that doesn't mean fiekting a war because one or two of the u.s. wants them to do this. the u.s. shouldn't extend vague or half-hearted commitments and shouldn't be willing to ignore international law. we shouldn't enable reckless driving. we should encourage our allies to securing our guarantees to draw us into new con flikts. as the professor notes in

his book, your strength is not a panacea. it will not e limb nate the need of military action. thank you. we now continue to elicit remarks. >> hi. good morning, everyone. thanks so much to the american prospect for putting this on, including me. it's a real privilege to be a part of this event. all of the panelists and participants, some of them are very familiar. >> i was asked to address america's role of the middle east post iraq and afghanistan. with the goal maintaining military stability. i'd say the light of reopening iraq debate in the past week, i

did not plan to have to come here and kind ovp restate that one of the best ways to maintain stability in the middle east is not to start destabilizing wars. aparentally, that needs to be repeated. >> how do you spell destabilizing? [ laughter ] i and others would have some criticism about the way they've handled a number of things. this is something this administration is very, very conscious of, it seems to me. but, also, in terms of

international legitimacy. what john can he remember ri referred to as the global test and guess what, he feels right. we were stronger when we interacted with him. t it was certainly supported by the american people. you know, just speaking as a progressive, i think the sense of legitimacy is possibly, you know, a defining karktsistic of the way that progressive understands foreign policy. i'm thinking of a quote from josh marshall.

we 'going to be able to ail chief our goals much better. and i think another keyword is prague mattism. it is not a doctrine in and of itself. it's rather a lens or a tool that we use. now, as the united states looks to support democracy and people kind of determining their own destinies, both individually and in their communities and in their countries. i think that should be a part of american foreign policy.

>> i would say that those lessons, with well over a hundr hundred thousand killed, though, i don't know if it's yet large enough. this is to scan. it's an appropriate baseline. it deserves to be put in the plus kol r column of the iraq war:

>> i mean, looking at iraq, it's certainly counter example of how american fouler should be. i actually do think that obama's rock policy has been fairly objective. some elements were in place during the butch administration, which i don't think is fair. it's before he came into the office. he start ed and won a pretty vigorous debate even with his own party.

specifically with iran. i think it's well on his side by the end of campaign. he took officer and made clear that his goal was to reach out and try to find some new, you know, new, new, new level of a relationship. a huge bout. you and your parter ins in terms of the broader un and, also, individually, queue know, the eu and other countries, countries like china, but they are taking

very important steps. i think everybody here has had criticisms of what russia is doing. the iran negotiations have not been indexed to u.s.-russian attentions over ukraine: >> so, yeah, i can see, you know, look at this counter example: on the one hand, uf another massive military operation, a druktsive war, an expenszive war. and then, on the other hand, i have the nuclear weapon -- some people could clachl that iran would use that. it's somewhat more plausible that 28d act stabilizing ways.

i also think it's a reason to doubt that. and then there's also the proliferation issue. so, understanding that nuclear, nonprolich ration is in the united states. that less nuclear weapons is more. emp though we haven't reached a goal, we are on track, i think, to achieve something pretty cig nif cant. the idea that iran can be more induced and spornszble. you know, they say in due

things, kbet reason 23r kucht. this is going to act ideologically. iran has had lots of opportunities to commit suicide and has not faken those opportunities. i think it's very facial. so the question is, and this is a bet for obama, is whether those interests can be braught within a broad herb famework. and i think the jury is still out. that is one of the other questions. put them in very close proximity and we got to know them in ways,

not always good, but not always bad: so, again, the jury is out on this one. and in this way, obama has enacted all of they want who have some problems for their own reasons. some different. some the same, who are made verier in vousz that the states might be willing to see iran and treat iran as a more rationale actor with jell lit mat goals. gli eel just fwinish up bli noting how glad i am to be part of this show.

some of the rules that we share, i'm really interested. i hope to enkbaj this mornings, again, speaking as a progressive, one of my root bliefs, is a part of how we aproechl overrule all foreign policy. i do think we're all at this point at the end of the disable. >> thanks. i'd also like to thank the american prospect and american conservative for organizing this out.

and figuratively, did bimt in mountains. i came in on a red line from seattle. oond thoo's if reason it's incoheernt. i want to talk about the pacific rich in terms of the economic side. if you take a look at what's hapd urksz you see two very disgaurnd areas. therefrom many excellent reasons to believe this sort of

grey-howers consent created 2008. i'm old enough to remember when thoofs actually happening: but you can't say that ochb the specific sites. on the economic side, there were a lot of fears to revisit the great depression. the moment states turn. they decided to sort of eliminate elective honor over us. it was not just because of the stock market crisis, but it was in 1931 u. and in 1933, when the economic clansed.

any about it, it's www.kd. the one thing is it's hidden. there was,by his xx cam stand aushds of a coordination policy. tlfts positions of training. >> tshsd also be pointed out

that the u.s. exacted lie a surprisingly confident leader. or the u.s. taking a lead. orr areforming the rules and regulations. >> so, in fact, the global economy has been resill jint. >> it does suggest that perhaps there's actually been more resiliency bolted into the system. it's almost like the system worked.

you will on security, though, you can take a look at the broad ind sees. you know ewe ratd off south china sea or north korea and get the point u. the u.n. security council arksz krxz ixz oxz nxz ha bmg plit.

it's not really going towork because china doesn warant to seem to want -- chill niece's association are very much putting mine all together. >> on the one hand, there was the pivot that started in the fall of 2010. it was certainly a smons. >> you take a more bell coach bogs. but the u.s. has the sachl commitment even though they rem niez -- they don't rep niez

skbrap news sovereign tee. everyone realists when you start at r them oobt china. that's really where the next bill kwon dpliblgt is goix to come from. >> and there's a good realist answer to this. it's a distribution of power and you realize very important facts. the first is is that despite a lot of per snepgs this town, the ursz still retains a significant amount of post restructuring.

pointing out the various ways in which with no, ma'amic kbrout for that. are all viral of these melt riks. the u.s. is still the mill tire superpower. production and ownership to watch r watch the con sen suns.

ten to acknowledge at this point thoo, yeah, you wampblt leader. and so want's happened is is in the wake of sourt of. china is something different. they've ax which youly done everything that they where are x.ed to do. i eemd nod goix to sa that thavs a con substantiate.

so they've been perfectly fiming for kite some time. >> on if other hand, i think shesz able to. and you no, you can argue about who they're doimpk this chltz squl is this dauds pill b p by the sechl tear. >> and hire, her there's a lot of debates want military

invumpbs. >> there is a way pledgings to commit to use force in case there's a con sfluxd. >> is, in the case of the and so it's worth asking whether or not those sortingsover actions coe co. >> but i do think that the more sblesing kwlasz u there's not another lot of everyday.

utility of economic con sen dants. dhaxs. >> h oopg. >> there's bmpb to trade shifrd. >> there.

