place 17 heads of state have taken as necessary measures to exceed it to the pact to combat speculations that have been set i do not see what we could do more. we do not see other ideas to strengthen our economic mechanism, but when you think of what france was asking for a year ago in what we have achieved today, i think we can say that we have met our objective. >> after the terrible disaster in his party in japan which you discuss this issue during the european council meeting with stress tests being mentioned? what kind, and what kind of

fallout might that have for those power plants that they all the stress test? >> we talked about this because the matter of responsibility. what happened in japan is of interest to the entire world. and it has now -- nothing to do with what happened at chernobyl. it was the highest ever earthquake known by japan and a nuclear power plant resisted the earthquake. the safety mechanisms resisted what the problem lies. but they were drowned by a torrential way which put a hole into the cooling systems. the problem in japan had to do with tsunamis.

this problem will not apply to landlocked countries. countries that have had never had to deal with a tsunami. having said that, we decided to suspect -- subject all of our power plants to a safety test. live also agreed -- we have also agreed that the energy mix is something that comes under the sovereignty of member states. some have opted for nuclear energy, some of the. those who have opted for nuclear energy, the commission will set the framework for standards for monitoring, and independent nuclear authority bop will conduct these tests and make the results public, and the european authorities in charge of nuclear issues will say

whether or not the standards have been met. for france, if any power plant does not meet the standards then it will be shut down. all the plants -- all the test will be conducted on our power plants and they will be made public. if the tests are unsatisfactory, we will take all necessary measures, which means shutting them down. >> you explain to us today -- yesterday about nato, above and beyond the command structure issues and military operations, and did you feel today that europe is totally united as to the diplomatic and political fallout for libya? what a the next pages? >> the next page is on london -- in london.

but for that summit, mr. cameron and i will probably suggest a common way forward in order to do things stage by stage. but next is the london summit on tuesday with the members of the coalition. we will talk about the next ages. >> is there going to be of franco-prussian plan? >> noaa, but the situation -- a solution cannot simply be military. it will have to be diplomatic and political, even themough goddafi's apparent ability to listen to reason made it important for us to invade militarily. >> when france internet of, it

was hit with an idea of developing their defensive capabilities of your. but now all of our partners want to rush to the nato umbrella even though we have our own back garden. you feel that the defense ha principals are a long less rigid long-lost concept? >> i do not know what i have let go. i do not think i have let go of anything better integrating the command structure.

there is the initiative of major european countries which is led to the launch of british and french planes. you're very familiar with europe and know full well that the defense of europe rests on the main armies, the british and french. with whom would you want us to build with but a majority partner? we stand united with europe and the european problems. that german sensitivity does that -- does not spontaneously carry out military operations outside of their own borders

since the end of the second world war. i am delighted with germany we found a way -- a compromise that -- and that europe stance totally united on the libyan question. there is a franco-british leadership everyone knows that. but the very fact we reintegrated the 19 nato committee does not change anything about that. what would event changed if we have not come back into the fold of nato? there obviously has to pay some kind of framework to organize the management of all of these planes. we do not wish to be the nation that provides the framework and it is right and it would be very wise considering the sensitivities. someone needs to do that. >> do you think it is fine to stand?

>> there is machinery in nato and that is no problem. it should be no problem. it works and the proof is that these two countries the emirates and qatar, will be participating in these actions and flights over libya without -- the political steering is applied to coordination. what should we have done differently? i am only too happy to discuss this matter. what was the alternative solution? i very use the united states -- either you use the united states to coordinate, and you're running behind the united states, and if it is not the united states, and it is right that they should not do so

because of the sensitivity of our public opinion, why should i stand against nato machinery being you? if indeed the political steering is in the hand of the coalition? you think the french to be the one to take cover from the united states? are we not committed enough already? this would mean that i would have to come up with a system that would compete with nato machinery. they would think that would make any sense? look they are military headquarters or we all presence in naples, italy -- the european country close to the mediterranean. why not use what is available? honestly, i do not see what kind of political problem that could give rise to. for us long as the coordination

is and the hands of the coalition, i didn't get it. it is not nato forces protecting the civilians in libya. it is the coalition and in order to coordinate, since there were 60 planes flying in libyan skies, there had to be some machinery to coordinate these missions. who is going to do that? then command center is in naples, and of story. -- end of story. so there is the political problem there for us. and i do not see what you mean by european command structure what do we do with our american and canadian friends what we do with qatar and the emirates? it is an interesting concept and i'm prepared to consider but what would be the point of

setting up a system that would compete with what already exists? it makes sense. -- it makes no sense. this is a practical issue, not a political one. a political one would have been far more significant. have we lost the support of the arab league, that would of been a political problem. it would of been a political problem if europe had not agreed as it agreed last nine. but the use of nato machinery is not a political problem frankly. >> mr. president, do you not feel that the libyan crisis is masking what is happening? there many refugees.

what helps you confront a situation that is getting worse day-by-day? >> you're quite right. the security council but to the situation worsening day by day. it would be wrong for us to turn a blind eye to this absolute tragedy. that is the international affairs. one cannot handle the crisis wanted a time. -- one at that time. at the very least the u.n. security council has to forbid the use of heavy weaponry in libya. mention is being made of shells, helicopters, being repaired in order to shoot the people. that must be declared a completely illegal, the responsibility of the united nations doing its work. >> mr. president a question on

nuclear issues and on portugal. and then the clear front one plant is considered the most dangerous and france and it is on my fault line. is it even thinkable that it be shut down? secondly, people with the portable can survive without asking europe for help -- to you believe that portugal can survive without asking your for up? >> i am not in charge of portugal. it is for their officials to decide what they want to do. i do not have the view on the subject. i will not have the view of the subject. it is complicated enough. they will have to decide what to do. things it difficult as it is

already without us putting our wrote -- oar in. i think he has been doing his work and a courageous fashion and i say so publicly. a lot of people tend to lose cool heads at times of crisis. i do not. i think we have to have the stress tests and see what they come up with. if you say to me that we should shut it down before the stress test, then what is the point of having the stress tests? if we're going to have the monitoring then we will publish the results and see what to do. your ask me to do the exact reverse. it is better to have the stress tests, publish the results, and then take the decisions. if we have reason to believe that one plant is dangerous then we should shut it down

straightaway. are you trying to make me say -- i have no reason to believe that. i have no reason to take that decision. yes, it would. on the basis of the results we will decide whether to shut it down or not. it is astonishing to decide to do the monitoring and by the same token decide that you was that the thing down before you done the monitoring, which would indicate you have already cut the results beforehand. >> on libya this morning nato said on sunday night the international coalition will disappear and be swallowed up by nato. unlike your confirmation on this. and on the political aspect is coming to talk about the coordination undertaken in

london. your intention -- is set to give directives to-, or, but ideas for the future libya? >> thank you for asking this question. i apologize for not doing so. the spanish planes flying with us, it is very important gesture day, the french planes picked up from where the spanish ones left off. no, decisions will be taken by political coordination mechanisms. the straight detentions are taken by a national party some of -- by national authority's thoies there should be no difficulties there, but i do not want to be

repetitious by reminding you exactly of what i said previously. we have political coordination at the very highest levels. the members of the coalition. in other question, i believe? the absorption of the coalition by nato. the fact that nato will follow up. nato cannot swallow up the emirate and qatar. he said that that is important -- impossible. -- you see that that is impossible. it would be playing into the hand of gaddafi. we will keep the political staringeering mechanisms. perhaps the very last question.

>> on political staring and to you feel that the high representative -- do you feel that the high representative has played a good role in the libyan crisis? the member states were trying to find an agreement. >> i believe that she has played a major role and we have worked hand in glove with them. the high representative has played her role but it is not the high representative who has leverage on our armed forces. it is the member states. there is no such thing as a european armed force. it is not the high representative who can coordinate what the coalition forces does. to his present at the paris la motte -- she will be present at

the paris summit. they will maintain and ensure unity. britain and france have shown their leadership in putting their arms sources at the purpose of an international objection. -- international objective. sadr do we take a decision. things are happening on saturday night. very very last question. >> mr. president, what is your opinion on the matter taken by the birth mosconi government -- berlesconi government in

question are >> i must say you simply flummox me on that. they do not have a position. i am not familiar with this. hollen not like to say something stupid. perhaps if you could come back another time, how would be happy to. i was expecting just about anything accept that. is not that i am not interested. but that is not an issue i am familiar with. you want to call me about it? why not -- call my wife. speak italian to her. it's time i put an end to this press conference. have a pleasant weekend. thank you. >> next of reporter's roundtable discussion on that a's role in libya. we will fall of a conversation with former nato supreme allied

commander retired general wesley clark. after that i discussion on the state of u.s. public education. >> i am a numbers guy. >> as a visual op-ed columnist for "in york times," charlie blow uses trawls and brett -- charts and graphs i do not decide that will talk about a subject and look for the data. i search for that that person see if there is something interesting and that agrees with an opinion that i have or sometimes what surprises me and what surprised by readers. >> sunday night it 8:00 on c- span. >> no reporter's roundtable on the role of nato in libya. from "washington journal," this is 55 minutes. scully is with

"national journal" and we have missy ryan -- pentagon reporter. how significant is it that nato will step up and take the lead? guest: it is an important step but not everything the obama administration wanted. what they have done it is often rise nato countries to enforce the no-fly zone but that is only the first part of the u.n. security council resolution. what the nato countries did not do is authorize the full mandate, which is all necessary means required to protect civilians. host: how is the obama administration reacting? guest: they are saying it is a significant step forward but they are hoping that maybe some day next week when clinton meets with other foreign ministers in london, that the other countries will, but -- come around. a lot depends on events on the ground. host: night and, you did a story about the cost.

a recent story -- five days into the operation of costa mounting. it could cause billions and could require the pentagon to request emergency funding from congress did it take us through the cost. guest: bay already spends hundreds -- they already spent hundreds of millions of dollars. then you throw in the f-15 fighter that crashed down, replacing it with a more advanced fighter, which is what they typically do, over $100 million. it does not include fuel costs or combat pay. the total cost for the operation is too hard to tell at this point. there are too many variables such as the extent to which nato is going to take the lead and how long air strikes will continue and how central the united states will continue to being in patrolling and also striking. we will see probably in the next few weeks. the white house says it does not

plan to request supplemental funding but some skeptics say money is already tight. more than a billion dollars they will need some sort of emergency funding. host: talking about libya, the u.s. role and nato policy role. our guests are megan scully and missy ryan. you can join the conversation -- we are spending all of "washington journal" today focused on libya. missy ryan, a colleague at reuters reported on what is going on. saying it seems less likely the u.s. will be able to quickly handoff control to another nation until coalition forces can successfully disabled gaddafi's forces and ground forces and that pilots can safely enforce the no-fly zone. guest: part of the problem the administration is facing right now, it is they have had some tactical successes -- they have

been able to disable gaddafi's air force and and has struck ground forces. but the ultimate stated goal at this point is to protect civilians. but gaddafi is still going after civilians in cities. at this stage, there is fierce debate going on within the pentagon and administration generally how far the united states is willing to go to do that. obama said he is not willing to put boots on the ground, but how much does air superiority really accomplish? host: where does this leave you as you report on this? guest: looking for signs that other countries within the nato alliance and other countries participating would support greater action and perhaps continued ground strikes. i don't think there is an appetite anywhere for sending in troops. as i think that is something that is really first and

foremost in the mind of the decision makers at the pentagon making their recommendations to the president. host: megan scully, the difference between air strikes and boots on the ground, how is that playing out in washington? guest: with troops deployed to iraq and afghanistan afghanistan for nearly a decade, it would be a hard sell to send troops on the ground. the military is already very thinly stretched. hard enough for obama to build a consensus on capitol hill in either party around the air strikes. the ground up forces alone would be very difficult. it would be much more expensive. and there would be concerns of losses of u.s. life. host: let's get to the funds. mike and joins us from oregon on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. and i there? hello? yes. ok.

