these three areas we talked about, we have to -- you know how do we nest this with the army operating concept. the army operating concept, we as the army will either be part of or lead a joint interorganizational multinational team kind of scalable or tailorable to be expeditionary. how do we innovate our capabilities with army innovation to be sure it's nested with this ip kaeblt and what the aoc is going to take us into 2025? so we have to make sure that as we come up with these great ideas we're nested within that capability. these are great technical capabilities, but unless we can apply it on the battlefield and what we're doing in the future whether it's, you know, natural disaster support or whether we're out there trying to combat ebola or whether it's dealing with issues in europe or also in afghanistan, we want to make sure that it's all nested in moving forward to 2025. >> let me ask the final -- sorry, we'll have the final

question from one of our multinational partners. >> i'm from the british embassy. just following on from a point you made that and with the recent events in europe and the repositioning of some of your armored combat teams back to europe, are you confident that under the restructuring initiative that you've got the right assets or enough assets within europe or -- >> john, you want to take the first one? >> i think we spend a lot of time talking to our rsccs around the world. >> army service -- >> sorry. army service component commands. and sorry, with the acronym soup here. we were talking about pegs earlier. great record on that. so we stay closely tied, and the aviation restructuring initiative is about adding

capability, increasing capability even though we're going to have less structure because it is the best step. and we're going to tie that to the idea that we need to become more expeditionary and we need to proat a time forrotate force basis. we did in hawaii this summer and we put a company out of colorado in hawaii for three months. that was a great example of how rotational forces can work. we haven't made any decisions. t the army hasn't made any decisions and that includes the 148, beyond that it would be premature for me to talk about what it looks like anywhere else around the army. but yes, we think we have it right and we have accounted for the requirements of our

combatant commanders and our asccs. >> when i go back to my former job as an avs brigade commander in korea. you talk about rotational forces and what happened to second cab over in korea, we had a squad rotate in and it was a game changer. they came trained ready. you know, it wasn't doing the constant training as i got typically one year tours out of my air crew. these guys came for their nine-month rotation and they were trained and ready, and it took just a small amount of time to get them environmentally current in the area, but after that, it was a tremendous capability. and so, you know, i think our partners who receive rotational forces will see that because we're able to train them here at conas and then rotate them in, they're going to see a better product. that was my experience anyway.

>> it's very similar to what we've been doing the last 12 years. i talked about the three national guard battalions that we had under the command during that 12 months in iraq. it wasn't all at once. i mean, the right side rz gariz the first, then came in minnesota, wisconsin and then after that california. they arrived fully trained ready to hit the ground running. if you look at our force being a rotationally focused force but surge ready, so rotationally focused but surge ready, your ability to get that unit to c-1 before it goes into a rotational requirement hits the ground and you've got their focus for nine months, whatever -- i won't put a month time on it, but it's for a duration, and then they rip out with somebody else. i mean, these guys are ready to go. and we proved it the last 12 years. >> okay. thank you all very much for taking the time to come out. and we look forward to seeing you in the new year, if not before. hope you all have happy holidays and thanks to all of you.

>> happy holidays, everybody. >> hope you all enjoyed the party. >> coming up here on c-span3, a panel of former u.s. ambassadors speaks about the administration's use of special diplomatic envoys to address conflict situations. panelists have served in egypt, israel, sudan and south sudan and the bosnia federation. it will be live from the u.s. institute of peace at 9:30 a.m. eastern. then at 10:00 on our companion network c-span2, the brookings institution will host a forum on the military health care system. panelists will discuss reform proposals and lessons learned from implementing the -- >> here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday noit at 9:30 on c-span, actor seth rogen discussing

politics and humor with "daily show" co-creator lizz winstead. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a, katie pavlich, on what she sees as the hypocrisy of liberals. william deresiewicz argues that the top universities are missing the mark in education and students should learn to think critically, be creative and have a goal in life beyond material. and book tv visits west lafayette, indiana, to visit several of the city's authors. and on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, historian damian shields talks about the life of patrick cleburne and his role in the confederate army during the battle of franklin, tennessee.

sunday afternoon at 4:00, reel mek, a piece from kron-tv on the history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet @cspan #comments. follow us on facebook. like us on fwirt. now to the pentagon where army lieutenant general james terry briefs reporters on current air strike operations against isis and discusses the role of iraqi security forces and other coalition members engaged in the conflict. this is 35 minutes. >> it's definitely taller today.

good morning, everybody. i won't make this long, but i wanted to welcome lieutenant general james terry, the commander of the combined joint task force operation inherent resolve. our anti-isil efforts. i want to welcome him to the briefing room. this is his first briefing in this new command with you all. we're delighted to have him here. we're going to keep this to 30 minutes. the general has a short opening statement. i will be moderating from over here calling on you. please when i do call on you, identify who you are and who you're with before you ask your question so that the general knows who he's talking to. and i would ask you to please limit follow-ups if you can so we can get through as many people as possible. again we've got 30 minutes from the time we start. thank you. with that, general? >> thanks, john. good morning, everyone, happy holidays to each of you out there. as many of you may know, we recently established the combined joint task force for operation inherent resolve as a headquarters of more than 40 nation coalition. that is designed to integrate

our collective military capabilities to defeat isil. or as i have picked up in the region of vernacular of the region daaesh. various countries will contribute national capabilities on different timelines. the strength of this team is in our common purpose, and what unites us is a strong resolve to combat this threat. daaesh, is why we're here. daaesh uses terror and fear to dominate people and reward themselves. it has demonstrated time and time again a disregard for life and humanity. it has also openly stated intentions to ply its trademark barbaric methods not only regionally but globally as well. while we recognize the ruthlessness and capability of this enemy, we also realize that the strategic advantage and tremendous strength of the coalition will ultimately lead to the defeat of daaesh.

the combined joint task force inherent resolve is a command of centcom under general lloyd austin and we have three foundational priorities. first we'll contribute to build and maintain the coalition, the combined joint task force provides an organizing framework that's designed to synchronize and integrate capabilities and amplify our efforts. nations contributes to this effort provide a strategic advantage through which we intend to harness the collective strength of all those involved. as a coalition we'll relentlessly pursue daaesh and defeat their efforts. up to this point we've conducted more than 1,300 air strikes. i just checked before coming in this, 1,361. many of you may be following recent events from two nights ago in support of iraqi security force operations around sinjar

and jumar. 53 precision strikes that have resulted in allowing those forces to maneuver and regain approximately 100 square kilometers of ground. combined efforts like these are having a significant effect on daaesh's ability to command and control, to resupply and to conduct maneuver. we will continue to be persistent in this regard and we will strike daaesh at every possible opportunity. also coalition will work to deny daaesh safe haven and sanctuary. we'll do this through precision strikes but by enabling our partners to expand their footprint and expand their influence, rehave been mooing opportunities for daaesh, to harness youth, recruit citizens and recruit fighters. the key is assisting the government of iraq in improving their security forces, which after 16 military operations are regaining their confidence and proving more capability every day. while several places remain

contested iraqi security forces have retaken many critical areas. examples include mosul dam, hadit had, a, karma, rip ya and zum ar. that leads us to our third priority, as a part of the broader diplomat economic effort the coalition will enable regional partner security. iraqi security forces must be a capable force, one that can restore iraq's sovereign borders, retake territory from daaesh and secure the iraqi people. an offensively minded and trained security force backed by an inclusive gft of iraq is the key to future stability. as you know, we have been authorized an additional 1,500 u.s. personal. they'll serve in noncombat roles to support additional advise and assist rifrmts and the building partner capacity effort. in addition we anticipate coalition contributions that

should produce at least an additional 1,500 personnel in these efforts. we're seeing initial successes in this fight. my assessment is that daaesh has been halted in transiging to the offense and is attempting to hold what they currently have. you'll see some local counterattacks in that regard. there will be challenges down the road that will require patience. the government of iraq understands the great threat they face and they resolve to defeat it. the combined joint task force represents what i believe is a new chapter of what i assess will be a successful campaign to bring the coalition's power to bear and ultimately to lead to the defeat of daaesh. thanks for your attention and i'll now take your questions. >> general, thanks for doing this. lolita with the associated press. i'm wondering if you can explain a little bit more about some of the coalition forces you expect to be coming in. are you looking for more than 1500? and when do you expect to see

some of those forces move in and, although iran isn't obviously one of those coalition forces, can you talk a little bit about what you're seeing from iran's air operations? is it is consistent? it is sporadic? and is it a help? >> let me start with the coalition. part of the coalition's obviously already there, so the 1500 in addition that i'm speaking to are additional capabilities in relationship to advise and assist and build partner capacity site. so what we look at then is how we balance those capabilities as a coalition comes in in relationship to the requirements that we see in iraqi security forces where we have to advise and assist and where we need to create some of that additional capability in those forces so that over time they become

increasingly capable, as you heard me discuss there, i think the key to success there will be increasing the capabilities iraqi security forces and combining that with an inclusive government. i think that's the key to success down the road, at least it leads to stability on the side of iraq. i see the same reports you see on iran. obviously iran has interests in iraq. i don't think any of us deny that. what i will tell you is that all of my activities are focused on daaesh and that i coordinate those activities through the minister of defense and his offices in iraq. so i don't directly coordinate with anyone else outside the coalition in iraq. >> j.d. mcintyre with al jazeera america. two quick questions. one is is there any way to quantify how much ground has been retaken from the isil

rebels? and then a more broad question. we're told that the key to iraqi forces standing up and fighting is for them to feel that their government is more inclusive and less corrupt. can you give us any idea of what the progress on that is? and can you explain this new name that you've given isil. >> daaesh? it's a term that our partners in the gulf use. and in fact, it's -- it speaks to a name that's very close to isil in arabic and it speaks to another name that means to crush underneath the foot. and so it's a regional acronym for daaesh. and i would just say that our partners, at least the ones i work with, ask us to use that because they feel that if you use isil, that you legitimize a self-declared caliphate.

