for the rords. -- record. colonel morgan stated, and these are his words, my personal feeling and opinion supported by my interview with the lead flight crew is that the mishap aircraft had no idea they had exceeded any flight parameters. mr. speaker, the pilots had no idea they had exceeded any flight parameters. they were merely trying to remain in position on a flight, trying to establish a bad approach. the bad approach was by the lead plane. this was the second plane. and again he said, the pilots had no idea they had exceeded any flight parameters. mr. speaker, as i said just a moment ago, they now have warning systems and if the pilots today had exceeded any flight parameters, there would

be a warning system going off. . and the plane would not crash and 19 marines would not burn to death. mr. speaker, again, i want to thank congressman steny hoyer for joining in this effort to clear the names of these two marines. i want to thank the families, trish brow and her two boys and connie gruber and her girl, brooks, to continuing to say somebody's got to clear the names of these two men. they were outstanding pilots, mr. speaker. i have never had anyone in the marine corps tell me anything different that john bra and brooks gruber were outstanding pilots. but as i have said tonight, the

environment of the times, secretary of defense, dick cheney, was opposed to the v-22 program. he wanted to eliminate the program. there were members in congress and both parties that wanted to save the program. there was a fight going on. so when these two marines crashed and the 17 marines in the back of the plane that died, they sent out this press release that i just made mention of, and they never had a second press release that would have clearly have stated that based on the investigation, based on the jagman report that we have reviewed and signed by the general, that these two pilots were not at fault. they had not been trained and did not understand vortex reinstate. the marine corps didn't demand that boeing make this plane safe and they didn't understand it.

so for 10 years, actually 12 now. the crash was in 2000, for 10 years, there have been many people that have joined me in trying to say to the marine corps, you are owed these two men, they deserve and their families deserve a letter from the marine corps stating that they were not at fault for this accident. mr. speaker, again, all i can say, and i will continue to say to the marine corps, you have the utmost respect of the american people. they have great respect for the history of the marine corps and what the marine corps has done for our country in all the wars. but in this case, we are talking about the marine corps. and all the families want is one paragraph that clearly states

that colonel john brow, pilot, was not at fault for the accident that occurred on april 8, 2000 in arizona. all connie gruber wants is the same letter that with her husband's name. this is to certify that co-pilot brooks gruber, major brooks gruber was not at fault for the accident that occurred on april 8, 2000, maranna, arizona. mr. speaker, this is a journey that i will not stop until we clear the names of these two pilots. the facts are on our side. there is so much more that i could say tonight. i have volumes, mr. speaker.

i have the tape that jim furman presented in the lawsuit case. i have a copy of that given to me by jim furman. and i have seen the tape from mike wall ace and "60 minutes." and i have heard the tapes from jim schaffer. there were four planes flying that night and he was in the air, these were buddies, he saw the plane crashed. he has joined us in this effort to clear the names of colonel john brow and major brooks gruber. i want to thank chairman bud mckeon and ranking member adam smith, their loud language to be in the bill that basically says they hope that the marine corps will work to clear the names of

these two pilots. and mr. speaker, i want to thank the press that has taken on this effort also. one thing about voltaire, we owe the living our respect. we owe the dead the truth. and this effort has all been about is trying to call on the marine corps so the american people respect, i respect to issue the letter to trish brow and connie gruber. mr. speaker, all the lawsuits over. and i look at this letter from mike morgan -- and i don't read it because the first septemberens is about me, and he says i fully support the extraordinary effort that you have undertaken to this effort.

i will close, mr. speaker. this is from phil stackhouse. he says, i do not -- and again, this is one of the three investigators. he said, i do not believe that it would be a surprise to anyone that it is my opinion the mishap was not a result of pilot error but was a result of a perfect storm of circumstances. mr. speaker, that's what i'm talking about. they did not understand vortex reinstate. the manufacturer didn't understand it and the marine corps didn't understand it and they couldn't train the pilots. that is what he said. they cleggetted 20 binders of evidence, including maintenance records, training records,

operational and testing records and dozens of photographs. this includes a -- he further states, this includes compressed testing and evaluation created by deadlines, funding and maintainance. mr. speaker, that's what he is talking about. at that particular time when this plane was up and going to arizona, they were cutting programs to test the plane. you had secretary of defense dick cheney trying to kill the program. they did everything they could. i don't blame the marine corps for trying to save the program. they believed this was the helicopter of the future. but he further stated, the action of the lead aircraft in this section, and lack of understanding in how vortex reinstate and pilot settling would affect the osprey in the real world was part of the problem. i do not feel that our

investigation reflects that a mishap was a result of pilot error and if the investigation was interpreted that way, it was misinterpreted. this is one of the three investigators that wrote about the same letter and phil stackhouse closed by saying this, major stackhouse said this , for any record that reflects the mishap was the result of pilot error, it should be corrected for any publication that reflects that the mishap was the result of a pilot error should be corrected and recanted. mr. speaker, i have had the privilege and the pleasure to meet major brooks' gruber daddy and mom. they live in florida. one time after the accident, they came to jacksonville, north carolina, and connie gruber invited me to the first baptist

church in jacksonville, and i never will forget, after the church service, connie said i want you to meet my father-in-law and i went out and met mr. gruber. mr. speaker, he was a marine who fought in korea for this country. and we were in the vestibule and he said i want to shake your hand and with tears in his eyes, he said, congressman, i cannot thank you enough trying to clear my son's name. mr. speaker, i have stayed in touch with mr. gruber and from time to time to let him now we have made congress. we keep beating this drum, clear the names, clear the names, clear the names. clear the names. i called trish brow last week to tell her that wtvd wanted to

come up and interview her about the accident and happened to be a tough day, mr. speaker, because her father-in-law, who is 80 years old was having surgery. but i'm pleased to report that the surgery went well. i want mr. brow, senior and his family, and i want mr. gruber, senior, and his family to see the letter that we're asking the marine corps to send to the two wives. both men are in their 80's. so i will read one more time before closing, mr. speaker. for any record that reflects the mishap was the result of pilot error, it should be corrected, for any publication that reflects the mishap was the result of pilot error, it should be corrected and recanted.

all three of the investigators, colonel mike morgan and colonel rad itch have written me letters and said the same thing. our jag map report said our pilots were not at fault. mr. speaker, we are going to battling this thing for the families. and i will say we are getting closer, because i have such faith in god jall mighty, that -- almighty, that i know it's god he wee will that these two pilots that are dead and the families who are living, deserve to have their names cleared. and i call on the marine corps to do what is right for your marines. forget the congressmen. i happen to be a foot soldier. but do what's right for the two

marines who are dead. do what's right for the 17 marines who were in the back of the plane who are dead and do what's right for their families of the pilot and co-pilot. mr. speaker, with that, i want to thank you and the staff who stayed here tonight to give me this chance to share my concern, my heart. and i will ask god to please touch the hearts of those in the united states marine corps, to look at the face of colonel john brow, pilot. and the face of major brooks gruber, co-pilot, and call on the marine corps to write the letters to the families and to publicly say that the jagman report has cleared these two pilots' names and we, the marine corps, could have eight years ago, issued a press release to the nation saying that these two pilots are not at fault.

if they had done that, i would not be on the floor tonight. i close as i always do for all those fighting in afghanistan, god, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. please, god, please bless those serving our nation and those who have lott those, hold them in your arms. give them comfort. bless the house and senate. please ble president obama and do what he does right. god, please, god please, continue to bless america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. jones: i make a motion that the house do now adjourn for the

evening. the speaker pro tempore: thank. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands ad >> we will have that next on c- span.

and to does 11, an activist became the first arab woman to win the nobel peace prize. we will hear her talk about her role in the yemeni uprising and the arabs bring later. friday ruth bader ginsburg talked about the court's current term. >> no case has attracted more attention. the picket line outside the supreme court, a line that for three days before oral arguments commenced. some have described the controversy as unprecedented, and they may be right if they mean the number of press coverage is, prayer circles, protests going on outside the court while oral arguments were

under way inside. >> she spoke about reports on the decision expected this week or next. >> and although our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors. my favorite among press p pieces widely observed at the supreme court, those who know do not talk, and those who talk do not know. >> watch the rest of the comments online at the c-span video library. >> john mccain talked about the conflict in syria. the ranking republican member of the armed services committee calls on the u.s. to more actively assist the syrian opposition. this event includes a panel

discussion. >>[applause] >> good afternoon. i'm a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, and it is my pleasure to welcome john mccain. senator mccain is the ranking member of the senate armed services committee. he served 22 years as a naval aviator before entering politics. when it comes to syria, he has taken leadership not only in the senate, but within the entire u.s. government. he has distinguished himself as the conscience of the senate on this and other issues. thank you for joining us and we look forward to your remarks on the way forward in syria. >> thank you very much. thank you, michael, and it is a

pleasure to be here, i notice from the faces in the crop there is a number of in terms here who are spending the summer. i have always thought if there is such a thing as a reincarnation, i wanted to come back as an intern in washington in the summertime. i know most of you are spending a great deal of your time over at the library of congress on weekends as well. it is a pleasure to be back at aei. it is one of the four most institutions in the world that has contributed so much to the decision making that takes place here. it is great to be back among many friends. i usually try to begin my speech is as i just did with a joke or some kind, but when we are talking about syria, it is too horrifying, to heartbreaking, and to exasperating.

for 15 months, the syrian people have faced an onslaught of violence ofassad and his forces, which is now estimated that as many as 12,000 lives have been lost. some suspect that figure is higher, and there is no end in sight. to the contrary, assad seems to be accelerating this fight to the finish. it is a port to recognize the clear trend is toward escalation, both in the nature and quantity of the killing. assad is gone from using it for kerry and snipers to tanks and artillery to turning loose special units and turning is malicious the massacre of men, women, and children. this happened last month. we're now seeing a rapid increase in his use of helicopter gunships. where his forces once sought to

clear grant, they are now under orders to kill anyone and everyone deemed a threat. there is only reason to believe assad escalate the violence, the massacres, more use of helicopters, and perhaps worse weapons after that. assad his forces continue to be armed by russia and iran. there are reports by iranian operatives to help assad while russia continues to ship heavy weapons, including as secretary clinton has stated the helicopter gunships that he is currently using to strengthen bombing of civilians. whether these are new or old is a distinction without a difference. there are now reports that russia has dispatched two ships and a unit of marines to

reinforce their naval base, and they are delivering additional anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. clearly this is not a fair fight. amid all the violence in syria, you cannot go number to the human tragedy there. in april, thanks to turkey, joe lieberman and i visited a refugee camp in southern turkey. i have seen my share of suffering and death, but the stories that those syrians told still haunt me. men who have lost all their children, women and girls who had been gang raped, children who have been tortured, and none of this mind you were a random acts of cruelty that happen in war. this is what they were

instructed to do as a tactic of terror and intimidation. if i get a little emotional when i talk about syria, that is why. when it comes to the administration's policy toward syria, to say they are leading from behind is too generous. that suggests they are leading. the administration now appears to be placing its hopes in the russian government to push from power. this is the same russian government that continues to provide heavy weapons and support to assad, refuses to authorize a u.n. sanctions on the regime, and blames the recent slaughter of civilians on the opposition and foreign powers. the more basic problem with this approach is that the the mission has already tried it. moscow were ejected it and shut

down the u.n. security council. what has changed to make things different now? what the president does not seem to realize is what bill clinton came to understand in bosnia. a diplomatic resolution in conflicts like these is not possible until a military balance of power changes on the ground. as long as a murderous dictator, yet milosevic or assad, believes he is winning on the battlefield, there's no incentive to negotiate. the same is true for the ford supporters. whatever the reasons, and despite the russian air racketeer issued in the arab world apply, as step aside assad for 15 months. we're now approaching a major

point of decision. annan's plan has been a failure four months. the head of the and monitoring mission has suspended its operation for security reasons. assad's increasing reliance on helicopters is giving in to this for a call for a no-fly zone. the administration's approach is being overtaken by events. the opposition inside syria is increasingly forcing the head of the civilized world to intervene on their behalf, because they are going or effective militarily. this is no thanks to us. reports suggest some of our friends in the middle east are not army rebel groups in syria. this may some reports that opposition forces have been able to destroy some of that tanks

prevent assad's forces from taking key terrain. some will interpret this as evidence that the united states should maintain a hands off approach to syria. this is wrong. first, the fact that the opposition in syria is to better militarily thanks to extra support seems to validate what many of us have a car during four months, that opposition forces have an organization to be supportable and that our support and help them to further improve their organization and command and control. this is an argument for doing more, not less, to aid rebel fighters in syria. second, what is good that some military assistance now seems to be reaching the opposition, this alone will not be decisive. it will not be sufficient to end the conflict faster. it may just prologue it. nearly every syrian i speak with

tells me the same thing. the longer this conflict drags on, the more radicalized it becomes, and the more it turns into a sectarian civil war, with an escalating spiral of violence that syrians alone cannot stop. finally, the opposition needs to know the united states stands with them and that we are willing to take risks to support them when they need it most. our current inaction only denies us the opportunity to have influence with the forces in syria who will one day inherit the country. we are -- influence of foreign states may not share our interests or values or to extremist groups that may not always share -- or are hostile to us. our lessening -- or countering

the appeal of extremist groups. all these events are just happening without us. without our ability to influence that. in short, the main reason the united states needs to get more involved in syria is to help the opposition in the conflict sooner while we can still secure an outcome that is consistent with their goals and our spirit we should do so not simply for humanitarian reasons. but because it is our national security interest. the central's command, the fall of assad will be the biggest blow to iran in 25 years. the opposition is still struggling to get organized. al qaeda and other extremists are working to hijack the revolution, and there are reports of reprisal killings. these risks are real and

serious, but the risks of continuing to do nothing are worse. if we felt act, the consequences are clear. syria will become a failed state in the heart of the middle east, threatening both our ally israel and our nato ally turkey. with her without assad, country will develop into a full-scale civil war that al qaeda and its friends will occupy. radicalism will spell more into lebanon and iraq, fuelling sectarian conflicts. syria will turn into a battlefield between sunni and shia extremists. this will ignite sectarian conflicts and northern africa and the gulf. this is the course we are on in syria. we must act now to avoid it. u.s. action i envisioned would not be unilateral.

