and more broadly in the world. if we are in that kind of posture in 1969 where the american order looks to everybody else like it is unraveling, we are in a very serious situation that needs to be addressed. i think that is where your question goes to, because otherwise disaster strikes. the arab oil boycott of the 1973, the war, all kinds of awful things can happen, the start of the retreat from vietnam. i agree that there are certain parallels in what is happening in the world today, in the basic sense that people out there who have relied on us since world war ii, that the system, the order that the united states established and enforced is beginning to unravel at some level. and people are really beginning to start to make calculations based off of that, and for me, example number one is the saudis and what bandar is doing

i can understand how aggressive they've gotten in certain areas. the trip to moscow worries me because there are serious things happening in that relationship that would not have happened were it not for the absolute collapse of faith in the united states, and while there may be good things that can come out of it for the saudis to be off on their own, a lot of bad things can come out of that as well potentially. but that is the kind of uncertainty that we are dealing with in the system that i think has led to quite a bit of trouble. i agree in the first place that syria now takes on this huge importance in terms of trying to convince the iranians that we are serious.

i think that operation is now going to need to be something that perhaps the president and his team did not think a couple of weeks ago it might have needed to be. it will now need to have real effects on syria and on other adversaries in the region, that they do not want to test the united states in this regard. i do not disagree with dennis. i think the timeframe for the iranians approaching some kind of nuclear weapon cap capability is fairly short, and people would put it in the middle of 2014. that is a short time. i agree that we have to test this fairly quickly. they have to try as part of our strategy to get to a bottom line very quickly. i do not know if the iranians will allow us to do that. i do not know if the p-five plus one will allow us to do that.

this has got to be to get international support and domestic buy-in here, for any chance of it to succeed against the iranians, it will have to be a serious proposal, different than what has been put on the table before, and i am willing to sign up for a very restrictive capability that dennis has talked about, provided that if in fact that our strategy has to be in like 1991 in saddam -- baker says this is the final proposal, and that he rejects it and you have a clear system for determining that he has rejected it, in days bombs start falling, things start happening. i'm not sure we can put together that kind of proposal and get buy-in from it, not only from the people, but from the international community.

at the same time they go through some serious diplomacy to get to a bottom line fairly quickly. we have got to be pedal to the metal on the separate pressure track. i would not -- i agree with a lot of people in congress who believe that congress needs to be going forward with new sanctions that really threaten to bring this economy to the verge of collapse and at the time we need to be doing all of the military things that we need to do both alone and with our allies that we would do if we were really serious about undertaking a fairly significant military strike against iran within the next six months to a

year. >> on the issue of red lines, i think clearly and credibly drawing red lines is one of the most important things that governments do in the conduct of international relations. and when they do a bad job of it, the consequences could be really dire. i think a lot of historians believe that we had to fight the korean war because of a speech that suggested we were not prepared to fight to defend korea. a lot of other people believe that we had to fight the first persian gulf war because our ambassador had a meeting with saddam hussein and which saddam hussein came away thinking that the u.s. was not prepared to fight to defend the independence of kuwait. in both of those cases, when the independence of those countries was therein, the united states thought thought about it and decided it was repaired to fight. historians debate whether had the u.s. done a better job drawing the red lines more clearly, we could have avoided those wars, and i do not know if

we will ever know the real answer. i am prepared to say that i wish it would have been more clear because it would have been nice to avoid fighting those kinds of wars and i am troubled about where we are on iran today, because i do not think united states has been very clear clear on what its red lines are. we talked about the ambiguity and the difference between producing a nuclear weapons and achieving nuclear weapons capabilities. the administration has been on both sides of that issue in terms of their declaratory policy. asserting something like all options are on the table is not a clear red line. that is pretty ambiguous about what you're prepared to fight for. i have to give credit to prime minister netanyahu. he literally drew a red line at

the un security council. lo and behold, iran as sort of done backflips to avoid crossing that red line. netanyahu, i guess, holds credibility with the iranians. that is what you have to take away. i worry about u.s. red ability. you know, president obama drew a red line with regard to chemical weapons used in syria, and the assad regime stepped over that line. i sense some reluctance on president obama's part to enforce the red line. congress is going to vote on this now. what is he going to do if congress votes no? i served on the first bush administration. i was a lawyer handling the war powers issue for the first president bush. he was pretty clear that he was giving congress a chance to authorize it and our nation

would be strengthened. he made the case that he thought saddam hussein was more likely to back down and we could avoid having to fight a war if congress authorized us to potentially fight a war. congress accepted that argument. but bush was pretty clear that he deployed hundreds of thousands of u.s. armed forces to saudi arabia -- he was clear that he was going forward no matter the outcome in congress. so it was not critical to what ultimately was going to happen. the obama administration has been conspicuously silent on what it will do if congress fails to grant the authority that the president has requested. we do have a precedent here. in the united kingdom, they voted no, and the prime minister said good luck. is that what obama will do if congress votes no?