>> it's. >> the an shelgd sags chblgt there are two ways to do about this. in some ways, in oobd another r ongd but it's also possible sill the kbra e they bled woor over these thirks.

mip many.

>> where war is goimpk. whe . >> simpbs the bees of west fame yet in 1 23450e678. >> with the piece of west seemt that. >> reloyal juses dpob.

>> os not guilty how but who wolging orb fwob these are kwlavrj smeshl. >> at the yoolt of this change of four is a vie voop siep scene a crisis which is penalty.

but all over the porld. >> business interpraises: thempl

isle of o mr. of success in the sourt jeb ren sags sitwaugs bhin bhoin o upon. >> without ill thoesz casing rk wemp aaron to do that vrm this is a very profound change.

and, again, to try to carry out the debate on foreign policy without regard to the fact that our military can no longer win, if thigh're inble ri re sdirszs: the fact that our military designed to fight other state cans not win against these non-state forests. now, when we blook at the first one, it says a war not

beings first-degree adds it where walter. it's a pretty basic rule of foreign policy. it doesn't meet the reserve tiff test. you don't want to fight wars with other states. the losing case wills disintegrate and with lydia. well, surprise, guess what

happened. if you go to war with another state regardless of which state wanes the war, koogle lose. the-staid in which to greed and blow. >> the distinction that will drive international relations in the remainder is not some kinder glaten responseble t. ifs with if center. and we we do to corps with the other than stake, almost certainly, the out gl come will ghoul there u creditor and

sorlgts. furtser more, it is not just that we fail. to bring order. what charns to we have when we cor go in and create a dovt. government. >> beyond that, we are going to report the disorder here. we will import it in the form of veterans coming back who have learned how to build things such as ieds. we will report very high cost.

so the first rule is don't duoto war with other states. the second is don't go to war with the non-two is left. there's a substantial development fwr washington puffing the dragon. we need kwhooi that nachbl rally orderly. >> a defeated china could very well disintegrate.

it bhks an enormous pill of waterer. what's the consequence if you do. a what we need is a change in the war. the larnl ets change in 350 wars. >> specifically, we need to adan don them. the office of frand strategy, such as the cold war u where with intend to dit tate what their tempbl raises will be.

>> their internal arengs rimgts are on they own business. by by noorve l fochb upon. >> its's worst nooilgts mare is that there's a car sbhp what wee

noot involt. that he provide a lot of distax. tans. we are going to use that disz tans. and, yes,we'll do everything we can to ice late ougsings from did ourt ere. it is a strong possibility that america will nots zur vooif it. >> the defensive grand sfrat jill sfrs woxed extrermtly well. the most powerful level. and it is the policy, the grand strategy.

it is made up by a prierds ofty people who seek to be a member of the plik r accomplish. . squl so we'll start with a few questions.

>> or is it -- it's time to cult our losses and reck nice that we don't know what we're doing in iraq. we never had known. >> that's how far disturb -- what we've growing to have, we can kis does the suggestion at ronne eye's. smoo pef a much broter and of ration really fush vmtz it was

emerging after thele r 4679 year or brfr. i think what you're doing right now is. >> what too manies do we have? j the idea that e koumt have came can w the same thasz we didn't believe. i think it's kind of fantasti l fantastical. >> there r there are about 15 min you wills left in this event. you wi uh-

uh-uh. >> well eve been listening backstage: >> how are you? >> i'm grade. >> good to see you. >> but it has bln all day long hoar: and that live whether i group discussion, that just proceedsed us, talking about the role of woman in thework place. when you see the fortune sms.500 you will kpaumpbs. vmt. it's less notwithstanding 5 pnt.

so what do we have to do to change our voices. >> plarply the young generation. we have to realize now that the numbers are on our side: more and more people are realizing that this is an issue officer everybody. i had to fiempbd that voice within myself. and it occurred during mitt -- after the birth of sasha >barack was in shine p cloo

that touchb. the first thing i tried to do was i try ds 2 mard nine nick mpltsd wu what i reelize, when you were woorking a proleshlg i don't believe. >> it needed to happen. they skpnt tz you to be h from;. >> then we had sash arksz, and we lost our babysitter. it was probably the kors siem om

my -- that work, family balance is so frak sis. and yu reezize it with a pling of an eye. >> you thol thoch in yoe hoch rk thov wronder chl. tch tchsz. >> that em poiered me. >> arnds who i was at the full-time was a breast-fielding moral-month onk.

>> i've got a husz who a way. but you'd wetter pay me and sool my family. and the guy said okay. . >> he put me family. >> we have to get employ others to auns:

>> so you v yourj asfroechltz v sfwroechl sdlaptsds.schamtz as you wikd a mother. there are a lot of people that are going to say, yeah, but, i'm at skising if i doo that, i miegts lose my job mplts that's why it's so pornts fr wam and bhim to to do it mplt things are different now. question lived 234 whitehouse chlts grapd ma lives up stass mplts thank really fwodment. so this isn't. the fight sblt about under the circumstances; question no how bad it is.

we understand. there is no room for that ne goebuation. by the needs are greater because it's echblg more dell katz. ole noompb r noomp ploor sh are are oomp are oortsds ik ra ra are berk owe noo rk go kwvrlt looshblele the cloog oo taking your baby, bringing him in the car seat, at a child care center, coming back.