it would be multilateral. we would work closely with arab and european allies, especially turkey, and our partners in the gulf. as in libya would be no puts on the ground, and we would only intervene at the request of the legitimate representatives of the syrian people. our goal would be to help the opposition change the military balance of power on the ground, and thereby creating conditions for the end of the violence, the departure of assad and his cronies, and a transition as quickly as possible. we first have to help them the establish safe havens inside the country. this is essential for a number of reasons. it is constantly said that the syrian organization is disorganized. that may be true at the national level but is much less true at the local level. to the contrary, revolutionary

councils and local coordinating committees are in cities across syria, increasingly sophisticated and effective. i met some of their members and representatives, and they are among the most impressive figures i have encountered in the syrian opposition. nonetheless, if the syrian opposition is to succeed, it means an effective and unifying structure of some kind. it is unlikely that such kind of structure can be formed in syria until there is a safe haven, a place where they can emerge from hiding, gathered together in safety, select leaders, and organize themselves as an alternative governing structure, not just for the purpose of giving him from power today but to prepare for the challenge of the administering and securing the country once he is gone. this is what the national transitional council was able to

do in benghazi. it is left -- less difficult to imagine today how safe havens can be established in syria. indeed, some analysts suggest the opposition may already be creating some areas of de facto control in the country, for example in some areas north along the turkish border and in eastern syria. it is quite possible led the opposition could declare parts of syria to be liberated and then ask for external helped, support in defending the territory. this is exactly what we should be helping the opposition to do. rather than insisting that we cannot act militarily without a un security council resolution,

as the secretary of defense recently asserted, we should follow president clinton's example. we should refuse to give russia and china beach power over our actions and instead work to shape a coalition of willing states with a legitimate mandate to intervene militarily in syria. many of our allies are willing to do much more. as one regional official told "the wall street journal" last weekend, they are looking for, quote, the ironclad backing of the u.s. and others. we should provided for them. we should make u.s. air power available. along with that of our allies, as part of an international area to defend safe areas in syria and to keep assad's forces from harassing them, as they will do.

these will become platforms for increased deliveries of food, medicine, doctors to treat the wounded, and other nonlethal assistance. it can also serve as staging areas for armed groups to receive battlefield intelligence, body armor, and weapons, including antitank weapons, and to train and organize themselves more effectively, perhaps with foreign assistance. the goal would be to expand the reach of the safe havens across more of the country. as a final part of this strategy, we must think about the situation in syria in a broader strategic context. unfolding from lebanon to syria to iraq, this is all part of one connected story. we must be thinking about how we can capitalize on the fall of the assad regime in syria, to strengthen the sovereignty and

independence of lebanon, to support the reconciliation of sectarian conflicts with politics, not violence, to increase the government in iraq to roll back its situation and to share power more democratically in the region. in all of these efforts, the united states and turkey share common interests and values, and we need to be working more closely together, but most of all, what is needed most is american leadership. if there ever were a case that should remind us of our interests being in the visible from our values, it is syria. a few days after the massacre, "the washington post the" interviewed a man who survived genocide in 1995.

this is having looked at the ongoing slaughter in syria. quote, "it is bizarre how "never again" has come to mean "again and again," he said. what is happening in syria today is almost identical to what happened in bosnia two decades ago. he could not be more correct. serious debate is indistinguishable from bosnia in the 1990's with one exception. in bosnia, president clinton finally summoned the courage to lead the world to intervene and stop the killing. it is worth recalling his words about the military action in bosnia in 1995, and i quote, he said, "there are times and places," president clinton said," -- , "where we can defend

our values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. there are still times when america and america alone can make a difference for peace." those were the words of the democratic president who led america to do the right thing and stopping the mass atrocities in bosnia, and i remember working with my republican colleague, bob dole, to support president clinton in that endeavor. the question for another democratic president today and for all of us in positions of responsibility is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us as the united states of america, and whether we will use our great power, as we have done before, not simply to advance our own interests but to serve a just cause that is greater than our interests

alone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. senator mccain has also graciously agreed to answer some questions. please come to the microphone and make your questions brief after introducing yourself. >> hello, john mccain. my name is -- and i am with the green youth policy in sweden. while kofi annan is a very wise person, and he has worked really hard for finding a diplomatic solution to the situation in syria, what he means is that you should always primarily look for

a nonviolent solution to conflict, and i was wondering whether the united states was working for and implementing more diplomatic pressure against the assad regime. thank you. >> do you have any ideas to support them diplomatically or kofi annan? i would like to hear it. certainly, this administration has. but the fact is that it is being knowledge even by kofi annan that his plan has failed. u.n. observers have just gone back to areas where they would not be subject to attack. it is widely acknowledged that the plan, as some of us predicted, has failed, so if you have any ideas on how we could be more active diplomatically, i would be more than encouraged to hear.

the fact is that this is a brutal dictator who was willing to massacred his own people, and his people have reason to try to overthrow him, and i believe the only way for him to leave is if mr. assad believes he cannot stay. they do. >> hello, my name is -- i am an undergraduate. i was interested the dimensions, obviously, how do you feel about a syrian regime change? it could provoke violence in some form or another. >> i think the first thing that happens is the connection

between a land and hezbollah and their influence in lebanon is dramatically reduced. i think that the iranians have syria as really the only arab state like that remaining. i do not think there is any doubt with a loss of syria, they lose their connections to hizbollah. they lose their connections to lebanon. perhaps mr. nouri al maliki would think more about the closer relations he should have with iran, and with that loss, i think it may put additional pressures on iran to cease their continuing to develop nuclear weapons, which, as you know, is a forthcoming crisis, unless the iranians abandoned their efforts to wield a nuclear weapons, which so far there has

been no indication that they have. this is a key and central part of the entire middle east, and what happens here will have a dramatic effect on the entire middle east as well. thank you. yes? >> senator mccain, i am the daughter of one of the speakers. i am a syrian, a political refugee who came here with my family in 2006. we hear from policymakers in the current demonstration that the united states cannot afford intervening in syria. as serious, how can we change that? the people are dying. if that is the main excuse they gave. and we cannot see any change, and we cannot convince them, i

totally agree with what you said. what can you give us? what can we do to convince them that we really need to end this dictatorship? thank you very much. >> i have to tell you that the political realities here in the united states, americans are very weary of wars because of our long and projected engagement in iraq and in afghanistan. a couple thousands of young americans have given their lives. americans see our economy in a very bad situation, and that has tended, of course, to lead to a more inward view and a lack of a desire for involvement. i believe that the same arguments that you hear being made about syria today are the

same ones that were made about libya, that we would get into a protracted conflict, that it would be overtaken by al qaeda, we do not know who they are. my friends on both the right and left have seen these arguments. if there is a basic principle. one is that no one i know of is advocating american goods on the ground or american military action. i do know for a fact that our allies in the region are crying out for american leadership, and no one that i know of once american boots on the ground or once a unilateral united states action, and, frankly, they are the most immortal words in my view ever written that all of us, all of us are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. the united states of america has shared its blood and spent its treasurer in all four corners of the world in defense of others freedom. many times it was in our interest as well. for a little encouragement, i think the administration is moving a little bit in the right direction, and certainly our allies in the region are picking up the slack. yes, sir? >> thank you, senator. my name is -- from a newspaper. about the repercussions of arming the opposition and creating safe havens for them. we read reports that they're actually recruiting jihadists in jordan and kuwait and other places. would we have an afghan-like

situation afterward? thank you. >> first of all, the afghan situation, we went to afghanistan because that is where the attacks of 9/11 began, and we should never forget that. the second thing is i have seen this movie before. jihadists are going to come in, and we are going to have an election, and 80% of the libyan people are going to vote. they are going to have an election on july 7. i hope to be there to observe it. the one thing i can assure you of, the longer this is protracted, the more likely it is for that to happen, that foreign fighters come in, and jihadists and others. because the frustration in the anger and the casualties of the syrian people would experience, so all i can say is, all i can say is looking at the situation of a protracted, long, drawn-out conflict, where bashar al assad

is being supplied with arms, equipment, artillery, and now we hear reports of even actual russian troops being possibly moved into syria, versus people who are basically without any real means to defend themselves. it is not a fair fight. it is not a civil war because all of the military strength is on one side and not the other. at least we have to give them a chance to have a fair fight. yes, sir? our staff is on its way. it is a work release program. go ahead. >> many see the russians support of him as a losing alliance. while we have our differences

with russia, is there any way to convince them it is in their interest to abandon support for him? >> i have been a bit puzzled, too. the russians are very intelligent. vladimir putin is a very smart man. lav rock is a very smart guy, -- lavrov is a very smart guy, but they are doing damage to their image in that part of the world. they are harming themselves, and i do not understand that. i do not pretend to get into butident putin's mind, there is some nostalgia for the russian empire, and this is their last post on the mediterranean. this is in many ways a test as to whether this disease called the era spring will spread to other parts of the world, including places like chechnya, which was put down with, you

know, incredible and an exceptional brutality. so i cannot fathom all of the reasons for the russian behavior as it continues to be. i hope that the president, who i understand is meeting with president putin today, will be able to bring about some change in their behavior, but in my view, it is also part of a behaviorf putin's since the elections, putting find on demonstrators, jailing people, etc., etc., and that does not mean that i believe the cold war is going to be reignited. it is not, but i also think we're going to have to take a much more realistic view about our relationship with russia and our ability to do business with them. yes, sir?

>> thank you, mr. centre. i am from norway. you said the solution for syria might happen outside of the u.n. system. is that a road that leads to less u.n. involvement in the world? and is that the road that the obama administration is feeling? could that be the reason for non involvement? thank you. >> the situation today is that russia and china in this case now have veto power over any united states policy or action that the united states might take. that obviously is not acceptable to the american people. our actions cannot be governed by whether russia will or will not veto a u.n. security council resolution. i mentioned in my prepared remarks kuntsevo. we want to cause of a without a un security council resolution, and we went there for the same

reason why we should go to syria, and that was a coalition of the willing, as we say. so i respect and admire the united nations security council and the things that they do. the fact that is the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in the united nations security council. yes. you have been overlooked four times. please go ahead. [laughter] >> hello, my name is tyler o'neal with "the washington times re-begin." -- the tip washington -- the "washington free beacon."

>> i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world, much less the region. last week, there was a breakfast with the u.s. turkey society. i continue to be worried about the gm of journalists. turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i have been worried about intimidation about opposition parties. i have been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister, a man who i respect and admire a great deal, but i also worry about tendencies in turkey that far transcends islamic or other religious reasons, and that is my big concern, and this jailing

of hundreds of military officers is something that is really not appropriate for a functioning democracy either, and there are other reasons. yes? >> thank you, sir. my name is -- from sweden. all about syria, but i have a question. so many people died, and peacekeepers were there. >> i think that other event was horrible, and they thought it could never take place. thousands of people, young and old, were taken out and ethnically cleansed. if there is any good news out of something like that, it did galvanize the world into taking

action to stop further acts of atrocity from taking place. i think america and our allies should be very proud that we stopped that kind of butchery and ethnic cleansing that was going on there in that country. i think it is one of the prouder moments of our ability to work together with like-minded democracies to respect human rights. yes? >> the independent researcher. what is going on with them? can they be more helpful? and what about saudi arabia? >> i have heard reports, published reports, that the saudis are assisting in some ways. the arab league, lebanon obviously is under the influence of hizbollah.

i am trying to think you else. there are a couple of countries in the arab league that have veto power which makes it much more difficult with concerted action in libya. i know there are members of the arab league who are much more actively involved, but whether the arab league itself, i am trying to remember. it may be very difficult to get a solid position out of the arab league as opposed to the situation as it prevails in libya. as you know, probably the most unpopular person in the arab league at that time was moammar gaddafi, since he had tried to kill a few of those leaders of those countries, but i guess i have to stop. we have a very distinguished panel of leaders here. but i would just like to say,

particularly there it is a lot of young people in this audience. you come from all over the world, and you are here i think to learn to listen. i hope you will go back in imbued with the thought that we live still in a very dangerous world and one that is fraught with challenges, but it is the next generation of leaders around the world that can change from a bleak picture in some cases to one that is much more optimistic. i believe that your involvement in a cause greater than your own self interest is the future of this country in the world, and i believe that when i am associated with people like which are in this room, i am much more optimistic when i leave then when i came. thank you. [applause]

>> the senator has raised a great number of issues, and i am thrilled that we have a distinguished panel as we have today to discuss these issues. we also have in the audience members of every major fraction of syrian opposition, and also want to extend my welcome to them. sitting next to me is the leading syrian and pro- democracy activists in syria, the member of a syrian working group which is pretty much the most important working group there is, discussing syrian issues outside the u.s. government at this point in time. i came to know him as founder and director of a foundation, a grass-roots organization of

local activists and citizens journalists to report on the situation in syria and elsewhere. sitting next to him is some and i am pleased to welcome back to the american enterprise institute. he is a research fellow at the new america foundation, and i think it is safe to say that his work, especially the harmony documents, has become a must read for anyone looking at radicalism within the middle east and the arab world, so i am very thrilled that he has come here today to help share some of his insights. next to him is my old friend david and a former colleague of mine from my days in the pentagon. david is currently a fellow and director of the program of arab politics at the washington institute for near east policy. he previously served as a director as the top policy aide

on several subject, especially syria. he is also the author of several impassion books, and last but not least, we have another author, the senior editor at "the weekly standard," the author of "the strong force, power, politics," which was published by doubleday in the year 2010. without any more ado, with so much to discuss, i would like to turn the four auvergne. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to this event, which comes at a very crucial time for syria, as events on the ground continued to deteriorate, and the situation seems to be outside of anyone's control. he really heat -- highlighted

some action. i think we can easily endorse it because it corresponds to something we have been talking about for quite awhile now, and we hope that this demonstration will become proactive about the situation and do more than what it has been doing over the last couple of months, because if it is to wait until after the elections, i am not sure there will be a syria after the elections, and it may be difficult to say that, but if you examine the situation on the ground, iis aiton -- is to keep control of every part of the country and to crack down with russian support, in all sorts of communities from the

southern endf syria to the northern end. a parallel to be plan, a plan b, that calls for an enclave in the plains and central parts of syria and also homs city. the ethnic cleansing campaigns taking place, this is more than half the population of that city. thousands of people have been displaced. since the beginning of the revolution. there is a sharing of towns.

we are seeing campaigns to ethnically cleanse one area from the sunni population. thewe're also seeing in coastal and mountain regions some ethnic cleansing. it has already cleared several territories in the mountains, and the sunni population in some other areas, a virtual siege, checkpoints all of the neighborhoods, and we have videos to prove it. there is sort of like a terror campaign that takes place in the neighborhoods, shooting into the air and trying to terrify the population, and it seems to me it will only be a short amount of time before they ethnically

cleanse this neighborhood as well. we are seeing this implemented. we have the videos. basically foreign journalists have made a -- managed to go to the areas and see what is taking place. so it is not a hypothetical scenario anymore. this is something that we are seeing being implemented. if there is going to be an intervention, and the fall that is to take control of a piece of land. the problem is, of course, with control of the city, in particular, this is the place through which all major roads connect, so by controlling homs city, it is a partitioning.

the south, the northeast, the north, and if the opposition congeals in this area, we could see each one of these be different, so there could be a state that is supported by and protected by the russians, and some ethnic issues developing all of the country. this is not a hypothetical scenario. this is something that is being worked out. the inability to formulate a policy and to stick to it on syria. so this is really why, and i will also repeat what was enunciated by senator mccain. this is why it should be now

rather than waiting and waiting, because time is not on our side and has never been on our side. back in may, in june, in july, where we are seeing this course assad is willing to take. the international community has the time to say, "no, we are not going to allow that." this will be on the table if it continues on this course. there are a lot of statements by so many countries. this gives them the go ahead to continue to pursue that kind of following. now, we do not have the luxury.