i do not know what obama will do. he has not been as clear as president bush was about his commitment to proceeding your respective of what congress does. going back to the red line, the iranians are trying to assess how determined the u.s. government is to prevent them from achieving a nuclear weapon. things could play out pretty badly on syria in a way that would reinforce doubts in tehran about how serious the united states is and how much they have to worry about the military option on the u.s. side. >> there has been a great deal of apprehension and the arab world about the seriousness of the united states in terms of its willingness to play the leadership role in that part of

the world. so this is going to compound that concern until we find ways to clarify that in ways that make it really clear. >> i will get into the historical part. on the red lines, there is a lot of suggestion about the syrian red line. it was mentioned that three american presidents have suggested that iran in possession of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. three american presidents have drawn various red lines with a large degree of impunity. in the summer of 2012, the u.s. policy was that -- they had a slogan for it. [indiscernible] ship of at least 20% fuel. that is probably not our policy today. it is probably, in any

forthcoming negotiation, that is unlikely to be our policy. you can suggest that that particular red line was unreasonable. well, then do not draw it. if you think your red line is unreasonable and unsustainable, then do not draw it. and do not attach a slogan to it. so the syria red lines are important, but there have been lots of red lines on iran that have come and gone. on the historical issue, reasoning through historical analogy is always imperfect and too often imprecise, so here i go. if you kind of look -- i agree with dennis, it looks like the 1960's, and that is kind of a gray thing. the middle east is a region that has a habit of constantly dividing against itself. in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a division. you see a similar division today, but the basis is a far more entrenched and ideological division. there is iran and the resistance.

this is what the iranian commander said yesterday, syria is part of a larger front of resistance. therefore, it has to be thought of along those terms. hezbollah, iran, syria, mobilizing against the sunni bloc. the region is divided. the region has been divided before in the 1960's. then it was to buttress its allies. also, with very close u.s.- israeli relationship which is beneficial to all the of the relationships the united states had in terms of its allies and in terms of deterring its adversaries. today, the u.s.-israeli relationship has worked its way through its own growing pains. the united states, for reasons i do not always understand, is less inclined to be involved in middle eastern conflicts and

rivalries. war fatigue. there is a propensity of this, and we are probably learning the lessons of the iraq war now. there is less inclination on the part of the american public, therefore the u.s. government, to be involved in relief. i think president obama's position on the middle east is contested in the capsule, and i think it is largely unassailable in the country. if president obama goes to st. louis, chicago, san francisco, los angeles, and seattle, he will get criticism for his reticence. and the president has actually invited that popular reticence by suggesting that east asia is where the future lies and the middle east is where old

conflicts simmer. all these things have to be taken into consideration as one thinks about iran policy. i will say one last thing. we really need an iran policy, not just a proliferation policy. we need to figure out how to negate iran's influence in the region, how to weaken the iranian regime at home. if you have a broad-based policy, it will fit in there. you kind of negotiated arms control agreement with a country that you are accusing of sponsoring terrorism and your capital at the same time. i mean, you're negotiating measures on the nuclear issue with a country that you are turning -- [indiscernible] we need an iran policy. all these pieces kind of fit together. >> let's spend a couple minutes before opening the panel to questions to the audience on two things that might give us more credibility. one is to go after iran's

financial energy and other economic matters, that we can take a much tougher line on. that might have a message to be conveyed. the other is, what can we do with respect to israel to give them certain kinds of weapons like the tankers, air-based tankers, to give them greater range and greater military credibility? netanyahu, for the moment, seems to have credibility. how would you all feel on these kinds of issues? >> i think one of the recommendations in the report, of course, is that, with regard to the sanctions that are already on the books, that we stop giving out as many passes to people as the president can, because there is waiver authority in the legislation, but we need to stop giving

people waivers and force them to actually go forward with the sanctions that are already on the books. i agree with john, i think there is more we can do on sanctions. i think if i were in the obama administration -- i do not think they would necessarily welcome me, but if i were in the administration, i think i would actually be not unhappy with voices being raised in the congress trying to push for harder sanctions. that is something that i think they can use. with regard to assurance and reassurance to israel, underpinning the already existing credibility that netanyahu has in tehran, in an earlier iteration of this panel we recommended certain military capabilities be made available to israel. congress actually took that up in some measure. as far as i know, they still

have not been transferred. there certainly are things that can be done. i think there are things we can be doing to do more visible testing. certain military capabilities we have, thinking of the massive ordinance penetrator which would almost certainly be involved in any kind of attack on the iranian nuclear program to which i think would have a very powerful, demonstrative impact on calculations in tehran. i think there are certainly things that can be done. >> i pretty much agree with what eric said. you can see that if negotiations take place with the iranians, i can see the negotiations not necessarily adding to the sanctions but being able to

point to congress and say -- look, unless there is going to be an agreement, this is what is going to happen. the fact is -- the sanctions have obviously had an effect on the iranians. that is why he was elected. i think there is a logic to that. there is also a logic for transferring additional capability to the israelis. there has been a lot done already, and i think that is something that is positive from our standpoint and sends a message from our standpoint. i have suggested that we should have a demonstration and put it on youtube, let it go viral, let the iranians see it. this is a capability that was developed basically to deal with them.