the reason i am calling is i was irritated from these phone calls -- ok, the guy from florida and the other one from texas or what ever -- whatever. you cannot compare apples to oranges. what bush did in iraq to what the president is doing now there is no comparison. we are talking about saving people's lives who are being brutally -- basically murdered by this idiots. i spent some 14 years in europe, and gaddafi -- you'd hear -- heard quite a bit more from -- about him with lockerbie. i think we are doing the right thing. i support the president in what he is doing. i am sure nato would take this over. sarkozy is the one kind of behind this and i think it is the best thing to get rid of this guy, period. that is my opinion.

host: reaction? guest: i think obama has said that gaddafi has to go and clearly the united states is interested in having a leader in libya who is not going to attack his own evil. that -- his own people. that said, the united states is incredibly leery of getting involved in another conflict that has no clear end, in which we do not have a clear exit strategy. and you have to remember that president obama really made his name on a national level through his opposition to the iraq war. and when he came into afghanista although he surged 30,000 troops, he made it very clear he hopes to end the combat role and presumably allow the military sometimes to recover and regroup and think about the next war. guest: i think there is some concern, too among those who are opposed, that there is no

exit strategy. that this is sort of being done on the fly. on capitol hill, they are worried about the fact they have not wait and publicly. there was no authorization for the use of force. and they wanted to have that opportunity. the administration will be briefing lawmakers next week. that might quell some of the concerns. but i think the long term concerns about how long we are going to be there and what the ultimate goal is are going to linger for some time. host: "the wall street journal" as an opinion piece from the law professor at berkeley who was a justice department official back during the george w. bush administration. he writes that --

host: megan, how you expect this to play out? members of congress are on a recess but they still are engaged. how speaker boehner sent a letter bringing up two concerns about the president not consulting congress. what are you hearing right now? guest: one of the most interesting things we are seeing is a senator lugar, who is a republican, top republican on the senate foreign relations committee, he has pretty much been in step with obama on most foreign policy issues and he was one of the first to come out opposing obama going into libya

without consulting congress, without seeking authorization for the use of force. if senator lugar is going to break with the administration, it will be hard for the administration to find any republicans to support the operation in libya. you also see some concerns from members of obama's own party. senator begich put out a statement last week talking about worries about cost and wanting more information. as i said, there is no consensus. there are members who are very supportive of the president. armed services chairman carl levin and other key democrats have been very vocal in their support. but it will be an interesting week next week. host: other members of the democratic party include congressman chris new hampshire, who is against it -- congressman

kucinich who is against it. guest: i think one thing to remember is really there were not any good options for obama in this whole libya situation. as we saw quite clearly defense secretary robert gates came out at congress a few weeks ago and expressed deep concerns about the prospect of getting involved at all in libya regarding the financial cost and potential human costs even enforcing a no-fly zone. i think those concerns were also shared within the white house. on the other hand, a bomb or really, i don't think, wanted to be seen as standing by judy obama really, i don't think want to be seen standing by as something like mass slaughter to happen. i think there are influential people and the administration, like susan rice, who really thought there was a moral

responsibility from the united states to take action. host: let's go to montana where henry is on our independent line. good morning. go right ahead. caller: my question is -- do you know who is the current nato commander? the united states navy admiral. that means the united states navy is in charge. and this president has violated the constitution and should be impeached. he stepped on it time after time after time. president bush even approached congress and got permission for war. and this president has not done so. briefing members of congress is not getting permission, not getting a vote. guest: i think -- you mentioned congressman kucinich certainly shares your views in terms of concerns. there are many who want to see this authorization for the use of the first pick -- force. however, the administration said often many people in

capitol hill and throughout government who wanted to see the administration move faster on libya. now that are saying, wait, we should have gone slower and consulted with congress. it seems as though the president's strategy here did not appease anyone on either side of the spectrum. it will be, as i said, insisting to see how it plays out next week and if there is a middle ground. >> let's take a look at the war powers resolution in 1973. the president can send combat troops to battle for 60 days without a declaration of war by congress or a specific congressional mandate and the president can extend the time for 30 extra days without congressional approval for a total of 90 days. missy ryan, what power does it give president obama at the moment? actual versus political power?

guest: from a legal perspective that is of the crux of the debate and it seems to me not being a legal expert there is a gray area here. possibly obama was sort of her pink -- hoping congress would fall into line. he didn't need to act quickly. there was a feeling, i think within the white house that after dragging out the decision for several weeks, the united states when it started pushing for the u.n. security council resolution that it needed to act within days an order to avert a total defeat of the rebel forces. i think obama may be expo's facto is going to live to deal with the congressional side of things. host: we have missy ryan with the warriors, and megan scully from "national journal."

a caller from the republicans line. caller: i was talking to my wife and a pool of the other day, and there was a lot of discussion going out within days -- getting out of the war or this conflict quickly. i think that is a mistake. just like my wife was in the pool she heeded the poll, and i said we just do -- you just have to get in. we spend the money to do it. we spent the time in libya. we were the first been. i think we need to get the objective done. the president said gaddafi definitely needs to be taken out of power. and i think, why would we leave without completing the objective? it would be even worse if we need to get back into this thing -- don't you agree? guest: i think that what obama is willing to do to protect

civilians in libya, and perhaps to seek adopt ago is really unclear at this point. part of a fine line the obama administration is walking is the fact that there are serious differences in interpretations among nato countries and arab countries about what it is exactly the u.n. is a dirty council actually authorized. all necessary members he -- measures. does it include a ousting gaddafi? it seems to me the ideal scenario from the american perspective would be that we enforce a no-fly zone, we conduct targeted strikes on military assets and on gaddafi's ground forces, but then there is an ability from the rebels, which we have not seen yet, to sort of coalesce and actively oust gaddafi themselves. host: there has been a question about what the mission is, what the goal is. are you seeing a difference

between nato bicycles and the u.s. possible? guest: i do not even known that there is a necessary single unified message within nato. or within the united states. obama has made it clear he wants gaddafi to go. meanwhile, the pentagon this week has driven home of one said that their mission is to protect civilians. that gaddafi itself is not necessarily a goal. while they do not want to see him continue in office, their objective is to protect the civilians and not to work with the rebels and not to necessarily target gaddafi or anyone specifically. host: let us look at statements from a pentagon briefing last night. >> our guidance is very clear. we are going to give up the command commission as we said

from the very beginning. give up the command positions and the participants in that process but not in command. and then we will continue to provide predominantly those capabilities that we have that are unique and enable operations, as well as additional capacity the coalition may not have that we do bring to the fight. an example would be tankers some of our isr platforms. and i would anticipate that we would continue to provide interdiction strike packages as well should that be needed by the coalition. host: the vice admiral speaking at a pentagon briefing. let us look at a comment on twitter -- are ground troops even an option? guest: know, the president said very clearly it is not an option -- no, the president said very

clearly it is not an option. guest: it is not even a option at this point. host: could nato move on that? guest: i suppose they certainly could but i do not think that what happened. i do not think you see an appetite for that even among the nato members who have taken the most aggressive posture in this debate. france definitely has been spearheading this whole thing. they were the first to conduct any sort of military action less than a week ago and the first to recognize the rebels governing council. but i do not think there is talk of that. host: bethlehem, pennsylvania. ron is on our democrats' line. caller: good morning. my question is, i have not heard anyone really talking about doing the iraq war -- the weapons of mass destruction was a big problem with nato and how we did go in and invade really

without data's approval, because of the weapons that we were looking for -- you know, we didn't find them. now that we are kind of working more closely with nato and our our luck -- our allies, france and britain and other countries, what did they help pay for some of this now? guest: certainly, there is the idea there would be a shared cost. and i think that really what the obama administration is hoping to achieve within days -- we have already seen this sort of first stage in nato agreement. but ideally what they hope is there would be a consensus around a nato command and control structure that would include nato members plus several other countries like qatar and united arab emirates,

conducting the no fly patrols and other military activities. they already sent a number of ships. and they have planes. turkey is sending a tanker, i believe. france has an aircraft carrier. certainly it is likely the pentagon will continue to pay for the lion's share of the entire operation because we have the most sickening -- sophisticated technology. we have surveillance and logistics capabilities that other countries do not have dared but i think really what is the most important thing for the pentagon at this point is to ensure they are not seen as running the show. whereas, in afghanistan and iraq coalition forces -- the fact of, it was u.s.-led and primarily u.s. military campaigns. guest: i think certainly in terms of the shared costs, one

of the things the pentagon has driven home this week is the number of sorties being flown by the u.s. versus the coalition and every day they say it is getting even more equalized and the coalition now or soon will be flying more sorties than the united states. that being said, as you just heard the admiral saying, the united states will continue to supply refueling tanker capabilities command and control, intelligence, surveillance and were conscience and also interdiction strike packages. so it looks like the united states for now will continue to be very involved. but as missy said, the perception issue, we do not want to appear to be in any way the lead for any extended period of time. host: let us hear from chop from alaska. the very -- good early morning to you.

caller: i would like to ask these journalists on your show, what specific public office does gaddafi hold from which he has to leave? two -- isn't nato, is of the supreme command in the united states, so the united states would still be leading the intervention in libya since it commands nato? 3, what is a civilian and libya? somebody would pick up a 50- caliber machine guns stolen from a government armory to shoot other civilians to support gaddafi? are they civilians? guest: to address your last point, what is a civilian in libya, that is one thing the military said it is hard to determine who is a civilian and who is not. it is

tee tee not cut and dried. -- it is not cut and dried. people have taken up arms to protect their businesses and their homes. they are considered civilians. guest: that is a point of debate among not just the american commanders but the other coalition commanders. how we figure out who is on the side we want to be targeting other than the guys who are in the uniform. there has not been any libyan rebel-on libyan civilian violence. that could happen in the future. we're doing from a cautionary perspective is avoiding conducting any strikes on gaddafi forces within cities. we do not want to accidentally

killed civilians. host: let's go to the phone where spent roscoe bartlett joins us, republican from maryland. what is your impression over what is happening in libya? guest: my concern is more about how we got there. the president tuesday that we are going to do this. he did not tell us until friday, a few minutes before planes started flying there. the congress declares war. the constitution is explicit on that. the only responsibility of the president is commander in chief. i think that a whole series of presidents have violated the constitution beginning with jack kennedy and the bay of pigs.