the country is being partitioned. waiting for the partitioning to take effect, there will be repercussions. and in turkey and perhaps in israel, as well. the wrong actors are waiting, and they may actually be beginning to infiltrate the country, so time is not on our side. the time to act is now. while we understand all about the calculations of elections and so on, there are a lot of things at stake here. and the humanitarian issues. they cannot wait any more. with this i conclude. >> thank you very much.

i want to thank you for having me here, michael in particular. i will talk about some of of what we see that could indicate a larger g. hyde -- g-5 -- jihadi presence. i do think these elements are likely to benefit from the situation there. i do think that there are going to be very unproductive defects across the region. i think that there is a role for a more active american presence there, but i am skeptical that military action can produce this. good intentions do not make good policy. bottom line.

one of the things the interests me about the debate about syria is the analogy is we used to try to understand it, and this is something we all do as human beings, we ask is syria closer vote? if syria and iraq? what are the unintended consequences? how do we understand what our actions will produce in a situation like that? and it is no surprise, we all pick and choose the an argument that we would like to make. the big difference with syria, with the exception of iraq, is that the stakes are much, much higher. they are just tired, for all of the reasons that senator mccain laid out. the opportunities of a successful outcome in syria are much higher, and the repercussions of something bad in syria are much higher. senator mccain made those arguments very well.

to limit the murder of civilians, the wanton murder of civilians that we know is occurring, and we did hear a plan from senator mccain. our goal ultimately to limit president assad with safe zones and increasing military support for rebels. one of the issues i want to point out is that i think there is a very, very important risk of mission creep here. i do not think that creating a safe zone is an option. i think it would be very, very difficult to keep that as a mission over the long run. it is going to produce a backlash by the enemies. the enemy always gets a vote. the enemy i think will perceive that as an effort to overthrow the regime, and at that time, there are options on the table

we do not want to think about. a lot of marines died last time we were in this part of the world. we'll hostilities. i think it leads to an outcome which israeli military intervention to push him out. in my mind, that is it. there are real negative repercussions. there are some costs. the benefits i think our notes, but the costs of this situation, there is a growing jihadi group, and one very well known and one is releasing propaganda. it is not a strong grip. it is not a group that can compete with the opposition groups. these types of organizations are not in most places viable competitors for power.

even when they start to gain political power, they shoot themselves in the foot. that is not what i am inclined. they are not going to take over syria. but they will make things a lot worse because they made the assad position and supporters much more entrenched, because it is much more difficult to get to that point that senator mccain talked about. were you can create more military balance with the façade regime -- the assad regime. they do not want to overthrow it because it is a brutal dictatorship. they want to overthrow it because the people are apostate and fundamentally deserve death, right? i am unconvinced from historical

precedents that they will control all geovany elements. it makes the situation a lot morris. this is very, very difficult. and i think we have got to recognize that fact. the situation is worse than the situation in syria. the situation in libya i think got blown out of proportion. there were not a lot of jihadi elements. for years, it had been crushed. they tolerated some of those elements because they were useful to funnel people in over the last several years. these are not good people. but there is a reality on the ground where i think that threat there is much more dangerous over the long run. for those reasons but also because of the proximity of a neighbor. there is an active al qaeda

element that is still quite capable. it does things when it feels like it in baghdad. so a couple of questions. what comes next, right? the goals are clear. the purpose of military intervention is clear, and what i think we want to achieve is pretty clear. the question is whether or not these mechanisms will get us where we want to go. what comes after? i think the jihadi groups will be active. i do not think there will be a cohesive group afterwards. but you have a lot of countries in the region. right now, they all agree that assad should go, but i do not think they all agree on what should come after. the iraqis, do they all agree?

what is going to happen with the syrian chemical and biological weapons? if persian -- push comes to shove, will assad use them? do they matriculate to al qaeda? we cannot pursue a direct and demonstrative policy of getting rid of him unless we have good answers to those questions, right? there are folks that are worried about the impact of the united nations. that is not really my concern. my concern is what are the unintended consequences of these actions, and they undermine u.s. national security in regional security, and i worry very much about the saudis, in particular. some of the rhetoric out of there seems they are tolerating some of the traveling jihadis, and let's be clear.

the folks that want to get on the ground there that are traveling, five years ago, they were going elsewhere, right? a very similar kind of dynamic. and we have to be very careful, i think, with our allies in the region that we do not open the door to that kind of scenario. there is an argument that we should engage more actively. this limited the ability of those kinds of groups to act, but we need to keep our eyes open. ultimately, i am very bearish on syria. i do not see a lot of good outcomes. i think this is a very ugly and dangerous situation. i think that our efforts as the international community need to be focused on limiting human suffering as much as possible but also limit during --

limiting the spread, and that is where from a strategic interest we need to put our efforts. and i think you very much. >> thank you, brian. >> thanks for hosting this important panel, and senator mccain is great. i could stop right there. we are approaching the one-year anniversary in august of president obama calling on him to step down, and nearly one year has passed since that col. it has been about five months since there was a non plan that we backed, rolling back the one plan, which i bought was a sensible plan. -- italy because the plan calls for assad to leave, which the president has done.

when kofi annan was interviewed shortly after he had that plan, he said this is for the syrian people to decide, as if the syrian people ever had a say. it is never going to happen. they were never going to allow this or to stop murdering innocent people. that would mean the end of the regime, period. they backed the plan. in february, coming right after the russian and chinese veto, the security council resolution, and the massacres. really. this is when it really started to pick up. and following the developments at the time, we knew that that plan was not going to work, but we did not have, we still do not have a plan. a plan b.

back in february after the killing started, the administration leads that they would have a plan. there was the crack cnn correspondent that got a scoop. she said the pentagon had drawn up detailed plans for military action against the regime. or had it? they have to consider, and i encourage you to go look for it. the remarkable g-7 statements from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, dempsey. general dempsey was asked to give us some idea about an operation that would be required to stop the killing of the civilians in syria. the general answer that he cannot do that because he has to know the outcome is. so you tell me what the outcome is, and then he goes on it and

says, tell me that you want regime change in iraq, and i know how much it takes. tell me that following a regime change in syria, we need to restore order, and i know what that looks like. anything in syria would be hypothetical and extreme, and i cannot understand unless i understand the outcome. did not president obama say that assad had to go? two weeks ago, general dempsey said he could not plan because he did understand the outcome. it is remarkable. general dempsey is lacking any guidance in terms of the estate of what we want to reach in syria. what can we do? the fact that it took more than one year, and we still do not

have this kind of guidance i think is indicative of the ambivalence of the highest level of the united states government, and you heard this from senator mccain. the longer this continues, the more radicals will emerge. we are seen this already. you are watching youtube, and i watched a lot of youtube. and what is going on the ground? of course, the move to al qaeda on the ground, this is home base in a way for many. this is going into syria, out of syria. they are coming back through syria. visits at the damascus airports, we know this. they are familiar with it.

the strategy has been really heavily dependent of using a scare tactic. looking at this of becoming a reality. and the more chance of the indigenous that are not islamophobic come islam. unlike the national syrian council, the free syrian army is becoming increasingly effective on the ground. their operations are becoming more coordinated and lethal. there are three under and separating -- separated on the ground. this is good. and i think we are seeing that already. the free syrian army is going to take territory, and this will

leave ungoverned space, which al qaeda likes, and as a result, some of the weapons, that contains sarin gas and mustard gas, they could go somewhere else. we do not know. this is a nasty program. the third trend that we are seeing is there are two purposes that regime has given us, and the plan is to create cleared land, and they are doing that, going and clearing out areas, making sure there are no hostels in the. . the second thing, the massacre

on the scale than they are doing, it hastens civil war, and they want civil war. civil war, hey, we do not want any of that. that is domestic stuff. lebanon in the 1980's. we do not want to get involved in a civil war. a civil war is a good thing. it keeps us away. and then there is a real act -- lack of urgency, not only to end the slaughter, but a strategic dialogue. what do we do in the future about this? i want to short cut it. giving more assistance to the free syrian army, and this means boots on the ground. not in syria but in turkey. i am talking about special forces, one lieutenant colonel

and a handful of majors. this is what they do. they go in and organize, held the free syria army. decrease the number of atrocities that they are perpetrating on the ground and make sure we do not have something that looks like libya on the end, with hundreds of militias running around refusing to disarm, having to bribe the militias to provide security. we do not want that. that is one. we should be building, as the center said, a coalition of the willing. military operation. arab forces. the uae and qatar were instrumental. they are on the right side here, too. iran, venezuela are acting without u.s. consent. i do not think we need to seek

their consent to help the syrian people. we cannot let our iran policy be held hostage -- i am sorry. we cannot let our syria policy be held hostage to russian cooperation. we can do both. we should also stop, and i'm going to conclude in a second, stop with turkey. there is a fellow, a great colleague and friend. back in february, secretary of state clinton met with one person who put forth a measure, including creating a buffer zone, organizing in the curbing the army. no less than three times, they were not there. they were restraining the turks from doing something beneficial, and, of course, they want political cover.

traditionally, turkey has not sought permission when it wants to go kill kurds in iraq or syria, right? they ask international interests as they see fit, but i think we really have to help the turks be the best they can be here. they think this is in their national interest to create buffer zone. if the turks are genuinely interested in taking a leading role, well, we are certainly not doing it, but we should not be stopping them from doing it. a buffer zone would be a watershed and would hasten the fall of the regime. finally, what we should be doing is recognizing them -- de- recognizing them. they are finished. there is no talking with them

anymore unless the want to talk about going to tehran or elsewhere. i think we should act like the other nations have. thank you. >> thanks. thank you, david. thank you, brian. it is a pleasure to be up here with you. a huge thrill. exciting to be here. as michael noted, i work at "the weekly standard," were over for much of the last year, i have been writing and attacking be administration on the syrian policy, and the other things. i was going to try to open things up for speculation. i have some general questions, and the place i wanted to focus on is when senator mccain was talking about why the fall of the saw is not strategic, especially regarding iran, and

that is actually one thing. it is one thing to keep in mind, because we keep talking, this administration keep saying that iran is central, that it is a central regional iss, and other people say it as well, including domestic adversaries that say iran is central, but the question i want to ask, one of the things i want to look around, to try to export very briefly, very quickly, if that is the case, for our syrian policy, it if it suggests something else, that may be iran is not as important as many of us have been saying it is, but let me start with one comment quickly on a very important issue that brian raised when he was talking about being concerned. my sense is a this point the big concern is that it is not foreign fighters.

it is just regular season. -- sunnis. what has been happening, with the ethnic cleansing, which they have spoken quite clearly about, this is a big deal. we saw what happened where i believe the majority of the victims came from one family, is that right? they came from one sunni family. pardon me? right. what we have seen happen over the course of the last year, i am actually of this impression that the civil war has been going on much longer than one year, and basically started when they came to power in 1966. syria has lots of sectarian issues. let's be frank about it. i am of a belief that the civil war has been going on for a long

time and that we have seen different episodes of the fighting, other times during the 1960's. we have seen a lot of this fighting, and what we have seen over the last year is we have seen an especially hot episode of this fighting going on. to me, that is what the issue is. it is a sectarian war, and it is ugly now, and it is going to get much uglier. get much uglier. one of the interesting things that we have seen in this debate is a lot of the times, the idea of the regular zunis who lived in syria, regardless of their religious beliefs, this has been aligned frequently with al qaeda. this has been going on for quite awhile. there is no doubt that al qaeda and other sunni fighters have been an issue in syria for a long time. and over the brought -- the past decade, this has been primarily

the responsibility of the regime, who have nurtured these relationships. it is hardly surprising now that any of these guys should still be around. one thing i want to put forth, speculate about, do we know who is controlling these groups now? when we were growing into iraq, i happen to believe that most of the guys that describe themselves as sunni groups are really sunni fighters. but the way they operate, that is an entirely different question. how much control does the regime in damascus have over these sunni groups right now? we do not know that. maybe this is something we can talk about later. i think we do not know that. this is something that we would put forth. let me come back to iran quickly. and the framework of iran. why does the administration still say that it does not know that there are recipients of

weapons on the ground in syria? >> the last thing we want is for it to hand -- is for it to end up in the hands of al qaeda. partly for political reasons, but also for military reasons as well. we do not want these weapons floating around, like they are floating around in libya and the gaza strip. this is not something that people want happening. but again, i want to warn all of us on the aleutian been made between al qaeda and the sudanese generally. why can't the administration -- and the sudanese -- sunnis generally. why can't the administration make the distinction? can the intelligence community still not distinguish her the good guys are and the bad guys are generally? i think they have an idea now.

the president has made it a preference of his policy to identify the good guys in syria, if they said that, and then say, who are we going to back and who are going to arm? i submit that the intelligence community would come up with a pretty good idea of who we should be backing and who we should be our main. the fact that we are not our main these people is not that we cannot find them. it is not that we cannot tell the difference between al qaeda and aggregator sydneys -- the regular sunnis. it is that we do not want to. the greatest setback for the -- for iran in the last 20 years, the fall of the shop. president mccain pretty much of the same thing. and he also talked about

hezbollah. hezbollah has an awful lot of arms right now. even if the shock were to topple today, they probably have enough rockets for more than one round in israel. nevertheless, for hezbollah to lose, its strategic ally in syria, that would represent a huge setback for the iranians. the iranians and recognize this. that is why we should probably lend some credence to the reports that there are both irgc fighters and hezbollah fighters in syria in order to keep the regime of float. it is also interesting what it says about how the regime is doing militarily if there are foreign fighters supporting it. what does the military position look like? let me go through this very quickly.

again, if we believe that the iranian threats -- if the iranian threat is that significant, why don't we look for an opportunity to take on the iranians wherever possible? especially if everyone is saying -- david said there should be boots on the ground in turkey, but not in syria. no one else is calling for american troops right now. the administration has said -- they have been quite clear saying, look, we are not moving toward a policy of detaining and and deterrence -- containment and deterrence. we are looking at iranians getting nuclear. that means an incredible use of force, like in the cold war.

i'm not sure why we are reluctant to back the free syrian army. one possibility is that we think syria is a distraction. we think iran is much more important. this might be a reason why we have given russia a leading role. we expect russians to deliver the iranians over the next two days to begin with, and then over the negotiation process as well. and the other possibility is that we actually do not think the iranian nuclear program -- and i have not heard this argument made by the administration, but i could see how one would be made that the iranian nuclear program is not that big an issue. if the israelis have a problem with it, let them deal with it. but remember, our issue is not

protecting israel. and i mean american interests. it is the persian gulf. american lake. this is our interest. the idea that we are turning against sunnis and that we keep aligning sunnis and al qaeda and syria says something about the way we perceive the iranian nuclear program generally. >> [applause] >> what i would like to do is immediately move on to q&a. a couple of notes before we do. please state your name and affiliation when i hand you the microphone. i also believe in jeopardy rules. if you have a phrase, a statement to make, please frame it in the form of a question. asked as many questions as you

want. they will only answer the first question, so we get as much back and forth as possible and so as many people as possible can ask questions. >> >> i am a teacher. i was struck by his call to action, which sent -- seemed to hinge on the statement, "that we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created with equal rights -- to be self-evident and inalienable, that all men are created equal rights." therefore, sovereignty, national sovereignty, dissolves in the face of this. you have a nation that is based on universal ideals and that applies to the sovereignty of all nations, generally speaking.