a 30,000 pound bomb. you know, these are the kind of things that would be helpful. i still think, at this point, given where we are with syria, the most important thing right now is to act on the red line and do it in a way that is seen as an effective and meaningful and serious. the other thing we just discussed at this point would be less important than that. in fact, if you try to do those things, it will be looked at as a kind of very limited compensation that is not very credible. in the context of doing that, i think a lot of other things you do, even things that would be less important, will be taken as much more serious. >> john? >> i agree, sanctions have been surprisingly effective and have helped bring us to where we are.

i think the only debate is -- and yes, we can easily identify additional measures with regard to sanctions and with regard to transfers to israel of useful military items. the only question is whether we should persist with continuing to move in that direction or whether we should declare a pause because we are pleased that rouhani has been elected and we want him to become an negotiating partner. on that issue, it is clear we need to continue and not take a pause. the pressure that has brought us to where we are should continue to be applied and it should be increased to the extent we can increase it to it we should not hesitate to do that for fear it will complicate the negotiations. on balance, over time, it will strengthen our hand in those negotiations. >> ok, thank you all very much. let me open the floor to questions. shall we start over there? >> [inaudible] the russian quasi-alliance with

both iran and syria -- it is not clear to me and i wonder what you all think about if we are more successful in following through on syria, whether we would throw russia and iran closer together, making it harder for us to have a more effective policy? related to that is the question about whether this whole p5 plus one structure serves our interests or serves to undermine as. i think it is curious that congress has been much more active on the sanctions issue against iran than the administration. the administration would essentially follow through with halfway measures, much less than congress would authorize. on the p5 plus one, i think it

is -- [inaudible] >> actually, i think effective action to enforce the red line against syria would actually undermine russian-iranian relations, rather than strengthened them. in the sense that, notwithstanding all his culminations, i do not think there is very much that president putin can or would do to actually get in the way of u.s. military action. i think that would send a very powerful message to tehran that russia's backing, when push comes to shove, might not be effective in keeping the united states from acting. we now know them captured documents that saddam hussein

believed that support for both france and russia, in particular, were going to keep him from having to face u.s. military force in 2003. that turned out to be a terrible miscalculation from his point of view. again, if we do something, and i want to associate myself with what dennis said, if we do something that is not cosmetic but is serious and seriously degrades syria's ability to operate its military forces, hit some of the pillars of the regime. i mean, we should not forget that this is a regime that is rooted in the air force. that is the service from which the current president of syria's father comes. if we are able to essentially ground that air force, keep it from flying, that will have a very powerful impact.

in the first session we had in june, i made the point then that we really are engaged now -- and this goes to a number of points that were just made, it is a struggle for mastery and the region with iran being one of the protagonist. the syria issue has to be seen in that light as well. i think effective action would do more to drive moscow and tehran apart than ring them together. >> i would like to add one quick point to that. you know, you could see some sort of tactical moves, and i would not dismiss that. i do not think the iranians have a lot of belief and the russians to begin with. the real question i think here is from the russian standpoint

putin has positioned himself on syria so he looks like he is the key actor. everybody has gone to him. i think for us to act, and i think the president has also said that he would do more to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, at least those in the opposition would be prepared to support. i think the more we do in terms of degrading the syrian capabilities and the more we do in terms of at least getting serious about providing support to those within the opposition that we think are deserving of it, that has a chance to affect the balance of power, not only between the opposition and the regime but within the opposition itself. that creates a very different set of incentives for the russians. right now, you know, they have very little incentive to change their behavior. so to the extent to which we are acting in a way that makes it clear that it is time for change and the russians have did decide

what to do. they can decide right away, but it creates a different kind of incentive for them. they can think of a solution without assad, which is not what they have been prepared to do up until this point. as to the larger question, on one hand, it is a very useful international mechanism for us because it adds to the sense that there is broader support for what we are doing. i think the question has always been -- what is the point at which preserving the unity of the p5 plus one comes at the cost of what you're trying to do vis-a-vis the iranians? that is something you constantly have to be re-assessing. >> one of the panelists mentioned before that the situation in the mideast reminds him of the 1960's. for me, watching this for decades, it reminds me of the byzantine chinese opera.