and it actually -- they feel pretty strongly that we should not be doing that. so i'll slip back and forth every now and then, isil or daaesh. i apologize. >> is there any way to quantify how much ground has been retaken or territory has been retaken and what about progress on more inclusive government? >> yeah, i would say the -- the way i look at the progress is more in line with the effects that we're having against daaesh, as an example. we're not seeing a broad offensive movement like we saw in may and june and even into july. we've -- my headquarters has really been here since about the july timeframe and moving to a cjtf later in the september/october timeframe. so that broad offensive becomes important to daaesh as they try

to gain territory and populations for the caliphate, the self-declared caliphate. so what that allows them to do then is message, and that's one of the things they do well. i think we're all familiar with that. and they do it in two ways. it becomes attractive to some populations out there so that they can recruit. and i think the -- we know they intentionally do it then to create some fear inside the minds and the perceptions is of some of these populations. and so a large part of countering that ability to message is the fact that, you know, broadly i see them as transitioning to the defensive piece of this. you will see some local counterattacks, again some of these areas will be contested. again, i would just say it takes some patience as we continue to build iraqi security forces out there. and then as a transition like

this, it provides an opportunity for iraqi security forces specifically to become more offensive in nature and it now starts to uncover daaesh in certain capabilities and allows us to strike them. so i would just broadly characterize it as that and say that i think they're having a hard time in terms of communicating right now, in terms of resupply and we're seeing indications -- i mean, you can go to the social media and see some of the stuff that's coming out of places like mosul in relationship to the inability of the self-declared caliphate to govern populations out there. >> i wonder if you can talk a little bit about mosul. there are reports that the iraqi forces want to take it sooner rather than later. mosul? what will the u.s. forces be on the ground. general dempsey is talking about

j-tax and several places are still contested. >> that's four questions. my georgia public education, let me start with mosul. and specifically you want to know about conditions inside mosul? >> what do you think iraqi forces can retake it? what will the u.s. role be maybe on the ground? >> we essentially 24/7 work with iraqi security forces. a large part of that goes into the planning, but also part of that planning has to be how you generate force to do operations. up to this point, the iraqi security forces have been challenged with continual redistribution forces out there, i guess is the best way to say it. so now how do you get into a place where you can generate some capability, pull some units back so that you can make them better and then now start to put those against operations down the road in a more campaign

plan-like fashion. i don't want to disclose any timelines, but certainly i think part of the capacity effort that we're doing right now will certainly play into resourcing those capabilities and moving the iraqi security forces forward. two places, not just mosul but you ask about contested places, there are places in anbar that are certainly contested. the reports i'm seeing certainly indicate places like ramadi are contested. the center of ramadi is i think being cleared and secured in a lot of ways by the iraqi security forces, but the east and the northeast part of it still contested as example. we have some contested places in and around baji right now. we can expect that certainly as iraqi security forces continue to conduct some of these more offensive operations and

daaesh's ability then to counter that at the tactical level it will create some of these contested spots. >> quickly, when do you think the 1500 u.s. additional forces will be in place? and on the issue of national guard, i heard a report this morning, doipt know if it's true, but describing fears that that plan is entirely on hold. that it stalled entirely. what's your estimation of the national guard plan? >> 1500 and iraqi national guard. the 1500 i think we'll start to see flowing in a couple weeks. but what you need to understand is we're not waiting on those 1500. we've actually used some of the forces and capabilities that are there like the regional force from the army and the special purpose magtaf in the region. that's what they're there for. provides general austin with a

lot of flexibility like we're seeing up in iraq. they're starting to move forward. and have moved forward in many cases to make sure that we are preparing the sites out there. we've got the legislation moving through that gives us the authorities to train, and we want to be ready and we certainly will be as the iraqis now start to designate in a deliberate way which units now will go to those partner capacity sites, either pull them out of the line somewhere or create new capabilities out there. second question again. guard? national guard again, as many of you realize, we've got this initial tribal 5,000 bridging strategy that the department of state is working directly and, of course, all these activities go through the government of

iraq. so we got the initial 5,000 started, 250 trained, and contracted. more coming to do that. and again, this is iraqis. we participate with the iraqi security forces in training them on how to train, you know, this initial capability there. that's important because, for this program to be successful, i firmly assess that it has to be done by the government of iraq. now, over time there are several versions of legislation, as i understand, and i talked to general west the 14th before departing, there are several versions of that language that have to go before the counsel of representatives to be approved. but i'm optimistic that it is going to go through. there are many that see this as a way to not only bring those

tribes back in, the national guard piece, but also to bring some of those government militias back in as well. >> general, thanks for your time this morning. i was hoping you could clarify how air strikes are being conducted without any j-tax on the ground in most cases and also how you assess civilian casualties in most cases, if at all? >> let me start with civilian casualty piece. you know, the coalition is really very deliberate about how it conducts strikes out there. and we have some great capability in terms of precision. what's in the balance here if you're not careful is you can be precisely wrong. you could strike, you know, tribe, you could strike iraqi security forces and you could create a very bad situation. to date we've got a very good record. i'm tracking no civilian

casualties where we just -- if we even suspected civilian casualties, we would immediately direct investigation, determine the cause and then seek to understand the lessons is learned from that and apply those lessons learned. so that's the civilian casualty piece of this. and again, a very deliberate process. and the second question? >> how you're working with -- >> so it kind of reminds me of back when i was a lieutenant and captain, and it starts with a good operational scheme of maneuver on the part of the iraqi security forces. now, what that helps you do then is, if you understand the concept of control measures and graphics on a map, it allows us to then track iraqi security forces and understand where they are. and we have capability in the form of isr platforms that we

can actually, with that understanding where our iraqi security forces are, can actually see daaesh's capabilities on the ground. and what we've done through our advise and assist teams, this is at the operation center, the baghdad operation center or the jazir operation center or might be an example down the road or with some of these division headquarters that are out there, but certainly they're backing something we call the combined joint operations center, which is at m.o.d. and we also have another one that works up in erbil. so we bring the right people into that to actually help us identify units and then what we call deconflictifiers. so there are iraqis in all these

process. >> thanks. so why hasn't the vetting process of the syrian rebels begun now three months into this? and does the u.s. consider the kurds to be its allies, and if not -- if so, why not arm -- do more to arm them directly? >> so the syria train and equip piece is what you're asking? >> the first part. >> i think part of that has been -- this was not cleanly my lane and i'll have to punt you back up to centcom. you may be aware there's a separate task force being established to actually handle the train and equip piece. part of it has been to get the legislation right to get the authorities and the funding to do a lot of what you're talking about. >> and the kurds.