glitz's something that's going to have to be don by there summered. >> i no. >> abstlutly. that's why i love the tact na efsz a rrking ma'am p fwlics. >> you know, you said that you need that time, too: not only did it save me -- gave me some

sleep and peace of mind. but he connected with our girls in a way that i still see. that connection is real. we, as men are understanding that you don't miss that time because you don't get that time back. because let me tell you, now hat malia and sasha are teenagers, they don't want to be bothered with us. so it's that time that he spent rocking in the chairs and reading them stories and he was able to do that because not only did he value it, but he was in a work situation that allowed him to do that. and that was brought us closer. you know, so this is about strengthening the whole family. and i think more and more men are realizing that they can't just -- they just can't pass off those responsibilities and they have to fight for these changes for themselves. this isn't a woman's issue by any stretch of the imagination. >> they realize that. and your husband really, he was -- things that he was

saying. one thing that really touched a lot of people is when he said, yes, you are a strong woman. a strong mother. a strong wife. but that early in the marriage, to see you break down in tears because you were trying to juggle so much. and how that after all this time has still stayed with him. did you -- were you in tears sometimes in trying to do everything? >> oh my goodness. i mean, the minute those kids come into the world, they just rip your heart out of your chest. that's why i tell young women, you know, and young families that, you know, we grow up as professionals, many of us, and we think we have it all figured out. we have our plan. four years here at this university then i'm going to go down this path, i'll earn this money and get this promotion. i'm like, just have a baby. and that baby comes out and looks withdr looks you in the face and all the plans go out the window. you don't know how you're going to feel. every child is different, you know? they add a whole new set of joy,

a whole new set of worries to your life. there is nothing more important to me than my girls. that's why when we first came in and people asked me what was my agenda when we first came in the white house, i said it's making sure my kids are whole. i thought it was being honest. some people judge me for that, but the truth of the matter was that whether i'm first lady and he's the president, our first job is to make sure that our kids are on point. that is the most important legacy we will ever leave. so that's why this is issue is so important because employers have to know that if a family life isn't right, you know, if there's a worry, if you don't think you're leaving your child in good care, if they're not healthy and whole and happy, you're going to bring that worry to work and it's going to eat away at what you're able -- i don't care what you do, you know? you wait, as works famiing fami

don't you wake up every morning praying nobody's sick? just don't be sick, my god. we all pushed them out the door a little sniffley because it was like, okay, cough again. you're not really sick. take it. just, not 100. not 100. we all sent them to school just a little -- you're fine. try to get through lunch. call me. tell me how you feel. you know? but you send them off and all you're doing is worrying that they're falling apart in school. these are are real emotionally draining issues. and, you know, because there are employers that have figured how to do this, you know, how to give us families the space to be good workers, but also to first and foremost be good families, if some can do it, they all can do it. >> some are doing it, not all are doing it and in part why

we're here in washington, people want to know the role of the federal government and in some cases the state government. is that something that should be done because there are a lot of people who are not certain of that? >> well, you know, there are two ways to focus this. you're going to see in this administration they're going to two everything in their power administratively to make changes and lead by example. i think one of my young staffers said that she just got an e-mail from the chief of staff who said because of the summit, you know, this administration is going to start asking a set of different questions and so on. so the first thing that the president can do is make sure that his administration is leading by example no. now, what we need to do requires congressional action at some point in time. i heard nancy say it and heard the president say that you've got to have, you know, elected officials who believe in these issues and the changes that need to be made as passionately as we

all do and that's going to require us to help them understand just how important these issues are. you know? [ applause ] >> but you know there are some who feel, when we talk about minimum wage, equal pay, but mainly minimum wage. i think the first time we sat down and had an interview, you brought it up. you were passionate about it then and fighting and saying how important in knowing the importance of that. when there are people that are there who are saying, it's going to cause jobs to be lost, it's such a political debate. what can we do if we lose that debate, what can be done to push that through? >> well, i think building momentum, you know, because, again, most employers are private employers. they can make decisions based on what's most financially expedient for them and studies are showing that having a fair

wage, having decent family leave policies and the like, creating a flexible environment, that that improves the bottom line for companies. and we have to start getting that information out so that everybody company looks at the bottom line for themselves. the question is, is everybody even looking at it? because if we've left -- if we've allowed this not to be an issue, because we're sucking it up, because and let me tell you, women, we suck it up. we're just going to figure it out. maybe it's me, the reason why i feel crazy. it's not because -- we tell ourselves i should be able to manage this. right? i should be able to have a full-time job and pick my kids up from daycare and drop them off and cook a meal and fry it up in the pan and all that stuff. >> and never let him forget he's a man, i'm a woman. remember that? remember that? i'm old school. >> yeah. yeah. what robin said. but because we wind up taking

these issues on and we're just going to do it all, right, we're not focusing on the need to push for change. and the 21st century workplace, as you have pointed out, it's very different. you know, women are working more. men are understanding their value as caregivers. women are primary breadwinners. i mean, we could go on and on and on. things are different. so we can't keep operating like everything's the same. that's what many of us have done, and i think it's up to us to change the conversation, and this summit hopefully is the beginning of a shift in dialogue so that as nancy said, as our good speaker said, we have to change the public conversation. and we can't underestimate the power -- you can't just wait for politician to do what you think they should know you want to do. they have to feel the pressure.

and that's the job of all of us. and it starts here. but these conversations have to continue at the regional level. i know many people have been working -- [ applause ] absolutely. this is just the beginning. it has to be a movement. there has to be momentum and it has to continue to the point where the pressure is too real and that this is the conversation that we're having at every socioeconomic level, within every race and every community. that we are now demanding that we can have the resources to do it all. to be good workers, to earn a dekreent lid decent living and raise our family so they're whole, happy and healthy. that is the american way. that is the american way. >> and it was said here about how women, there are more women that are in law school and medicine and other fields, but when it comes to the s.t.e.m. field, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, that's where the growth is.

that's where women can make even more money in any other field. but yet women even though there are more of us on college campuses, we're not in those fields. >> yeah. >> and there seems to be a sigma still attached to that. how to we eradicate that? >> well, we have to start very early on. and more and more resource are being put in to encouraging more women and girls to enter s.t.e.m. fields. as you all know, it starts very early on. you've got to create that pool because so much of that field requires the, you know, stair steps of math and science. you can't sort of skip a step because everything builds upon everything else. and so many girls shy away from math and science. they automatically say i'm not good at that. i was a victim of that. you know? i didn't go to medical school because i thought i wasn't good at sciences. my mother told me i talked a lot so i went to law school. but we've got to get girls when they're young. before they, you know, move away

or sort of buy into the, you know, the method that women can't do these things. we have to start very early. >> you said i think in "parade" magazine that you and your husband would like your daughters to get a minimum wage job. to build character. to understand what it's like. what kind of job would you like? >> i don't care. i don't care. just a job that pays them. you know, it really doesn't matter what it is. i think the whole point is that they, you know, learn how to roll up their sleeves and work hard and understand what the vast majority of folks in this country have to do to earn a living and that it's not glamorous and that it's not fun all the time. and there are people who get up every day for their entire lives and go to a job that's not fun. and they do it to put food on the table. my father was one of those folks. one of those men. and just watching him get up