gentlemen, can any of you address the situation vis-a-vis turkey in all of this? whether it be iran, syria, or egypt and how this vibrates. >> the difficulty of addressing turkey is turkey is implicated in so many of these issues, obviously, as your question suggests. i did not want to take the rest of the time to actually go through it all. on syria, just suffice it to say that for better, for worse, for the moment the government of turkey and the united states government are on the same wavelength about the importance of, as the president said two

years ago, assad departing the scene. i think there has actually been some impatience on the part of the turks about how willing the united states was to actually make that happen. and also, unfortunately because, in addition to other things that have happened, turkish foreign policy has taken a much more sectarian turn over the last year or so as the no enemies with neighbors policy as sort of fallen apart. they have been perhaps more adventurous than they should have been in support for some elements of the sunni opposition, including al nusra. in a longer run, that will put us at odds with turkey over the future of syria as opposed to the present.

>> i have two questions. one, i am a little confused about -- does this work? i am confused about what exactly is the consensus of the group with respect -- [indiscernible] is there a consensus about this? it sounds like there is still disagreement about it. if so, i wonder what the preponderant view might the. [inaudible] a second brief question, is there any view with respect to the syrian crisis, whether iran should be included in any future diplomacy with respect to how to end the war in syria?

>> well, i think there is a consensus on prevention being through an objective. i think there is not a consensus on what is the right kind of proposal. you know, and i sort of outlined one view which is that you could a credible offer on the table, that either the iranians can respond to and accept it because they say they only want civil nuclear power or you expose them and they turn it down. that would involve a limited enrichment capability on their part. there is a disagreement on the part of some on the panel as to whether that is the right way or not. as for the quo, i mean, they

would get sanctions lifted, at least the sanctions related specifically to the nuclear program. as for whether they should be part of the political process on syria, my answer would be no. >> i think within the group there is agreement on the characterization that we should put forward that syria's credible proposal advances u.s. interests if accepted. there is the question of enrichment, whether zero enrichment, which is been the position up until now, should remain our position or whether we should show some modest flexibility on that. dennis has been on the side of showing some flexibility. others, like myself, would prefer to keep the current position of making a proposal

that would allow no enrichment. again, that has to do with our perceptions. >> [inaudible] >> we have not taken a vote, so i do not know with the answer to that question is. >> i hear you, but nothing that you said convinces me that we are going to do anything until the first missile is in the air or land on israel. would you comment on that? i hear what dennis says. i think sanctions are great. but i think this is where we are going. >> i do not know that that is something we can actually debate here. but i could say that this panel probably would not exist if we were not concerned that if there is an action, that we could end up essentially where you are describing. we are suggesting policies to help us avoid that outcome which

we agree is totally unacceptable. >> good answer. >> in yugoslavia, libya, afghanistan, we demonstrated that air power can affect regime change. syrian regime apparently, according to reports, was in the process of getting the upper hand in the civil war against the opposition. what do you think is the calculus of the regime to deploy chemical weapons when it was in the face of a very strong president, allies, and potentially invites the type of things that are being contemplated now -- what do you think were their calculations? >> you know, i think i will go back to a point that steve made earlier about red lines, how

they are drawn and how they are enforced. my observation of syrian behavior to mind others on the panel may have different views, has been that there has been over a two-year period that the conflict has intensified and grown more violent, that the regime itself has been very carefully and in a very calibrated way pushing the envelope. at first you saw airstrikes and use of scuds against civilian populations and small-scale use of chemical weapons that could be denied or fudged. and a slightly larger scale until you got what we saw a week or so ago. and i think this goes to the whole issue of, you know, how do you draw a red line and how do you enforce it? the perception on the part of

the regime in damascus that no matter what it did, it kept going and kept being able to get away with it because there would be pious enunciation's from the community and the united states but nothing would happen, i think it has emboldened more and more action. it is one of the reasons i think it is essential that the authorization for military force be approved by the congress and that the president execute it. >> i am not -- so the perception there are experts who have the perception that even after they took someone, they have quite the momentum that you described, that they were on the verge of winning this war. there was a lot of reporting that they were having a terribly

difficult time in these suburbs in eastern damascus that they had basically thrown everything at it conventionally, had not been able to dislodge the force that was being fed through a rebel pipeline coming up through jordan, heavily funded by the saudis who had serious heavy weaponry beginning to come through. it was in that context. being worried about the capital and what the rebels would do, they cannot get them out of these neighborhoods. the military decision was taken to throw them out and quite a large way. i think i would have to go back and read the transcript. there was a remarkable admission by secretary kerry yesterday in which he basically said -- well, why would they have not used it? the international community has said this is a redline. the united states has said this is a red line. yet, they have used used it a multiple number of times now. not once or twice or three times last spring but repeated use on smaller scales of cw. at the end of the day, this is what tyrants do. larger powers, the question their credibility, if they are

not willing to enforce it, they tell their people that nobody is going to come to help you. we're going to crush their well. at the end of the day, these are wars of will and morale. and assad telling these people and the entire syrian population that no one is going to help you, you are finished. there is not a damn think the united states can or will do about it. >> i think we will end this by quoting something from my home country of canada -- if you are going to try cross-country skiing for the first time, pick a small country. do not pick the united states of america. well, this issue is going to be a huge issue coming forward. i think we could not have found a better group than the people of this panel. i want to thank them all for what was a very illuminating dialogue.