congress through the years have relinquish more of its constitutional authorities to the courts and to the executive. this is not the king's army. the president cannot commit our military forces any time he wishes any work he wishes. this is a clear violation of the constitution. if you can ignore or violate the constitution for a good cause then you can ignore or violate it for a bad cause. we are a great, free country. we have the enormous respect for civil liberties. no other constitution or bill of rights that gives such protection. i think we put at risk -- this has established a climate where creativity can flourish. that is one of the things -- the

only economic and military superpower in the world and we put a risk of who we are. i am concerned that we do not just ignore the constitution or violate the constitution. i am more concerned about how we got there. we cannot pay for this. we have no money. my 10 kids and 17 grandkids are going to pay for this. we needed to ask them. we are accumulating more and more debt for future generations. there was never a chance for the american people to weigh in. we need a long debate in congress. we could have debated this on tuesday. host: congress has been on recess. guest: we did not need to come back. the president

on tuesday he was going to do this. it was worth coming back for. a one-day debate is a long debate in the congress. we could have had that debate on tuesday or wednesday. we were there. we could have stayed later. host: let's get some questions. we're speaking with roscoe bartlett the chairman of the armed services committee. guest: what would the president need to do it at this stage to make amends? what can he do to satisfy those in congress who feel that they were snubbed? guest: it is not a matter of being snubbed. the president needs to come back and tell the congress he is sorry, we will not do that again. the issue is pretty moot.

we are already there. host: we have megan scully with "national journal." guest: there have been several proposals on how to address this issue when congress returns. what do you think is the most likely means by which congress will weigh and in? -- will weigh in? perhaps involving funding. guest: i know there are proposals to deny funding for this. i do not think that will happen. we stand behind the commitment. we will support our troops. there is a lot at risk over there. we should have had this debate. my concern is not much that we're there. my concern is how we got there.

we need to make sure this will not happen again. presidents ignore the constitution. they think that the war powers act is unconstitutional. the war powers act is all -- is very clear. it is a recapitulation of the constitution. it says the president can commit our troops if there is specific legislative authority short of declaring war. and if we are under imminent attack. none of those apply here. he cannot commit the troops. we needed to have that debate. host: to you support it -- do you support it? guest: i hate to see people slaughtered.

the future of our kids needs to be considered. we don't have any money. our deficit is now $200 billion more than our total discretionary spending. we need to have a debate in the congress. host: do you support it? guest: we did not have that debate. we have not heard all those facts in the debate. i suspect the american people would have decided the money is important but saving lives is even more important. but we did not have that debate. the president just committed to troops. he knew on tuesday -- he did not tell us until friday, the day after we started on the work break. host: congressman roscoe bartlett, chairman of the armed services subcommittee. thank you for joining us.

we're joined by megan scully and mrs. ryan from responders -- and nancy ryan -- missy ryan from reuters. caller: there is a lot of criticism coming from the right about the president's moves. some may say the right wing's loves military action when they think it is called for. it is not necessarily something to be measured against what past presidents have done. it is something that should be measured against the president's own words in the past. not that we should pay attention to anything joe biden says. he opens his mouth to change feet.

he loves to take potshots at george bush he has done something that is unilateral. he did not go to congress. he built a coalition and the calls iraq unilateral. it took many months to try to resolve it without military action. he is contradicting himself as he often does. for a man who says let me be clear, i think his message is very mixed on this. he should be in the country. guest: you mention the unilateral action. not speaking to congress is a concern. president felt a need to move forward. there was a coalition forming to kind of sidestep congress and go right to the u.n. security council and get this ball

rolling as quickly as possible once he made the decision. the goal here, unlike in iraq or other countries, is to get the united states out from the get go and to put a different face on the different country in the forefront. we're providing more of a support role. probably a rather hefty support role. but a support role nonetheless. guest: one of the interesting things that might come of the libya situation is that the viability of what is being called the obama doctrine, which would be a more authentic international military effort involving sanctions backing from malted lateral organizations. this is the first time we can see this. in contrast to what happened in

iraq. i would like to make another point about the cost. i do get the feeling from congress that is more about this principle and about the style in which this was handled from the white house rather than the amount we're talking about. it is sort of a drop in the bucket. we're spending $9 million a month in afghanistan. we're in the hundreds of millions of dollars and so i don't think is really about the money. host: anything resonate for your or tip you off as to what to think about next week as the obama administration goes before congress? guest: one of the things he mentioned is that he does not believe congress will move to cut off funding. once we have troops committed we will continue to fund them.

that is one of the arguments that kind of sustains iraq and afghanistan despite opposition to the wars. one analyst said in my be easier for congress to pull back because there are not troops on the ground. it does not appear from mr. bartlett's point of view that that would happen. host: we have a piece from politico. he doesn't want to equate what he regards as a mission with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. host: talk to us about the

dynamic right now of the u.s. stepping back and making sure that france and other countries take the lead when it comes to making the first moves but also taking the lead in what is happening with these nato efforts. there has been a lot written of the major papers noting that this is different. in talking about how that changes the united states relationship internationally. guest: you have seen a deliberate strategy in managing or trying to manage the perception surrounding the u.s. role in the libya intervention, which we cannot call it a war yet if you ask anyone at the state department or the pentagon. obama after he was elected went to cairo and has tried to creates a different dynamic

between the united states and the arab world and i think he is mindful of that here. this is now an action backed by -- i think the coalition is a 11 countries at this stage. the united states is not making unilateral decisions. the problem is that there is not as much consensus in nato and with the broader coalition. we would prefer to shrink into the shadows and continued to play a support role as we will have to do probably as long as it lasts. but not have it be american- based. host: sarkozy announced that the leaders had reached agreement on the issue. france taking the lead there.

guest: obama does not want to be the face of this at all. by making a speech and by being the first want to discuss this, he would be putting himself out there. it would be a vulnerability for him politically even more so than he is being criticized during the last several days. it gets back to the obama doctrine and wanting this multi lateral coalition -- multinational coalition and not a u.s. lead on this. host: this is from "the financial times." guest: we are still running things. we want to get to that point. that would be a novel experience. there's some ambivalence

speaking from where i sit at the pentagon. there is ambivalence about what that would mean. the military did not want to do this in the first place. there was reluctance because of what we faced after iraq and afghanistan. your concerns about how to manage a work by committee. we have seen that in the balkans in the 1990's. we have seen in certain points in the afghanistan campaign that individual macon's -- nations can be at to what they can send. this presents challenges. there is a bit of skepticism among the american military commanders in thinking of what this would mean it and would diminish the effectiveness if how we would do this if we would do this on our own. host: we have a comment on

twitter. let's go to new orleans were henry is on our democratic line. caller: hello. i have a few comments to make. george bush went into iraq and afghanistan. he went into iraq because his father had been threatened by some -- saddam hussein. there was a bounty on his head and cheney's head, too. as for is debating this stuff over congress, it would be a surprise if we could not attack and stuffed. i think the war act needs to be changed because things have changed. it has changed since the constitution has been written. where is all the money that was

supposed to be paid back to us by iraq for that war? guest: i think there certainly are major concerns, legitimate concerns among the american people, understandable worries about the overall toll that 10 years of war overseas has taken. the pentagon is facing serious cutbacks in coming years and they will have to reign in a number of weapons systems. that is part of an acknowledgement. the budget is far and away the biggest with in the world of american agencies. this cannot go on forever. as far as iraq paying backed for the war, the operations, iraq is

at this stage worrying about themselves. they have a steady income because of their oil reserves and they are focusing on rebuilding their own country. host: this from twitter. talk to us about the relationship the european countries have with libya and how it is different than the american relationship. guest: the differences in the relationship is part of what this underscoring part of the differences in the bowls and the missions. france is taking a harder edge on this than other countries did initially. i think that plays into the international politics here. guest: we always say london market is the united states' backyard.

north africa is europe's backyard. the geographic proximity in countries like italy and france and do you want a totally destabilized country? do you want al qaeda to regain a foothold in north africa? that has been a major driving factor in the stronger response from europe on this situation. host: let's look it some of the numbers. 95% of export earnings. host: our comment on twitter did mention this relationship revolving around oil. guest: it is hard to have a conversation about western

intervention in the middle east without it turned to oil. i think that is true that is strategic importance of the middle east these of the -- vi s s a vis -- i do think it is oversimplified to say that american french companies wanting to get their hands on libyan oil. host: missy ryan is a pentagon correspondent for reuters. she reported for orders and other publications from yemen afghanistan, the sudan and lebanon, and she speaks arabic. our other guest, megan scully, joins us as a national security

reporter for "national journal." she has worked for several defense publications. her experience dates back to early2002 and is focused on military budgets and policy issues. from new jersey, richard is on our republican line. caller: i would like to say that i have been a republican since 1968 and i feel squeezed out of the party by a reactionary and very conservative points that to not allow for anything else. i'm starting to feel the same about c-span in that -- you have an opportunity to nail these people that call to try to capitalize on this opportunity to offices -- to ops cafe the truth -- to obscufate the truth.

i think there was a great opportunity to nail him on that, and you did not. there are many of violations of the constitution that: every day all over the united states. i do not see people up in arms over that period whether this is a violation of the constitution requires legal action up to the supreme court level. there is precedent with the war powers act that goes way back, i think from a legal perspective the president is well within the law. i do not think people in washington are stupid and i think they know all these things. they have worked it out. i think undermining my vote for president obama as the best person to lead this country is also constitutional violation. that is what they are doing. may have one more second?

if you lived in a condo and the person next door was yelling for help and some of your neighbors were getting together to help, which use it down with your wife and go over your budget first before you went over to help, which you take care of business first and more about the rest later? if you break it down into a microbe instead of a macro argument, it is pretty clear what we do as americans as good neighbors. host: megan scully. guest: this is the political debate to goes on on both ends of the spectrum. in regard to the war powers act it is a legal issue, as you mentioned, and something that has a precedent for going to taking military action. but certainly lawmakers are not happy whenever they feel like

they're getting sidestepped by the administration. it will be a very lively debate. it always is. host: kansas city, missouri, on our democrat's line. caller: i was in the 82nd airborne. i was loaded in a plane to go to cuba. if we would have invaded cuba there would have been nuclear war. it is extremely important -- thank god kennedy was in there instead of nixon. these ladies are young and intelligent, but do not think they have an historical respective. gaddafi killed a bunch of american soldiers in germany. he was responsible for shooting down a plane or bombing a plant in scotland. he did not get his just desserts