>> who would like to take that? >> let me rephrase it, if i may. you are saying that because the united states has an exceptional list view of itself, that means it perceives itself as able to trample the sovereignty of other nations? is that what you mean? >> [inaudible] >> we need to address this issue. let me phrase it this way. if the panel could address the issues relating to sovereignty with universalism, idealism, and we can also talk about the concept of unilateralism vs. multilateralism. >> i do not see it in terms of a violation of syrian sovereignty in terms of universal values.

it very quickly, the way i phrased my argument is in terms of u.s. interests. especially regarding iran and the nuclear program. that is how i see it. >> he identified the intersection of american values and national interests. we cannot fix everything everywhere, but this is a clear case where there -- it meet both criteria. >> [inaudible] the moral adjustment and strategic utility of any action based on the expected outcome of those actions, not on the motivation for making them. i worry in this case that our actions are not necessarily going to advance our cause the way we would like them to. that is my note of caution. [laughter]

>> other questions? i would like to start in the back and work our way forward, so people who have not had the opportunity before can ask questions. >> thank you. i am from the center for global development. my colleagues and i have been working on a new idea -- a new tool, a diplomatic tool if you will. the idea is that the debt -- the u.s. and u.k. would assign with a regime that would be legitimate. this could be done unilaterally -- multilaterally with other government and be more effective. this could have a direct impact on companies and with russia and china doing business. it might make it clear that their contracts might not be

enforceable is the successor government chooses to repudiate them. and the successor government could be saddled with debt from their regime. that could be a diplomatic tool that we could discuss, not having any other diplomatic tools. i wonder if you have any thoughts and other ways that we could address russia and diplomacy. >> that was directed to senator mccain before and i think skepticism is called for. if we look of what the regime is doing -- i wrote a book about the use of force and coercion. that is how middle east politics works. if we are talking about ethnic cleansing, then we are past the point of diplomacy and passed the point of contracts. maybe i am misunderstanding, but i do not see how that is going to happen. >> the syrian national council already said it will not honor a contract with russia, the

weapons being sold to russia to kill them. that is not stopping russia from sending more weapons. >> i think these things are worth trying. i do not think they are necessarily independent of military action. the one thing i want to point out that i think is interesting, but not directly related, is when you look at jihadist discourse about syria, it is interesting to note that russia and china have become the big b ugaboos in the way that the u.s. was in the past. china imports just as much saudi oil as we do and this has always been an argument for al qaeda. al qaeda looks at this situation

and they do see -- this does not mean they will change their focus, but you do see the popular resentment towards russia and china that is reflected across the arab world because the support for the assad regime is sharpened through these jihadist arguments. it is interesting that those two countries that are backing the syrian regime, i think they will see some consequences from the ugly non-state actors. >> i will use moderator's perata and john been on this question as well. military academies teach the so- called dime strategy, the thought that every strategy should have diplomatic and military components. the lumber that some of these conflicts drive on, there are some that seek to profit from them. we saw, for example, said on

hossein, who no policy maker expected to survive -- saddam hussein, who no policymaker expected to survive the uprising in 1991. russia and china, perhaps, decided they would break the isolation by trying to win contracts, up to and including the last days of saddam hussein. if contracts can provide some positive pressure to unilaterally bypass the stranglehold that the -- that moscow has on the international security council by means of its veto, and at the same time it is not adopted by the security council, but is also adopted by declaration in london and in washington as the policy of the british government and the american government, it can perhaps, have some weight in court and in discussions as

various government and companies try to pick up the pieces should the assad regime fall. >> look, i think these kinds of movement are important. i wish they had been undertaken months ago. right now, it is okay. let's have them, but not as a substitute for intervention. i also want to abuse my prerogative as a palace. the response -- as a panelist. the response on read -- john j. autism -- jihadists, is not that i'm agreeing with you or that i think this is not a complex situation. we should consider intervention more strongly, because reality

is that without the possibility of influence on the ground for intervention, you have given jihadists more leeway on the ground that you should. with that said, jihadist are not independent actors, especially in the middle east and in syria. one of the sponsors of the jihadist movement -- and you have seen this in lebanon. they have been up until recently very much infill trading -- infiltrating the movement like marionettes to do their building -- their bidding. jihadists are actually a creation of assad. but why they have created them -- up until a few days ago,

there was an interview with a jihadist that was imprisoned. and before he carried out a suicide attack. what was the target? was it a particular neighborhood? it was not. was a church? it was not. and was a mosque at the center of the protest movement in the neighborhood. this was one of the thorny places. the mosque was at the center of the assad regime. but people would go there and hold daily and weekly protests, and it challenges the -- a challenge in the uprising. these are very strange jihadists, really. they go out and kill the people they are supposed to be supporting.

the idea at is to create problems for the protests community and for the protest leaders and those in their own community. they are not only interested in creating their own areas, but also in making sure the other areas are destabilized. they are not congealing into one government. they have a series of challenges that they have to surmount. on the other hand, they are giving the jihadist program -- problems as well. they were encouraging them, using them, and if they lost control at some point, who cares? it will be trouble for the government that will emerge in the rest of ziarat -- and the rest of syria. this is why they were trying to

get booed on the ground and to train the fsa and to how the fsa. -- help the fsa. they need to train security forces and police forces to make sure that they address these kinds of challenges, because they have been trained to do so more effectively than the local fighters. they need to make sure these kinds of challenges are under control from the beginning. >> i agree, if we were going to train folks -- i think the description of how to do it that david gave it makes a lot of sense. in my mind, a stronger argument for that cars -- that course of action exist then for using

international air power. to because i do not think that mission can be sustained. it will become a mission to remove the assad regime. if that is what we want to do, then we should get on with it. i'm skeptical it will work. but clarity about goals is very important. i agree with you that i think the presence of jihadist groups in syria benefits the assad regime. but i do not think that necessarily means that those groups are a product of the assad regime or working for the regime. i think at times, the assad regime will manipulate those elements to try to create problems for the opposition. and i think it is clear that the assad regime is using propaganda of those small groups to try to discredit the opposition. that is something we all need to push back against because it is simply not true.

we should also not overstate the connection between the assad regime and the jihadists. the regime enables jihadist groups on their way to iraq, and we have documents of that. very clear documentary evidence of that. i would argue as much as there are jihadists and traveling through syria into iraq, and we have record of it, we also have very good testimony of captured shiites that iraqi shiite fighters were being flown to damascus for training by hezbollah. the assad regime was playing both sides during the war. that is what regime is due. they look out for number one. this is not a regime that is in bed with the jihadist by any means. they will try to create trouble

for their opposition. at the end of the day, in my judgment, there is an independent jihadist movement, certainly the divide your jihadist community believes in and is supporting that group. they feel is one of their own. i am not in a great position to make that decision independently. but the regional work of the jihadists is in a better position and they have made that judgment. though the existence of that growth helps assad politically and operationally, i think what it does is help him keep control of the dominant military because it scares those folks. it does not have to be a dominant group. it can be a small group. but it scares those folks. it allows assad to say, if you'd effect on me, those are the people you have to deal with. -- if you defect on me, those

are the people you have to deal with. >> if you like to ask questions, make yourself known where you are sitting. are there questions toward the back? yes, sir, with the glasses. and second to that, john ahman right in front of him. -- the gentleman right in front of him. >> i think most of the speakers are very much in favor of what senator mccain said today, with the exception of mr. fishman. if you could give your plan of what you would like to see happen in syria and how that separates you from everyone else. thanks. >> well, you got me. to shape. -- touche. i think there is a program, as some have indicated, of stepped-

up sanctions. i think we need to reach out to as many factions as possible in iran and iraq to stop the spread of what is happening there. i think we need to establish programs to stop the spread of nauert and to plan our to try to stop the spread of dangerous weapons from syria as possible. none of those are perfect answers. i think we should explore a dedicated program to try to understand the syrian opposition such that we can make good decisions if we want to support someone like that in a program, as david was talking about. i think we have developed the kind of knowledge -- that kind

of knowledge. and i do not want to make the argument that there is not a place we want to do that. but what i am very wary have is this notion of safe zones and trying to carve out direct action against the syrian regime. and i think the regime is acting from a position of fear internationally, and from a position of fear where they could lash out in really unpredictable ways. we need to consider the interest in iran. if we can pull this off, it is the biggest blow against them in 25 years. but they will push back in iraq in a big way and in afghanistan a big way. if anything, the loss of syria will retrench the running regime's desire for a nuclear

weapon. some would argue that they could not desired more. it that as possible. but i think all of that is a repercussion here that we should consider. >> i will just repeat the question so the microphones will pick it up. the question is, what about the slaughter? how does one deal with the responsibility to protect and the humanitarian crisis -- crisis? that is directed to the whole panel. >> i will speak just briefly because i have been talking a lot. we have an obvious responsibility to do what we can to stop the slaughter, not just in syria, but in other places. we are talking about this particular instance of a humanitarian crisis because there is a nexus with our strategic interests in the u.s. we have seen terrible slaughter

in somalia, in sudan. we are not having the first conversation about that situation. and those people's lives are worth just as much as the syrians. we are having this conversation because of the strategic dynamic. the issue is not that i think we should not do things about slaughter. the issue is that i think the military action in this contest is likely to be very violent. there is likely to be a lot of collateral damage. it is a much denser society than in libya. most of the killing is being done with -- by men with ak- 47's. those are hard people to bomb. it is hard to stop the slaughter in a small division -- a small village when the killing is being done with knives and power tools. >> i think we should stop it

more for interest to region -- interest reasons. the fact that we did not have this discussion with sudan or somalia reflects negatively on us, not necessarily on whether we should not be having this conversation. i think we should have been having this conversation. there are a lot of legitimate reasons why there should be something serious doubt about the slaughter that is being -- taking place in sudan and somalia. the issues of intervention for me, those are complex for me. we have reached a stage of consciousness in this world where we begin to say that some things should not ever happen. slaughtering children, that should not happen.

on the other hand, when you are talking about the dynamism and intervention and the military aspect and collateral damage, we are all aware of that. for months in syria, we have not even ask for became too much. we realized assad is not going to go way through peaceful means. our people began to try to fight back. it is that moment we realized there would not be a solution without a military intervention. no one is asking people to take away ak-47s. the rebels can take care of that themselves. i put up a youtube video of the houses come that they were being

pounded. the area was empty. it was intentionally away from residential neighborhoods because they did not want to get found by the local fighters. these kinds of weapons, it is the tank convoys moving on the highways between different cities that can be targeted. we are aware of the collateral damage and there are places where there can be biddable collateral damage -- minimal collateral damage. it is a combination of things. i really believe that the discussion is not about intervention, it is more like -- this is what centered -- senator

mccain pointed out when he said we are moving forward because these scenarios are on the table. but you need to realize that time is not on our side. the partitioning is taking place. we should be speeding up the scenarios. i want to acknowledge the fact we have a couple of people that could help shed light on this. they do not come here often. it also shows something about the syrian opposition. for all of the talk about the divisions, actually there is a lot of coordination between all of the different political factions. today we have a group of syrian opposition members, one is a representative of the muslim

brotherhood, and there is my colleague also from the syrian national consul representing liberal independents there. we have my colleague from the national council for syria. we also have my colleague who is from the first opposition conference that was formed. so all of these different people from different backgrounds, and representatives from a group of activists, all of these people have been working together for months at a time trying to create coordination between the different opposition groups and trying to create a unity. it is just important to realize

that it is not only division, but there is scored nation taking place. that can be leveraged as well. they can be leveraged into what is being said. >> we also have another group of questions from the opposition delegation. i had offered this gentlemen up here the opportunity to be next then we will move in the back. and then the question over to the right. >> my name is david and i work in special operations. my question is, the u.s. involvement, even in a limited scope, as a have the potential to galvanize the situation and increase the likelihood form fighters and other terrorist organizations will want to go into syria? is that an acceptable risk to take because it would probably lead to scope creep?

>> i do not think we have to encourage, i think we are going to see a foreign fighters. we have an interest in helping it to end as quickly as possible in the favor of the opposition. he no fly zone, i do not think that would energize the jihadi. we are trying to help syrians fight the regime. you're going to get some of foreign fighters as well that i do not think this is going to change the dynamic entirely by having u.s. involvement, if it is not on the ground. >> i saw a question all the way in the back corner. please wait for the microphone

and introduce yourself. >> i am from the syrian national council. the syrian government has a biological weapon. we have to intervene at one point to control that stockpile. >> again, this was just mentioned. boots on the ground killing syrian officers and collateral damage and suffering u.s. casualties. this is going to be a big risk to do that. it will create a whole host of operational challenges for us. better that they are secured by syrians.

once you go in there, by the way, you are in there for the long haul. you have to figure out a way to destroy them as well. this is a long-term operation and will be the least popular operation for americans to try to sell this type of involvement. it will have high casualties, potentially. wod is going to be an issue to keep the attention of u.s. policy makers. but that is all the more reason to try to create areas that are not law list but are well disciplined to guard these facilities. >> the gentleman in the back. please wait for the microphone. >> thank you.

my question is looking back at history, i think senator mccain pointed out an example but kosovo has been an example where by the u.s. intervening after it was clear that atrocities were happening. i am also looking at it from the experience of rwanda where people did not intervene while atrocities were happening. a genocide happen. we have seen hama happen. i am skeptical, what will it take for the international community to be in a position to do something about what is happening in syria? or are we going to wait until it reaches the scale of rwanda? >> says most people in the room

know, talking in terms of numbers, the numbers and not the same. as brutal and vicious as it is. one person came back from levin on that people assume what is holding up u.s. action is the presidential campaign. i am not convinced of that. i tend to think that the administration is going to avoid doing anything about it for as long as possible and that the romney campaign, it is not to just there are republicans who look at this differently. there are a lot of republicans who do not want to act on this. what will change it? will it be wrong numbers? it might be. -- raw numbers? it might be. the regime is avoiding a step like that. i do not know what will change

the equation. >> the gentleman over here. >> i am retired from the office of the secretary of defense. you talked about the partition that is happening. look into the future, any of you come up with a partition be bad? i am not arguing for it but think it through. what is wrong with that? >> if it is cordial. if it does not involve ethnic cleansing of so many people, if it is a partitioned into two states instead of god knows how many systems, perhaps the syrian people can come together and agree in a dialogue to do it. the problem is we do not have that scenario. it is not just coming together

and discussing in a peaceful, civilized manner whether we want to be together or not. what is happening is one-sided. one regime, for its own purposes, for the sake of remaining in power, for having the privilege of the rule, for being able to keep the billions he has to lead and to keep stealing more, wanting to do this. -- he has stolen and to keep stealing more, wanting to do this. we are talking about the scenario that will involve, if it is allowed to continue to unfold in this way, thousands and thousands of lives more that will have to die and hundred thousands that will be displaced. the cost of it is so draconian,

i cannot even speculate about this. at this stage, i'd prefer to see calls for reintegration as much impossible of the rest of syria. i do not see a scenario where we will go into the stronghold to incorporate them into the country. but they do not want to, they do not want to. at this stage, the strategy is about supporters of the entities that are emerging in trying to make them two a viable entities that can still be integrated once they realize how much of a problem assad is an decide to rebel against him. i do not want to see people who

are at war with each other. unfortunately, the dithering of the international community has brought us to where i do not see a solution that can keep syria whole anymore. russian backing is very important. they have been given the opportunity to do it. >> i cannot think of any more fitting way then giving the last question to the syrian national council. if i could have moham ask the question. >> i am an executive with in the muslim brotherhood of syria. what i have here today is many reasons for not intervening.