thank you all very much. [applause] >> i want to thank the panel. as you can see, we could together a really excellent group here. obviously this is a pivotal time for both u.s. national security interests in both the middle east, and i hope you return here as we continue to address these issues going forward. thank you very much for attending. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> "the hill" newspaper has been keeping a breakdown on syria, from some members on how they are leaning and how they may vote on using military strikes there. 31 say they will vote to yes or are leaning yes on that boat. and 100 --ning no and 91 are undecided. those numbers were updated two hours ago. 217 votes are needed to pass anything there. you can go to the website and -- the latest cap there latest count there. you can post your comments on facebook.com/c-span. far we have hundreds of people weighing in, 68% say they -- 68 supportive intervention, 518 do not supported.

tonight, newspapers with javier the democratic caucus chairman. he talks about syria am of the state of the democratic caucus, and the health care law. we will have that great here on c-span at 6 p.m. eastern. us what we think is going to happen and then we have to make choices about that. of the implications of simon's line of argument is that the earth is always changing, we of always adapt and change society. cannot always know that that that is necessarily the case. they be?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>e can adapt to. if you take that idea am a that society can adapt, it leaves us with the question of even if we can adapt, is this the kind of world we want to live in?

so many things are being .ndangered by the changes >> is catastrophe all but certain? atight it nine -- tonight nine. book tv's book club is back this town, toh "this parties and the funeral." read the book and see what other viewers are saying on our facebook page and on twitter. on the possibility of a u.s. military strike in syria with former officials from the state and defense departments and also the role that countries like iran and russia play. this is hosted by the brookings institution, it is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here to discuss syria.

because of the last minutes arrangement, fiona hill is on the way down. she doesn't need to hear herself or my fellow analysts introduced. i am delighted to be joined by you today and also the distinguished lineup of my colleagues to discuss the important issue of what we should do with syria, especially the armed response or any response to the august 21st tragedy, where chemical weapons appear to have been used in parts of damascus. but more generally, the conflict will be fair game for discussion and your questions. i would like to have an introduction for each of my colleagues. i would like to start with a question to illuminate or bring out areas of their expertise but to get the different viewpoints at the table. and then, we will speak a little

bit about ourselves and go to you at about the halfway point. i am joined by roos riddell -- bruce riddell. he joined brookings about half a dozen years ago. an expert on counterterrorism and south asia and much of the middle east. his latest book is about the u.s. india pakistan history over the years. he has in a great deal of work on counterterrorism and certainly al qaeda. and next to him is michael the ran, who spent a number of years at the national security council during the george bush administration. writing a book about the historical background in the middle east, and president eisenhower specifically but he has written a great deal about syria. this has been his focus for a decade or longer. those of you who follow opinion pages have seen his work. and joining us is david shapiro,

who spent a number of years in the obama administration working on this very issue. like others he is speaking only for himself but nonetheless he will benefit from -- we will benefit from the experience and insights he gained there. he is also the co-author of one of the greatest books of the role of nato, and the war in iraq. and the international debate that is ongoing on the question. suzanne maloney is one of the best experts on iran but one of the best experts on the sanctions history that has become so important in regards to that country. maybe not so separate. one question is to what extent is the nuclear issue of iran intertwined with the syrian chemical issue. there are red lines on both. and they are a major antagonist in syria.

and now, here is the own the hill, who runs the u.s. bureau center. i appreciate your combining many things into a busy afternoon. she has written, among others and's, the best and most compelling book on vladimir putin, a key player in this as well. perhaps the person the president is spending some time with today, and some fashion or another, and whose role in the conflict will continue to be important. let me please begin with bruce. i would like you just to recap where we stand and what we know about what happened august 21 and how airtight the case really is that his forces used chemical weapons against syrian insurgent related populations? >> the good news for the

administration on the intelligence issue is a case that is pretty compelling. none of us, at least none of us that i know of, have seen the secret intelligence on which they are making the case. we have seen the summaries they have put out, and that the british and french have put out. these summaries make a compelling case that there was the use of chemical weapons on the 21st of august. there is a lot of social media evidence that is out there. i would hope that the human inspectors will confirm that there was the use of a nerve agent, sarah and gas. the question is, who ordered this done? the u.s. government traces the attack and seems to have intelligence that traces the attack to be involved with research scientific. they are known by their accor mentum -- they are known by their acronym.