every day and go to work and go to a job that didn't -- that wasn't exciting and glamorous, but to go to a job that paid the bills and sent us to college. it motivated me to never take my education or my opportunities for granted. and i want my girls to understand that firsthand. [ applause ] >> and when you and your husband, when you leave washington, let's sigh, malia will be in college. >> i know. sasha will be in high school. there are many people that are wondering what's your next act? will it be -- >> me? >> yes, you. >> no, it will not be political. >> no. >> yeah, no, it definitely will not be. it will be -- it will be mission based. it will be service focused. it will -- you know, but -- [ applause ] >> not in that regard. >> yeah. >> here we are, we're talking, we have nancy pelosi that was up here, we have women at the

supreme court. and there are many feeling that if we're going to talk about leadership, and that's what we're doing here, that a woman president is part of that. and what an example that would set for your girls and for young boys and for all of us. do you foresee that happening and when should that happen? >> that should happen as soon as possible. [ applause ] and, you know, i think this country is ready. this country is ready for anyone who can do the job. and what we have learned is that the person who can do the job is, you know, doesn't have a particular race or gender or background or socioeconomic status. you know, that -- the person who should do the job is to the person who's the most qualified and i think we have some options, don't we? [ applause ] >> you sure you're not getting

into politics? because that answer was really good. >> i am positive. >> oh. in the time that we remaining, as i said, you're the closing act. there has been a whole day of just great dialogue and great -- a great day. people want to feel -- i was talking about this because the last time i saw you was dr. ang angeleu's service. we all said, it was up there in the chapel about how people will forget what you said, forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. there is a sense of how people are going to feel when they leave this day. this summit. what is it that you want them to know? >> people should feel energized and empowered. you know, i -- that's what -- you know, and i sense that in the room today. i was backstage saying hi to some folks and you guys were, you know, feeling it. that's a good thing. that's the word on the street is that, you know, this was a very

uplifting day. but this is just a day. right? and movements don't happen in the span of 24 hours. they take a while. you know, which is why we want to really empower the next generation because the young folks coming into the workplace now are the ones who can really start pushing for a whole new type of paradigm. but it's going to take time and it's going to take persistence and consistency and there will be bumps in the road and will be losses. we have to celebrate every small victory and can't be our own worst enemies and get down on ourselves because we lose a battle or didn't get 100% of what we want. you know, change can come in increments of 20% victories but we have to celebrate those victories and keep pushing forward. so this is just the beginning and it has to be because this is going to be a long road.

you know, we're going to have to see changes in the way society perceives this issue. that's going to come from people in this room who are going to have to change the way congress sees these issues. that's going to come from the people in this room and we have to build on this movement. because it affects everyone. this is one of those -- this should be one of these issues that galvanizes this nation because, again, it knows no race, no socioeconomic background, no religion. it's something that we all should be able to pull around but we all have to be out there pushing this forward and that is my hope for today. that this is just the beginning of an important conversation that's going to continue for years and years to come until we're finally up there with other leading nations who've had amazing work/family policies for much longer time. there's no excuse for america to be following on this issue. we should be leading on this issue.

[ applause ] >> picking up on that because your husband just today was talking about how this great country, that we are the only one of a developed nation that does not have a paid leave for maternity. >> yeah. >> and i think when you see that and when the president expresses that, that there is a feeling that this time has come. >> yeah. >> and so what, again, when we're going to leave here, what is it that you want us to do? >> vote. [ applause ] continue to use those voices. for those of us who have the leverage to be, you know, sort of the trail blazers within our companies, we should be the ones doing it. you know, if we have seats at the table in companies across america, if we're sitting on boards, if we're, you know,

leading organizations, then we should be taking the lead. we should be pushing our companies. we should be taking the risks of making somebody mad, making somebody feel a little bit uncomfortable. you know, we have to be leaders. if we own a business, we should be trying to figure out the data in how to make it work for our bottom lines. should be looking at the research, asking tough questions. we should be looking at best practices. we have to be leaders on this issue, and this group is not an accident. and we picked the top advocates, the top businessowners, the top policymakers. you guys are the ones who were leading on this issue. but, you know, remember, trail blazing can hurt sometimes. you know? and some of it may not feel so good, but you're doing it for the men and women who don't have that voice and who can't take the risks. so we have to be the ones to do it for them.

>> you have consistently done that. mrs. obama, thank you for this opportunity to sit down with you. >> thank you so much. thank you for a great conference. >> that's it. >> great job. >> if you missed any of today's speeches on working families, including president obama and vice president biden, you can see them any time in our video library at c-span.org. and we're back live at 7:30 eastern this evening for a hearing on delays on veterans health care. that's here on c-span3. and in about 50 minutes from now, a hearing on irs recordkeeping and the loss of e-mails related to former agency official lois lerner.

commissioner john kos conan will testify before the house oversight committee. live coverage at 7:00 on c-sp 2 c-span2. the american task force on palestine held a discussion today on the escalating violence in iraq. including secretary of state kerry's visit to the region and the role of the u.s. and regional countries like iran and the economic situation in iraq. >> good evening to the national audience, c-span and other stations. we look forward to a lively discussion about the most topical subject. when we started preparing for this subject, we had no idea how accelerated things will be on the ground. i thought at least i will tell you about the events of the last 24 hours where kerry actually is in baghdad as we speak after visiting cairo and aman.

the iraqi forces have lost control over several border checkpoints with syria and one with jordan. the american general reported that iraqi army is in shambles and cannot stand up to face the much more formidable isis. during the past couple of months, the situation has become untenable with the erosion of the power of the central government in baghdad and the empowerment of the rebels both in syria and in iraq which have gathered together under the name of isis. islamic state of iraq and syria.