i would like to also here, if you have enough analysis of not intervening, what would be the results from the american point of view and the interest of the freedom fighters worldwide? >> to paraphrase, what would be the cost of inaction if the americans continue to sit on the sidelines, and the international community? if you have a quick answer, we can move across the panel. >> again, my focus, bashar al- assad can survive a little while. even cause a great deal of damage during the time he will survive. i think it will affect the region and for the night did states, i want people to focus

on this and they are not -- and for the united states, i want people to focus on this and they are not. if iran is the problem, iran is the problem. that is what is going on in syria. it is iran benefiting from this and i see more regional turmoil. that is the cost. >> i'm going to flip the question for dave. what would be the american response? if you believe there is a hope there could be a crew that would replace bashar al-assad with a military general and would that give policymakers something? >> i think that is absolutely the u.s. policy. secretary of state clinton says we are waiting for a coup. we will continue to wait while

people are massacred. hopefully if things get bad enough, she said we think it is becoming. this is the thing, a coup is essentially not a change of power. this is not going to be something that is qualitatively different for us. i do not think it is a reasonable alternative and some general out there it may find it useful to be done with the assads because there will this be -- there will be a plan offered where the opposition is offered 40% of and relevant parliament and the west can wipe their hands of this dirty business. but that is unacceptable to the

opposition and should be an acceptable to us. >> what i would like to do now is think all of the panelists who have participated as well as the syrian delegation who has come a long way, not only geographically to come here to washington,. i am not a syria expert. i am just the moderator of this panel but when i want to learn what is going on in syria, i always turn to the analysis and the essays of the four panelists who are here today. i would urge all of you to give them a great round of applause and to do likewise. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> next on c-span, nobel peace prize winner tawakkol karman discusses women rights and human rights in the middle east. and in case you missed it, remarks from senator john mccain on syria. tomorrow on washington journal, and sheila jackson lee of texas discusses the administration's new deportation policy and her support for attorney general eric holder as the house oversight committee prepares a contempt report. then we will get his view on the new policy for young the illegal immigration -- immigrants. and in the last hour, a reporter lois beckett discusses her latest piece on how campaigns are working with microsoft to target specific online adds to

potential voters. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, award winning author and historian david is our guest on book tv. his passion for u.s. presidents and the great american pastime, baseball, has authored a dozen books including 1920, 1960, at the lbj vs jfk vs. nixon, and a book about the 1960 world series. join us for a david pietrusza on c-span 2. in 2011, at a 32-year-old political activist became the first arab woman and the youngest person to win the nobel peace prize. tawakkol karman spoke to students at harvard university.

her speech from earlier this month includes questions from the audience. this event is about an hour and 25 minutes. [applause] >> i am honored to this evening to introduce her excellency tawakkol karman, a journalist, and she has been fighting publicly for political liberties since at least 2005 when she co- founded women journalists without change. without to change, yes. -- without chains, yes. nge, chains. that is a big difference.

she has been dubbed on the subject of change, at the yemeni joan of arc. but at home, she is known as the mother of the revolution. a mother of three children herself and a mother of what she refers to as the yemeni youths peaceful resolution. she is credited with lighting the spark of the air of spring in yemen and leading the transformational demonstration in what she calls change. that is a central message. and it tends to dampen her fine, she has been arrested, -- and that tends to dampen her, she has been arrested and attacked. she and her fellow protesters are credited with the removal of

the yemeni dictator and for setting her country on the course to democratic rule. in 2011, she was counted among foreign policies 100 most influential thinkers globally. as you know, she was also awarded the nobel peace prize for her leadership in non- violent struggle for peace, democracy, and women's liberation. karman dedicated her nobel prize to all of the yemeni who sought a peaceful resolution -- a revolution, facing snipers with flowers. and to be peaceful protesters in tunisia, egypt, and all of the arab world. in anticipation of her visit, i watched a lot of youtube videos. i wanted to see her message and watcher in action. i was tempted to stream of some

of the images of her leading chants. many of these videos brought tears to my eyes. as i watched these videos, i was reminded of the poet carl sandburg's tribute to abraham lincoln, a man who led our country through a painful civil war, fighting for the integrity of our democracy and human rights. sandburg wrote of lincoln, "and not often in the story of mankind does a man arrive on earth who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and soft is drifting fog. who holds the paradox of terrible storm and peace, unspeakable and perfect." we have the honor this evening

to share the company of a woman who is both steel and velvet. a person who has the strength of a pair but -- terrible storms and the vision of peace unspeakable imperfect. the type of person are world needs so desperately today. please join me in welcoming her helplessly, -- excellency, tawakkol karman. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am tawakkol karman. i am so proud, i am so grateful,

i am so happy that i am here at harvard university. this is my second time to be here. i was wondering what is the time i will study at harvard university. but now i am teaching. what is that? [laughter] really, i am so proud and also i am so proud for coming to harvard university with the president, that she is a woman. her excellency, i would

congratulate her to leading this oldest and biggest university in the world. this is a big achievement for all women, and also for a man around the world. i am sure that harvard university's leadership will be big and more effective. now i will speak in arabic.

[translating] i continue to smell the fragrance for hope and peace that will better our society. however, i still see leftovers of that time such as the blood of my brothers who were murdered and wounded in the revolution. their only crime was to demand a better future in their homeland for all people and their desire for equality of citizens.

[speaking arabic] let me talk to you about the country posts of -- countries of the arab spring as those who will likely go a similar fate in the near future. the change which was a historical effort because of the tierney that has been in place -- tyranny that has been

in place. [speaking arabic] there are common factors among these countries that have brought down a tyrant and corrupt dictators. [speaking arabic]

they are set up around individuals and families. the corruption and -- is significant and supported by those in power. they are set up to ensure the protection and enhanced powers of the leaders. in addition, the security service and military service are also in a place to support the practice of the leaders. their mission is to practice

different forms of torture as well as arbitrary detention. people suffer from unemployment and a lack of minimum requirements to live their lives in a free and respectful manner. >> [speaking foreign-language] >> the joint factors are among the cultures of the arab spring are the passing of power from father to son or other members of the family.

bashar aside took the power from his father who died. it is the same as gaddafi in libya. >> [speaking foreign language] >> what has made it worse is

where the opposition of these systems failed in their power centers. it was hampered and oftentimes had to be led by those outside the country until they could return for the revolution. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> this created frustration among the people and a crisis of leadership. the situation got worse. the youth were allowed to reach out through this system of flexibility and communication, something that the regime could not control. this will happen time and time again as long as the leaders of a press in -- oppress communication. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> the use have been showing up a lot internees' yeah, and in egypt and then in syria. they are looking for freedom, justice and equality before the law. they want justice and the ability to live their lives in this manner. they came out and did not want

to die, but rather, were searching for this event -- the dignity that had been taken from them until this time and not just for them, but for generations to come. [speaking foreign language] >> the use of the arab spring -- youth of the arab spring wanted sacrifice.

they had a great deal of confidence in the power of protest and demonstration, working in a peaceful manner. they viewed this as the on the way to achieve their dream of a country based upon justice and rule of law. peaceful, our revolution is peaceful. we went to the streets. our revolution is a flower. we were yelling and sharing in the alleys and streets -- shouting in the alleys and the street. the people want to bring down the regime.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> we are just focusing on the future, not the past conflict. and we'd throw -- [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, let me try in english. we went to the streets. people wanted to put down the regime. when we went to the streets,

[unintelligible] or pictures or images of any kind of differences. [unintelligible] and also with confidence that the only link between all the people, and the strongest link is the link of revolution. i will repeat in arabic. [speaking forum in which -- speaking foreign language]

>> the old regime uses the old style, which is divide and rule. we did not care about past conflicts. we struggled and tried to unite our nation. >> [speaking foreign language) >> we faced all of these challenges and we did not back

off at all. we were courageous. we could not continue just to watch. everything for our freedom and our dignity, we want to gain a pack. -- get back. everything we do is for our freedom and dignity so that we will gain it back. ladies and gentlemen, -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> at the west pointed out the corrupt system of modernization to the world.

it was clear that the tunisian government worked against its people, putting pressure on them. >> [speaking foreign language] >> in egypt, the regime of hawes in the park was also presented in a similar manner -- of hosni mubarak was also presented a similar manner. it was seen as aligned with the west, more particularly, interested in the interest of the west. the arab spring was an awakening for that region. also, it was an awakening for the west.

the west was made alive with the arabs through the formal statement. >> i will stake -- say in english. ok, i will search myself. i am sorry for this.

[unintelligible] we pay the price of ignorant people. there are people in this country that have a lot of ignorance also. because that is the on the way for him [unintelligible] i came here to harvard university to tell you that when the arab spring decided, when the arab youth spring decided to step down the regime, they decided not simply for progress

inside their congdon -- their country. no, they decided to solve the problems are around the world. because this is the source of all that is unstable or on the world. it is the result of the hate feelings between nations, between people, between west and east. we decided to make this great division, and we paid a lot for that. for what? for the values that all of us carry, unity, freedom, democracy.

accountability. and when we decided to do that, you respond to us that we are with you. we listened to all of your support and democracy. the west was with us when we started the tennessean -- the tunisian revolution and also the egyptian revolution and the libyan revolution. there are many obstacles up to

now. it has not move forward very well. i need someone to help me in translation, please. please. >> [inaudible] >> no, no. speaking in arabic? and you will translate? ok. [speaking arabic] >> you have to bear with me. [speaking arabic. -- [speaking arabic] but i want the tone of my speech to reach the people. [laughter]

[speaking arabic] >> the west's speed in transmitting your support reached the revolutions in the arab world. >> [speaking arabic] >> id reached one revolution after another through the different media outlets and through the legal and human rights organizations against the crimes that were being committed by the tyrannical regimes. >> [speaking arabic] >> and demanded legal action be taken against the tyrannical leaders. could you repeat the last part? >> [speaking arabic]

>> but for the west to assume responsibility, the more unethical responsibility of supporting the arab relations against the regime's, the west supported the arab revolutions. and less than anticipated [unintelligible] >> [speaking arabic] >> to advocate human rights and equality and to support human rights in the arab world. >> [speaking arabic]

>> the work that the u.s. government can do in terms of the support of the arab governments -- in support of the revolution against the arab governments to can come in the agreements and obligations. >> [speaking arabic] >> especially with government, which it has been proven are the number one supporters and incubators and supporters of terrorism. allow me to be even more exclusive. >> [speaking arabic] >> foreign support for the governments in the region and for support against the government's -- against the

revelations in the region -- >> [speaking arabic] >> it is the other way. >> again, again. >> support for the revolution against the regime is necessary and important. >> [speaking arabic] >> such support begins by severing relationships with the government, severing diplomatic relationships and acknowledging these revolutions. >> know. >> acknowledging these revolutions? [laughter] >> again, again. >> [speaking arabic]

come here. [laughter] [applause] [speaking arabic] >> allow me to be more explicit. the support of -- the foreign intervention of the revolution and all of the people who are fighting for freedom and democracy, it is demanded. a humanitarian intervention, it is -- it is right is unnecessary. -- righteous and necessary. this support begins by severing their relationships with tyrannical and corrupt political

regimes. >> [speaking arabic] >> while simultaneously acknowledging and accepting these revolutions and their strength. and providing all of the necessary political and logistical support for the revolutions. >> [speaking arabic] >> support does not end by providing safe havens, isolated safe haven, or buying -- by allowing safe passage for them. >> [speaking arabic] >> this is the most important type of support that we ask for. and we would not resort to

demands, only in the case of safe haven for regimes that have been tenneco and barbaric like assad. -- tyrannical and barbaric like assad. >> [speaking arabic] >> all of these forms of support our harford. -- are offered we do not ask for your support except for security and military apparatus. >> [speaking arabic]

>> we ask for support if and only if the government military attacks in these isolated areas. >> [speaking arabic] >> without this exception, these revolutions should be allowed to continue in peace. regardless of how much sacrifice is involved. >> [speaking arabic] >> this allows these revolutions of 2 continue peacefully and prevent the outbreak of sectarian war and strife.

>> [speaking arabic] >> this will ensure peace and international stability for the region. >> [speaking arabic] >> the supporting -- supporting the revolution and the oppressed populations is a responsibility of each country, each organization, network, regional and international organization. supporting the oppressed is at the heart of the peace prizes -- peace process.

there is no peace without justice. peace between countries is no less important than peace within the countries. >> [speaking arabic] >> tyrant's warring against their own people requires international response equal in importance to national sovereignty. as much as is restricted by international regulations or international agreements. ladies and gentleman, --

>> [speaking arabic] [applause] >> it is safe to say that following these revolutions, we call for a country of partnership, a country of plurality, rule of law, citizenship, equality, not a country of religion sectarianism or sharia rule of law. >> [speaking arabic] >> there is no need to fear that these revolutions will result in

in -- in an outbreak of violence and civil unrest. as long as they have started peacefully, then they will struggle with peaceful means. >> [speaking arabic] >> the social partnerships with in these revelations that were started by the youth in which they sacrificed all that they owned has proven that within this broad social partnership -- that this broad social partnership was capable of bringing down dictatorships.