-- we went in and got noriega. we damaged a whole bunch of panamanians. we put ground troops in there. they dispossessed a lot of panamanian population in the process. i'm sure there were casualties. i don't think the compensated them even though they said they would appear there is a stake in history. we have not gone after gaddafi because the of the oil. we set look at the good thing. now gaddafi is coming around. gaddafi wanted to come around for a long time. he wanted to get back into the good graces of polite society and he was ready to come back and we allowed him to come back. my last thought is this is political. these people, these chicken

hearts republicans are saying that we have to be tough part they let this guy get away with murder for years. we got a guy who was a gutsy enough to do something about that. gaddafi killed people. he killed americans. he is a psychopath. we need one battalion of wheaton -- recon and a bomb to take him out. he is not making the argument for what we're doing. whoever says a has got to say b. i agree with the guy who was on before. they cannot -- they are shooting themselves in the foot with their own weapons. goodbye. host: thank you for your service. we have the guests on to it

because they have experience covering this topic. let's turn for a response. guest: i will touch a point that you made on regarding the reasons for thinking about what gaddafi should be out of power. we should maybe bring this back to the perspective of what is happening across the middle east right now. it is quite surprising once you started seeing this domino effect of what happened in tunisia and egypt and now what may happen in yemen. g gaddafi dug in. americans were surprised by mubarak leaving and then everything that happened around that. gaddafi was going to stick it out. with the obama administration has been struggling to do is come up with a coherent policy for dealing with such an unprecedented change, often in

countries where we do not know a lot about the political alternatives. we have leaders who have been in power for decades. i think that what the white house has said is they are doing this on a case by case basis. i think that's libya situation has demonstrated the limits that we're speaking about the future of the middle east. host: we have a comment on e- mail by george. >> richard from maryland. caller: how are you today? host: we're good, thank you. caller: there is no doubt that

gaddafi has done terrorism in the past. if he was as bad as everybody said, i think the united states with their position on terrorism as a result of 9/11 would be willing to go in there and knock his socks off so to speak. the underlying issue is that this is the united states an opportunity to put their naval forces in the mediterranean. at the present time, israel is being threatened by this process. by having the navy in the mediterranean that gives support to israel if something were to happen. it has been acquired in the news regarding the possibilities of

israel becoming or being attacked by the surrounding muslim society. host: us in response from megan scully -- let's give a response. guest: it has been interesting to see the dynamics play out. secretary gates was in israel. he was urging israel and palestine to resume the peace accords and to prevent israel being swept up in what is the chaos and turmoil going on in the middle east right now. they do not want to see serious retaliation. they want to see more peace talks. guest: we'll know the history of lockerbie and those bombings in 1986. we made up with gaddafi at a certain point.

the west decided it was in this strategic interest of the united states to patch things up with him. and that was important -- there was an important step. you can disagree or agree with that. that is complicating the response early on about -- to what was happening in libya. host: our guests have weekend schedule online. "washington journal" continues. host: good morning. thank you for being with us. what to think the u.s. mission should be in libya?

guest: the goal is to get rid of gaddafi. he has been trouble for a long time. i was surprised how easily he was rehabilitated by the british and the united states after he turned in his nuclear weapons. he was responsible for the bombing at lockerbie that killed over 200 people. that was revenge for a u.s. strike that was done on him in 1986. that was retaliation for a bombing heated up the killed some americans previous to that. he is a vengeful, difficult leader. he does have oil and money. he has sons who have tried to project a liberalizion. he has built himself into a champion of sub-saharan africa.

but he has been a difficult customer. and so i don't think there's anything wrong with the u.s. goal of saying should be gone. the military operion has a different purpose. it was to address the widespread use of force by gaddafi's military and security forces against innocent people. that campaign is working. whether it will lead to the goal remains to be seen and that is to challenge facing the administration. host: retired general wesley clark is joining us from little rock, arkansas. he is a cnn contributor. do you think america can hand over power by this weekend? guest: nato is the logical organization to handle this. nato has the mechanism to

coordinate the commitment of aircraft by various countries. it has the planning operations center in italy. it moves ships der nato control off the coast to maintain the embargo against gaddafi. i think they can do it and think they are doing in it. host: there is a story the looks at five questions against the dramatic moves against gaddafi. it asks the goal of the attack on gaddafi. when you work involved in operations like this whether some of the questions about what the mission was and what the end goal would be? guest: frankly yes. if those questions are not ask there is something wrong. any time use force or have a strongolicy that does not use

force, people need to ask these questions and understand it. when we were involved with kosovo and the balkans and when we restored democracy in haiti people were asking lots of questions. some of the questions are gotcha -type questions. host: chuck joins us from connecticut. caller: i did not understand this whole thing. obama has said the purpose -- his purpose is to get rid of it gaddafi. and yet he is precluding any idea of boots on the ground. i will go back to the second world war. eisenhowernew that having ear support very -- air superiority

was not going to win the war. if the idea is to prevent civilians being killed, one of gaddafi's thugs standing in the street shooting people in the back of the head with a revolving is not gone to be stopped by airplane flying over. so i guess my whole question is how does he pect to accomplish his goal without boots on the ground? i will turn off and listen for the answer on the air. guest: it is the fundamental question. you have to put yourself in the position of the preside. something bad is about to happen

in been gauzy.-- been gauzngazzi. he will fire indiscriminately and he will round up and execute people. you have a choice. you can do nothing. you could also declare war but there is no basis for declaring war on gaddafi. this is not war as far as the united states is concerned. it is a limited military action designed to hold the -- to halt the killing of innocent civilians. the limited use of force. that use of rce does not go all the way to accomplishing the president's goal of getting rid of gaddafi, but it does set a

restraint on the'gaddafis use of -- a restraint on gadhafi's' use of force. maybe there is a prolonged stalemate. but the alternative was to do nothing and allow thousands maybe tens of thousands of innocent people, to be hurt. and so i think the united states may be considered choice. there is risk in this policy. it has been done before. in 1999, we used an air campaign to stop ethnic cleansing in kosovo. milosevich had been behind war and we knew it. he was gone because military action set in motion a chain of events which were six selling by democracy trading in serbia and people refuse to permit him

toteal an election. he ended up being arrested and died in the hague. and so there are different process he's at work in the international community beyond the use of force. host: gerald w the court with the nato supreme allied commander in europe -- general weey clark. who takes the lead? how was that relationship parsed out between the heads of nato and the heads of the u.s. effort on the international front? guest: the united states is a member of the north atlantic treaty organization. we have u.s. troops and facilities still in nato. we are morelos the backbone of nato. -- we are more or less the backbone of nato.

so nato more or less leans on the united states. natal operates on a consensus. all members have to agree on action. at the top, nato is governed by the council of all of the heads of government of all the nato states. president obama would need at that at the nato summit. below that, foreign ministers meet and below that, there are permanent representatives ambassadors who sit in brussels on a daily basis, working the policy. then it gives direction to the nato military authorities. the top authority is an american admiral. he is a supreme military commander in nato. he has regional commanders under him to handle the applications -- " an elite operations in local locations.

caller: yes. i like to say thank you for your service to the united states of america. i would ask you is journalist of the united states who are free after the bombing, they were set forree. those americans have no problems with that. what is your comment about that? is not mentioned in the media this disconnect -- i will disconnect and listen to you. guest: i think the journalists were treated better because gaddafi knows that he is under the scrutiny of international forces. he does not want to give any further pretext forreater u.s. opposition to him. and so all these journalists are

more less being handled -- i do not want to sit with kid gloves. but they were not taken out and shot. word got out that if you do that you will bring more trouble on yourself. the u.s. engagement does make a diffence. host: a story out of ethiopia from the associated press. host: how important is it for nato and the u.s. to have a

shared voice with countries in africa and the middle east? guest: it is a critically important. this is a helpful statement. it recognizes the inevitability of political reform. the action in libya is not an invasion by the west of a muslim country, as the dolphin would like to explain it. -- as gaddafi would like to explain it. a new form of government that better represents their interests and views. this is the kind of process that can grow out of the military action that is underway. host: long island, new york on the republican line. caller: i like to offer my sincer appreciation for your contribution to our country. i worked in afghanistan for four years. i was in kosovo.

i've been roumania. the one thing i have seen and i am proud of is the fact that america, although there is a separation of church and state we started off with a christian foundation. and now there are years of trying to help making a lot of mistakes by trying to help in the middle east. in a face-to-face rationship between one ahan and one american, one afghan, when german with a local any foreigner in whatever country we have been. those relationships in developing their countries have created a reality thahas been strengthened by the internet, that has been strengthened by the cell phone. it cannot turn around. what i'm happiest about is the fact that probably not in my

lifetime but going forward there's the possibility that people will be people of whatever country that. that the lusby tribes. there will be at athens. there will be a rocki -- there will be afghans, they will be iraqis. many of these countries are highly educated people. our competition is business, in development. that is one thing -- that is when things will get interesting. guest: i think is finishing -- i think it is an interesting comment that you make. americans working abroad have been able to build a bridge between peoples of different cultures. and i do agree with you. this is the great dream that the united states has had system second world war.

the end of the coleonial era and economic development around the world. it is true. these people are competitors to the united states. we have to charter our own way for. it will not be enough to of the strongest armed forces in the world and have a big market and so forth. we have to have a vision where we want the country to go. it starts with good education. improving american infrastructure. a whole host of issues that will keep america in the forefront. that is where we belie we ould be and will be. host: tampa florida. caller: good morning, geral. i think your top notch. i want to get your opinion.

if it is too much, answer whatever you think is most imrtant. what is the difference between i fouri -- between world war ii and every other or we have been? how has our military philosophy changed since that time? has our military become so powerful that the american people dictate what we do? is the military calling the shots? guest: those are three excellent estions. in world war ii, president roosevelt calledor an unconditional surrender. that set the tone for world war ii. they simply had to surrender. it was over.