they have crossed the border recently and in no time at all they rolled over major cities including mosul, the second largest city in iraq. they have become an unstoppable force. nothing could stop them and this, needless to say, has generated a great deal of interest in the region, in iraq, and in the united states. this president of the united states, president obama, who is so averse to intervention, military intervention and foreign ventures, has found it impossible to avoid iraq again. after he was so happy to leave it. and that's why you have mr. kerry there, that's why you have forces, actual forces as experts in iraq, to see how to mount what the president thinks is the

major new threat to stability not in iraq but that will spill over into the region including jordan. so something needs to be done. it has become clear that the government in iraq has failed on so many levels to hold together its own people because of its sectarian policy that has become intolerable and even has been opposed by fractions of shiites who are not -- who are in power but not in favor of such a policy. now, iraq is important. iraq is important not just for what happens in iraq, it important for its impact on the region and the superpower that has been in charge of the region for a long time and now has been trying to engage obviously with a great deal of challenge. should we be able to put iraq

together, then the region will avoid one of the major catastrophes that are in the waiting. in a confrontation between sectarian and religious factions across the middle east and beyond. shia and sunni confrontation will last for decades, if not longer, if they actually ignite in iraq. they have started in syria and other places, but this mega conflict can only be allowed to become a definer of the coming decades if it is not checked in iraq. it is the challenge of this administration and the people in iraq and neighboring regions to act responsibly and to put together a new government that would allow a more fair and acceptable participation of all segments of society. we have put together for this

event an excellent group of experts on the subject. i will be introducing them one at a time as they speak. we have been very lucky to have them avail themselves to us and we are grateful to all of you. i think i would start with jon alterman. jon is a chair at the csis. and he has served in government at the state department in the past. has been a very active member of the think tank community for the past decade, at least, in efforts of the middle east. he has participated in

policymaking as well as a commission, the hamilton baker commission, to assess the previous problems with iraq. he speaks a s arabic, so don't anything, he might hear you, and he's a national treasure, really. jon, honestly. we are really proud to have you here. so, jon, the way we structured this is that we will have every speaker have ten minutes of presentation and will be asked a question after that, and then after we go the rounds, we will open it to questions and answers by the audience. we expect a lively conversation and i'm sure everybody is ready for tough questions. i will first invite you to make your remarks. >> thank you. thank you very much for that warm introduction. i think the thing you forgot was

the friend piece. ziad is an old friend and the genuine national treasure. the only thing i can say about the introduction, i'm sorry my parents aren't here because my father would have loved it, my mother would have believed it. i just want to start by remembering somebody today. my colleague died yesterday. we taught for several years. we disagreed about a the llot o things, perhaps nothing more than iraq where we disagreed bitterly oftentimes, but he was somebody who i valued for his insight, for the strength of his beliefs and for his intellect which was not in question even for those who disagreed with him. so it is perhaps especially f s fitting to talk about iraq today and i think our thinking was starting to converge which is a sense either i'm getting smarter or he was coming around.

i think americans are strange in the world in we have sort of two national characteristics in the way we look at foreign policy. one is we're optimizers. we always look for the best option, and i think the sort of deep cultural side of our optimizing tendency is the popularity of consumer reports. we love ratings. we love seeing what's the best. and i think we have approached iraq consistently looking for the best outcomes. we look for the optimal outcomes. the other piece of american sort of psyche that feeds into iraq is a belief that every problem has a solution. right? and a problem is just you work to get a solution and there are lots of possible solutions and because we like to optimize, you look for the best solution then we move on because we're taken it to from the to-do pile and putting it into the done pile.

what strikes me is we look at what is happening in iraq is in both of belief that everybody has a solution and there is a best solution. we are very different from the other countries in the region because it seems to me what we've seen the last several weeks is virtually all of iraq's neighbors, i think the continued struggle with isis or whatever you want to call it is actually in their interest. it's i think most obvious for syria where the government of bashar al assad would love to show that it is fighting an existential battle not against syrian citizens looking for self-governance, but instead against a bunch of blood-thirsty jihadis who will take no quarter. they love changing the topic and putting the focus not on syria as a civil war but syria as a war against jihadis. for the iranians who say this as a helpful way "a" to take

pressure off of syria, "b" as a way to make the government of iraq more reliant on iran than it already is, and "c" here is iran which is used to being considered a troublemaker in global affairs being perceived to have some solution they can offer the world. so the fact that there is a struggle actually helps the iranians. the gcc states think it's actually helpful to curb the excesses of shia triumphalists in iraq and having them under pressure get sunnis a place at the table. the kurds are happy to have the central government predockpied with things in other parts of the country to consolidate control and happy to have the necessary element to help keep iraq together because it helps kurdish bargaining in all of this. and i think maliki, himself, is a guy who's not afraid to fight.

if you remember back in 2008 with his charge of the knights campaign, american military advisers thought he was nuts to go against militias in the south of iraq when he wasn't totally prepared, when it was terribly risky. he thought it was good. now that is a part of iraq which is most firmly under his centralized control. so he's not shying away from a fight. and it seems to me that if you're looking at this problem, which we all consider a serious problem, we have to consider the fact that virtually every surrounding state, jordan being i think a notable exception, but all these people surrounding the conflict actually think the conflict is helpful in some way. nobody wants them to win which is also interesting. but a lot of people want them to fight and i think that makes this an especially difficult

problem. because if you're looking at it from an american diplomatic perspective, if what you're looking for is you want to fix the problem of iraq, then you start focusing on need for iraq is an inclusive government and it has to be more democratic and give sunnis a place at the table and everything else. i think it gets you into negotiations that all the combatants have an interest in avoiding. because all the combatants think when you get to those negotiations, you want to be in the best position you can be. so now is not the time to do it. the time to be in those negotiations is after the fight has gone on for a while. so it seems to me where the orientation of american diplomacy has to be is toward the diplomacy of this rather than immediately going to the politics of it. because it feels to me like the politics of this, the internal politics in iraq, are not yet ripe for solution. now, there may be a different role for leadership of the shia

community, there may be a different role for leadership of the national community. that's going to take time. remember that when maliki, after the last election took nine months to put together a government? but i think as we think about prioritizing what we do, how we do it, to my mind the important thing isy kerry is doing now, i hope he's doing now, working with all the antagoni antagonists, all the external upon sors, persuading them that it is, in fact, it is not in anybody's interest that they get stronger. that the problem of foreign fighters not only arab fighters but western fighters and others coming into this region are actually against people's interests rather than in favor of them. that the u.s. actually has states who will act to protect its interests i think is the important element rather than what i fear some people want to do which is "a" let's talk about using military instruments to keep dash from winning, and "b" let's get a political solution.