[speaking arabic] [laughter] it is this spirit of the youth that is capable of bringing down the revolution and also capable of sustainability. >> [speaking foreign language] >> these revelations are also capable of fighting terrorism. following the removal of the dictators, there will not be -- these revelations will be able to contain terrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the fear of terrorism is misplaced. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism and tyranny and are two faces of the samoa:. -- tyranny are two phases of a similar koran -- faces of a

similar coin. [applause] >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorists and tyrants share a similar goal, which is a strategic interest. and they feed off of each other's strengths. >> [speaking foreign language] >> dear guests, humanity is capable of fixing it passed. >>-- past >> [speaking foreign language] >> history has proven this is not the germany. >> -- in a nazi germany. it has prevented with the civil- rights movement. language]foreign languag>> [spn

>> here in the u.s. which is based on human rights and dignity, regardless of race or color. >> [speaking foreign language] >> we have seen amazing human rights developments in south africa. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and a reduction of military rule in latin america. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and receive a ferocious move to rectify -- and we see a ferocious move to rectify our past. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is enough to see the massacres in syria to realize the gravity and the size of the sacrifice that nations have to give up for dignity. [applause]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> ladies and gentlemen, i do not want to send like a preacher. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am highly hopeful that these young generations will graduate from esteemed education organizations so they can soar with freedom and dignity and righteousness. >> [speaking foreign language] >> life, dignity, freedom, and democracy, are all principles that are not subject to

separation. >> [speaking foreign language] >> call for them for yourself and humidity. -- humanity. >> [speaking foreign language] >> this planet is of a tiny village. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they are in desperate needs of weapons that are less aggressive. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is in desperate need of love and peace and to do without all of the dictators that are corrupt and tyrannical. >> thank you so much. [applause]

>> we might need your assistance. what is her name? >> i do not know. >> she is a beautiful interpreter who is facilitating this event. would you continue to help us? [applause] here in the forum, i will facilitate question and answers. we have three rules.

all questioners must identify themselves. you can come forward. there are four mikes here. two on the floor and two on the stairs. our second rule is one brief question per person. no speeches. we remind you all that questions and with? we wanted q --uestions end with question marks. we want real questions. i have been granted to ask the first question. i want to go back to my introduction. i think you can see visibly why she would be referred to as the mother of the revolution. you have been an extraordinary inspiration to the use in yemen -- youth in yemen.

what is your message to the youth here in the united states with regards to how they can better the world? if you do not mind. >> >> [speaking foreign language] >> my message to all people is to look to dignity and liberty. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my message to youth in the west -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> the freedom of populations that suffer under tyrannical regimes is your personal

responsibility. >> [speaking foreign language] >> you cannot say this is an issue that does not concern us. >> [speaking foreign language] >> this is an issue that concerns you. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it causes instability to the world in general. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i say to all youth -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> it cannot keep witnessing people being killed. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it cannot keep witnessing the children being killed. >> [speaking foreign language] >> these solutions are in your hands. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> it can pressure our government. -- you can pressure your government. for intervention in syria to be effective and to go beyond general statements and political announcement. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i say to youth and students, after a year-and-a-half of massacres and deaths -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> after a year and a half we heard that the syrian ambassador has been kicked out. only then did other nations follow suit.

why the delay? >> [speaking foreign language] >> can you ask your government? >> [speaking foreign language] >> i call on you to pressure your governments and pressure your parliament to establish safe havens. >> [speaking foreign language] >> to establish safe passages to provide humanitarian aid to syrians. >> [speaking foreign language] >> for there to be true economic sanctions. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> for him to be included in the international criminal courts. >> [speaking foreign language] >> to acknowledge the national transition council as the only legitimate authority. >> [speaking foreign language] >> to support the use of the revolution within the -- youth of the revolution. do not say there is nothing you can do. >> [speaking foreign language] >> youth was capable of deposit gaddafi, and, hopefully assad in the future.

>> we can work together. we can build together. we need each other. [applause] >> my name is janet. i am stuck in government. -- studying at government. some say that libya's upcoming election will be a great success. what advice do you have for the which havelexielections not been successful? >> [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> they need to continue within the revolution. the revolution has not ended yet. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they need to know that they are the only guaranteed power that can assure the revolution. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they need to work more

effectively in order to help the political activism. they need to work within more aggressive political parties to be able to lobby and run a more effective election campaign. >> [speaking foreign language] >> they were successful in the revolution. they need to have faith they can continue that success. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. thank you for reminding us that all people face, and challenges were periodically they have to get it right. there are older people working with younger people to create affective models were more productive things get done. people feel we can use the

internet to share these ideas without anyone being in physical danger. the stories can be shared. when this group starts to come together, would you be willing to advise it? >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am ready. is this a question? >> i will give you a card afterwards. >> i am ready. >> thank you for supporting the

resolution. [speaking foreign language] what can we do to put pressure on assad and his mother to pressure him to step down? [speaking foreign language] and what is your message for a syrian women in supporting the revolution or the movement? [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> it is the same kind of pressure we have been talking about. the establishment of safe

havens. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and to provide safe routes and passages to provide humanitarian relief. >> [speaking foreign language] >> assad and government officials who have been engaging in these war crimes need to be put on the list of war criminals and those being saw by the tribunal. -- saw by the tribunal. she is considered an accomplice if she does not try to stop him. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> syrian women have been an example of this sacrifice and strife. we will not let you down. we will support you a stand by you. [applause] >> drone attacks in southern yemen, do you think they are helpful? >> [speaking foreign language] >> absolutely not.

>> [speaking foreign language] [applause] >> the drones do not remove members of al qaeda. they kill women and children. >> [speaking foreign language] >> president obama and the cia are well aware that al qaeda's main supporter was -- >> [speaking foreign language]

>> if the cia was not aware, then they're a much weaker than we think. >> [speaking foreign language] >> we launched our youth peaceful revolution for the sake of equality, liberty, democracy, and counterterrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism has distorted the economy, -- destroyed the economy. >> [speaking foreign language] >> terrorism has only prolonged

the life and rule of -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> the only beneficiary from counter-terrorism is the yemeni population. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the development is depended heavily on safety and security and stability. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the peaceful revolution was successful in silencing and eliminating the voice of terrorism. >> [speaking foreign language] >> it was successful in

silencing the cause of terrorism ie to thed's. -- and the ied's. it made effective the peaceful calls for a revolution. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the peaceful revolutions, the counter-terrorism with an ideology. >> [speaking foreign language] >> the revolution was successful. the youth is being recruited by of canada, especially between 17 and 25. -- by al qaeda, especially between 17 and 25.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> it was also successful in changing the view of the youth who fought that violence was the only way to change. >> [speaking foreign language] >> following the toppling of the five dictators, youth are now convinced that peace is the only way to a successful revolution, not violence. >> [speaking foreign language] >> on the other hand, we now have the new president. >> [speaking foreign language] >> of when newly there has

engaged in a true war. -- our new leader has engaged in a true war. >> [speaking foreign language] >> he has proven how much they were tricked. >> [speaking foreign language] >> within only the span of three months al qaeda has been much less affected than it was before. -- affective and it was before. >> [speaking foreign language] >> a lot of the areas have been reclaimed by the government. those that received by a kid. -- were received by al qaeda. -- seiged by al qaeda. those who will fight al qaeda are the great people of yemen.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> we welcome a partnership with the u.s. to counter al qaeda in yemen. >> [speaking foreign language] >> but, for the fight to be by yemenis. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. i cannot let you go without speaking to your work for women. you have done so much for women through your actions and examples. when i have seen you in interviews and asked if he were a women's rights activist, you describe yourself as a humanist. as a humanist, what is the importance of women's liberation for peace and democracy?

>> good question. i like this question. to all women around the world, you have to be human, not just woman. [speaking foreign language] >> when women assume their obligation as humans in general to fight for rights and liberty and the establishment of a modern democratic righteous nation, only then did they serve the cause of women. >> [speaking foreign language] >> from a personal experience --

>> [speaking foreign language] >> prior to the revolution, there was a lot of talk about the need for women's rights and women's participation and for women to be more active in political work, in parliament. there was talk about women needing to be more representative -- represented more effectively. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> it was always beseeching and asking and imploring a specific person or a specific leader within the government organization. >> i decided, to not ask anybody to give me my rights. [applause] we decided to take our rights. by going to the street, doing demonstrations, sit-in's, sacrificing, then you will get men out there. [inaudible] [applause] to all women, please,

[inaudible] [applause] i was alone. i did not like to think about myself a lot. they told me, you have to tell them your story. i will do that. i was alone in the street with my assistant, my good friend, and by other assistant. we were just three women. there were a lot of men. they were saying. we decided to fight for human rights. ingdecided for sacrifice i

forgiving the rights to the people who came to our organization. the first we called the square. [unintelligible] >> it was in 2007, after we established our organization. >> [speaking arabic] >> when we established the organization, it was without change. it was for the sole purpose of advocating democracy, freedom of

speech, and the quality. >> [speaking arabic] >> this was to defend the female journalists and all journalists for their right of freedom of expression. >> [speaking arabic] >> in 2007, when violations against the journalists and the yemeni population with regard to freedom of speech had reached a height, we decided to up activism by engaging in

demonstrations and protests. >> [speaking arabic] >> we got a gracious bought at the beginning from the number of people and after a while, it disappeared. every tuesday, we showed up and we decided that is going to be the past to establish a new freedom. and a number of men were victims of the crackdown on freedom of expression.

we used to show up on a weekly basis, and we would not get bored. we would not lose hope. we were subjects to all forms of abuse within the premises of the presidential palace. when i was at the microphone, i used to be made fun of. women would talk into the microphone as men would called behind her. it is the only one that used to be within the premises --

>> [speaking arabic] >> she was the only source that was transferring the information. she said she suffered an attack on her back. i left the detention center at the hospital and returned back to the square and continued chanting that we demand freedom and equality. [applause]

>> [speaking arabic] >> again, we were alone in this was prior to the arabs spring. the yemeni when men would come out and demand their freedom and integrity. >> [speaking arabic] >> we would take to the street and take to the corner alley and we would be accompanied by a small group subject to abuse.

what they would wake up [unintelligible] it means, wake up all those that seek freedom. there was no one to hear our calls at the time. but we continued. we did not continue for the rights of women only. we continue our fight for their rights of equal citizenship. we convinced society that we were capable of defending these rights. the soldiers and the security officials and members of the security apparatus were attacked and we, as lead men,

would defend them. -- as women, would defend them. we succeeded in burning them out of the detention centers. despite proving that we could be affected in the fight, we continued asking when we would take to the streets to ask for the rights. the answer would come back, soon. we never gave up. we continued in our protest and we upped the frequency from every tuesday to almost every day. we slept in the streets before the arab spring. we went on hunger strikes.

we went on hunger strikes before the arabs spring, we went on hunger strikes for the rights and the quality of citizens. people were pulled out of their homes and demonstrated by the government. no one heard their calls at the time. >> [speaking arabic] >> instead, we adopted a slogan.

i will tell you what it is and they give you a meeting. -- then give you its meaning. let's see if i can do this. all nation, to glory. revolt with determination of the youth to see the struggle. did anyone hear our calls? yes. we continued with the revolution. they congregated with greater

numbers. so the women that used to see us alone in the streets now developed the courage. this was before women and youth took to the streets. this was the first case of a political- abductions. >> [speaking arabic] >> despite by anchor at the time, i realized my voice had

reached every house. the next day, hundreds of thousands of people -- >> [speaking arabic] there used to be three of us carrying microphones and asking people to take to the streets. at that time, there were dozens of people taking to the streets. >> [speaking arabic] >> there were thousands of women. my close friends lost their lives hunting for their rights and liberties of other people.

and during their battle, they succeeded in achieving their rights as women. at this point, the yemeni population and a society is now ready to accept women's engagement in political affairs. and this is not because women fought for women's rights, but because we fought for human rights. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, a discussion of the 2012 elections. we will hear from charlie cook, tom davis, and martin frost. live coverage from the national journal on c-span 2. on sees 3, jamie dimon will testify about the company's recent trading losses. it starts at 9:30 eastern. friday, supreme court justice ruth later ginzberg talks about

the court's current term including the health care case. >> not since the court invited to briefs and arguments and citizens united has attracted more attention. the picket line outside the supreme court, a line that formed three days before oral argument commencd. -- commenced. some have described it as unprecedented, and they are right in terms of the media of, protests, counter protests going on at outside while the arguments are under way inside. and our deliberations are private, it has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts.

my favorite among press pieces widely observed that the supreme court, those who know and who don't talk and those who talked don't know. >> watched the rest of line at the c-span video library. arizona senator john mccain talks about the conflict in syria and president assad's regime. the ranking member of the armed services committee is calling for the un to assist the syrian opposition. the american enterprise institute hosted this two-hour event which had a panel discussion after senator mccain's remarks. [applause] >> good afternoon, by michael rubin, a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, and it is my distinct pleasure for welcoming senator mccain,

the ranking member of the senate armed services committee and governmental affairs. he was a naval aviator before entering politics. he has taken leadership on the issue not only within the senate but within the government. he has distinguished himself as the conscience of the said act on this and other issues. thank you, senator mccain, we look forward to your remarks. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, michael. it is a pleasure to be here. i notice some of the faces and the crowd, there are a number of interns here spending the summer. i have always thought if there was such a thing as reincarnation, i wanted to come back as an intern in washington in the summertime. i know most of your spending a

great deal of time over at the library of congress as well. it is a pleasure to be back. at one of the foremost institutions in america and the world, i think, has contributed so much to the dialogue and discussion and decision making that takes place here. it is great to be back among friends. i usually try to begin my speech is like i just did it with a joke or some kind -- not when we are talking about syria, it is too horrifying and heartbreaking and to exasperatingly. -- too exasperating. the people have faced an onslaught of violence from the forces and it is estimated as many as 12,000 lives have been lost. as some suspect the figure is even higher and there is no end in sight.

assad appears to be accelerating his fight to the finish. it is important to recognize that the clear trend is toward escalation. from tanks and artillery to turning for the special units to a massacre men, women, and children. the use of helicopter gunships -- these forces once sought to clear and hold ground, they appear to be under orders just to kill. a more massacres, more use of helicopters, more weapons after that.