it set a standard of war for which we have not pursued afterwards because we figured in world war ii america's survival was at stake. we maintained our survival after the war bdeterring the prpect of soviet encroachment in europe. we contain the soviet union. then we use military action to buttress the containment around the periphery of the soviet union. week aided allies -- we eded allies and send our troops into korea and vietnam. that was the difference in world war ii. the military has never been totally comfortable with the idea of limited war. for us, you give us an objective. take that hill. we will take the hill. when you translate that to the

national level, and national objectives like unconditional surrender -- turn it over to the military and we will go get them. in fact, state craft uses the military as one means along with the economy and economic forces, diplomacy through -- bilateral aid, international law -- all these factors figure in. military action has to be one rt of tools used by the united states to maintain our security and to advance our interests in the world. our military is the most powerful military in the world. i do not think it is out of control. it is answerable to congress. every flight officer who gets promoted up to above thetwo- two-

star level has to take an oath. we are accountable to the people of the united states. the military is a powerful institution. it has goo people that are well educated. they plan and work ahead. it is a long-term institution. sometimes the force of military planning the logic in assembling the fact overwhelms other elements of u.s. policy. it is well understood inside the administration that the military role has to be limited and under civilian control and isit is. host: general clark is our guest. politicao is reporting the president is resisting pressure

to deliver an oval office speech. do you think the president should stand up before the american people and have an oval office address to explain his position? guest: i am glad he has not done it. i would advise him to do it if i was in opposition. when you put in forces like we have over libya and you do use military power you can slide down a slippery slope to a full- scale ground force intervention. one of the quickest ways to start that slide is to make this an obama's vs gaddafi fight. and so everything the president can do to prevent that from happening is a good thing. this is not the president of the united states against khadafy. it is not the nine states against libya. that would be no contest. this is really a limited effort

to help the libyan people achieve a degree of self determination and individual rights. much of the rest of the world have enjoyed those rights for a long time. host: florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. it is an honor to speak with you. i was a volunteer rescue worker at the world trade center. guest: thank you. caller: i am honored to have the privilege of to do that. i think you're a true american. you're a wonderful general. i think you should run for president one day. guest: i did that. caller: you should do it again. you are a true american. i love america. god bless you. i love you. i think all your ideas of the

right way for the country. i'm overwhelmed speaking to you. i never heard the speech before. i'm overwhelmed by the way that you -- i believe our president is commander in chief and he has a right to go into any country he wants to. many presidents have done it before him. i back him 100%. we have to gear rid of tse rulers better tyrants -- we have to get rid of these rumors that are tyran. if we make friends with these people maybe we will get a good deal on oil. maybe they will be our friends. it is better to have friends than enemies. he is our enemy. guest: thank you for your kind words. i agree that we have a good, smart president. he is doing the best he can do in some very tough

circumstances. the united states is operating under the rules of international law. we have benefit from international law as a way of regulating -- as opposed to using force. it is importanthen we lk at people overseas that we do not agree with that we stay in line with international law. and we have done that in this case. international law authorized the military intervention. there are other people in the world who are equally bad. international law has not focused on them. we're being guided by that. the united states is important oil. we import retreat the rendebillion dollars between $300 billion --and $400

billion. we should develop our own infrastructure. we have spent 40 years talking about it. i hope congress and the administration will get on with building toward american energy independence. host: looking at the oil that libya holed dirt a former governor has a commentary piece and ""the washington times" today called "here we go again." he talks about gaddafi being a bad guy. he does bring up the issue of oil. guest: he is a good man. what has happened since 1971,

1972 and the beginning of opec and the boozman of the united states to an oil-importing nation, we have developed a much more energy efficient economy and we have developed -- maybe we did not have any oil alternatives bk in the 1970's but we do have oil alternatives toda it is important that we don't have -- for the american economy, it is high time we got moving on some of these alternatives, whether it is electric automobiles or biofuels, the use of coal, gas to liquids there are many ways to replace the imported oil. they locked drawbacks and environmenlthey all have drawbacks. but so does sending money abroad

with corruption, violence. we're feeding violence and corruption. some of the money is probably getting to terrorists as well. maybe the mess in libya will be a wake-up call for america to remember that our ergy policy is partlyesponsible for all of this. host: general wesley clark was a nato supreme allied commander in eupe. he is joining us from little rock ark., this morning. he is the chairman and ceo of wesley clark and this is it, a consulting firm. he is a contributor cnn. he is involved in the global energy advisory council. let's goo the telephones. bill joins us from illinois on the democrat's line.

caller: i am a decorated, a disabled vietnam veteran. one thing i cannot stand t hear one more time is that we went into this country for humanitarian police and not oil. where were we when the khmer rouge slaughtered people? where are we with the genocide being committed in africa and other nations? if we had a civil war in the united states and other countries joined in against the people against our police as a democracy, we would be outraged. look at all the people in the united states who need help. we have children going to sleep at night hungry. we have people losing their homes. we have the highest unemployment rate in history. people can g on tv and say

that this is humanitarian aid because the leaders said he would do something he had not done. all the millions of dollars we are wasting, i cannot believe that the people in this country arso naive as not to think that this is not just about the oil. guest: i do nothink is just about oil. it is not about american oil. there are american companies there. there are chinese companies. there are turkish workers. gadhafi's family has done a lot to bring in international investment and try to develop the country in the last few years after they turned over nuclear weapons and libya opened up. i know what the people in our government are motivated by. i share your concern about the

other issues out there. there is no direct connection between the u.s. action and the oil industry in the case of libya. we do have a vital interest in the region of the middle east. we still haveroops in iraq. we hav terrorists that come out of the region. there are those preaching violence against the west and our civilization. we want to maintain the stability of the world economy. international access to oil is important. the 1.2 million barrels of oil from libya were made up by expanded production from saudi arabia. we do have a vital interest in the middle east. across the mdle east, there has been a wave of reform.

people have started asking why they cannot have rights like other people in the world. it started in tunisia. he went to egypt. the action in libya is part of the broader wave of reform. the unitedtates was faced with the question of, if given the scale of the atrocities about to happen in libya do we just do nothing? the week declared all-out war on gaddafi? we cannot do that. there is no reason for it. -- do we declare all-out war on gaddafi? do we want to dictator crush the efforts to bring democratic reform to libya? united nations said we have to be concerned about humanitarian actions. we cannot intervene everywhere. i am not going to justify the fact that we allowed what happened in cambodia to have been many years ago. it did happen. the united states did nothing at the time. that was then. this is down.

president clinton said something that stuck with me. he said that when you can make a difference, yoshould. with limited commitment of military forces and no u.s. troops on the ground, i think we are able to make a difference and we should. host: that is a perfect segue to a question from torture -- twitter. guest: i am not sure what the impact is. we have cautioned the middle east that they must not use force. they should work to accommodate the pressures and demands for reform. a lot of these governments are hard to credit. they have been corrupt. they have not done a good job of bringing opportunities to their people. one of the greatest common denominators in this is the lack

of jobs and economic opportunity across the region. the u.n. has taken a strong voice against gaddafi. i think it sets a mark for all leaders in the region. accommodate, work, be responsive to your own citizens, give them a share of the wlth and opportunities that the ruler's enjoy. i think that is the message of libya. host: palm beach, martin, a republican. caller: i have a couple questions regarding the president. president obama seeked approval from the united nations and arab league. he allowed the u.n. to set mission objectives. then he commits our forces. i would like to have your comment on these items.

i will hang up and listen. thank you. guest: some of the actions you described occurred. they occurred in a different sequence. what happened as i see it is that there was a revolt among the people in libya. the various international organizations saw what was happening. they saw khadafy's -- gaddafi's violent an inappropriate response. theyw he is violent difficult and of the profits - and autocratic. he is a non-democratic leader. they spoke out against him. we went to the united nations concern for humanitarian reasons. the whole united nations security council voted 10 to 15

to authorize under the sanction of international law, a no-fly zone to prevent or try to impede his use of military forces against innocent forces -- innocent civilians. we did seek that. that is the authorization from international law. it makes it so the world can take action to restrain gaddafi without declaring war against him or invading or doing somethin against the rule of law and inappropriate. the u.n. did not give the mission to e united states. the u.n. authorized under international law various states and organizations to come together to execute this mission. the united states set the mission for its own air manmen.

we will never relinquish control of our own forces. it is an efforto deal with the humanitarian issue. maybe we will get rid of gaddafi sooner. eventually, he will go. that is the stated goal of u.s. policy. we will not use military action to that extent now. host: this comes from twitter. guest: i tnk every situation is different. there e different forces at work in the states. the scale of activities is different. the and united states has spoken out privately. -- the united states has spoken out privately. i am sure other countries have as well, cautioning them against the use of excessive force.

host: what do we know about the rebel forces in libya? guest: we do not know much, at least publicly. people have gone in and met with them. it is a group of different people. there are academics former government ministers, some people who have lived abroad. there are some businessmen involved, some intellectuals some students probably some wild eyed radicals that came out of fighting in afghanistan or rack. the eastern part of libya did send a large number of fighters against u.s. forces in iraq. some of those may have survived. we do not know that. there are some radical elements in here. we know there will be a certain degree of struggle amongst that group to come together on common goals and direct the future for libya. we know that. that is e of the risks of the

operation. host: what is your comfort level with that? how the link that to your experience with nato? guest: i am not terribly comfortae with it. so members of the opposition seem to be aligned with western values. some may not be. this is a transition to a government that is going to be more representative, we believe of the libyan people than the government of muammar gaddafi. it is a process. it is an opportunity for the west to send our experts and advisers and. we can send in organizations from other western states to go in and train these people on how to have democratic government. they have not had a. they will have to sort through the different opportunities, standards, how to move forward. the african union statement

calling for the emergence of a democratic government is very helpful in that regard. host: let's go to jerry field -- cherryfield maine. you are owith general clark. caller: i am a russian linguist cold warrior from the old days. i still wear my blues with the honor guard. i salute you, sir. i have always admired you. i have heard you speak about the balancing act of military inteention versus or and the moral imperatives for our interventions in various places in the world. like bosnia, and now libya.

i know the process by which the decisions were made for us to intervene may be somewhat flawed but i support it for the humanitarian reasons. i am glad we have played a role in that we are playing this role of military intervention in libya. know our relationships with the egyptian officer corps over the many years affected and influenced the peaceful transition in egypt. the bigger question is the bigger picture of wondering what you think aboutow all of this will play into chang that is dramatically unfolding in the middle east indies formerly repressive nations. i would be very interested in your comments. guest: i think there is a stronger pressure for reform

across the region. people are speaking up for their rights and opportunities. a lot of it is caused by lack of economic opportunity in the region. there are many in the region who say the real way forward for reform is not just a routine. it is about changing the way the economy'sies so that ordinary people can have a job and own a home and have the economic oprtunities they would enjoy if they were citizens in europe or the united states. some of this is strictly on the basis of economics. i think we're in for a long term bumpy ride. when you bring democratic governments to states, sometimes their troublesome to deal with because they have their own ideas. when you are dealing with autocrats, if you can see them one on one and tell them what you need to do.

they may agree with you and be able to make it happen. when you are dealing with allies and friends that are democratic, they have to listen to their own popular opinion. ideas on the united states and interests are different in these countries. the ideas we may have about ourselves are different in america. it is an important right in the long term, it is the key to economic developme and peace in the region. that is to give ordinary people a greater voice and stateke in their fure in their own land. caller do you think in this case, we waited too long and gaddafi was able to reestablish himself? we're now in a slugging notmatch or the rebels are when they did

have the momentum to may change. we have tried to learn the lessons from iraq or at least obama has. maybe there is an argument here that each circumstance requires a different approach. i think we have left it too long. i think we're in a situation where i cannot see the rebels on their own without ground troops being able to take tripoli. guest: that is th big question. the alternative to leaving it was to unilaterally declare we were going to go in. you had to see what was happening on the gund. nations have to understand it and come to grips with it. it had to be discussed and agreed by international institutions like the arab league and united nations to provide a basis for intervening.