it seems to me both of those things put the cart before the horse. and what we have to do is we have to build a broader consensus for what it is we're trying to do. i see from pete's notes, and it's unfair of me to look over at your notes, he's going to talk a little bit about the durability of dash and what happens. i think everybody is making a bet that they can't win. i think it is a dangerous bet because even if they don't win, sustaining that, embedding themselves in that part of iraq for a longer period of time is actually enduring threat to the interests not only of all the neighbors, but of all iraqis as well. it seems to me the diplomatic task is to persuade people partly through attraction and partly through coercion that we have to arrive at a different set of ambitions, that we have to sequence this in the right

way and that what we have to do in the longer term is get some sort of political settlement in iraq that addresses people's concerns, but in the near term, we have to line up the external sponsors of dash, external sponsors of these lines of conflict to diminish that and then we can deal with that insurgency as we deal in the longer term with the problems of iraq. >> thank you. jon, we have a situation where this conflict is really part of an already existing larger conflict between iran and shia on one side, to make a generalization, and the arab state, the significant arab state and the conflict in syria. dash actually is part seyriasyr. nobody knows how much of it is syria. what do you think -- suppose you're kerry, what do you tell the saudis and the iranians to get this message that you're talking about? when you talk to them, can you

bring them together at all on this? >> first, there are very different conversations to have with the saudis and iranians. >> not the same one, not in the same room. >> not only that, but they start from different premises. i think the iranians are waiting to be asked. the iranians go around the world preoccupied with a relative sense of weakness vis-a-vis the united states. right? i mean, as first, second, and third on their priority list of things to address, and they are looking for ways to increase their relative leverage and one consequence of that, i think, is that they are willing to endure things that hurt them tactically because they think strategically holding the keys to a solution helps them in the long term. and their strategic interest is how to deal with their weakness

vis-a-vis the united states. so i think on the one hand with iranians, you don't want to come and give them a list of things you want to and get into a bargaining situation about you do this, we do that. because i think that it won't get you to a solution. i think that the key to our problems with iranians is highlighting the common interests and not make it seem like a concession, but instead, things we are doing in our common interests and we're toing some things and you're doing some things. i'd be very careful in the iranian context not to get into a head-to-head negotiation. i think with the saudis it's really about "a" reassuring them about our intentions in the region, reassuring them about our bottom line with shia influence, protecting sunni interests and other things, and also having a technical conversation about our understanding of the nature of dash and the foreign fighter problem. the regional things. we are already working with the

saudis on this and reportedly in the last six months the cooperation has gotten better with cooperation of jihadis. one of the interesting things the saudis have is they have an incredible database of activist muslims who tend to go through mecca more than other people. right? so, and they have been forthcoming on trying to get us analytically on the same page and to help us. i think that part of this is deepening that technical cooperation because ultimately there is a huge overlap between saudi interests and american interests and already a lot of that work is going on. i think it needs to continue. >> thank you. allow me to introduce our next speaker, dr. peter mansoor. i'm reading his notes here.

i'll say something else. >> okay. >> he's a retired u.s. army colonel who served two tours in iraq. the last one as executive direct officer to general david petraeus. at the time, the commander of multinational force iraq. peter is now a professor of military history at the ohio state university. he has authored two books on iraq war. the most recent of which is "search." i recommend it highly. "my journey with general david petraeus" and "the remaking of the iraqi war." first, he went to west point, graduated top of his class. we will remember that. and secondly, he is a recipient of the most prestigious award of distinguished presented by atfp a couple of years ago. >> i remember it well. >> peter? >> well, thank you, all, for being here today.

and i appreciate the attendants. we have a lot to talk about, and, you know, ziad, dr. ziad and i were talking about breakfast and i was saying it's amazing how many iraq experts there are now that iraq has become news again. but i do consider myself one, having spent 28 years, or 28 months of my life there -- >> it felt like 28 years. >> yeah, it felt like 28 years. two different tours. and some of you may not agree with what i have to say, but that's fine. one of the great things i've discovered in my transition to 26 years in the military to now being an academic, it no longer matters whether or not i'm right because i have tenure. all right. so i am going to use the acronym isil. the islamist state of iraq and the levant. why do i use that term? this organization has goals that

expand beyond iraq and syria. they don't call themselves the islamic state of iraq and syria. they call themselves the islamic state of iraq and al sham which includes palestine, israel, lebanon, syria, and iraq. >> jordan. >> and jordan. so this is a group that has broad ambitions which they have recently started to obtain. so what is isil? who comprises it? it has a veneer of jihadists from around the world but also has a core of ex army officers who went into the insurgency when we disbanded the army and debathfied iraq and created the insurgency in my view. read all about that in my book, "surge." they've been gathering strength in sanctuaries in syria aided by the civil war ongoing there. and most recently, they've been

joined by sunni tribesmen from anbar province, niniva, and other places in iraq. tribesmen who once had a very firm alliance with the united states in their battles against al qaeda and iraq, the previous manifestation of isil, and now have turned against the iraqi government for its very sectarian and authoritarian policies. so this is an alliance of convenience at the moment between foreign jihadis, iraqi, former iraqi army officers and soldiers, and local tribesmen. it's an alliance i don't believe will hold together in the long run. the only question is is how much will they achieve before that alliance breaks down? so we have to ask ourselves, why was isil's takeover of mosul and about more than a third of iraqi territory in the northern and western portions of the country,

why was that so easy? and you have to go to the impact of prime minister nuri al maliki's very authoritarian governing style. he has succeeded in fracturing the alliance that we had created during the surge with the iraqi tribes, the sunni tribes. the narrative back in the surge that we created, and the iraqis helped create, is everyone against al qaeda. they became everyone's number one enemy. and that alliance worked. nuri al maliki when u.s. forces departed iraq at the end of 2011 felt the war was won. he could now govern the way he saw fit. and he saw fit to alienate large swaths of the iraqi people by attacking their politicians, by conglomerating more power to himself by attacking their protest camps, by marginalizing all of their elites, and by not

giving them a fair share of the power and resources of iraq. this succeeded in alienating most of the sunni and kurdish community as well. maliki did one other thing. he turned the iraqi security forces, the police and army, and i would add the courts to that as well, into his personal militia. he got rid of a lot of the competent army commanders, a lot of the sunnis. marginalized a lot of the kurdish leaders and he packed the military forces with leaders who were beholden to him politically. and he created exactly what he wanted. a very politically reliable military force but also one that can't fight effectively. so when isil invaded the northern and western portions of iraq, they didn't receive a lot of pushback from the local

inhabitants who welcomed them for the most part or at least acquiesced and stood aside while they took over these cities. and the iraqi army pretty much dissolved. and retreated out of those points because they were fighting for sunni areas and most of the commanders were shia and they were -- the soldiers were fighting for these commanders who really are fairly corrupt, who don't care for them. and if you're a soldier and have a choice between saving yourself and withdrawing from the battlefield or fighting for a corrupt commander who's only in it because of the political gains, you're not going to fight. so isil has taken over much of the sunni triangle that we heard about so much back in the early days of the war. and they've reached as far as somara and fallujah.