my analysts uncovered them in the 1980s, we were the first people to uncover the syrian chemical weapons program. they were at the basis of it. they do not actually fire the weapons but create the weapons, bring them to the battlefield and make sure that they are put together so that you get the biggest bang for your buck. they report directly to the office of the president and serious, protected by syrian air force intelligence. this establishes that the syrian government has a high-level to order this attack. we cannot say that bashar al- assad personally ordered this

but the government is responsible for the actions of those who fall underneath them. this looks like a compelling case. responsible after the fact -- the capability of an enemy in the future. the intelligence there was politicized, and any member of congress who took the time in 2002 to read the classified national intelligence estimate would discover that this was full of dissent and full of -- the majority case was just plain wrong. anyone who read this would see that the nuclear laboratories theory was hogwash. who should you listen to? i would listen to the people who make nuclear weapons. we have no reason to believe there is anything like that over this case. back in 2002 and 2003, there was

widespread international difference. the french and germans and -- said that they are wrong. we have consent except for the onus government, who say chemical weapons were not used by the syrian government. and also making the administration's case, this is part of the business of doing body counts. i thought the intelligence community got out of the business of body counts after we said we killed every member of the viet cong six times. >> i will come back you to talk about the al qaeda affiliates, and their prospects and the inadvertent assistance. first i will go to michael. you are an advocate for action in syria.

i would like to put both questions on the table. what is the case for acting in direct response to the august 21st apparent chemical weapons usage in the way that president bob -- president obama has outlined? a single purpose discrete attack and response? what is the more general case for changing american policy to a more muscular approach? can you really support a limited strike as the president proposes without revising all of our policy? >> this is exactly right. among the advocates for action, there are two separate frames of reference.

the president's frame of reference and then the john mccain frame of reference. i am more in the john mccain camp than the president. the president would say, as he did yesterday, that not just he but the international community and congress has set a red line about the use of these weapons. we cannot sit back and allow them to be used without taking some kind of action. if we don't they will be used again. john kerry said yesterday in the house, the foreign affairs committee meeting that there is a 100 or send chance that if we don't do something they will be used again. the mccain frame of reference is a bit skeptical about this. it is concerned, that a one and done attack will not necessarily

deter assad. what will we do to assure that two days of attacks will have the effect that we say it is going to have? john mccain is calling for -- this is a civil war, this will not end until one side wins. we have to decide which side we are on. and support that side to win. he argues for much greater support for the free syrian army. he says, the last time that he was shown to use chemical weapons in april, you said you would on the free syrian army and those arms have not shown up yet. i would like to see more and a much greater commitment to changing the balance of power on the ground and on the battlefield. that put the president in an uncomfortable position.

now he is talking about the capability of the assad government. this is to bring john mccain on board that the same time he talks about limited strikes, this is to keep the democratic supporters in a narrower frame of reference. when talking to mccain, the emphasis is on degraded, talking to the democrats it is on limited. this leaves us with a big question. what is the overall strategy to syria and how does this fit into i have one more point of my own personal opinion. i think we have to do this because our credibility is on the line. our credibility across the board, in general there is a feeling throughout the region that the united states is receding from the region, leaving its allies exposed on

the battlefield. this is very dangerous for us in many ways. i think it is important to act. but the president doesn't have to answer this question about how it fits into a more broad strategy. >> i will ask jeremy to respond. i know you are skeptical of many of the arguments you have just heard from michael, and i would like to invite you to say whether you think we should respond specifically and if we should revise our syrian policy more generally. >> there is an important point of agreement between michael and i. i should emphasize this strongly. when he says it is difficult to sustain this limited, calibrated intervention in american politics, this is a very important point. there is a slippery slope here, and i think that we saw this

just yesterday in the senate resolution. john mccain was able to get in a further goal about changing the balance of power on the ground into the senate resolution. it is very difficult to hold the line with this sort of halfway measure that the president has proposed. we are on a slow motion walk down a slippery slope. and we have been for some time. every decision that we make, first is to say that he must go, then it is to give recognition to the opposition, then to give assistance then to draw the red line, then provide legal assistance and now there is the western of the strike. these steps towards intervention entail both -- the last one entails the next one and each time we hear the argument that greater credibility is on the line.