there are reports of iranian operatives on the ground in with the help assad killing while russians ship weapons. the very helicopter gunships that they are currently using to strafed and bombed civilians. whether these are new helicopters or old ones that he sent to russia to have refurbished and have the blood brushed off of them is a distinction without a difference. they have dispatched to ships and a unit of marines to reinforce the naval base. there also delivering additional anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. clearly, this is not a fair fight. amid all the violence in syria, we cannot grow numb to the human

tragedy there. we think special efforts to the turkish government, senator lieberman and i visited a refugee camp in southern turkey. i have seen my share of suffering in death, but the stories that they told still haunts me. men who have lost all of their children. women and girls that have been gang-raped. children that have been tortured. none of this are the random acts of cruelty that sadly occur in the war. syrian army defectors told us that killing, rape, and torture is what they were instructed to do. it is a tactic of terror and intimidation. if i get a little emotional when i talk about syria, that is why. when it comes to the administration's policy toward syria, to say they are leading from behind is too generous. it suggests that they are

leading. they are just behind. the administration now appears to be placing its hopes and the russian government to assad from power in a human-like transition. this is the same russian government that continues to provide heavy weapons and moral support to assad with sanctions on the regime and even blamed the recent slaughter of civilians on the opposition and foreign powers. the more basic problem with this approach is that the administration has already tried that. moscow rejected it and shut down the un security council. what has changed to make things different now? what the president does not seem to realize is what president bill clinton came to understand in bosnia. a diplomatic resolution in conflicts like these is not possible until a military

balance of power changes on the ground. as long as a murderous dictator believes he is waiting on the battlefield, he has no incentive to stop fighting and negotiate. for whatever their reasons, despite the reputation in the arab world, the russian government has stuck with him for 15 months. what makes us think that he will change course when assad is still the dominant power on the ground? the plan that does not even call for assad to go has been a failure for months. the u.n. monitoring mission suspended its operations for security reasons. the increasing reliance on helicopter gunships is giving new impetus to calls for about- why - -a no -- for a no-fly

zone. the administration's of approaches being overtaken by events. the opposition inside syria is forcing the hand of the civilized world to intervene on their behalf because they are growing more effective militarily. public reports suggest that some of our friends in the middle east are now armed rebel groups in syria. this may explain some of the recent reports that opposition forces have been able to destroy tanks and prevent forces from retaking and holding key terrain. this is evidence the united states should maintain a hands- off approach. the fact that the opposition is doing better militarily thanks

to external support seems to validate what many of us have been arguing for months. that support can help further improve the organizations. not to aid rebel fighters in syria. it now seems to be reaching the opposition in syria, and this alone will not be decisive. it will not be sufficient to end the conflict fast enough. nearly every syria i speak with tells me the same thing. the more radicalized it becomes and the more it turns into a sectarian civil war in an escalating spiral of violence cannot stop. the syrian opposition needs to know that the united states

stands with him and they are rolling to take risks - -willing -- willing to take risks. it gives us the opportunity to have influence with the forces in syria that will one day and hear the country. we are exceeding that influence of foreign states that may not always share our interests and our values. and to extremist groups, it may not appear very hospitable to us. it is not preventing the militarization of the conflict. or lessening the risk of sectarian violence. all of these events are just happening without us. and without our ability to influence them. in short, the main reason the united states needs to get more involved with syria is to help end the conflict sooner while they can still secure an outcome that is consistent with their

goals and powers. we should do so not simply for humanitarian reasons, but because it is our national security interests. in the words of the commander of u.s. central command, it would be the biggest blow to our ran in 25 years. yes, there are risks for greater involvement in syria. the opposition is still struggling to get organized. the extremists are working to hijack the revolution and there are reports of reprisal killings. these risks are real and serious. but the risks of doing nothing are worse. if we fail to act, the consequences are clear. syria will become a failed state in the heart of the middle east. the country will develop into a

full-scale civil war which areas of on-governed spaced a wherel qaeda will occupy. violence and radicalism will spill into lebanon and iraq, fuelling sectarian conflicts that are still be burning in both countries. syria will turn into a battlefield between extremists, each backed by foreign powers that will ignite sectarian tensions from north africa to the gulf and risk a wider regional conflict. this is the course we are on in syria, and we must act to avoid it. the action i envision would not be unilateral, it would be multilateral. we would work closely with allies, especially turkey and our partners in the gulf. in libya, there will be no boots on the ground and only intervene at the request of legitimate representatives of the syrian people. our goal would be to help the

opposition change the balance of power on the ground, thereby creating conditions for an end to the violence and the departure ofassad a - o- of assad and his cronies. we have to help the opposition establish safe havens inside the country. this is essential for a number of reasons. it is constantly said that the syrian opposition is disorganized. it might be true at the national level, but it is much less true at the local level. the revolutionary councils, military councils, and local coordinating committees that have emerged in syria are increasingly sophisticated and effective. i have met some of their members and representatives. they are some of the most impressive figures i have encountered.

if the syrian opposition is to succeed, it needs an effective and unifying structure of some kind. if it is unlikely that such a structure could be formed in syria and tell the opposition has a safe haven. a place where they can emerge from hiding, i gather together in safety, secure military leaders, and organize themselves as an alternative governing structure not just for the purpose of removing assad from power, but to prepare for the challenge of securing the country once he is gone. this is what the transitional council was able to do before, and despite major challenges, the it is less difficult to imagine today how safe havens can be established in syria. indeed, some analysts suggest the opposition may already be creating some areas of de facto

control in the country, for example in some areas north along the turkish border and in eastern syria. it is quite possible led the opposition could declare parts of syria to be liberated and then ask for external helped, support in defending the territory. this is exactly what we should be helping the opposition to do. rather than insisting that we cannot act militarily without a un security council resolution, as the secretary of defense recently asserted, we should follow president clinton's example. we should refuse to give russia and china beach power over our actions and instead work to shape a coalition of willing states with a legitimate mandate to intervene militarily in syria.

many of our allies are willing to do much more. as one regional official told "the wall street journal" last weekend, they are looking for, quote, the ironclad backing of the u.s. and others. we should provide it for them. we should make u.s. air power available. along with that of our allies, as part of an international area to defend safe areas in syria and to keep assad's forces from harassing them, as they will do. these will become platforms for increased deliveries of food, medicine, doctors to treat the wounded, and other nonlethal assistance. it can also serve as staging areas for armed groups to receive battlefield intelligence, body armor, and weapons, including antitank weapons, and to train and organize themselves more

effectively, perhaps with foreign assistance. the goal would be to expand the reach of the safe havens across more of the country. as a final part of this strategy, we must think about the situation in syria in a broader strategic context. unfolding from lebanon to syria to iraq, this is all part of one connected story. we must be thinking about how we can capitalize on the fall of the assad regime in syria, to strengthen the sovereignty and independence of lebanon, to support the reconciliation of sectarian conflicts with politics, not violence, to increase the government in iraq to roll back its situation and to share power more democratically in the region. in all of these efforts, the

united states and turkey share common interests and values, and we need to be working more closely together, but most of all, what is needed most is american leadership. if there ever were a case that should remind us of our interests being in the visible from our values, it is syria. a few days after the massacre, "the washington post the" interviewed a man who survived genocide in 1995. this is having looked at the ongoing slaughter in syria. quote, "it is bizarre how "never again" has come to mean "again and again," he said. what is happening in syria today is almost identical to what happened in bosnia two decades ago.

he could not be more correct. serious debate is indistinguishable from bosnia in the 1990's with one exception. in bosnia, president clinton finally summoned the courage to lead the world to intervene and stop the killing. it is worth recalling his words about the military action in bosnia in 1995, and i quote, he said, "there are times and places," president clinton said, "where we can defend our values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. there are still times when america and america alone can make a difference for peace." those were the words of the democratic president who led america to do the right thing and stopping the mass atrocities in bosnia, and i remember

working with my republican colleague, bob dole, to support president clinton in that endeavor. the question for another democratic president today and for all of us in positions of responsibility is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us as the united states of america, and whether we will use our great power, as we have done before, not simply to advance our own interests but to serve a just cause that is greater than our interests alone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. senator mccain has also graciously agreed to answer some questions. please come to the microphone and make your questions brief

after introducing yourself. >> hello, john mccain. my name is -- and i am with the green youth policy in sweden. while kofi annan is a very wise person, and he has worked really hard for finding a diplomatic solution to the situation in syria, what he means is that you should always primarily look for a nonviolent solution to conflict, and i was wondering whether the united states was working for and implementing more diplomatic pressure against the assad regime. thank you. >> do you have any ideas to support them diplomatically or kofi annan?

i would like to hear it. certainly, this administration has. but the fact is that it is being knowledge even by kofi annan that his plan has failed. u.n. observers have just gone back to areas where they would not be subject to attack. it is widely acknowledged that the plan, as some of us predicted, has failed, so if you have any ideas on how we could be more active diplomatically, i would be more than encouraged to hear. the fact is that this is a brutal dictator who was willing to massacre his own people, and his people have reason to try to overthrow him, and i believe the only way for him to leave is if mr. assad believes he cannot stay.

>> hello, my name is -- i am an undergraduate. i was interested the dimensions, obviously, how do you feel about a syrian regime change? it could provoke violence in some form or another. >> i think the first thing that happens is the connection between a land and hezbollah and their influence in lebanon is dramatically reduced. i think that the iranians have syria as really the only arab state like that remaining. i do not think there is any doubt with a loss of syria, they lose their connections to

hezbollah. they lose their connections to lebanon. perhaps mr. maliki would think more about the closer relations he should have with iran, and with that loss, i think it may put additional pressures on iran to cease their continuing to develop nuclear weapons, which, as you know, is a forthcoming crisis, unless the iranians abandoned their efforts to wield a nuclear weapons, which so far there has been no indication that they have. this is a key and central part of the entire middle east, and what happens here will have a dramatic effect on the entire middle east as well. thank you. yes?

>> senator mccain, i am the daughter of one of the speakers. i am a syrian, a political refugee who came here with my family in 2006. we hear from policymakers in the current demonstration that the united states cannot afford intervening in syria. as serious, how can we change that? the people are dying. if that is the main excuse they gave. and we cannot see any change, and we cannot convince them, i totally agree with what you said. what can you give us? what can we do to convince them that we really need to end this dictatorship? thank you very much. >> i have to tell you that the political realities here in the united states, americans are

very weary of wars because of our long and projected engagement in iraq and in afghanistan. a couple thousands of young americans have given their lives. americans see our economy in a very bad situation, and that has tended, of course, to lead to a more inward view and a lack of a desire for involvement. i believe that the same arguments that you hear being made about syria today are the same ones that were made about libya, that we would get into a protracted conflict, that it would be overtaken by al qaeda, we do not know who they are. my friends on both the right and left have seen these arguments. if there is a basic principle. one is that no one i know of is advocating american goods on

the ground or american military action. i do know for a fact that our allies in the region are crying out for american leadership, and no one that i know of once american boots on the ground or once a unilateral united states action, and, frankly, they are the most immortal words in my view ever written that all of us, all of us are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the united states of america has shared its blood and spent its treasurer in all four corners of the world in defense of others freedom. many times it was in our interest as well.

for a little encouragement, i think the administration is moving a little bit in the right direction, and certainly our allies in the region are picking up the slack. yes, sir? >> thank you, senator. my name is -- from a newspaper. about the repercussions of arming the opposition and creating safe havens for them. we read reports that they're actually recruiting jihadists in jordan and kuwait and other places. would we have an afghan-like situation afterward? thank you. >> first of all, the afghan situation, we went to afghanistan because that is where the attacks of 9/11 began, and we should never forget that. the second thing is i have seen this movie before. jihadists are going to come in, and we are going to have an election, and 80% of the libyan people are going to vote. they are going to have an election on july 7. i hope to be there to observe it.

the one thing i can assure you of, the longer this is protracted, the more likely it is for that to happen, that foreign fighters come in, and jihadists and others. because the frustration in the anger and the casualties of the syrian people would experience, so all i can say is, all i can say is looking at the situation of a protracted, long, drawn- out conflict, where bashar al assad is being supplied with arms, equipment, artillery, and now we hear reports of even actual russian troops being possibly moved into syria, versus people who are basically without any real means to defend themselves.

it is not a fair fight. it is not a civil war because all of the military strength is on one side and not the other. at least we have to give them a chance to have a fair fight. yes, sir? our staff is on its way. it is a work release program. go ahead. >> many see the russians support of him as a losing alliance. while we have our differences with russia, is there any way to convince them it is in their interest to abandon support for him? >> i have been a bit puzzled, too. the russians are very intelligent. vladimir putin is a very smart man. lavrov is a very smart guy, but they are doing damage to their image in that part of the world.

they are harming themselves, and i do not understand that. i do not pretend to get into president putin's mind, but there is some nostalgia for the russian empire, and this is their last post on the mediterranean. this is in many ways a test as to whether this disease called the era spring will spread to other parts of the world, including places like chechnya, which was put down with, you know, incredible and an exceptional brutality. so i cannot fathom all of the reasons for the russian behavior as it continues to be. i hope that the president, who i understand is meeting with president putin today, will be

able to bring about some change in their behavior, but in my view, it is also part of a pattern of putin's behavior since the elections, putting find on demonstrators, jailing people, etc., etc., and that does not mean that i believe the cold war is going to be reignited. it is not, but i also think we're going to have to take a much more realistic view about our relationship with russia and our ability to do business with them. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. centre. i am from norway. you said the solution for syria might happen outside of the u.n. system. is that a road that leads to less u.n. involvement in the world? and is that the road that the obama administration is feeling?

could that be the reason for non involvement? thank you. >> the situation today is that russia and china in this case now have veto power over any united states policy or action that the united states might take. that obviously is not acceptable to the american people. our actions cannot be governed by whether russia will or will not veto a u.n. security council resolution. i mentioned it in my prepared remarks. we want to cause of a without a un security council resolution, and we went there for the same reason why we should go to syria, and that was a coalition of the willing, as we say. so i respect and admire the united nations security council and the things that they do. the fact that is the united states national security should not be governed by whether russia will veto resolutions in

the united nations security council. yes. you have been overlooked four times. please go ahead. [laughter] >> hello, my name is tyler o'neal with " the "washington free beacon." >> i believe that turkey is one of our strongest allies in the world, much less the region. last week, there was a breakfast with the u.s. turkey society. i continue to be worried about the gm of journalists.

turkey now has more journalists in prison than any country in the world, i believe. i have been worried about intimidation about opposition parties. i have been worried about consolidation of power in the hands of the prime minister, a man who i respect and admire a great deal, but i also worry about tendencies in turkey that far transcends islamic or other religious reasons, and that is my big concern, and this jailing of hundreds of military officers is something that is really not appropriate for a functioning democracy either, and there are other reasons. yes? >> thank you, sir. my name is -- from sweden. all about syria, but i have a

question. so many people died, and peacekeepers were there. >> i think that other event was horrible, and they thought it could never take place. thousands of people, young and old, were taken out and ethnically cleansed. if there is any good news out of something like that, it did galvanize the world into taking action to stop further acts of atrocity from taking place. i think america and our allies should be very proud that we stopped that kind of butchery and ethnic cleansing that was going on there in that country. i think it is one of the prouder moments of our ability to work together with like-minded

democracies to respect human rights. yes? >> the independent researcher. what is going on with them? can they be more helpful? and what about saudi arabia? >> i have heard reports, published reports, that the saudis are assisting in some ways. the arab league, lebanon obviously is under the influence of hezbollah. i am trying to think you else. there are a couple of countries in the arab league that have veto power which makes it much more difficult with concerted action in libya. i know there are members of the arab league who are much more actively involved, but whether the arab league itself, i am trying to remember. it may be very difficult to get

a solid position out of the arab league as opposed to the situation as it prevails in libya. as you know, probably the most unpopular person in the arab league at that time was moammar gaddafi, since he had tried to kill a few of those leaders of those countries, but i guess i have to stop. we have a very distinguished panel of leaders here. but i would just like to say, particularly there it is a lot of young people in this audience. you come from all over the world, and you are here i think to learn to listen. i hope you will go back in imbued with the thought that we live still in a very dangerous world and one that is fraught with challenges, but it is the

next generation of leaders around the world that can change from a bleak picture in some cases to one that is much more optimistic. i believe that your involvement in a cause greater than your own self interest is the future of this country in the world, and i believe that when i am associated with people like which are in this room, i am much more optimistic when i leave then when i came. thank you. [applause] >> the senator has raised a great number of issues, and i am thrilled that we have a distinguished panel as we have today to discuss these issues. we also have in the audience members of every major fraction of syrian opposition, and also want to extend my welcome to them.