and that is about 40 miles away from baghdad in meeeach of thos locations. isil seems like -- they're a juggernaut right now. they seem on the march. they're hardly an unstoppable force. they're probably fewer than 10,000 committed fighters in their ranks. this is not an overly large number. they have to now control the territory that they've taken and that's going to take forces so they can't put all of those fighters on the front lines. i think it's very unlikely they could take baghdad, a city of 7 million inhabitants, tens of thousands of armed shia militiamen on the streets and an iraqi army down there at least with more competent units and more incentive to fight for the city. so, you know, i was in baghdad. i had a brigade combat team of 3 3,500 soldiers. baghdad swallows up armies.

and it would swallow up isil as well. so i agree with john, we have time to get the diplomacy and eventually the politics right. we should not provide some sort of knee-network reaction thinkithink i ing baghdad will fall. i have to disagree on one thing. they can win by consolidating this protostate that they've now seized, spanning the syrian and iraqi border. that will give them a base from which to destabilize the region. from which to launch attack against europe and the united states if they wish. and to expand their own territory. they're now extremely well finan finance. by all accounts, they've seized a half a billion dollars in assets from the mosul bank. so it's now the strongest and richest terrorist group in the world and one which controls

territory. so the question is, can the iraqi security forces retake the ground lost? and the answer is not without a lot of help. now, jon mentioned the charge of the knights. i was there when nuri al maliki called general petraeus and ambassador ryan crocker to his office. that was on a thursday evening. they show up on the next day and he said, i'm heading down to bozro with four brigades on saturday. no coordination because he didn't want us to tell him that that was a bad idea. and the charge of the knights succeeded. maliki succeeded in clearing out of basra then sadr city then amaura but it only succeeded because we supported it. it was on the verge of failure. logistically it was failing. they had no fire support. and they were on the verge of

failing. that would are been disastrous for maliki. he would have easily have suffered a vote of no confidence in the council of representatives. and he went down there to basra. he realized his political stake was on the line and he went down there basra and moved his headquarters down there and mandmand commanded and controlled only the way an iraqi could, with four cell phones in front of him. general petraeus laid on advisers, air power, attack helicopters, drones, airborne infantry battalion, logistics. it was that push from the multinational force iraq that allowed the charge of the knights to succeed. now, maliki is doing sort of the same thing. he has moved his headquarters up to somara. that's the battlefield right now. the home of the golden dome mosque. the shrine. the fourth holiest shrine in shia islam. he's going to defend it. but he doesn't have multinational force iraq to back him up anymore. and so it's going to be a very

dicey affair. 25% of the army by recent reports is combat ineffective. and he has no tribal support the way we had tribal support in 2007 and 2008. so, what can we do about it? first, i agree with jon. we shouldn't do anything about it militarily until there's a diplomatic and political solution. u.s. air power, which everyone in this town seems to talk about as some sort of strategic panacea to everything, will not succeed without significant help to regenerate combat power in the iraqi army. you an not destroy these forces in isil because they're integrated now among the populations of these cities with air power, alone.

you're not going to be able to target them effectively without killing civilians along the way and thereby alienating the very people you need to bring over to your side to win this conflict. so i believe that what needs to happen is we need to get the diplomacy right and the politics right and that means an iraqi government that msore inclusive more legitimate and has support of all sects, ethnicities and factions in the country and reknit the alliance that was so successful in defeating al qaeda in iraq the first time around during the surge of 2007/2008, and if you can do that, then defeating isil becomes a much, much easier prospect, albeit one that is still going to require a lot of bloody ground combat. and i will end there. >> thank you very much, peter. you have participated fully, the surge as you just said in

2007/2008, and that was a comprehensive program. a multifacetted program. a fundamental part of that was the encouraging, the tribes and tribal leaders and the sunnis to be part of the struggle against the terrorists. now, do you see, now having described the army as incapable now in the present situation to deal with this, do you see a role for something similar both on the sunni and on the shia side to kind of be part of the participation against the fight against isis? >> well, this is exactly the way ahead. if you can get a government that the sunni tribes and the shiite tribes, as you noted, can

support, then you can reknit this alliance that was so successful during the surge. you can bring them back into accord with baghdad and with the government and then defeating the veneer of foreign jihadis in the ranks. that becomes a much easier task. and i might add that it would be a good time for the iraqi government to think about reconciliation with the bathist portion of isil. that if you could maybe think of a way of having them buy into the government in baghdad, perhaps some sort of federal structure for the sunni areas of northern and western iraq, but within a broader iraqi state, this, again -- general petraeus used to say you can't kill your way to victory in these kind of conflicts.

you want to reduce your list of enemies so you fight as few people as possible. and what you want to end up with is what we had during the surge. what you want to end up with now, everyone against the foreign jihadis. because that's the element that is truly, truly dangerous to u.s. and worldwide security in this situation. >> thank you. our third speaker is mr. mazin al eshaiker. an economic adviser to the iraqi national congress. between 2005 and 2007, he served as special economic adviser to prime minister's office and prior to that, he was an active member of the iraqi pro-democracy movement since 1992. mr. al eshaiker who lives in baghdad and happens to be

visiting, to our good fortune, has managed several corporations in iraq, in california, including motorola in baghdad, and most recently icm corporation. he holds a bachelor's degree in electronic engineering and an mba. welcome, mazin. >> thank you very much. thank you, doctor. i'm actually very honored to be with such fine gentlemen on the same panel. first of all, with the passing of dr. fuad, he happens to be a friend of mine also, and we are actually closer politically, as he is another member of the pro-democracy movement in the middle east. we worked together 15, 20 years ago. may god bless his soul, dr. asali. almost 58 years ago, my father, my late father who was a diplomat here in washington, he was the first iraqi diplomat in the world that came out in support of the change in iraq in