what that means and i think that michael agrees with this is this is a consequential decision, an important step down the slippery slope that is unlikely to be the last. this is probably the extent of our agreement. when i look at the specific case that the administration has made i have some for why we would strike now. i have some problems with this. there are two elements to this that i think the administration has made most strongly, and i am critical to assess. critical to assess. the first is the question of credibility that michael brought up. john stewart refers to this as seventh-grade diplomacy. this is a popular notion out there but we should talk about it. this is the idea that gave us the vietnam war. i think we should interrogate this more carefully. when i look at u.s. practice

over the last 20 years and the use of force, which is my project here at brookings institute, i don't see the reputation of a country that is unwilling to use force. i don't see the reputation of an entry that is timid as a political culture. we have used force for issues great and small, all over the world and has the reputation in most of the world as -- and we have done this under democratic and republican administrations, and under the obama administration. we have the reputation after the war in iraq for using force incompetently and recklessly. the reputation in the broad world beyond the middle east and particularly when you talk to the chinese, this is how they see our middle eastern

adventures. a country that is wasting their power and wasting their resources on issues which are actually peripheral to the international policy. this is eroding our credibility in the wide world. i would note as a historical point that empires don't fall because they are timid in their use of military power. the story of empires is that they fall because they are reckless and overuse their military power. we should take that into account. the second is the use of chemical weapons, which has been raised in the idea that enforcing the norm against chemical weapons is critical to their future use in syria and beyond.

this is a misunderstanding, of what has prevented him ago weapons use over the last 100 years. it has not been the question of enforcement. there has never been an enforcement of the chemical weapons and as we know, saddam hussein used these weapons during the war between iraq and iran, and in kurdistan to great effect. the reason these have not been used very much in the last 100 years is because there is the lack of utility in the use of chemical weapons. they are not actually that useful. it is possible that the assad regime is finding this out. but the place that was attacked did not fall to the syrian army. this is still in rebel hands. so from my point of view, looking at these issues, the red line that was strong last year was a mistake. it is important not to double down on that mistake and not do something stupid just because

you did something stupid before. i think that again, michael has a point, if you are going to get more deeply involved in the syrian problem, you need a plan to stabilize syria. i saw a lot of plans to topple this regime. but not many plans to stabilize syria. this is what i came to call the yada yada yada doctrine. topple assad, and yada yada yada, there is peace in syria. we yada yada yada'd the most important part. we never figured out how to do this in iraq and afghanistan and there is little confidence that we could do this in syria.

works one clarifying point, you were very good -- but you are not worried that the attacks will fail in the sense of accidentally disbursing a lot of agent or not necessarily leading to a retaliation -- i assume you worry a little bit about the latter. but you say that -- you seem to say that the americans will not be content and this will be one step to a larger quagmire that you would be opposed to. irrespective of the immediate provocation? >> i think it is difficult to imagine the attack failing on its own terms since it is not

supposed to accomplish anything. we can certainly send in the cruise missiles, and destroy some chemical weapons delivery systems. i do assume that the military is careful enough not to disperse chemical weapons and kill everybody in the middle east, which is something that we looked at. i think that they can do that. but this is not even intended to accomplish anything in the syrian civil war. it simply begs the question. >> this leads into the questions i have horses and. one question, is there a link between the red line in syria and iran. are we improving or worsening our prospects for nuclear deal with iran if we attack assad? there is a new president in tehran. he seems more open to the united states. should we jeopardize this? and is there, in your mind, a linkage?

will they see in action by the americans to go for the nuclear weapons that they have wanted for a long time, but held back on going the last 10 yards? >> to the extent that they interpret american passiveness for their own weapon development programs, that horse left the bar and a couple of decades ago. their view of presidents and international norms, when it regards the use of chemical weapons was really crystallized during the 1980s, and the use by saddam hussein. and the history of the international community and as recent revelations have shown, there is perfect awareness by

the part of the reagan administration and other western governments about what was happening in iraq, and the use of chemical agents against soldiers and civilians. this is a worldview that has been set. from that experience they believe the american invocation of international law on nonproliferation is entirely able to be manipulated and it is not a fixed idea of international law, but the utilitarian implication of these principles to further their aims. they see this as an effort to destabilize the region, acquiring a greater hold of resources for the region and quell the rising powers that may be challenging to the united states. this is the rhetoric we heard out of the ayatollah today when he talked about the chemical weapons attacks for a pretext. he was not saying that the attack never happened.

we have seen these different interpretations and i would argue something of a pivot i the leadership of iran away from the argument that this was simple a use -- simply a use of weapons by the resistance, this is a walk back by the former president this was a use of chemical weapons by the government. but our actions, or lack the road in syria, are not going to further compel them to a nuclear weapons acquisition objective. the entire worldview was framed by the 1980s. i don't know if you will come back to this wetjen but i want to touch upon the second question, the relationship between the nuclear -- nuclear negotiations and our concerns in syria. you have this new president who was elected very clearly by the

people and allowed to be elected by the establishment with a very explicit mandate, to get some sort of progress on the nuclear issue. in order to reengage with the international economy. in order to avoid some sort of of people at home. the economy has conditions -- the economy and conditions have deteriorated so much in the last few years. they did not touch the issue of serious during their own presidential campaign in late may and early june. syria was almost off the table entirely and they were focused on the nuclear issue. president rohani -- we have seen many signals including the