are they u.s. allies and why not do more to arm them directly? >> again, i'd have to -- i would have to defer you back up to state and back up to centcom on that particular one. they are considered our allies and i think in a lot of ways we are enabling them when you look at the strikes that have been going on in places like kobani and some of the other places. i'm pretty comfortable that we are supporting them right now. >> lisa ryan, "washington post," thank you for being here. two quick questions. on the air strikes in syria, can you update what's going on with the khorasan group? there was a series of air strikes against them and now there hasn't for a while. are they as an organization and you mentioned the bridging strategy with the 5,000 tribesmen and 250 trained, can you give us any additional

detail on that. who is tooing the training and where are the people being drawn from? the 5,000 are those people identified but not yet trained? >> so syria first. okay. the khorasan group was request -- okay, my focus is daaesh and where we find violent extremist organizations we'll continue to work that effort in terms of precision strikes. i am -- i hesitate to give you any type of effect achieved on those groups out there. whenever we do that, we always wind up with them re-creating themself some place and creating problems for us. my principal focus in syria while we're working iraqi first, we want to make sure that we shape that deeper fight out there in terms of sanctuary, in

places like raqaa, so it has an enduring effect on what we do in iraq also. second question was -- >> additional detail and who is training and who the trainees are. >> and again, this gets executed through the government of iraq. as we see the isf conducting operations not only in anbar but in some of the places salaudin for example, a lot of these tribal members will want to come together and participate. so how the iraqi government pulls those in over time like i said is going to be pretty critical. and you know, exactly what their approach is in relationship to that, they're trying to link it to the campaign plan in relationship to a concept of operations and so in terms of sequencing that i'd like to not answer that because we might

probably give away some capabilities there. >> sir, tony with bloomberg news. what heavy weapons does the iraqi security force need that they don't have now? apparently they mentioned this to secretary hagel when he was there last week, they didn't articulate what they needed. but what's your understanding of what they need that they don't have now to pursue major offensives? >> again, i'll answer it, i'll defer you to further questions to the offices of security operations for that particular challenge there. one of the things we get into certain places to advise and assist. how do we get an advise and assist team that looks at what you have on hand in relationship to getting visibility in the heavy weapons and capabilities that are out there? a large part of the challenge right now is repairing what they

actually have on hand and my kind of basic answer to you is we're going to help them baseline that especially as they start to bring units into these bill partner capacity sites and give them a more accurate picture of potentially whatty this need out there. >> -- they think they do, but you're going to help and decide what they need. >> we're going to help them see themselves in this effort and then let them determine. again, we work with minister of defense directly. we'll give them an assessment and let them determine what it is that they need. >> general, jim miklaszewski with nbc news. what progress, if any, is being made in the reawakening of the sunni awakening? are any of those sunni tribal leaders being convinced that the iraqi government that they felt betrayed them is now an alternative to isis control and

is that absolutely key to defeating isis in iraq, to have the participation of those sunni transcribes that were so critical in the war on iraq and u.s. operations there? >> jim, i hesitate to call it an awakening. i would just tell you that the tribal piece of this i think is coming around. and we see more and more of it every day. the difference between now and then is that the government of iraq is in charge of the program, and i think that is an essential point in relationship to the future. i see a lot of opportunity out there especially as the isif conducts operations in anbar for the government to reach out and contact some of these tribal fighters that you're very familiar with and then bring them back in to decide the

government of iraq. >> so they were reluctant to rejoin, to creating any alliance with baghdad, which they felt had betrayed them. can you somehow quantify in any way the progress that may or may not be being made? >> let me back up a little bit. just remind everyone here that this current government is a little over 100 days old and they started several initiatives out there, one of them is the outreach tribal engagement, one of which is this national guard piece that they're trying to move the legislation through the council of representatives to do that. i would just say that what i see in relationship to bringing some of the tribes around is important to the fight but long-term enduring stability, that the conditions are getting better for that every day. i see the current prime minister

at least moving in that direction and we'll continue to support them and encourage them to bring the rest of those that want to come to the side of the government of iraq, support them to bring those around. >> take a couple more. joe. >> general, this is joe with -- four months of air strikes against daesh, and that group's still in control of parts of syria and also in iraq. when do you think your mission will reach a turning point in the fight against daesh. and also how do you assess daesh influence against the syrian/lebanese border? >> okay. i would just tell you i think we're in, you know, some patience in relationship to daesh. they've proved to be resilient. and again as i look at it from a

military standpoint, the first strikes were 8 august? and so this is december. what's that? four months? i think we've made significant progress in halting that offensive that i talked about. the ability for them to continue to expand in terms of terrain and geography out there. what we must do especially inside of iraq is continue to build those capabilities. i think you're at least talking minimum of three years. now, that doesn't mean we haven't started turning daesh in a certain direction. and that's going to be the power of the coalition. not only from a military perspective but how do you apply all those elements of national power along from the different nations along those lines of effort that have been laid out out there? so i hesitate to give you a time

because i'll show up in six months and you'll ask me why we haven't gotten there. i think a lot of it, i see the conditions for right now being set for a pretty stable environment. but i still think in terms of building some of the capabilities there three roads down the road minimum. >> daesh along the syrian/lebanese border. >> the syrian/lebanese border. certainly daesh has a desire to expand. i am not -- i'll have to get back to you on that one. in terms of influence, you're talking ability to enter and exit lebanon or influence the population or specifically what are you asking there? >> they do exist -- >>ed on the border. >> along the border. >> right. >> since your mission is to

defeat daesh. >> right. >> anywhere, will you be willing to strike them in that area? >> inside syria, where we see daesh and we have an ability to target them, we will conduct precision strikes. >> one last question. >> reporter with foreign policy magazine. during the visit of secretary hagel, one of the things that the iraqi prime minister asked was an increase in air strikes and just yesterday there was a big spike in the number of strikes reported by the task force why is the iraqi prime mib22 #r asking for more air strikes and is that something you do now agree they need more air strikes? >> i'd have to have you ask the prime minister that question in relation to why he's asking. my answer would be simply this, when the iraqi security forces plan operations and conduct those operations we plan to

support them as i've described here today in terms of delivering those precision. and we're conshub of any collateral damage, civilian casualties. my assessment is we've been very effective in delivering those fires. i think we've got it just about right. the key here is building the capability inside the iraqi security forces, given an offensive mind-set and we'll continue to strike. >> that's all the time we've got. >> thanks. on the next "washington journal" daily beast's gordon chang on what's next for kim jong un and the country's suspected involvement on the cyber attack on sony.

then michael toscano discusses unmanned aircraft and safety regulations. and linda laughlin of the u.s. census bureau and kristin moore from child trends talks about the bureau's recent report on the well-being of children in the united states. and we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this month is the tenth anniversary of our sunday primetime program q & a and we're featuring an encore presentation from each year, journalists, historians, filmmakers. from 2005 kenneth feinberg's conversation, from 2006, the importance of the african american experience to u.s. history. from 2007, robert novak on his 50 years of reporting in

washington. from 2008, the value of higher education in america. and from 2009 conservative commentator s.e. cupp. q&a@10, a decade of compelling conversations, december 22nd through 26th at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up real estate developer and television personality donald trump talks about running for president and building his brand in washington. this event is hosted by the economic club of washington, d.c., and runs an hour. >> okay. can everybody please, can everybody please quiet, quiet. thank you very much. so we're very pleased this evening to have as our special guest donald trump. as you all know, i usually go through elaborate introductions because i'm memorized them and i should show everybody that i've done the research. in this case, i don't really

know that he needs a great introduction as some of the guests i've given introduction to. he's one of the best known developer, businessmen, real estate developer, entrepreneurs, celebrity, tv hosts, golf promoters and developers and all-around well-known person in the united states. and i thought that it would be very interesting for everybody to hear from donald trump. so i wanted to thank you, donald for coming this evening. >> it's my honor. thank you very much. great honor. [ applause ] >> so let me start by asking you this. it's rumored that you are thinking of going to iowa soon to maybe do some exploratory work, and my question is why would you consider a job that has a smaller home and an older plane than you currently have. >> that's a very tough question. first david called and said would you do this.

when david calls, i say yes. when other people calls not so much. so many friends, one of them is david bossy who is heading up that dinner and that whole weekend, and he said -- >> in iowa. >> in iowa. and he said would you do it? and i have great respect for david and what he's done and what he represents. so i agreed to do it. and it's going to be a great event. like this is your biggest sellout crowd. i think we'll have the biggest sellout crowd they've ever had in iowa, too, from what i'm understanding. so i look forward to that. the night before, there's a real estate dinner in iowa, done by a very, very big company and a terrific company and they asked me to be the keynote speaker. so i'm there for two reasons, real estate and politics. >> so let me finish that up. are you considering maybe getting into the politics as a candidate, running for president or you're not sure yet? >> i've been building buildings all my life. we've done a great job, as you understand. one thing about david, if he didn't think we did a good job,

i wouldn't be here tonight. that i can tell you. but we've done a good job. i'm considering it very strongly. a lot of people think i have fun with it, that i'm playing games, that i enjoy the process. and i do enjoy the process to a certain extent. but the country's in serious, serious trouble. we just broke $18 trillion in debt largely to different places like china and others. and we just are in very serious trouble. so i am considering it very strongly. >> when do you think you might make a decision? >> probably at the beginning of the year, some time in march, april or may. >> okay. so you wouldn't start below the top job. you wouldn't start a little bit lower, you know, governor or something just to get a little experience? >> you know, i've dealt in politics all my life. all of my life i've been in politics. usually as a supporter on the other side and i support a lot of difficult people. and people that i think are going to be good. i'm a republican, but i'll support people that i really

think are going to be good. and frankly, i just think we need something very good very fast or we're going to be in very big trouble as a country. and a lot of it's common sense. for instance, the torture report. do we have to announce the torture report? which by the way cost 40 million dollars to do it. i'm trying to figure out how does this report cost 40 million. they paid $80 million to come up with the process. and there's so much, there's so many things that i see in this country, whether it's common sense or whatever, and i have a big voice. i have millions and millions of followers on twitter and facebook. and when i say something, people -- some people don't like it but most people do like it. and whether it's jobs and the thing i like best, the thing that i think i'm best at is the economy and how to put people to work. and that's what we need in this country. >> the campaign is typically a two-year process.