otherwise, it would be an invasion of another country. we are no friends of gaddafi. u.s. and british policy is that he should be gone. we have a lot of sympathy for the people struggling to overthrow him. on the other hand, our larger interest is to create a world where international law and normal procedures between states are used to resolve disputes. i am sympathetic to the concerns you are expressing. it is amazing the consensus came together as rapidly as it did. i was quite surpris by the strength of the u.n. security council resolution and how quickly it came together. the speed shows that when it comes to dealing with organizations like nato and how you enforce a no-fly zone, a lot of theehind the scenes work is done on the public stage to talk

and plan at the same time. host: let's get to cincinnati, claudia, on the democrats' line. caller: i have watched you over the years. i have thought you are one of the most consistent and intelligent commanders. i want to thank you for what you have done for the countr i had four uncles that were in world war twoii. all of them are dead. one was in the all black tank battalion. we all have a very strong love for the army in our family. what is bothering me about this whole scenario is that i am tired of all the knee-jerk reaction by our politicians and

some of our so-called journalists. i would like free to explain because you have been in nato commander, all of the things the commanders have to take into consideration when they send our boys into action. it is not a good idea to always shared this with the public. one of my best friends who is a caucasian gentleman. he died about a year ago. he was in the air force in england. mr. gray used to tell me that i the american public really knew the extent of casualties suffered in 1943 over europe -- the situation was much worse than we gave out. can you explain to some of our

friends out there that you do not want a president who shares everything? guest: thank you for your kind comments and your families service to our country. there are things that president has to keep to himself. there are things that nato commanders have to keep to themselves. i do not quarrel with the degree of public question and scrutiny in this case. the public has a right to know and should have a right to know. before we went into iraq, everyone lined up and said to go get them. there was not enough public scrutiny. the invasion succeeded quickly but we still have 50,000 troops on the ground after eight years. we lost 5000 americans in the conflict. we spent more than $1 trillion on it. it could have been much better.

it might not have had to be done if we had the appropriate degree of public scrutiny. the political process is an important part of democracy. e president has to answer for it. high level commanders have to testify in front of congress and occasionally go in front of the media to defend their actions. they are accountable under law as well as in the court of public opinion and elections. the political leaders are. they should be held accountable. it is part of the democratic process. the things that need to be kept secret are mostly kept secret. occasionally there are things like wikileaks that cannot that are disturbing and result in some degree of trouble. i think on balance we have a wonderful system of gornment in the united states. we have wonderful people who stand for elective office in both parties. we have been a blessed country. we have to be proud of what we

stand for and what we have done. when you are in the political arena, you are going to get roughed up. you are dealing with e most important values of the nation. the lives of the citizens, our safety, our future, our children, and the resources of the nation. what you are seeing is the rough and tumble. as i said the of the day on a tv show, it is not a football game. -- what i said. as i said the other day on a tv show, it is not a football game. it is not aootball game. these are important issues. political leaders have to be held accountable. host: we're talking to general wesleylark joining us today from little rock, ark. he is the ceo of a consulting firm. he is a cnn contributor these days.

host: we're joined by phone by congressman larsen. should the president had gone to you and your colleagues before deciding what action to take in libya? guest: i think so, given the nature of the mission. we understand the cautions the president exhibited. i commend him and the secretary of state for the action they took to make sure that they had the united nations the security council, the resolution, the arab league -- to make sure they have all of that in hand before they acted.

while they were doing that, i think it would have been better had he briefed the congress. classified briefings would have been fine. i think members would have felt better about it now. the president did brief the leaders of last thursday of the respective committees and some of the top leaders in congress that were there. that is not briefing the entire congress. members were home during the work period trying to do with the issue on the fly. there is a long history of this. congress is an equal branch of government and needs to be informed. host: let's take some calls for congressman larson.

david joins us on the independent line. caller: and the disabled, a decorated world war ii veteran. i lived through the depression when we have the great leadership of fdr. i was fortunate enough to serve overseas from near the end of world war ii. that was with china japan korea etc. i come from a family that has always had a part in military service and politics. and was very disappointed by the bush administration's unspeakable war in iraq. i am registered independent. in my opinion, it was a war of a

corporate state against the country that had already been defeated in the gulf war. anybody knew it would only be a matter of time before saddam and his apparatus would be dismissed and a big change would come in iraq. instead, we lost 5000 of our precious young people. everyone of them was a volunteer. remiss handled -- we mishandled the entire iraqi situation. this was indescribable. we're now involved in a war and afghanistan. i see the casualty list every day on the news when i watched national public television. i am deeply disturbed by the way

the president who live voted for -- the way he and his a ministration have handled our foreign affairs in the middle east. host: let's get a comment from congressman larson. guest: thank you for your service to the country. i have the utmost respect for our president. since vietnam, and this has been a very tender issue, so to speak. it is tender from this perspective. the constitution clearly lays out that congress is an equal partner in declaring war. the war powers act also lays out the process by which we would go to war.

underlining that our core concepts. does libya represent an imminent threat to the united states of america? i think you could argue that point. if it represents an imminent threat, what is our mission? what is our exit strategy? how long will we be there? what will it cost? the other thing that is somewhat disturbing is that there was a lack of information. there will be a briefing this wednesday, a joint briefing between the house and senate with secretary of state clinton and secretary gates and other personnel. a lot of the other persisting questions have to do with whether we're getting involved in a civil war. should there have been more of a briefing for members of congress? i come down on the side that there should have been

briefings that would have allowed the membership to make up their minds and be informed on the decision of the administration. i further recognize the president was in a difficult spot gaddafi was about to possibly exterminate the people of benghazi. we were the nation forwardly deployed. we had a unique assets. he felt from the humanitarian perspective they had to strike and hopefully stabilize the situation and then have the other nations move in and takeover. i believe nato will do that in the ensuing days. that is where we stand. you lived through the gulf of tonkin.

that is the issue here for members of congress. it is an age-old tension between the executive and legislative branch having to act on something in a timely basis with all its urgency and the need to be informed -- theñ?y?y?ú9ú9ú9g0'6#&#&c0

but we do not allow data to be used that way in california. that is why we are one of the

worst performing states. you have to look at data. test scores are not and and all. you do not evaluate teachers only on test scores. the rest to be a mechanism to determine if our kids are learning. then you can have other ways to evaluate teachers effectively. >> a good discussion. now it is your turn. those who have questions would you please raise your hand? we will get a microphone to you. let's see. right here. >> my name is hillary. i am a public school students. cross is for being here. my question is about parents. we talk about teachers and holding them accountable and giving them resources. i know a few teachers in d.c. despite their efforts, sometimes they would fail. a lot of the challenges they ran into were the parents. where do you see the role of parents changing with this new initiative? thank you.

>> absolutely. it is already slated to half a dozen other states. it gives the power to the parents. parents should be able to demand a good education for their children. oftentimes that is not the case. california started an

organization called "parent revolution." there is a group of people talking about repealing it already because they do not want parents to have the power. the role of media plays a critical role. in sacramento, we are hammering away at everyone who is opposing apparent trigger. if you cannot afford a private school, if you move into a good neighborhood, we have good public schools. if we do not have a good public school, he moved into another community. if that does not work, you have to use someone else's addressed to get into a good school. parent trigger starts to level the playing field. it is spreading around the country. >> if yes, right here. hold on just a minute. >> hi. thank you. i am a clinton school student in my second year. your goal is to change the social environment within the

schools. you talked a lot about the determinants of the environment not just within the schools, but surrounding the schools. where does community development fit into your plan? who do you see promoting that said the schools are reformed? >> who are you asking that question to? [laughter] >> you guys have heard of geoffrey canada. president obama had something called a promise neighborhood initiative where you are creating an environment where schools are the center of the community, but everything around it plays a vital role from baby colleges to work development. michelle and i met many years ago.

i had an organization pulsate hope. its mission is to revitalize inner-city communities through its economic development public education, and the arts. i grew up in a poor neighborhood. i knew the schools were very important, but i do not believe you can improve public education without economic development. if you do not figure out a way to create jobs and train people for the work force, if you do not figure out a way to get your dollars to circulate within a community, it will be very difficult. our goal is to revitalize the community. they go hand in hand. >> you have to tell your story really quickly. >> patel that at the end it by that time.

-- i will tell that at the end if we have time. would you address voter apathy please?

that means and not a whole lot of money from teachers union's influence those elections. the reason why that is problematic in a lot of ways is that if you look at the vast majority of states across the country, the policies that govern staffing of schools and who teaches at the rich kids and when are determined to the collective bargaining process. when you have a slate of school board members who are elected through union dollars then you essentially had the union on both sides of the bargaining table. if the union got me elected, i will not go hard-core acted the union for a better contract. i am rely on them to get elected next time. that is what is problematic. we have to find a way to get the public more engaged in public education. you have to know when your

school board elections are. you have to know exactly what those people stand for and who they are going to stand for when it comes to running the school district. >> we have a question on the front row. the city how do we make sure all groups of students can serve their country? >> first of all, i love city year. >> how about that for an endorsement? >> city year was a huge component of our success in washington d.c. when i first got to the city, i went to a city your opening ceremony.

i got to see all the excitement. i came back and talk to the city your folks. i wanted a city your core member in every one of my schools. they said that was interesting. they had a better idea. what they said was that they had a new program they wanted to start which clustered groups of city year members in individual failing schools to help turn around the culture and environment. they felt if they had 10 or 12 city year members clustered together, that could change the culture of the school. we started that in d.c. it had an amazing impact on the school they were again. the core members or their early in the morning. they were there late at night. there were tutoring kids during the day. it was unbelievable. one of the things i found to be the most heartening was that the

young people who had exposure to the city year folks expire -- expired to be lies them. we ultimately had people who were in our school system becoming city year corps members. that is the ideal scenario where kids who are in school have exposure to programs like cd year. they see the power that individual young people can have on people like them. they want to contribute back to their community to the same type of program. >> yes ma'am, right here. >> i just wanted to thank you guys for identifying the problems, identify the solutions, and enacting those solutions so that we can visibly see how we can make a difference. i truly want to applaud you on that. my question is to the mayor. we recently had a school board issue in the little rock school

district where our school board superintendent was pushed out. it was a buyout. i was one of the leaders of the community involvement for the little rock school district for our students. over and over again, my issue was they were missing the mark. the students are doing better and achieving better with this current superintendent. i reached out to the mayor of little rock and i reached out to the governor of the state of arkansas and never heard from either of them. it was quite disappointing. how can we press the mayor in our city and state government officials to be more involved in our education because we say that we want to improve our economic standard, but you cannot do that without greater education. tell me how we can do that. >> thank you for the question. my answer will be pretty brisk. one, the mayor and your governor have to be involved. if he did not hear from them, but i will say we did not try

hard enough. we have to wait for them to come out of city hall. if one or two people take your whole group of people, at some point all of us want to solve problems in our committee. i can tell you if your mayor is a very committed person in terms of public education. i wish i would have known the center. i would make sure he followed up with you today. that is my commitment. i will make sure he follows up with you. the second thing i want to say -- think about will rot in the history of the little rock nine. you guys had the richest history in the country. i had a chance in sacramento to hear one of the little rock nine speak in sacramento. an amazing lady -- carlotta. just listening to her story. i shared this with her and i will share it here. i have been in little rock a dozen times in my lifetime.

