of need. >> you've mentioned the overthrow of saddam hussein a couple times now. was it a mistake to dismantle

the iraqi military in the wake of the military action there? >> well, i can tell you that when i arrived in iraq in july -- june, july of 2004, there was only one battalion in the iraqi army, which was a really very dire situation for the iraqi security forces. and there were hardly any police. and we embarked on a major program to train and equip both army and police forces. i think if a way could have been found to maintain the structure of the army, at the time that saddam was overthrown, that might have been helpful to the situation. but that's water over the dam, and what we did in the face of the complete dismantlement of the iraqi army was to make a major effort to rebuild it. >> bill wants to know more about the u.s. embassy in iraq.

says by all accounts the u.s. embassy in iraq is called the biggest facility in the world. 5,000 people work there. what do they do? >> well, you have the regular embassy complement of political and economic officers. you've got a large military assistance mission. we sell a lot of military equipment to iraq. and then, i would suspect, although i haven't looked at the table of organization in recent years, but a lot of that number are security personnel who are protecting the embassy facility and our people, particularly when they go out on missions outside of the embassy. so there's a very heavy quotient of security people in that 5,000 figure. >> and we found that security is getting beefed up by about 275 military personnel in the coming days and weeks. let's go to ron waiting in eagle river, wisconsin, on our line

for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i guess now we see the true legacy of george bush and it's one we should never, ever forget and let us get talked into going for a war that was not needed. and if it wasn't for the oil, we wouldn't be there. sir, they don't export sand. so why aren't we figuring the cost of this mess into the price of gas? maybe then we'd have a self-sufficient energy system that would provide us with all the energy we need without even looking at the middle east and let these people just fight their way through this whole thing? >> maybe one way of answering you, some people, when they react to the notion of giving more help to the iraqi government, they sort of are afraid that what we're suggesting is that we go back in there in large numbers, like we

were there before. and whatever help we provide, i think, ought to be very discreet and not on a large scale, and certainly not in a way that involves boots on the ground. the second point i'd make to you about the legacy of the iraq war, i don't think, in light of what has happened in iraq and afghanistan, that you're going to see large numbers of united states forces deployed in some kind of expeditionary form, to situations around the world in the future. at least not for a long time to come. i think our efforts are going to be more selective, maybe more focused on special operations, when military force might be under consideration. so i don't think there's any fear. it happened in iraq, and it happened in afghanistan. but i don't think there's much to fear about us sending 100,

150,000 troops to? far-away country in pursuit of another effort of this kind. >> james in alexandria, virginia, is concerned about the difference between boots on the ground and the troops that we're hearing being sent, the military personnel being sent. writes, last week the white house ashurds us they would not send troops into iraq. now they've sent 170 and more on the way. will the president ever be honest with the american people? >> i think he's being honest. and the troops that are being sent are on the very specific mission of protecting the united states embassy and related institutions out there, and that is not a combat mission, in the sense of the word that most of us understand it. >> let's go to joann in our last ten minutes or so with john negroponte, former u.s. ambassador to iraq. joann is in san diego, california, on our line for republicans. joann, good morning. >> caller: good morning, mr.

ambassador. i agree that with the united states presence in iraq, it was a moderating factor. we forget that malicky even went after the shia militias, so i think he was trying to balance things. my concern, i don't think iran should be invited in. i think this anti-bush that we've heard from some callers in the current administration has butt blinders on them in the war on terror. they're not just anti-bush, they're anti-truman. after world war ii, people said bring the troops back, do this, do that. the truman doctrine was, we have to have a presence throughout the world to maintain democracy. unfortunately, president obama, in his speech in cairo in 2009, undermined that doctrine. i think now that we see the polls, that people want us to help iraq, and we've got to face the truth about our position in the world, it's unfortunate that