>> right frpts and then if you're elected president, you have to spend four or eight years at it right in the peak of your earning period. you'd sigh that's okay? >> i have a great company with tremendously talented people. i have some of those people sitting right here at this table, some of my executives and three of my five children are in the company. don, eric and ivanka. they've done a fantastic job. four years ago i was leading in the polls, i was beating everybody in the polls. what happened was i just love what i do. i would rather do what i'm doing than run for president, but i also love the country more. and i just think, unless i see somebody that's outstanding, i would very much be inclined to do it. >> all right. well, i don't think you can make any more news than you just made. >> let's go home. >> all right. so let's start back at the beginning, if we could. your father was a pretty prominent real estate developer in -- not in manhattan.

>> brooklyn, queens. >> queens. >> yes. >> so as a young boy, you would say you were aggressive maybe and you were sent to a military academy? >> i was, i was sent to a military academy. my father said you need a little discipline, you're sort of tough to handle. they sent me up to a new york military academy where we had some really tough people working up there. and you know, i was supposed to be a very smart person but i was on the aggressive side. and they were terrific. these are drill sergeants. we had one major that used to be sergeant tobias at the time. he got promoted over the years to major. now he's actually a colonel and he's very old, but he's a great guy. and he was tough. you didn't talk back to him. today you couldn't do this. this is a different world. but you just didn't talk back to this guy or it was bad, bad trouble. and today they call it harassment, there will be the biggest front page of every newspaper. but it was a good place and it

was a tough place. and i ended up graduating at the highest rank, so i acclimated. you know you have to acclimate. you have a climate. it wasn't my climate. but by the time i was there five years and by the time i finished, i graduated at the highest rank and i learned a lot about leadership and i learned a lot about a lot of things. >> you were an athlete, you were the captain of a baseball team. >> i was. >> did you ever think about being a professional baseball player? >> well, i always was somebody that loved sports and i always did well at sports. and i love baseball in particular. i was on the football team and on the wrestling team. not a great wrestler, not a great basketball player. i had bad jumping ability. i just was not able to get up there. but i was a very good baseball player. i guess i always did thing, you know, i was recruited and they all wanted me to go in major league. and those days you'd make $3, there was no money, no anything. ultimately my father had a

business in brooklyn, mostly in brooklyn, new york, as a real estate developer. ultimately i did that for a lot of the right reasons. and it became a lot of the fun. i wanted to make it more exciting and i always always lod other things. i think we put some show business into the real estate business. >> you went to work after the new york military academy and did really well there. majored in real estate or -- >> i majored in finance. i liked finance, but i did well and i liked the wharton school of finance. >> i read that at one point you thought about going into the film business. >> it's true. >> and what took you away from that. >> that's sort of an interesting story. but i went to -- i actually applied to usc where they had a great school of cinema. that was like the wharton school of cinema. i applied. and what happened was a little interesting. there was a man who was having troubles in real estate. and he came to me. smart guy. he said, can you help me? and i was only 19 years old.

i gave him a lot of advice. this was a top broadway producer. i'd love to go to usc. i kept talking about movies. he said you really know real estate. you've got to be crazy to go into show business. it really affected me. i went in with my father. i was in brooklyn my first five years. went into business with my father. did some really good deals for him. he was very happy with moo. he was a tough guy. had a good heart, but he was a tough man and would never let anybody sign checks. he had to sign every check. today they sign them by computer. but today you press a button and everybody gets paid. if it's a mistake, they never find it. he'd sign every single check and study it and call the people. you're getting too much money. this is a little different than we have today. i actually continue that

practice. i sign many, many, many checks. the company has gotten so big, it's hard, but i like signing checks because i see what's going on much better. >> what was it like? you go to your father who was a tough guy to work for and you said, dad, i want to go out on my own. what did he say? >> he really respected it. and being in brooklyn and queens and we'd look across the river, the east river and i'd see those big tall buildings. i said i want to build those buildings. i want to be there. i love it. i've got to be there. he sort of said that's not our territory, like a lot of fathers would say. you don't know anything about that. that's not our territory. let's stay in brooklyn. my father started out building one family homes and middle income apartments. and some low income using federal subsidies. the 236 program. a lot of different programs. section eight. we had a section eight program which was amazing.

and it was a pretty good program for the developer. it allowed people to live at a low rent. my father did a lot of that. and we did it well. i said, pop, i want to go in. i started with the grand hyatt hotel. i converted that. it was originally the old commodore hotel. interesting how my life progresses where we go from that to the opo. >> you were about 29 years old or something like that? 28, 29. and you bought an old hotel near the grand central station called the commodore and you put in no money. is that right? >> almost no money. >> how did you nothing do that with no money? >> it was owned by the penn central railroad. he happens to be a very good man. victor palm oeri and company. does anyone know john koskinen?

he's the head of the irs. he's a friend of mine and did a great job running victor palmeri. took options to the buildings. after i took options to the commodore, i went to the city. i was about 28 years old. the city was really in trouble. look. you'll have to give me tax abatement or this is never going to happen. then i went to hyatt. you put up all the money and i'll get the approvals. we built a hotel and it became very successful. then the convention center and other jobs. >> let's talk about one of the other famous buildings, trump tower. how did you get the right to build that piece of land and how did you finance that? >> that was owned by a company named conseco. originally ginesco. it was from nashville, tennessee. and ginesco was run by a father and son.

a public company. they were fighting like cats and dogs. unlike your children and my children so far. we want to keep it that way. they were fighting like cats and dogs. i love reading the financial papers. it was exclusively papers. today it's a little bit papers and lots of other things. i saw the trouble they were having. and i knew they owned a department store. so i called the has of ginesco and went to nashville, tennessee. i made an amazing deal there. i took an option to buy the site. and what happened is as soon as that option was announced, every developer in the world went there trying to buy. even then it was the best site. next to tiffany is the best site. it was too late because i already had it signed. they tried to get out of it because they saw it was much more valuable than what i paid. i dealt with a great man who was the head of tiffany. he took tiffany to great levels,

from trouble to great levels. i brought the air rights over tiffany and another place and ended up with a 68-story building that turned out to be a tremendous success called trump tower. when i bought the air rights from tiffany i had the right to call it tiffany tower. i went to a friend of mine, dennis stein. i said i have the right to call it tiffany tower, but i want to call it trump tower. he said when you change your name to tiffany, call it tiffany tower. so i call it trump tower, even though i had this incredible right to use the name tiffany. and it was one of the better things. >> if your name was ruben stein, do you think it would have worked as well? >> michael bloomberg has done very well. >> you came up with the idea of putting your name an things, when did you always you called get maybe a higher price for it? >> a lot of people -- they wrote

a big article like i had this brilliant strategy of naming. honestly it just happened. it started with trump tower. i did the grand hyatt first. i did the convention center. took options to the land. got the stake to build taun and they built the convention center. nobody knew that much about me. when i did trump tower, i never thought at a young age like 30 i'd have the best piece of land in the world. it never changes. that piece of land was the best then and the best now. we signed a lease with gucci. so i never really knew. when i called it trump tower, a lot of things happened because of the prominence of the location. i was able to get it zoned. you'll never build a tall building. you'll never be allowed to build an all glass beautiful building. "the new york times" critic, the

architectural critic gave it phenomenal reviews. and later on they gave it phenomenal reviews. and what i did is it just morphed into other things. then i ended up doing a book "the art of the deal." >> you live at the top -- >> i do. top three floors. >> a lot of wealthy people are being sought after to buy buildings in new york. do you think all these -- are there enough billionaires to fill these big buildings? >> no, i don't think they'll fill them. i don't think you're going to fill them. too many being built. >> have you seen the one that's like 90 stories. >> they have the advantage that it was early on. and they are very good people. and i think it's going to do okay because it's early. but the ones coming online, there's so many of them. i look at the plans. i know every inch of manhattan. which store is available five years before the lease comes