every time i am here, i rent a car, go back to my hotel, and about 11:00 at night i drive out u.s. central high school and i just sit there. i drive around the beautiful campus. the images and the pictures start coming to life. you think of the battles that went on at that particular school so that someone like me could do to an integrated school. now my responsibility is to make sure their schools are going to do their job. in some cases we are better off when we did not have integration. holy moly. i am not satisfied with that. the last thing i want to say to you is that it is important to know -- and i challenge everyone in here -- you would think that results would be enough. you said there were results occurring at that school. she entered it washington, d.c. -- the worst urban school

district in the country -- turned it around in three years had the biggest gains out of any urban school district in the country on math and english -- double digits -- and did not get to continue her work. the interest groups and the politics that go on oftentimes override the results that should really matter. >> let's hear from an elected official -- the mayor of north little rock is here. >> welcome kevin and michelle. i do not know how lucky we were but "waiting on superman is something i had not heard before they before yesterday when you presented that video and had the panel discussion that was wonderful.

adrian steny was your mayor. he did not survive the election. that was pretty bad. i think you quoted a little bit of what he said afterwards in asking them to recall if he would have done anything different. the answer was, a absolutely not. i have three grandchildren that are in the north barack public school system. i want to applaud you. when you see that video, bc were kidd's parents are committed to their kids at the same time, you get three or 400 vacancies -- u.s. 300 or 400 vacancies and 20 spots. the lottery selected those kids. we cannot wait. my question is, when are the rest of us going to have a more

general distribution to see "waiting for superman?" the second thing, all of us are concerned about where we are as a country. some of the facts that were cited by in washington day before yesterday about how we are 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st in terms of what is going on globally -- we cannot wait. when are we going to be able to see "a wedding for superman?" how are we doing when it comes to growth? welcome here. thank you for being a part. >> get the mayor a round of applause. he came back in town to be here today. thank you very much. i would deal with the first part. mayor cafés participated in a panel discussion we had a couple of days ago in washington, d.c. he came back just to be here. raise your hand if you're seen the movie "waiting for superman." impressive.

david guggenheim was the director of this film. the has an unbelievable ability of taking issues that are important but maybe not mainstream and making them important to the audience. that is what happened with al gore in the "inconvenience truth." he took complicated issues and brought it mainstream. it was in theaters for about three months. now it is fully distributed on dvd. anyone in your can get the dvd. it is out. we are encouraging folks to have a viewing party at your home. invite eight or 10 people over to your house and watch this movie and discuss it. the power of this movie will outrage you. you will be ready to join her organization immediately. because this is what it is all about -- all of us collectively fighting together for our children, for somebody else's children, even if we do not know

who those folks are because it is a tragedy what is going on in our country. the film is being distributed all across the country. >> in terms of the second part, we absolutely are not competing when it comes to our education system versus others. one of the statistics -- if you have not seen the movie, it is very interesting -- they tested kiss in developed nations in mathematics. the u.s. was at the absolute bottom in terms of how their test scores were -- what their math skills or. they ask the kids how they felt they did on the test. how did you think you are in math? u.s. kids, number one. this shows you that we have a significant problem. one of the problems we face as a nation with our culture is that we are so busy trying to make children feel good about themselves that we are not actually spending the time

building the skills where they are good. i see this in my own household. i have two little girls -- eight and 12. they both play soccer. they sought at soccer. they take after their mother, not their stepfather to be. if you were to walk into their room you would see trophies and ribbons. you think i was raising the next mia hamm by the looks of it. it is very difficult. but try to tell them, "you are not so good. you have to practice every single day and even if you do that i cannot guarantee you that you will be great." it is hard for them to reconcile that with all the trophies and ribbons. we have to regain our competitive spirit in america. we have to teach children that you have to work hard in order to be the best. we have to stop allowing the

children of our country to be prowled of mediocrity. that is the only thing we can do. >> if a question up here. wait for the microphone. >> thank you, dean. i am also a student at the clinton school. i want to go back to teachers and results. you mentioned the need for good teachers with great results in our schools. my question is, in a school where it is split between black kids and white skids and other ethnicities -- agent, the growing hispanic population -- what does a good teacher looked like in a school as diverse as that and how do you measure that?

you talk about results in the key is results but i am interested in hearing other ways mayor johnson talked about other -- earlier. how do you evaluate this teachers? >> first of all, it is important to note that a teacher who is a great teacher for a black kid does not look any different from a great teacher for a white kid or an asian kid or anything else. great teachers set very high expectations for children. they do not let children make excuses. they hold them to those expectations and then they give them what they need to be successful. children know when you believe in them and when you do not believe in them. the thing that used to make me so mad when i was in dc -- kids would tell me stories of adults who were in the schools to say

to them and things like "i get paid whether you are learning or not, so what does it matter?" or "you will never amount to anything. you're stupid, so why should i waste my time?" kids would tell me adults in the building were saying these things to them. it is actually not rocket science. if you have high expectations for the kids, if you know each child is an individual and you have to treat every child as an individual -- communication, understanding what engages kids -- what is interesting to them. all those things are what makes a great teacher. i will say this -- at the end of the day the children will tell you without any equivocation that what matters most to them is having a great teacher in the classroom every day. they are willing to put all the other step aside in terms of what the school looks like,

whether the building has computers. if they have a great teacher, they know when someone cares about them. >> she talked about high expectations. there is something before high expectations. a teacher has to believe in a kid. you got to believe that kids can learn. that is where your high expectation comes in. if a teacher believes in a kid and builds a meaningful relationship, if that kid will do anything for that teacher. if that teacher raises the bar higher, that it is going to jump. that meaningful relationship is so critical. that unfortunately, we do not have as often as we would like. these teachers that are really good and competitive, they want to look at data and determine whether or not kids are learning and they had a goal and go after the goal -- they own that accountability. teachers that are really good or problem solvers. they figure out there's a

problem and come up with a solution. if a kid does not come to school and the teacher prodigal is for the kid to be at school 95% of the time, that teacher is going to call home. they are going to get it done. they will find a way that those 20 or 30 kids that are there are going to learn. that is critical. we have kids in elementary schools that have cell phones. the kids can call the cell phone number if they try to do their homework at night. a lot of kids do not have two parents in the household or parents to know how to do algebra. that kid can call that teacher and the teacher is available after 9:00. their husband and their kids understand that part of their job does not stop when they leave the campus. it goes on. if the kid is still behind on saturday that teachers will find a way to be with their family and they go to school for a couple of hours and go back home to their family. they do whatever it takes. that is the commitment.

it is tiring. it is exhausting. those teachers who are great figure out a way to make it happen and they do not make excuses. >> great question. up here at the front. >> thank you for coming. i am a student here. my question is about hell are we going to reincorporate the arts within our school district or within the school system? even working with city year, we find out that teachers teach to protest. there are other things that enhance the learning. how can we reincorporate arts to enhance education? >> you'll hear from both of us that reading and math are really important. we all know that. but we believe in the whole experience.

arts physical education -- all those things are equally important. on the daunting has talked about this. use the secretary of education. as mayor i believe the first thing to be cut in schools are arts programs. what i have to do is figure out ways to supplement the normal school budget to make sure we can provide our young kids with meaningful experiences that are relevant. we do not wear the same way. some people get math a certain way. some people use their creative expression and can learn how math creates the dots by looking at art and things like that. we have a pilot program in sacramento called "any given child." is a partnership with the kennedy school in d.c. they are doing a pilot program in sacramento where we have arts curriculum in all of our k-eight schools in sacramento. in a down budget with less

resources -- they know the value. i know the value. the school district's love it. if you have arts in schools attendance goes up for the kids participating. kids do better academically. thirdly, these young people become future patrons of the arts. everybody wins. as mayor i have to make sure i do my job to make sure that courts or central in a young person's education even if it is not in the school budget. but the chancellor did again d.c. was amazing. they made a huge commitment to the arts. >> it was interesting. my second year on the job we were facing a huge budget deficit. it was about $700 million across the city. everyone was trying to speculate about what would get cut.

my boss at the time, the mayor decided he was not going to touch the school budget. people went nuts. the schools make up a huge percentage of the city's budget. they have to shoulder their fair share of the burden. the mayor said, "knew they do not appear "we are in a economic crisis because of the irresponsibility of adults. we are not going to make up for this on the backs of children. it was not a popular stance to take. only 20% of the voting population has school-age kids. he believed it was the right thing to do. what we managed to do when we went to the school closure process was we had the exact same amount of money but we had fewer schools to spread it over. that met every school for the first time in the history of washington d.c., was able to have an art teacher, a librarian, a music teacher, and

a nurse. by saying to the schools and the children that it was not an option whether or not you have an art teacher -- it is not dependent on whether you are a wealthy school and can hold an auction to raise money to have one. every child in the city must have access to a broad based curriculum. art cannot be considered as an accurate -- as an extracurricular activity. every single child should have access to it every single day. >> where was the student asked about holistic education? there you are. she warned me to tell the story. it is black history month. raise your hand if your where it is black history month. such a smart audience. in our community, we try to get a coffee house to come again. i called magic johnson at the time. i used to play in the nba.

i called magic up and i said, "in los angeles, you run a starbucks. you have a starbucks in a poor part of los angeles. how did you do it?" he said, "i called up the ceo of starbucks. he said, "this is magic? i am a huge fan of yours. "they went back and forth on all the pleasant stuff. magic's said "i need to bring a starbucks into a poor part of los angeles." that change the whole conversation. tower said, "i used to let you at michigan state. that dream and that the shot you made. he said he had another call and ask to the call him back in a week or two. two weeks later recall him back.