there is packs americana, look at the last 60 years or so, and i think we've got to continue. >> i couldn't agree more with what you just said. we are still a country to which others look to lead. they always want to know, what is america going to do? what position are we going to take. so i think we have a continued role to play, a leadership role to play in international relations around the world. it's important we do it with others. we're not, after all -- we're only about 4 or 5% of the world's population, and about 20% of the world's gdp. so we need to do this with others. and of course we have allies, both in europe and in the asia-pacific region. we need to nurture those alliances and work closely with our allies, and we need to work with our friends, friendly countries, in the different

regions of the world. but i agree with the caller, that we do have a responsibility to lead. we should do it in consultation with others, where possible, and multilaterally where possible, but there's also a requirement, i think, to act on our own when we see a compelling national interest to do so. >> we've talked about other countries in the region. lydia has a question about syria. how much is syria benefitting from the iraq situation? >> well, it's certainly taken syria a little bit off the front pages. i'm not sure that the government of syria is benefitting, particularly. because i think isis has gained strength as a result of these attacks in recent weeks. gained money, equipment so that to the extent that they're successful in iraq, i think it

also strengthens their position in syria. basically, syria, i think, has been bogged down in a terrible, violent, horrifying stalemate during the past two or three years, without any clear ending in sight. >> is isis looking to expand further west, even as there's been recent push to the east? >> well, i think just like al qaeda, they have this asseparation to rate a caliphate, it would start with this area that you showed before on the map, straddling the northern part of iraq and that part of syria, but ultimately, i think they have an interest in spreading as far as they can throughout the -- remember, jordan might be, the leader was

quiet in iraq was jordanian. >> what's the lavant? >> it's that part of the middle east that's comprised by leba n lebanon, syria, iraq, jordan. that's the levanteen area. >> let's go to dan on your line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning, thanks for having me on. just a couple little points. first one, i think we can all put to rest now what president clinton meant when he was trying to define what "is" is. sorry, just a little bit of humor there to lighten things up there. but to say that the united states isn't involved with causing unrest in other

countries is just -- i mean, that just goes counter into facts, but it seems like, this is what's happening in the united states. you know, the facts are completely counter to the story line we get from the government and the media. it's glaring. so, so you're saying that we didn't have a hand in the unrest in syria. we didn't have a hand in the unrest in libya. we didn't have a hand in the unrest in egypt. and now we're not having a hand in what's going on now with all these huge gains these people are making, and we haven't done anything yet? that just defies logic, sir. >> i think the subject we were discussing was iraq when this question was put to me about how we have an interest in the instability in iraq, and i was saying we didn't. i cannot challenge your statement that we took on the existing order in libya during the time of the arab spring, and

we have also been supportive of the opposition in syria, because of the repressive -- very repressive nature of the bashar alasad regime. so you do have to make distinctions from country to country and every one of them have their own unique circumstances. i would not make as a general statement, that we did not, at times, take on a role of supporting the opposition, which had the effect of creating a bit of turmoil. >> let's go to patrick in chicago, illinois, on our line for independents. patrick, good morning. >> caller:s why, hi, good morning. good morning to you and your guest. my question is, why did we believe that these countries, the shi'ites and the sunnis that's been fighting for centuries, why did we believe that we could go in and stabilize a civil war between

these two factions that's happened for so long? i believe the greatest beneficiary of the iraq war was saddam hussein. he was iran's greatest enemy, yet we removed him and iran will ruin that area. >> it's a question of sunni and shi'ites. >> it's true there was great animosity between saddam and the iranians, and we gave some assistance to the saddam regime back in the 1980s when they were fighting their war against iran. but again, if you look at the current situation, it seems to me one of the ways of avoiding that iran have a dispro portionate role in the affairs of iraq, is for us to come, be responsive to their requests for assistance. do we want to help them protect baghdad and help them retake

other parts of the country that they've lost? or do we want iran to take the credit, which would only strengthen their hand in baghdad? so, again, i think one way of dealing with the issue and the problem you describe is for us to come to the assistance of the government of iraq in this time of need. afterall, we befriended them. we worked with them for the past ten years. what kind of signal would it send if we just keep our arms folded and not come to them in this time of dire need? >> we've showed this map several times now, but the more red areas, the more shi'ite areas in the middle east. the more pink, lighter areas, more sunni areas. with the ongoing tension between sunni and shi'ite in iraq, would you ever consider or favor allowing iraq to be split along sectarian lines, to redraw the borders?