due. i look at all the plans for manhattan and don't see any way. russia has been taken out of it. russia's gone. and a lot of the russians buying these apartments are no longer buying apartments. and frankly, you know, i just don't see any way they're going to do it. it's an opportunity for you and for me. a man came to my office. he has a site to build a 100-story building on the site. i don't love the site. it's good, not great. the great always works. the good doesn't always work in real estate. and he has a 90-story building, 100-story building. do whatever you want. and he wanted to sell it to me and i've been through great, great times but i've also had to fight like crazy to keep everything going. and i said, you know, you do it because i don't have the guts anymore to do it. i promise i won't tell anyone you said that. but it's true. i see the market is, i think,

will be oversaturated. >> let me ask you, when you were having this success, building trump tower, you bought an airline, the shuttle and then got involved in gaming and, i guess in atlantic city. and then the economy collapsed and many people thought you'd not be able to survive. >> they were hoping. well, i just wanted to continue to live my lifestyle. i like planes and everything else. in those days i wasn't married. i liked planes and beautiful women. i liked my lifestyle. first of all, the shuttle was great. what happened, this was like 57th and fifth. in the airline business, that was like the best asset. i had that. the bank scared the market. banks came to me. i made a deal where it was a great deal to sell the shuttle, even in bad times. i bought the plaza hotel. made an iunbelievable deal.

if that hotel was one block in any direction i would have died with it. because it was the plaza, i made an unbelievable deal in getting out of the plaza. it just worked out really well. and other things i did, i was telling -- david and i were speaking before. i said crazy thing about atlantic city, i was there during the boom time when it was a monopoly and did phenomenally. then atlantic city changed. a lot of bad decisions. i built a convention center. they built the convention center in the wrong location. didn't do the airport properly. atlantic city for me has been a great experience, and i got out seven years ago and again, made a lot of money, but i do play the bankruptcy laws. and other people do, too. many of our friends do.

every time they play the bankruptcy, it's like a standard story. i buy a building. it is in turmoil. it's got a big morning. the bank is being vicious and ruthless. i buy the building, all up the bank. i get huge reductions. when i buy the building they say trump filed for bankruptcy. i didn't file for bankruptcy. i use it as a tool. i call them the losers and the haters. oh, trump went bankrupt. i use that as a business tool. you understand and so do many of your friends. whether it's sam zell, leon black, carl icahn with twa, we use the different -- the only thing is that with me, they always say, every time i do it to my advantage, they say trump went bankrupt. if david does it, nobody is going to say that, so that makes you smarter than me.

>> i doubt that. >> he wants to get off this subject. >> you have been asked a number of times, you filed for bankruptcy and pointed out you've never filed for bankruptcy. >> i've never gone bankrupt. >> one of the deals that got a lot of attention, i'd say you stole the property but legally, you bought lago for about $8 million. today it's probably worth $100 million or more, $200 million, i dont know. how did you come to buy that when it was pretty cheap. >> that was an interesting deal. from florida, that's one of the great pieces of land. the greatest house in america, i would say. turned it into the moral lago club. at the time in 1986 i went there and it was for sale for $38 million. i said i don't want to -- that was a lot of money. $38 million. that's like $300 million today. so they want $38 million. so i said, you know what?

stupidly, the post fondation, the children were not smart like she was. when she died, they sold the beach and sold it to a friend of mine. the friend of mine was a great guy. he founded kentucky fried chicken, a couple different -- hospital corporation of america. he was very sick. he had cancer. i went to him and said would you do me a favor? could i buy the beach? this is the beach in front of mora lago. they sold the beach for $2 million or $1.5 million. and he said, donald, you're a friend of mine. i will sell you the beach. i overpaid for it. i paid $2 million. that was the whole beach. and then i announce i'm going to build the ugliest building ever to take all the views because i department want anyone to buy mora lago. i put this thing with no windows, no nothing so you couldn't see the ocean.

the ton almost got sick. i did it for a reason. and then people, ross perot, many people wanted to buy it. they offered me a fortune for the beach. i said no, no, no. then a couple of years later i got a call and say said, we'd like to sell you mora lago. and i said what's your price? and they said we want $8 million. now they wanted in the 30s and -- they couldn't sell it without the beach. i didn't get along with dina merrill at all. she was upset that i bought it. i actually said the statement which is very good for relationship. marjorie was a great beauty.

a magnificently beautiful woman on top of being smart. she was born with the mother's beauty, but not the mother's brain. this was not a good quote in terms of long-term relationship, right? but she could have bought it, and she chose not to. she was in charge of the foundation. i turned it into a club. david negotiates. if you say a company is worth a billion dollars, he's going to say, well, i'll give you $500 million. when they said $8 million, i didn't negotiate. i said i'll take it. that's the first time that's ever happened. i bought it for $8 million, plus $2 million for the beach and turned it into a club. it's an amazing clb. >> after you bought it, you realized the flight pattern was over and you sued palm beach or somebody and in return for that, they gave you -- >> tremendous amounts of land in west palm beach. >> and then what did you do with

the land? >> i made it into trump international golf club, about 15 years old. >> is that how you got into golf? >> i bought one in foreclosure. i love foreclosures, especially when it's somebody else. always better when it's somebody else. i bought a big beautiful piece of land in west chester in foreclose are. i said what am i going to do with it? i made it into a golf club. i bought this one out of foreclosure, out of what i did. and i ended up with a tremendous lawsuit. had a good lawyer. and they ended up settling the lawsuit by making me a deal to buy 500 acres at a good price of land. i turned it into a club. and now mora lago and that club are like sisters and they do tremendously together the way they play off each other. you've been there. >> i have. food is great. service is great.

hospitality is great. you always go around and say hello to people. let me ask you this. you now own a lot of golf courses. and some people say golf is going this way because people are playing less. why is golf a good business thing to have. >> for me it's been great. i've been buying them over the last ten years since the depression. it really has been for a lot of people. i've been buying them in loudoun county, 600 acres on the potomac river, which is phenomenal. i bought that for a very good price. one of the gentlemen i bought it from is here so i'm not going to talk a lot about how good a deal it was. and they are great people. we turned that into a tremendous success in washington. but what i do like is this. first of all, golf is doing very well internationally. asia, china, south america. they just approved it for the olympics. it's in the next olympics.

it's never been. golf is doing really well, if you have good places, the good clubs. what i really like also is the real estate. when i have 600 acres an the potomac, 800 aurks on the pacific ocean facing catalina island and 2 1/2 miles of frontage on the -- in los angeles -- >> you build homes around these? >> i do, but i hate to sell property. >> you play golf? >> yes. >> and you are a handicapper of -- >> three or four. >> you must play a couple rounds a week? >> two. >> have you ever played with tiger woods? >> i play with everybody. tiger and phil and everybody. it's great. it's great to play with them. that's when you realize you aren't a really good golfer because they are tremendously talented. you look at this little triangle and it's that tip of the

triangle. they are tremendously talented people and really good people. one of the things i like about golf is when i buy these courses i'm buying tremendous amounts of land. if i ever say, well, i'm going to close a golf place some place, i'm going to own 700 or 800 acres on the potomac river, it's pretty good stuff. or 600 acres on the ocean, on the pacific ocean, it's a statement i always make. i never lost money on a lake, river or ocean. i love that. in scotland, i just bought turnbury. the most important of the majors. and it's just a great thing. that's 1,000 acres on the old. you just don't lose money with that. i don't want to close it or sell it. it's great real estate. i've made tremendous deals because of my relationship to golf. i play golf with people that

love golf. and i become great friends with them. i have so many friends. i dont want to mention names -- >> you make deals on the course? >> i have so many wonderful friends. terry lundgren. he's done an amazing job with macy's. a friend of mine. we play golf together, and others, that i could never have the relationship with these people if i said let's go out to dinner or lunch. i've made many, many deals -- the trump tower site, which is one of the great real estate deals, i really started that by playing a round of golf with somebody that was very attuned to that whole situation in nashville. >> you mentioned macy's. if you go into macy's and you want to buy some donald trump clothing, you can do so. do you pick the clothing, design it? >> i have people that are really good. they come to me and show me.

we have really people -- pvh is a fantastic company. they do much of it. macy's does a fantastic job. shirts, ties, suits, cuff links. >> you're wearing some of it now? >> this is a trump tie. anybody want it? but i figured in case they questioned, i had to wear it. >> i used to spend a fortune. i get them free because of "the apprentice." still, $500 ties. little piece of water gets on the tie, it's destroyed. these are like steel and they look better. so much for my relationship. >> you mentioned "the apprentice." how did that come about? >> "the apprentice" is interesting. my father was all business. for him to even see -- he got to see a little glimpse of it. but mark brurnet who did survivor, a great guy and a great friend of moon.