"magic you're so charismatic. you beat the boston celtics. i want a lot of money on you. you have big feet. magic's said, "i need a starbucks in los angeles." howard said, "magic, off the record i had 19 do a feasibility study and do a marketing analysis of the community you are looking -- you're talking about. the demographic and the profile of the starbucks coffee drinker does not fit the community that you want me to go into." magic said, "give me a little more." howard said, "if you have a lot of black people and black people do not drink coffee." magic's said "i appreciate your

honesty. let me know the next time you are in los angeles." magic took him into his theater. they stand in the lobby. magic points at the concession stand. he said, "look at all those black people. they eat popcorn. they drank soda. the light rays and that's." -- they like raisins." power said, "i see where you are going with this. if you want to do a wager, let's find out whether or not black people drink coffee together. it cost $1 million to do a new store. i will put up $500,000. you have to put up $500,000. we will find out together whether or not black people drink coffee." magic thought about it and said, "ok." howard said, "i will work on the business operations of this partnership because that is what we do really well and you work

on the community and the out -- because that is an area where you are more familiar. we will play to our strengths." you guys know the coffee margin is not little. it is big. typically, a starbucks stores takes four years to get a full return on its investment. for years. this store -- six months. magic gets a call from howard six months later. he said i had good news and even better news. "the good news is we made our million dollars back in six months. the better news is that black people drink coffee." we are going to open up 27 more starbucks around the country. what is the moral of this story? people in every neighborhood what the same thing everybody else wants. they want good schools, safe streets, teachers to care, they want jobs, and yes, black

people what coffee. >> you talk about the arts. i want to give you a name to look at. go to the website and look out the fee of foundation. if you can incorporate that into your program, it is a marvelous organization that does exactly what you're trying to do. ladies and gentlemen let's thank michelle rhee and kevin johnson.

>> next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." at 10:00 a.m., possible republican presidential candidates including newt gingrich, haley barbour, and others. now, a discussion on u.s. policy towards iran. a task force with the atlantic council has released a report examining it ron's relationship with middle eastern countries and the implications of political unrest in the region and what it would mean for those countries and the united states. the panel also examines a proposal with involving iran in diplomatic talks. the task force is cochaired by check payable and stewart eisenstaedt's. this is one hour 20 minutes.

>> we look at iran at's and neighbors and arab nations across the persian gulf. given the recent events in recent months, we considered the impact of unsettle complex in iran. this in atlantic council task force was lost a year ago. it was launched with the goal of

building a comprehensive understanding of u.s.-iran relations, and the internal political and economic dynamic within the country. since its launch last spring, the task force has hosted four working sessions and released a brief on iran's still might. with the council undertook this project, we had no idea of the events that were about to ensue across the region. it makes the work all that more important in understanding iran. questions the task force will be facing -- what are the implications of unrest in arab states on u.s.-iran relations? is there a role for iran as this unfolds? these questions need to be addressed by u.s. global policymakers. before passing the microphone to our cochairs, i would like to

thank the funder for this project. i'll turn it over to our chairman who is also chairman of the atlantic council. he oversaw for policy in the middle east at a critical moment. >> thank you. welcome. we are pleased you are here. we appreciate you spending some time with us today recognizing this as a friday afternoon. we know it is a supreme sacrifice that you have made. over the next hour and a half, we will have an opportunity for some substantive exchange based on a great deal that the task force has learned over the last few months. that effort has already been

discussed. we have been fortunate to have the wise and experienced counsel of many individuals to have years of experience with the iranian-american issue as well as the entire region. when we started this effort it was probably the only one clear constant about the world today -- that is the great uncertainty about the world. that really plays into much of the fame in this relationship between iran and the united states. when you really put a scope on this you look at the significant art beginning in north africa. what happened there beginning in north africa 60 days ago and

what is currently underway. you take that all the way across the middle east into central asia. it covers a tremendous amount of interest for the world. but you look at the geopolitical dynamics of this -- the energy interests -- you can extrapolate out from that region at everything that comprises inside that and you quickly come to the realization if not the conclusion that this is a vital part of the world certainly for the united states's ventures. iran plays a significant part in this. their role, not just where they are located, their size, culture, or history -- they are

a very significant part of this scenario that has yet to play out. we are seeing a new order being built in this part of the world and across the globe -- a new world order is under way. this general region is a great manifestation -- a clear manifestations of what is happening around the world. i do not think there is any question among all who know about this area. there are varied opinions about how we deal with this part of the world. there is that the question about whether we will ever see a world again what we have seen the last few years especially within this large space. what is under way is going to transform how we do business relationships -- geopolitical relationships, and the common interest that anchored those

relationships. we will get into some detail on this. it is much of the centerpiece of what this task force has tried to grapple with and work along those lines. there has been a lot to say about this. it has been my opinion over the years that if nations forsake the opportunities and possibilities to anchor relationships, their own sovereign interests, then every nation will respond. but if you defer the common interest that must anchor relationships, this parallel, a common interest, there is very little likelihood that anything positive will come from that. you'll never get the differences. you'll never be able to close in on the boundaries of trying to

resolve differences were living with each other or living with those differences. the common interest become a central core factor of what we are about. thank you. i now turn to my esteemed colleague and a very good friend. we worked together on many projects over the years. i cannot think of anyone more qualified to be part of this. thank you very much. >> we embarked on this project to the atlantic council because we felt that the relationship between the united states and iran was going to be formative for this whole region and for world peace. we looked at various aspects over the last year or so that reflect the best views of experts inside and outside the government. we have papers on the nuclear

program and where it is going and ways to potentially stop it. we looked at their internal political forces. we are trying to take a look at regional roles that we want to play and we think iran wants to play. we saw three goals for the united states. one is to stabilize the region in a sustainable way. the second is to prepare for an eventual 2014 which all -- with all from afghanistan -- with toll from afghanistan. third, we encourage iran to be less confrontational to the united states and our allies in the region.

we dealt with how to keep maximum pressure as a rent finds ways to avoid a fourth round of sanctions and how to keep pressure on the iranian nuclear program so it does not develop further into a weapon is program on the one hand, and on the other, try to find areas regionally with respect to afghanistan in which there may be a coincidence of interest in which we can cooperate. one that we have struggled with is what we are trying to find those areas, whether or not they are interested in engaging or not -- there is a risk that we send a signal with respect to the nuclear program that you are letting up on the printer. that is not our intention. as we mentioned in the paper is

that for decades we had a very strong confrontational relationship with the soviet union. it had its own nuclear program. at the same time, we tried to find areas of cooperation and areas where there happen to be a coincidence of interest without anyone thinking we were letting up on the confrontation. we think this comes at a very opportune time because of the upheavals in the middle east which, initially iran felt was to their liking because some of the regimes or toppling. democratic forces have asserted themselves in tunisia and egypt and elsewhere.

the whole iranian model may be a victim. they may recognize that they are not necessarily playing from a position of strength and that cooperation in some of these various maybe opportune at this time. with that as an introduction barbara has done a superb job with this. we'll let barbara till the first -- she is the one who felt the experts all round the world. he has been the blue that has brought this project together. i know i speak for the senator when i say that we are much in your debt for the effort you get

put into this. i think it shows. let me turn it to you. >> we should also note that he has just arrived from mongolia, korea, china, the yellow sea -- where else have you been? we appreciate you coming right from the airport to do this. >> thank you, senator. thank you, ambassador. let me join the cochairs in welcome everyone -- in welcoming everyone. it is obvious that things are uncertain. i have stated that there is of people across the middle east.

the israeli-palestinian situation, the future of iraq. there are developments we do not yet know of. these will influence the direction when it comes to america's relationship with iran. i just came back from china and korea. there is a strong perspective there, correct or not, that libya is gaining excellence in the region. the populist regimes will be less accommodating to the united states. they will be vaguely nationalistic. they will not be totally iranian but fighting upheavals is a sense of emancipation. this finally against colonialism. this is out it is viewed in china and korea. this brief considers what kind of regional role the iranian leadership is seeking, held that role fits with the applications

of the emerging of leadership of the arab states in the gulf, and tell american interests are affected. to talk about this, we have the principal author of this. barbara has been to iran several times. she is a journalist and an author. she is also the author of the u.s. institute on eros -- on iranian institutions. we will hear from barbara for the next 20 minutes or so and then we will take questions from the audience. without further ado, barbara. >> thank you. i want to thank the person who did the excellent maps and charts. maybe it will give you a better

sense of power in iran fits in the middle of the region between the middle east central asia, south asia, and the indian ocean. it is a very pivotal country. we decided to do this brief long before ben ali and mubarak fell. it is much more timely now given the events. because all of these intifada's are in training, this is very much a snapshot of where we are now. we cannot give you the whole movie. the narrative that one hears most prominently from tehran is that iran is necessarily the victor in all of these uprisings is far too simplistic. instead what we are seeing is the continuation that goes back to the beginnings of the islamic

republic in which iran takes advantage of opportunities prevented -- presented by current events. at the same time, it remains a strategically lonely nation. that may explain what i mean by strategically only. before the 1979 revolution, iran was backed by the u.s. in the persian gulf. they had tremendous relations with the united states and other powers. it even had ties with israel. since 1979, iran has at its most successful relationship with hezbollah. for years iran's closest relationship was with armenia which was a strategically not very important country. over the past three decades iran has not become a member of any major defense alliance.

there is no major country that would go to war on iran's behalf. they had relations with another council. last year when iran to try to become a member of this council, its membership application was rejected because the rules forbid any country that had been sanctioned by the u.n. security council from becoming a member. iran has been sanctioned repeatedly because of its nuclear program. in the brief we went into detail about iran's ties with iraq and afghanistan. it has increased over the decades because of the actions of others. this relationship has been far from trouble-free.

there are a few modest recommendations. i always have trouble making recommendations. says i am now a semi-pandit we have a few modest recommendations that involve afghanistan. it is one country where the u.s. and iran have overlapping interests. i will give a brief overview. i will not go into all the topics in debt. yet the report in front of you and online. iran has clearly benefited from the u.s. regime change in afghanistan. iranian exports have gone up 20- fold. the western part of the country is the most prosperous in afghanistan primarily because of the actions of iranian businessmen who have set up shop there. iran is benefiting from new transit corridors from central asia and afghanistan that go through iran.

iran can do much better if not for sanctions. they are an impediment, especially to energy trade. at the same time, there are irritants in this relationship. they stem from history. the two people were part of the same empire for centuries. both afghans and iranians see themselves as the origin of persian culture. afghans have been treated as second-class citizens. means of afghans have fled to iran. there have been more recent year tense. it is a problem with iran that when it goes into a country it tries to do it with too many different forces. this is translated cash payments to karzai and members of his cabinet but also to elements of

the taliban. this winter, iran held up 2500 fuel trucks. the motivation remains somewhat mysterious. i have heard a lot of different accounts. some say the fuel was bell for nato forces, which was not true. others say it was a message to karzai not to ignore iran. the result was a 70% increase in demonstrations in iran. when we look at iraq, we see a similar pattern. iran has benefited from the toppling of pseudomonas saying -- saddam hussein. iran is the most powerful actor

in iraq no matter what the obama administration says. it will become more powerful as the remaining u.s. troops leave the country. once again iran has shot itself in the foot repeatedly. it had an initial proxy -- the supreme council for the islamic revolution of iraq. it has changed its name to the islamic supreme council of iraq. iranians supported a shiite cleric. so-called special groups attacked sentes, other shi'ites and american troops. is he a made man as some have argued the has had more