>> well, i think the answer to that is to try to make the democratic, the political system that they've set up work better, to the extend there's democracy, that there's elections in the different provinces, that their federal system works well. that's the way of protecting the interest of the different minority groups in the country. but i think the argument that you should set up a new country every time a minority clamors for it, you have to ask yourself the question of whether these new states, if you divided the country in three or something like that, would really be viable. so i think that's a very dangerous and difficult path to go down. >> and the third area would be the kurdish area? >> exactly. and people are talking about that, but i don't see how, for example, the sunni triangle, if it were to become a nation state, would be viable. perhaps down in basra, because

they have all that oil, and if they were linked to baghdad somehow, they could. but these are hypotheses that i think should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances. and i think they need to be reflected upon very carefully. this is redrawing the map, so to speak. and i think when everyone starts thinking about redrawing the map, one has to be very, very careful indeed. >> just a minute or two left with ambassador negroponte. we'll go to barry waiting in michigan on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yeah, i'd like to rebut a little bit of what you said on the second caller. you mentioned that you didn't have any conversations with bush over oil. bush was on national tv and he said that -- somebody was complaining about this war was for oil. he said in his words, yes, of course this is for oil.

i don't understand how our intelligence wouldn't that have sort of -- >> i can't remember that particular quote. >> caller: -- especially when you guys had countries divided up of countries who was going to get that oil. >> let's let the ambassador respond. >> i don't remember that particular quote, but i can give you other quotes where some of the oil people came to me, like t. boone pickens asked me in a conference once, why didn't you, when you were out there, get a better deal for american oil companies? i mean, it's the russians and the chinese and others, the european oil companies that are there in a big way. we're there, but not nearly so big a way. and i can remember numerous occasions when the president bent over backwards to try and assure people that oil was not the reason that we had gone into

iraq. as difficult as that may be for some people to believe. >> and last call from charlie in indianapolis, indiana, on our line for independents. charlie, good morning. >> caller: yeah, good morning. i just wanted to make a couple quick comments about obama. >> just got a minute left. >> caller: okay, his whole apology tour. i mean, how can an administration leave misseiles behind when we withdrew from iraq? i think he's lost. i think biden was right when he said it's sectarian and it's ancient. there's little or nothing we can do. like when he drew a red line in syria, they see right through us. >> ambassador negroponte on how the obama administration has handled this. >> well, we're waiting for their decision. they've been meeting about this.

they've been deliberating. i think we'll have to wait and see. the hope the decision is to send a signal, a strong signal of support for the government of nouri al maliki and the iraqi p. >> ambassador served? 2004 and 2005. currently here, thanks so much for joining us this morning. >> thank you. president obama travelled to pennsylvania tuesday to talk about boosting the economy through investments in manufacturing and entrepreneurship. at the very top of his remarks, mr. obama talks about the capture of the one of the individuals responsible for the attack in benghazi. le here is a look. >> when the press here, i just want to make a quick comment some news of the day that some of you may have heard. we're all aware of the tragedy that happened in ben bazi kanani

where four americans including our ambassador was killed in an attack on a consolute office there. i said at the time that my absolute kmiment was to make sure that we brought to justice tho those who have been responsible and yesterday, our special forces showing incredible courage and precision were able to capture an individual, abdul katalla who is alleged to have been one of the master minds of the attack. he is now being transported back to the united states. i say that first of all because we continue to think about and pray for the families of those who were killed during that terrible attack more importantly, it's important for us to send a message to the world that when americans are

attacked, no matter how long it takes, we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. that's a message i sent the day after it happened. regardless of how long it takes, we will find you. i want to make sure that everybody around the world hears that message very clearly because my first and most solemn duty as president and commander in chief is to keep the american people safe. there are a lot of dangers out there and a lot of challenges and our diplomats serve with incredible courage and valor in some very difficult situations. they need to know that this country has their back and will always go after anybody who goes after us. >> former iraq administrator paul bremmer wrote in the wall street journal recently about

the possibility of sending more u.s. troops to iraq. he will join us on the next washington journal. we will also talk to congressman loreta sanchez about u.s. options in iraq. they he serves on the house home land services committee. later, stephen leery on his pierce about recent changes on the health cacare.gov website. you can join the conversation about twitter or by phone at 7:00 eastern on cspan. >> two house subcommittees examine the bowberg d berberg p exchange on capitol hill. live coverage of 2:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan 3.