and i have the trump rink in central park. formerly the wallman rink. i took it and fixed it and made it great and have had it for many years. the number one rink in the world for ice skating. they wanted to do a survivor set live so they built a jungle on the ice skating rink with the big buildings behind and it was live and great. mark burnett called me and said would you do, i have a concept for a show and i'll only do it if you do it. he said it's called "the apprentice." you are doing this and that and ultimately firing people but said you're getting rid of a person a show. it's been copied 15 different times "the apprentice" and i'm happy to say every single one of them has been a fail are. you know all of the people that did them. anyway, so i said let's take a look and we did it. i have an agent from william

morris, a big agent. and he said it will never work, don't do it. you'll embarrass yourself. i said i shook hands with nbc and mark burnett. i have to do it. he said don't do it. i'm not going to let you embarrass yourself. i said, i have a problem. i happened to be -- two things they don't know. my hair, which it really is. i think you know that. i hope you know that. also i'm an honorable person. but i shook hands. they assume i'm not. that's because i'm in the real estate business in new york. they assume i'm not. i shook hands with the head of nbc and mark burnett, i have to do it. anyway, the show goes on. it started at 10:00. it went to 8:00. 10:00 is massive. so everyone was shocked. and it was not supposed to do well. there was a critic in "the washington post" who said to have a successful show you have to have women as a preponderance

of the audience and what woman is going to want to watch donald trump. i was insulted. so it went on at 10:00, went to 8:00, went to 5:00 and went to one. i've had the number one show in the world. i was the number one show in the country. and the agent called me up and said, donald, could i see you? i said about what. he settior show just went to number one. it's a fantastic tribute. i'd like to come over and say hello. what do you want? he said i think i'm entitled to a commission. how much do you think you're entitled to? he said would $4 million be fair? i said you're fired. now "the apprentice" this is now, it's ten years, 14 seasons. and one thing about that business. it's sort of not likor business. it takes an a deal years and years for a deal. with that business, it's all about ratings.

we're going on january 4th with a new season. >> the phrase "you're fired," whose idea was that? that was my idea. the concept was we'd let people go over the course of 16 weeks an television. the first show, the first season there was one guy and he was a nice guy but he was really pathetic. so bad that i got angry at him. i said -- i won't use his name but it's easy to find ot. i said you're fired. everybody went crazy. and that's how that came about. it wasn't scripted. there's no script. it's all -- >> so now, where do you shoot that? in new york? >> we shoot it in trump tower. we have a special board room that's made. they all say, why don't you use your real board room? >> it's a studio. they have cameras all around the wall. about 32 -- at least 32 cameras in the board room.

>> anybody you've hired actually work out? >> i hired a couple of guys. bill rancic did a great job. he was the first one. andrew letinsky. numerous people. when i was going to hire them -- if i thought they were really good i'd never let them win because the price goes up, so i would always -- it's true. i would always make sure i fired them some time prior to the end. but i've hired a number of them. >> let's talk about two things you've done in the washington area. you bought out of bankruptcy the cluvey estate. how did that come about? >> it's in charlottesville, virginia. it's 1500 acres. it's phenomenal property. he was a friend of mine. i was much younger than him. he used to go around saying donald trump is a really smart guy. he used to say donald trump is the smartest of the young

people. he married patricia and that marriage was a disaster. he had this piece of property and gave it -- intelligently gave it to her and said you should build a winery with the money i have. he wanted this to happen. she went bust and the bank took it over. i bought it from the bank and they had hundreds of millions of dollars in it. i bought it for a very small price. it's the largest winery on the east coast. trump wine and champagne and everything. and my son eric trump runs it and it's become fantastic. it's so beautiful and people are getting married. he had a car collection where he had these massive buildings. i turned them into ball rooms. people are getting married there. right next to the university of virginia. right next to thomas jfrson. it's a great area. really a beautiful area. we're very proud of it. and the winery is beautiful. they built a magnificent winery.

sad they never really got to use it. >> now closer to here on pennsylvania avenue, you won the right to build a hotel out of what is the old post office building. >> that's right. how did you win that? you paid the highest price or -- >> i think we had the highest concept and one of the great financial concepts. and i have to say, and i don't know if dan tagliarini is here. is he here? somebody said he was here. >> head of the gsa? >> head of the gsa. the gsa was so professional, and maybe -- i would say it anyway, but the people in the gsa were so -- i go around talking about it. people in government, you have people in government, some of them are phenomenal people. they are phenomenal people. and these people were very professional. this was a job, an rfp, request for proposal. and it was really about concept,

almost more importantly than price. a lot of jobs would be provided. so some people had it as an office building. it was the highest and most sought after piece of property in the history of the gsa. we put in a proposal. it's one of the great hotels of the world. we have the boenss. the building is magnificent. the exterior walls. and it's been a very controversial thing because as you know, they wanted to rip it don and people were marching in the streets to stop it. they chose us because of the fact i was able to easily get it done. and because we have a great track record and because the concept of the hotel puts more people to work. >> how many rooms will there be? >> 300 rooms.

the largest luxury ball room in the entire tri-state area. it's going to be a magnificent ball room. many meeting rooms, spas. it's a big project. we'll be spending over $200 million on the renovation. i had a choice. i arrived a couple minutes early. do i go over to the building? it's under demolition right now and massive. do i go over to the building and get dust, my shoes, everything dusty or sit around in a corner somewhere in the hotel here and wait for david and say, okay, dave, i'm ready in two hours. i said i'm going to go to the hotel. that's an entrep noor. so my shoes are a little dusty. so is my suit. but these are minor details. it's going to be one of the great hotels. i shouldn't say this. we're in a very nice hotel, but washington doesn't have the great luxury hotel that it should have.

and everybody knows that. this will be one of the great hotels. the hotel i have some chicago was rated the best hotel in chicago boo conde nast. and that's why they chose us. >> so will it have trump on the outside? >> why but very, very little. >> oh, okay. i was in chicago the other day and the trump name was there very big, right? >> that's a -- that's a 94-story building. but that was very controversial because i got the approval to put it up and when i put the letters up, everybody went crazy. before the letters were up when they heard 28 feet. these are letters as big as the ceiling, right over the river. so they said this is terrible. we're going to pass a law that nobody ever can do it again. never can anybody do what trump

did. i said i agree 100% with that law. and they just -- the law just passed and i'm very happy about it. i agree. >> so you mentioned your children. let me talk about that. it's difficult for a wealthy parent to raise children who want to go into their own business, let alone do it in a sensible way. how did you raise children that don't seem to be spoiled and don't seem to be rebelling against their father? >> it's such a great question and somehow i hope i'll be here in ten years saying the same thing with you because you have great children, and i know your daughter. she's so amazing. and it's very complicated. i get that question so much because people see ivanka and don and they are just doing well. and from the time they were -- i tell this to everybody. from the time they were 2 years old, old enough to think and speak, i would say listen. no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. i don't want drugs -- they

didn't even know what it was. there would be 15, no drugs, no alcohol because i've seen people like you, like me very substantial people where they have children and they become alcoholics, drug addicts, they become other things. i add the cigarettes because if you can stay away from that, it's good. i have friends of mine that are very strong that can't stop smoking. i have a friend who hated the taste of scotch. but he tried to develop a taste for scotch. and i saw him recently. he's a total alcoholic. all he had to do was stay away from it. i say no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes because i've seen many people that are very smart and very successful that have children that are very smart, as smart as you're going to find. children that can go to harvard, yale, wharton, any of the schools but they're addicted to drugs or alcohol. i throw the cigarettes in.

i also say no tattoos but that seems to be failing if you look at television. i think the tattoo thing i'm just going to have to stop. i was always very strong on that. you are put as such a tremendous disadvantage as a child that you're never going to make it. you hire all these young geniuses. if somebody is a drinker, an drugs, it's not going to work. and i just say you just can't do that. i tell all my friends, you got to just drum it into their heads. >> so what would you like, not that you're going to slow don. let's suppose you don't get to be president of the united states. the chance of getting elected is relatively small for anybody. >> i agree. i hate to admit it. >> if you don't get to be president you'll do this for another 20 years or so? >> interesting about real estate, a little bit like that in your business but not as much, that everybody in real estate is old. they never retire.