1958. so on july 14 th, 1958, he was in this club announcing his supt to the change in baghdad. so i'd like to follow in his footstep as being the second member of the family in the national press club. i'm glad i didn't write my notes here so -- i kept my notes in my mind. there are a lot of things to talk about in the middle east obviously, and especially iraq. the iraq crisis is such a major thing that we have. as you can see, this is a huge amount of press coverage including c-span, including satellite channels from the middle east, as well as the iraqi channel. the national iraqi channel is over here also. so i'm glad there's interest in the iraq and unfortunately there's continual interest in iraq in the negative manner. i wish there would be about the economic growth, peaceful, tourism in iraq. unfortunately, iraq always comes to the agenda and comes up as a higher priority when it comes to death and killing and we have

organizations that keep changing names. you know, they start with -- in the past, you know, the iraqis were fighting debatification as the menace and changed to become al qaeda. now we have -- we can't even agree on the term. some call it isil, isis. actually the alarm bells went up in kuwait and called it isik. iraq state of iraq and kuwait. alarm bells are everywhere in the middle east because this organization is obviously not there to provide prosperity for the people. i'm not a military person. i'm an economist and an engineer and a businessman. so i cannot really comment on what is going on, but what i hear, and unfortunately, i'm hearing almost the same thing i heard back in 2003 where the government officially, you know, iraqi channel broadcast it this morning that the government tactically withdrew from anbar today. why would they tactically

withdraw from the boarders with se sere wra and jordan? because syria is the neighbor where isis or isil or whatever is coming in and out. that's a very poor and very bad strategy to allow even more members to come into iraq and more hardware, military hardware that the united states, we're very grateful for the united states to have helped us with all this hardware, military hardware, to make its way back to syria. so to open these channels of fighters and weaponry out is not the right tactical strategy the iraqi government should be doing. going bak to the economy, i look the a things from an economics standpoint. of course, everybody is reporting this as being a sunni/shesunni sunni/shia, iranian/saudi. it makes sense, looking at it from washington or london, it makes sense we can easily say

there's a black and there's a white. whichever is black or white. sunnis or shia. i look at it from a different term. sunni was the -- the maliki government was a friend of the west. the change in iraq was assisted by the west. so it is not in my point of view, in my view, a sunni/shiite challenge. what i look at it as the change in the economic strategy of the iraqi government that took place in 2010. yes, maliki did not win the election in 2006. he was assisted by our friends in the united states to become the prime minister in 2006. in 2010, he managed to stay in power by winning not the most number of seats, but 89 seats as opposed to 91 seats. and he still managed to stay many power. that day was a major change in the iraqi strategy. what we were doing in iraq since

2003, and i was a participant in that as an economic adviser with the maliki government. i empb assisted dr. chelabi when he was the deputy prime minister and head of the economic committee within the prime minister's office. what we were doing is changing the central economic, let's call it the central economy, into a free market economy. that actually worked. you know, with the formation of the tbi bank, trade bank of iraq. iraq was actually issuing lee i letters of credit which was honored by western banks and iraq was gradually going away from what actually happened in 1958, what my father actually approved of, the biggest demise in the iraqi economy was in 1958 when we changed from a free economy into a very centralized economy which continued from

1958 until 2002 a3 and we manag to change it into a free economy, but in 2010, this is the big setback, is that the government started going ba is. >> most of you actually know it is much easier to manage your population when uyou have a central economy. the central government will issue -- they'll give jobs. they can hand out pieces of land. they can actually give you a contract. the power is where the buck is, as it's said in the united states. or where the denar is. this is where the power is. when you have a central government, the president becomes the authority within that country. we fought back in 2003 of what sadham has done. that is really the core of the

problem when you do a root cause analysis to all of the problems of iraq. the curds, the iraqis, they happen to be my iraqi brothers. they happen to be curds and they happen to be arabic. so the iraqis succeeded by imp lemting the free market economy. my daughter witnessed how successful that country was, that part of the country was. so iraq can't p can be successful. we have models for success. there are provinces in southern iraq that have almost semi-autonomy, such as the province of misan. they have an honest and ethical governor who's succeeded turning his problem into a success. the brob is with the economy. not with the suni and shiite.

the good enough states are not against them. no, they are against the central economy that maliki has put together and he's handing out jobs, he's handing out financial assistance to some tribes, but not giving it to tribes. it is not a shiite-suni thing.

that the effect. they were barred from major jobs that they used to have in the past. why were they? whether it was or wasn't, if they were not criminals, why would you be barred from a job. why would the shiite be barred from a job that is the underlying cause that is the problem today. but, what happened, is, obviously, the sunis and they know it. they wanted some assistance to help them fight for their rights. so we have to distinguish the needs of the iraqi people.

we have a handful of people who are not millionaires, they are billionaires. the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. that's the economic problem that we're paying for now. in military terms, now we have to ask our friends in united states to help us fight isis. the problem is economic, gentleman and ladies. therefore, no matter what we do with a continuation in baghdad and the central economic policy that is we have, we will never fix the problem. we and i say we in the pro-democracy movement, before 2003, we called for the federalization of iraq. today, iraq is the only country in the world that has three provinces that are federal and 15 that are central. there is no country in the world. the united states is 100%

federal. why would iraq be the only country that has three provinces federal and 15 sen ral? that is the core of the problem. had we federalized the entire country, we wouldn't have the problems that we're having today. >> yes, everybody in this country understand the economy is stupid to argument. but the question for you, and i'd like for you to explain it to us, please, that is not what

is yoouzed. >> economists cannot provide the motivation for soldiers to move. they make numbers. that's all they can do. the suni community -- i actually prefer to call it the iraqi community, that i had're suffering. there's a lot of suffering in iraq going on.

>> the sunis have an advantage. so that being geographically close to syria where the key e ventss of a civil war going over there has been used to assist them them in the change. they thought that isis came to liberate them. they used the word to lib rate them.

they banned them from actually not wearing jobs. so they iraqis banning them from their rights. so, now, they realize not that it means that they're going to go back to malicki and say we're sorry, no, they still have problems with the central government. they're the enemies of progress. believe it or not, there are elements that support going back 14 00 years ago.

so the idea of goimpk back so many years is not a suni thing or a jewish thing. system. >> great, thank you so much. yes? >>. >> i think the point you make about the centrality of ek nonices 1 important. it's a little bit troubling. it seems to me that politic social security ultimately about the distribution of resources at its core. people talk about how war is politics. by other means. but anybody trying 20 build a political network tries to build patronage networks and rewarding the people who support you at the expensz oe of people who do support you. the fact that loyalty is seen in sectarian terms is not unique to iraq.

it can be seen in tribal terms. 23 you go throughout the middle east, it seems to be the problem of governments solidifying political control. it goes far beyond iraq. attacking that problem is not an iraqi-spefk problem. but from moral dock row in the west and iran in the east and probably continues. but my responsenty ends with irans. but it does seem to me that there's something much more universal.