let idea between 215 and 250, instead of trying to tell the entire of history of st. louis as a time line or era by era we would absolutely miss vitally important things. instead of trying to do that and failing we decided what if we just gave snap shots of st. louis's history that would give people a glipmpse of all the diverse things that happened here so we chose 50 people, 50 places, 50 moments, 50 images and 50 objects and tries to choose the most divorce selection we possibly could. >> we're standing in the 50 object section of the 250 and 250 exhibit right now. this is what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of st. louis's history. it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries and of

course the most famous became anheuser-busch when we were the largest in the world. in the era of anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year. we think they are producing so much beer. this is from an era when things were a little bit simpler. it's fun to show people this object and kind of cage their response in the days before they had cans or bottle caps, they put corks in the cops of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. you can see it's got foot pedals where the operator would push down with his feet to put enough pours down on the bottle. this weekend the history and literary life of st. louis. the gate way to the wext on cspan 2's book tv and cpsan three's american history t.v. >> coming up, san antonio texas

mayor castro, president obama's choice to head the ushance housing development. this is an hour and ten minutes. i called this hearing to order. today we will consider the n nominations of castro to be secretary of the department of housing and ushan anurban urban. as mayor of san antonio, mayor the castro has been in the front lines of helping his community reach his housing and economic development goals.

in his tenure as mayor, he has focused on attracting well paying jobs in 21st century industries, raising the educational attainlet and revitalizing the cities's urban core. the department of housing and urban development is a critical partner this these efforts nation wide. mayor castro will bring both direct experience with and appreciation of the important role that these programs play for families, communities, and taxpayers to the role of secretary. ms. wertheimer is a partner in the secretaries department of wormer, cutler, park esh, hill, and dor to the position of inspector general. she brings her experience representing audit committees and awaiting procedures in appliance standards for

financial institutions. it is essential that fhfa had an ig providing strong oversight of the fhfa's work relating to conserve toreship of fannie mae and fannie mac. he also has an important roll monitoring the fhfa's oversight of the federal home loan banks. ms. wertheimer will bring extensive experience to the position of sector general to ensure that fhfa has fulfilled its mandates set forth by congress. i now turn to ranking member tore his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. before us today are two nominees to two very important positions. mayor castro to be secretary of housing and urban develop emt and ms. laura wertheimer to be the inspector general of the

federaled financial agency. both positions will have strong impact on housing and housing finance in this country. i look forward to learning what the nominees will bring to each of those issues. mayor castro, two of the critical issues that this committee has spent expensive time agreysing in this congress are among those i want to bring to your attention today. the future of housing finance reform and the fiscal solvency of the housing administration. we need to knee what your approach will be on both of these issues and whether you'll be advocating on behalf of them. within the debate of housing finance reform, current hud secretary shawn den on donovan worked very activity. we must continue to move forward on housing finance reform, especially as we approach the sixth anniversary of fannie mae and fannie mac being put into

place. the committee has also addressed bilateral legislation to address the copping in the fund. in this matter it would be important to hear from mr. cast row that he is 100% committed to getting the cap levels to their required levels as soon as possible. miss wertheimer facing a different but equally different task as she's confirmed to be the inspector general of the fhfa. the fhfa not only oversees those oversees these company but is also responsible for regulating the home loan banks and the various different model that's they represent. the director of fhfa simultaneously acts as regulator, executive and shareholder of those companies. all of this means that the fhfa inspector general has a very unique oversight respbi