you see guys 89 years old. they really do it instead of plastic sergea iic surgery. i can fix the old post office instead of getting a face lift because i can make it so beautiful and that's my baby. but real estate people don't retire. other businesses that retire, i have friends. my father used to have an expression. to retire is to expire, which is a tough expression. but i've seen it. a banker, big banker friend of mine had to retire at 65. he was a vibrant guy. a great guy. you would know him. a great guy. and very powerful. he could approve a $500 million mortgage or loan without even going to committee. that's not bad. and he was forced to retire at 65. i saw that man get old within a period of one year. it was the most incredible thing. i also heard him say, when i

retire, i have so many friends. a lot of people aren't going to call you back. they all call you back right now. he came to me about three weeks ago and said you are the only one that calls me back and talks to me. he said all those other guys, new york developers mostly, i call them, they don't return my calls. they used to return my call before i made it. but that's life. that's a sad thing but that's life. >> you'll keep doing this for quite a while. >> i would. i love doing it. i love doing that more than running and get abused by chris matthews. mrs. matthews is in the audience. i love her husband. boy, did he turn liberal over the last ten years. it's incredible. he interviewed me years ago and want that way. >> people are fascinated by your lifestyle and so forth. and take your plane that has your name on it. is that an advertising device by putting your --

>> i guess. it's a boeing 757, a great plane. you put it at the airports. it can only go to the major airports. it's probably a form of branding that i don't even think about. it was a little bit by osmosis. it just came. trump tower, then another building. i did really well with it. i'd get higher rents and higher numbers than other people. then started building these trumps all over the place and the brand became very valuable. >> people are often fascinated by your hair. >> yeah. >> why is that? >> i don't know. well, it is mine. it's legitimately my hair. i had a story recently. it was the best story i've ever had, but in the second paragraph, but he wears the worst hair piece of any human being. but it's my hair. it's an embarrassing story but it was a good story, a financial story. no, it's my hair. and i've always combed it the

same way, more or less. i do get abused about the hair, but i've actually become somewhat immune to it. if it wasn't mine, i think it would be harder. when you know it's yours -- it may not be pretty, but it is mine. >> on the economy, what is your projection. do you think we'll grow at about 3%? >> i think a lot of things are happening. i love that oil is dropping. i always said oil should never be up at those levels. it was a fixed level. it's interesting where they say saudi arabia is purposely keeping the price don to destroy us. look. you do business with saudi arabia, i know that. and so do i. i have a lot of friends. they buy a lot of real estate and apartments and space in buildings that i own. but i don't really believe that. but there's a theory that they're keeping the price low to destroy all these new people with fracking that are coming out. who knows what it is.

i love low oil prices. a lot of people are saying it's no lowe because there's no demand. obviously, russia is getting killed right now with so many things going on. they are so strongly based with oil. a lot of bad things could be happening. the unemployment rate, the rool rate is probably 20% because people stopped looking for jobs and they consider them employed. you stop looking for a job. there are so many people ot there that gave up looking for jobs or they are part time or something else. but the fact is that i think your economy is obviously not doing so well. the stock market is the one ray of hope. i've never been a stock market person. but about three years ago, 2 1/2 years ago, i bought a tremendous amount of stock. first time ever. i never believed in letting other people run my machine. i see some of these guys making

tremendous amounts of money to run a company that's easy to run. i never liked it. i bought stock. the reason i bought stock, it's free money. interest rates are so low. and also in my cds, they were offering 0.25%. so i bought a lot of stock and the stocks have gone up tremendously. i feel like such a genius. and i sold my stocks, everything, because i'm not a great believer in the leadership of the country, and i'm not a great believer in decisions being made with respect to the country. and usually that would lead somebody that's intelligent to go and do something. so i sold all of the stock that i bought. but i'm not a stock market guy, but the reason i did it was because the interest rates were so low. at some point those rates are going to go high and that will be a difficult time.

>> you don't suffer from a lot of self-doubt. you seem to be -- i am more like woody allen. i don't really know what i should be doing. you don't really have that issue so much? >> well, i probably do have that issue. i think a lot about different things. and alan greenberg, ace. he used to buy stocks from me early in the process. when i did it in a small way. i never heard this before. i bought a stock. it went up a lot and i sold it. and a week later, somebody announced it was going to be bought. i would have made double the money which i would have kept it. ace, we did a horrible thing. i sold that stock. i should have kept it another week. the first time he ever got angry at me. never, ever talk about a deal that's been made. cross that deal off your head. he's a trader, a great trader. he said never, ever talk --

don't even think about. he said it with anger. it was interesting. a lesson i learned. i'm very happy. i sold off the stocks. they've been having some bad times the last week or so. it will be interesting to see what happens. i look to be invested in things that run. i like to be invested in things that i run. i don't run these companies. i see too many people that do that i know. i have tremendous respect for this man but in a lot of cases, i don't have great respect for the people running -- >> i understand. >> what's the most fun about being donald trump? what's the best part about being donald trump and is there any down side? >> i have to be very careful. i will say that i have had a good time in my life. i have a wonderful family, a wonderful wife. i have my children have been great. i think the best part is that i

just love what i do. i really enjoy what i do. i think the hardest part is the fact that i can't go anywhere. in the real estate business i could walk the streets of manhattan and see signs that something is for sale. i can't do that anymore. a lot of that started with the art of the deal when that became the number one book and then "the apprentice." but it's very hard to do that now. but i will tell you, i just have a great time with my life. i have a lot of incredible friends, including you. a great honor to be asked by you. this is one of the truly great men and great success stories. it's an honor to be up here with you. >> my pleasure. let me give you a gift. >> thank you. >> wow. >> beautiful. >> the first map of the district

of columbia. okay. thank you very much, donald. >> that was a great honor.

president obama is holding a year end news conference at the white house. the president's likely to discuss new cuba policy, the cyberattack on sony pictures, combating isis, ebola and the immigration executive order. live coverage at 1:30 p.m. eastern an our companion network c-span. this week on q&a, katie pavlich on what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals on their war on women rehetoric. >> it goes back to, like i said, the idea for this book came from was the 2012 dnc convention when they were showing this tribute

video to him because he had passed away and portraying him as a women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car. if he had not gone back for nine hours and tried to save his own behind, she would have probably survived. and you can't do an entire video at a convention claiming to be preaching and fighting about the war on women and glorify someone like that while not including that part of his life in a video about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. and to mark ten years of q&a we're airing one program from each year starting december 22nd at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up, a discussion on the future of u.s. foreign policy. panelists on a range of issues including america's leadership and power in the world. lessons learned from the ooh rack and afghanistan wars and future relations with russia,

china and india. this event is hosted by the center for american progress and runs 90 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. we are extremely pleased to be sort of drawing to the end of the year with what we think will be an extremely lively discussion about future directions for u.s. foreign policy. it's an interesting time right now. the world is certainly in a state that many are describing as chaotic. it's hard to see how to balance threats from everything from terrorists and, you know, ungoverned spaces and large refugee flows to the trajectory being chosen by big powers like russia to rising powers like china that might be looking to change or up end the international order. and many of us in washington think tanks from across the

political spectrum struggle with these issues every day. today we're very fortunate to have a unique cross-cutting spectrum of views. right now the left and right are divided not only left and right but within the left and within the right on how america might think about its role in the world and the coming 10, 15, 20 years. we're very lucky to have with us people who are actually spokesmen from all of these different vantage points. this event was unspider by an recall that jim mann had in the "american prospect." he put out an article that looked at realism, old and new, and explored the idea of whether the obama administration has sort of been tugged between two different views of america's role in the world. one being the one rooted in american leadership and the

sense of america having a unique role in leading on the world stage. another being a more pragmatic perhaps look at what america's power and capability is to influence world events in an era of great change and with rising powers challenging american privacy really in a way that we hadn't seen since the end of the cold war. we thought in a conversation that it would be a good time to bring in not only his voice but the voices of others who have been writing on these issues. all of you know jim well. one of the greatest communicatators and observers of american foreign policy over the last 30 years. his more recent books "rise of the vulcans and the obamyans" are well known by anyone who looks at american foreign policy and tries to figure out how decisions are maid and how we choose various courses of action. along with jim we're going to

have chris preble, vice president at cato for defense and foreign policy studies. he's the author of several books including the power problem, how american military dominance makes us less safe, less dominance and less free. chris is a well-known and thoughtful critic of american overextension and american interventionism overseas. he often suggests we should focus on truly vital national security interests that we often exaggerate threats and often find ourselves squandering precious resources in efforts around the world that are not only unwise but also unnecessary and very costly to the united states. he's also joined by kim holmes. long time vice president and one of the pillars of heritage's foreign policy and defense program. kim has recently authored a

four-part series in foreign policy magazine saying america needs a new foreign policy for 2016. he talks about a more active american role in the world. stepping away from any notion of retrenchment. and committing the resources that would be necessary for robust american leadership and for intervention in world affairs in order to advance american interests. brian katulis is the author of the prosperity agenda and republicansor middle east program but thinks very broadly about how america functions on the global stage. he argued vigorously from a progressive standpoint against dis-engagement in a recent article in "democracy." so we look forward to a very robust discussion today. the panel is going to be moderated by our own larry korb,