sitting next to me is the leading syrian and pro- democracy activists in syria, the member of a syrian working group which is pretty much the most important working group there is, discussing syrian issues outside the u.s. government at this point in time. i came to know him as founder and director of a foundation, a grass-roots organization of local activists and citizens journalists to report on the situation in syria and elsewhere. sitting next to him is some and i am pleased to welcome back to the american enterprise institute. he is a research fellow at the new america foundation, and i think it is safe to say that his work, especially the harmony documents, has become a

must read for anyone looking at radicalism within the middle east and the arab world, so i am very thrilled that he has come here today to help share some of his insights. next to him is my old friend david and a former colleague of mine from my days in the pentagon. david is currently a fellow and director of the program of arab politics at the washington institute for near east policy. he previously served as a director as the top policy aide on several subject, especially syria. he is also the author of several impassion books, and last but not least, we have another author, the senior editor at "the weekly standard," the author of "the strong force, power, politics," which was published by doubleday in

the year 2010. without any more ado, with so much to discuss, i would like to turn the four auvergne. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to this event, which comes at a very crucial time for syria, as events on the ground continued to deteriorate, and the situation seems to be outside of anyone's control. he really heat -- highlighted some action. i think we can easily endorse it because it corresponds to something we have been talking about for quite awhile now, and we hope that this demonstration will become proactive about the situation and do more than what it has been doing over the last couple of months, because if it is to wait until after the

elections, i am not sure there will be a syria after the elections, and it may be difficult to say that, but if you examine the situation on the ground, it is a situation -- is to keep control of every part of the country and to crack down with russian support, in all sorts of communities from the southern end of syria to the northern end. but there seems to be a parallel plan, a plan b, that calls for an enclave in the plains and central parts of syria and also homs city. the ethnic cleansing campaigns

taking place, this is more than half the population of that city. thousands of people have been displaced. since the beginning of the revolution. there is a sharing of towns. we are seeing campaigns to ethnically cleanse one area from the sunni population. and we're also seeing in the coastal and mountain regions some ethnic cleansing. it has already cleared several territories in the mountains,

and the sunni population in some other areas, a virtual siege, checkpoints all of the neighborhoods, and we have videos to prove it. there is sort of like a terror campaign that takes place in the neighborhoods, shooting into the air and trying to terrify the population, and it seems to me it will only be a short amount of time before they ethnically cleanse this neighborhood as well. we are seeing this implemented. we have the videos.

basically foreign journalists have made a -- managed to go to the areas and see what is taking place. so it is not a hypothetical scenario anymore. this is something that we are seeing being implemented. if there is going to be an intervention, and the fall that is to take control of a piece of land. the problem is, of course, with control of the city, in particular, this is the place through which all major roads connect, so by controlling homs city, it is a partitioning. the south, the northeast, the north, and if the opposition congeals in this area, we could see each one of these be different, so there could be a state that is supported by and protected by the russians, and

some ethnic issues developing all of the country. this is not a hypothetical scenario. this is something that is being worked out. the inability to formulate a policy and to stick to it on syria. so this is really why, and i will also repeat what was enunciated by senator mccain. this is why it should be now rather than waiting and waiting, because time is not on our side and has never been on our side. back in may, in june, in july, where we are seeing this course

that assad is willing to take. the international community has the time to say, "no, we are not going to allow that." this will be on the table if it continues on this course. there are a lot of statements by so many countries. this gives them the go ahead to continue to pursue that kind of following. now, we do not have the luxury. the country is being partitioned. waiting for the partitioning to take effect, there will be repercussions. and in turkey and perhaps in israel, as well. the wrong actors are waiting, and they may actually be beginning to infiltrate the country, so time is not on our side.

the time to act is now. while we understand all about the calculations of elections and so on, there are a lot of things at stake here. and the humanitarian issues. they cannot wait any more. with this i conclude. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for having me here, michael in particular. i will talk about some of what we see that could indicate a

jihadi presence. i do think these elements are likely to benefit from the situation there. i do think that there are going to be very unproductive defects across the region. i think that there is a role for a more active american presence there, but i am skeptical that military action can produce this. good intentions do not make good policy. bottom line. one of the things the interests me about the debate about syria is the analogy is we used to try to understand it, and this is something we all do as human beings, we ask is syria closer vote?

if syria and iraq? what are the unintended consequences? how do we understand what our actions will produce in a situation like that? and it is no surprise, we all pick and choose the an argument that we would like to make. the big difference with syria, with the exception of iraq, is that the stakes are much, much higher. they are just tired, for all of the reasons that senator mccain laid out. the opportunities of a successful outcome in syria are much higher, and the repercussions of something bad in syria are much higher. senator mccain made those arguments very well. to limit the murder of civilians, the wanton murder of civilians that we know is occurring, and we did hear a plan from senator mccain. our goal ultimately to limit president assad with safe zones and increasing military support for rebels. one of the issues i want to point out is that i think there

is a very, very important risk of mission creep here. i do not think that creating a safe zone is an option. i think it would be very, very difficult to keep that as a mission over the long run. it is going to produce a backlash by the enemies. the enemy always gets a vote. the enemy i think will perceive that as an effort to overthrow the regime, and at that time, there are options on the table we do not want to think about. a lot of marines died last time we were in this part of the world. we'll hostilities. i think it leads to an outcome which israeli military intervention to push him out. in my mind, that is it. there are real negative

repercussions. there are some costs. the benefits i think our notes, but the costs of this situation, there is a growing jihadi group, and one very well known and one is releasing propaganda. it is not a strong grip. it is not a group that can compete with the opposition groups. these types of organizations are not in most places viable competitors for power. even when they start to gain political power, they shoot themselves in the foot. that is not what i am inclined. they are not going to take over syria. but they will make things a lot worse because they made the

assad position and supporters much more entrenched, because it is much more difficult to get to that point that senator mccain talked about. were you can create more military balance with the assad regime. they do not want to overthrow it because it is a brutal dictatorship. they want to overthrow it because the people are apostate and fundamentally deserve death, right? i am unconvinced from historical precedents that they will control all jihadi elements. it makes the situation a lot morris. this is very, very difficult. and i think we have got to recognize that fact. the situation is worse than the

situation in syria. the situation in libya i think got blown out of proportion. there were not a lot of jihadi elements. for years, it had been crushed. they tolerated some of those elements because they were useful to funnel people in over the last several years. these are not good people. but there is a reality on the ground where i think that threat there is much more dangerous over the long run. for those reasons but also because of the proximity of a neighbor. there is an active al qaeda element that is still quite capable. it does things when it feels like it in baghdad. so a couple of questions. what comes next, right? the goals are clear. the purpose of military

intervention is clear, and what i think we want to achieve is pretty clear. the question is whether or not these mechanisms will get us where we want to go. what comes after? i think the jihadi groups will be active. i do not think there will be a cohesive group afterwards. but you have a lot of countries in the region. right now, they all agree that assad should go, but i do not think they all agree on what should come after. the iraqis, do they all agree? what is going to happen with the syrian chemical and biological weapons? if push comes to shove, will assad use them? do they matriculate to al qaeda? we cannot pursue a direct and demonstrative policy of getting rid of him unless we have good answers to those questions,

right? there are folks that are worried about the impact of the united nations. that is not really my concern. my concern is what are the unintended consequences of these actions, and they undermine u.s. national security in regional security, and i worry very much about the saudis, in particular. some of the rhetoric out of there seems they are tolerating some of the traveling jihadis, and let's be clear. the folks that want to get on the ground there that are traveling, five years ago, they were going elsewhere, right? a very similar kind of dynamic. and we have to be very careful, i think, with our allies in the region that we do not open the door to that kind of scenario. there is an argument that we

should engage more actively. this limited the ability of those kinds of groups to act, but we need to keep our eyes open. ultimately, i am very bearish on syria. i do not see a lot of good outcomes. i think this is a very ugly and dangerous situation. i think that our efforts as the international community need to be focused on limiting human suffering as much as possible but also limit during -- limiting the spread, and that is where from a strategic interest we need to put our efforts. and i think you very much. >> thank you, brian. >> thanks for hosting this important panel, and senator mccain is great.

i could stop right there. we are approaching the one-year anniversary in august of president obama calling on him to step down, and nearly one year has passed since that col. it has been about five months since there was a non plan that we backed, rolling back the one plan, which i bought was a sensible plan. the plan calls for assad to leave, which the president has done. when kofi annan was interviewed shortly after he had that plan, he said this is for the syrian people to decide, as if the syrian people ever had a say. it is never going to happen. they were never going to allow this or to stop murdering innocent people.

that would mean the end of the regime, period. they backed the plan. in february, coming right after the russian and chinese veto, the security council resolution, and the massacres. really. this is when it really started to pick up. and following the developments at the time, we knew that that plan was not going to work, but we did not have, we still do not have a plan. a plan b. back in february after the killing started, the administration leads that they would have a plan. there was the crack cnn correspondent that got a scoop. she said the pentagon had drawn up detailed plans for military action against the regime.

or had it? they have to consider, and i encourage you to go look for it. the remarkable g-7 statements from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, dempsey. general dempsey was asked to give us some idea about an operation that would be required to stop the killing of the civilians in syria. the general answer that he cannot do that because he has to know the outcome is. so you tell me what the outcome is, and then he goes on it and says, tell me that you want regime change in iraq, and i know how much it takes. tell me that following a regime change in syria, we need to restore order, and i know what that looks like. anything in syria would be

hypothetical and extreme, and i cannot understand unless i understand the outcome. did not president obama say that assad had to go? two weeks ago, general dempsey said he could not plan because he did understand the outcome. it is remarkable. general dempsey is lacking any guidance in terms of the estate of what we want to reach in syria. what can we do? the fact that it took more than one year, and we still do not have this kind of guidance i think is indicative of the ambivalence of the highest level of the united states government, and you heard this from senator mccain. the longer this continues, the more radicals will emerge. we are seen this already. you are watching youtube, and i

watched a lot of youtube. and what is going on the ground? of course, the move to al qaeda on the ground, this is home base in a way for many. this is going into syria, out of syria. they are coming back through syria. visits at the damascus airports, we know this. they are familiar with it. the strategy has been really heavily dependent of using a scare tactic. looking at this of becoming a reality. and the more chance of the indigenous that are not islamophobic, islam. unlike the national syrian council, the free syrian army

is becoming increasingly effective on the ground. their operations are becoming more coordinated and lethal. there are three under and separating -- separated on the ground. this is good. and i think we are seeing that already. the free syrian army is going to take territory, and this will leave ungoverned space, which al qaeda likes, and as a result, some of the weapons, that contains sarin gas and mustard gas, they could go somewhere else. we do not know.

this is a nasty program. the third trend that we are seeing is there are two purposes that regime has given us, and the plan is to create cleared land, and they are doing that, going and clearing out areas, making sure there are no hostiles in the area. the second thing, the massacre on the scale than they are doing, it hastens civil war, and they want civil war. civil war, hey, we do not want any of that. that is domestic stuff. lebanon in the 1980's. we do not want to get involved in a civil war. a civil war is a good thing. it keeps us away.

and then there is a real act -- lack of urgency, not only to end the slaughter, but a strategic dialogue. what do we do in the future about this? i want to short cut it. giving more assistance to the free syrian army, and this means boots on the ground. not in syria but in turkey. i am talking about special forces, one lieutenant colonel and a handful of majors. this is what they do. they go in and organize, held the free syria army. decrease the number of atrocities that they are perpetrating on the ground and make sure we do not have something that looks like libya on the end, with hundreds of militias running around refusing to disarm, having to bribe the militias to provide security. we do not want that.

that is one. we should be building, as the center said, a coalition of the willing. military operation. arab forces. the uae and qatar were instrumental. they are on the right side here, too. iran, venezuela are acting without u.s. consent. i do not think we need to seek their consent to help the syrian people. we cannot let our iran policy be held hostage -- i am sorry. we cannot let our syria policy be held hostage to russian cooperation. we can do both. we should also stop, and i'm going to conclude in a second,

stop with turkey. there is a fellow, a great colleague and friend. back in february, secretary of state clinton met with one person who put forth a measure, including creating a buffer zone, organizing in the curbing the army. no less than three times, they were not there. they were restraining the turks from doing something beneficial, and, of course, they want political cover. traditionally, turkey has not sought permission when it wants to go kill kurds in iraq or syria, right? they ask international interests as they see fit, but i think we really have to help the turks be the best they can be here.

they think this is in their national interest to create buffer zone. if the turks are genuinely interested in taking a leading role, well, we are certainly not doing it, but we should not be stopping them from doing it. a buffer zone would be a watershed and would hasten the fall of the regime. finally, what we should be doing is de-recognizing them. they are finished. there is no talking with them anymore unless the want to talk about going to tehran or elsewhere. i think we should act like the other nations have. thank you. >> thanks. thank you, david. thank you, brian. it is a pleasure to be up here with you. a huge thrill. exciting to be here.

as michael noted, i work at "the weekly standard," where over for much of the last year, i have been writing and attacking be administration on the syrian policy, and the other things. i was going to try to open things up for speculation. i have some general questions, and the place i wanted to focus on is when senator mccain was talking about why the fall of the saw is not strategic, especially regarding iran, and that is actually one thing. it is one thing to keep in mind, because we keep talking, this administration keep saying that iran is central, that it is a central regional issue, and other people say it as well, including domestic adversaries that say iran is central, but the question i want to ask, one of the things i want to look around, to try to export very

briefly, very quickly, if that is the case, for our syrian policy, it if it suggests something else, that may be iran is not as important as many of us have been saying it is, but let me start with one comment quickly on a very important issue that brian raised when he was talking about being concerned. my sense is at this point the big concern is that it is not foreign fighters. it is just regular sunnis. what has been happening, with the ethnic cleansing, which they have spoken quite clearly about, this is a big deal. we saw what happened where i believe the majority of the victims came from one family, is that right?

they came from one sunni family. pardon me? right. what we have seen happen over the course of the last year, i am actually of this impression that the civil war has been going on much longer than one year, and basically started when they came to power in 1966. syria has lots of sectarian issues. let's be frank about it. i am of a belief that the civil war has been going on for a long time and that we have seen different episodes of the fighting, other times during the 1960's. we have seen a lot of this fighting, and what we have seen over the last year is we have seen an especially hot episode of this fighting going on. to me, that is what the issue is. it is a sectarian war, and it is ugly now, and it is going to get much uglier.

one of the interesting things and we have seen happen in this debate is that a lot of times, there is no doubt that al qaeda and other sunni fighters have been an issue in syria for a long time. and over the past decade, this has been primarily the responsibility of the regime, who have nurtured these relationships. it is hardly surprising now that any of these guys should still be around. one thing i want to put forth, speculate about, do we know who is controlling these groups now? when we were growing into iraq, i happen to believe that most of the guys that describe themselves as sunni groups are really sunni fighters.

but the way they operate, that is an entirely different question. how much control does the regime in damascus have over these sunni groups right now? we do not know that. maybe this is something we can talk about later. i think we do not know that. this is something that we would put forth. let me come back to iran quickly. and the framework of iran. why does the administration still say that it does not know that there are recipients of weapons on the ground in syria? >> the last thing we want is for it to hand -- is for it to end up in the hands of al qaeda. partly for political reasons, but also for military reasons as well. we do not want these weapons we do not want these weapons floating around, like they are