our senior fellow and former assistant secretary of defense who needs no introduction and is a frequent and prolific contributor to the debate on all manner of national security issues. i'm really pleased all of you are here at the center for american progress. we start entering a political season and run towards 2016. we're really thrilled that all of these very thoughtful leaders in national security and defense and foreign policy have joined us. please welcome our guests. thank you. let me join vikram in welcoming you all here today which, given the folks we have,

is going to be a very vigorous and enlightening debate given all the challenges that the country is facing right now. as vi kram mentioned, this was -- this event was a result of jim's recent article. and by the way, they are out there, if you didn't see them, the copies of articles all these people have written. and jim, again, you are the one who started this debate so we're going to let you go first and tell us about the realism, old and new. >> all right. thank you, larry. glad to be here. i've spent most of my life as a jornlist, a writer. i consider myself an foreign policy mostly a critic. i've sometimes told conservative audiences when i talk about foreign policy you'd not want to hear my views on health care or

on taxes. but my role in foreign policy is simply to question assumptions that take hold on the idea that trade and investment would lead to political liberalization in china. in this piece, i focus on the current fixation with calling the united states the indistensable nation. it's a phrase that goes back to the 1990s. usually madeleine albright is given credit for it, although it really started with bill clinton and some of his aides in 1996. and it's not a uniquely democratic -- it's sort of a democratic phrase, but essentially the same idea comes up in the republican

inkantations of american leadership in the world. and what i want to do is question whether that's a viable phrase or whether it actually gets in the way of american policy or even american power in the world. the place i want to start is with a disagreement i noticed between the clintons, bill and hillary, or if you look at it differently, between the public and the private bill clinton because after bill clinton left office, he at one point told his friend who wrote about it, strobe talbot, that he really thought his job as president was to build the world for our granchildren to live in where america was no longer the sole superpower for a time when we'd have to share the stage. and talbot --

how come you never said that when you were president? and clinton, bill told him, that's why you're a wonk and i was president of the united states. if i go around saying that -- talking about a time when america is not going to be the top dog in the world, i'd be ridden out of town on a rail. nevertheless, his own administration's phrase indispensable nation lives on as strongly as ever. and what i want to ask really is, do we really play that role today? can we play that role for the foreseeable future, and should we? and my answer to all of those is no. do we play that role? yes, but not always. we tend to not notice when we're not playing that role. and the example i would use is

ukraine where it looks from over here where this is a cold war-style dispute between american power and russian power. if you get to europe or you look at what's going on, you see tha dominant, the interlock tor is angela merkle and germany. and sometimes people think here that she's too accommodating. germany has stepped up the sanctions, their own sanctions, slowly. when they do, putin notices. we can't do this on our own, because actually, our trade with russia is much less than germany's. i'll not saying that's a bad thing. but the truth is germany has much more influence with russia than we do. and that gets to the issue of whether we are as powerful alone

as we are when working with allies. so we can talk about stepping up sanctions against russia. but in fact, we work with germany. and the larger point is that our alliances are the basis of our power. that if we get out too far -- and that's true to dealing with russia. it's true in dealing with china as well. if we get out too far in front of our allies, then it weakens our power. and we've had to learn some of the hard way, the realities after the end of the cold war. i'm sure that many people in this room think that the intervention in iraq was a disaster, as it was, but what you don't see is that one of the disasters was a diplomatic one. because i was covering the bush administration and writing, preparing to write about it in the run up to the war. i can tell you that they sincerely believed what i call

the leadership hypothesis, that if the united states took certain positions at the u.n. and elsewhere, ultimately, the allies, like the french and the germans and british would follow. and they, they honestly believed that. and they were wrong. they were spectacularly wrong, because they didn't quite analyze the fact that after the end of the cold war the allies were less dependent on us than they are, than they were before 1989. and so the other problem with indispensable nation is the more we run around and tell everyone that we're the indispensable nation, the less other countries are willing to do on their own because the united states is taking care of it and the more they get a little bit offended. so in short, when bob cutner, the editor of the american prospect called me with a random question, would you like to

write a piece on what a realistic, what a policy of realism means today, and i said sure, but i thought that progressives sometimes don't quite understand what realism is. since the end of the cold war, younger progressives have taken realism to mean antiinterventionism. because that's what it meant in 2002. but in fact, realism has a butch broader history of believing in, simply balance of power politics and power diplomacy at the expense of values, and that those are views that i thought progressives should mott buy into. but in thinking about it i thought that realism in a new way would be a realistic view of

an america which is not always going to be the world hedgeman. and finally, i do think that on this, for all of the criticism that he gets, that obama has been ahead of his time. i think he has recognized and will be recognized in history as having tried, whether it succeeds or not, in moving towards a more modest and therefore realistic view of america's future role in the world the and i'm sure that i will be criticized by some of my colleagues, but the example i would use is libya, where in describi describing, first of all, the intervention in libya came about for two reasons. one is the one that most of you read about, that there was a strong desire for humanitarian intervention and that many

people in his, in the administration believed it. the second strand was that the british and the french, particularly, the french, whethwere coming to the united states. they were more concerned with libya than the united states was. and saying things like, we are helping you all over the world -- translate afghanistan troops -- we would like you to help us out on this one. and in that context, the fact that obama allowed the french and the british to have the lead out front planes in there and to shoulder some of the financial burden, and that they described that as leading from behind, i have yet, i will hear answers, but i have yet to understand what the problem was with leading from behind. and the answer to me is that it touched this nerve that we have to be as the united states what we were in 1946 or 1956 and in

1990 and in '91 after the collapse of the soviet union, and i think that episode and the reaction to leading from behind shows me that we have not yet begun to move off from this fixation that we are and have to be, always, front. thank you. >> thank you very much. jim, in addition to writing this article and books, jim was, worked for 20 years for the l.a. times, covered things all over the world, and really knows an awful lot about china. you're one of the first reporters that we had over there. all right, we're going to move next to chris preble, who in addition to being at kato is a former naval organizatier. you came in, and you were able to get out. >> they gave out certificates for everyone who served in the cold war and won.

that's one of my diplomas. chuck went up to the good guys. i'm really thrilled to be here and partly because of larry's invitation prompted me to read jim's article for the first time. and it had been discussed, but i hadn't had a time to sit down and read it. and my favorite part by far is the kind of bottom line up front, which is this conceit that we are the indispen penpen nation. he writes has become down right, well, unrealistic. and before i got to that line i started reading the article, and that was the word, unrealistic that sort of stuck out in my head. it's not unrealistic as far as alice looking through the glass or a salvador dali painting, but people inside washington believe that their world view is the proper one. the fundamental disconnect and the reason why the current grand

strategy is not realistic is that it is so disconnected from the view of reality outside of washington and the beltway. and there are so many polls that show this. but interestingly, i think a lot of astute observers of u.s. foreign policy have known this for some time and talked about it for some time. one of my favorite lines is from a book that didn't set as much attention as it should have called america at the crossroads. most people focused on this was a neoconservative. this rests on a belief in american exceptionalism that most non-americans simply find not credible. the idea that the united states behaves disinterestedly in the world stage is not widely believed, because it is for the most part not true, and indeed, could not be true of america, if american leaders fulfilled their

responsibilities to the american people, right? we expect that any country around the world, when it executes a foreign policy, its primary obligation is the interest of its people. and a core element, a core aspect of american exceptionalism is that we are different and do not behave that way. but i think it is hard to sustain that belief for a long time, both for the attitudes here in the united states but also abroad. another observer in making the case for goliath, the title of the book, he predicted that for american public, foreign policy-like charity begins at home and predicted that the american role in the world may depend in part on americans not scrutinizing it too closely, end quote. well, we all know what happened. he wrote that roughly 2005/2006, and the experience of the iraq war, the cost of the iraq war combined with the afghanistan war, the financial crisis in

2008 has really caused a lot of people to revisit some of the fundamental propositions of u.s. foreign policy. so my modest case today is that we, one approach is to continue to count on this disconnect between the public and the elites. after all, it has existed for a long time. it is not a new phenomenon, and frankly, it hasn't mattered because there is continuity among the elites in the republican and democratic party, so if it doesn't have an outlet it doesn't manifest itself in elections. i sauna a little bit in reading brian and jim's articles. we'll see if it plays out that way in a minute. so the one approach is to expect it to continue. i think that's a reasonable approach the other approach which i hope we don't resort to is to obfuscate. and there's a couple different ways this manifests itself. jim talks about during the cold war, this presumption that we had these allies that were vital