sultan of oman and a former u.s. official associated with the united nations visiting tehran and there are signals being passed back and forth between the two governments. they don't have the luxury of avoiding the syrian question. it does require row heidi -- rohani to control the hardliners, who have an ideological commitment to the longest standing ally in the arab world. and then the signal to the international community, that even on a sensitive question, iran can react in the right way. that signal has happened over social media perhaps more than anywhere else, where the president has been tweeting and

a foreign minister is on facebook. but this is meaningful. the fact we see restraint in the rhetoric of the supreme leader, we don't see a rush to defend assad. this is an indication that the iranians will play carefully. the president i have compared this to, and the best case scenario for the united states, it behaves a little bit in the same fashion that the former president, roston johnny -- rastanjani used in kuwait in 1991. the relationship with saddam hussein was problematic. but this was an episode that was very contentious at home. a lot of them wanted to see them go to the barricades. because the president and his mission and mandate was to fix

the economy, had to rein in his own radicals to step back from that conflict and project neutrality. rouhani has a great challenge ahead of himself but that is what he is trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to unleash hezbollah -- he is trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to unleash hezbollah. they don't want to take down their own relationship with washington. is this a fair interpretation or is there a chance that there will be a quieter instigation, hezbollah may attack syria -- >> making predictions in regard to them is a tricky proposition. what we see is the effort to embrace a more pragmatic position. but the relationship is complicated. they are closely aligned and tremendously supportive of

hezbollah. they don't control them, they don't pull the strings and this is an autonomous organization. in the past, in regard to syria they have differed in their views and we cannot pick what they will do based on rouhani's preferences by the supreme leader to get a deal on the nuclear issue. it is in the realm of possibility that the hardliners who are invested in damascus will look for ways to respond and retaliate against the united states. this will be an important indication of where the power lies. >> i should have mentioned, suzanne has a blog on iran and the new leadership and the nuclear negotiations -- this will be covered.

can you remind us of the address? www.iran -- >> mr. putin. there are many things you may want to say, as he is hosting our president. beyond that, let me put the question to you this way. it looks to me like he is actually accomplishing his goal because i assume he cares less about bishara al-assad -- bishara al-assad -- bashar al- assad. he has another opportunity to do that and slow us down globally that is a good day and that is probably, therefore the way that this debate is playing out now with the rest of the world wavering and the u.s. congress not knowing which way to go, no particular likelihood of assad being overthrown, this is just

what he would have ordered. am i being too cynical? how would you interpret his real interest in the crisis? >> if he was listening to this, he would be more convinced he was making the right choice all along. on no intervention in syria. he has actually said that recently a number of interviews and we have seen him out and about all over the place expressing his thoughts that he has kept previously behind. assad is not the endgame in syria. the goal is not to see a massive mess on the map. but he thinks that we can make

this a whole lot worse than it already is. in the next year he faces the withdrawal of the united states from afghanistan and he would like us to still be there. this is one area he was quite relieved that we were there. he liked the idea that we were bogged down because we may be there and some kind of way in which we would stay, not where we would be heading out like the soviet red army headed out a couple of decades previously. now he looks at syria and he probably doesn't spend every day thinking about u.s. intervention but he spent a lot of time looking at this in the kgb, studying what the u.s. is up to. he does not think that they have thought up of anything -- thought of anything beneficial to russia. his goal in all of the activity

in syria is to be restraining the united states from intervention. he does not know where the endgame is going to go and he would much rather have bashar al-assad keeping some semblance of control in the complete chaos that he has seen in iraq and afghanistan and libya. he is on the same page as some members of congress, wanting that -- wanting to know if this will be benghazi. until he gets some kind of response from the president, and he is following closely what the president has been saying, he wants those answers as well and wants to know what will be in syria by the end of the day. on that front, russian and middle east policy is misunderstood. this is not the cold war. if you look at the series of alliances that russia has, they are weird. this is not just iran, this is israel. a hezbollah attack by a ran on israel would be a disaster for

russian policy. -- iran on israel would be a disaster for russian policy. he has been alarmed by the sudden shift in the middle east profile of who is in charge. he is probably relieved that the military is back in the case of egypt. he did not like the arab spring or any of the implications this had for the middle east or if this would create more extremist groups that turned their attention from the start -- current focus and turned to russia. ever since he ended the war in chechnya, he has been relieved that the extremists went somewhere else and he does not want them coming back. with the winter olympics in the new year of 2013, and the

billions he has spent there. there are all kinds of things he doesn't like about this. this is not the old middle east for russia and nobody else. he wants to know what the u.s. will do and what their -- what the implications will be. >> i wanted to ask about the other al qaeda affiliates in syria. there has been concern over the last two and a half years that the course of the war has made this group grow stronger. there is also the concern that if we -- maybe the inaction allow this to happen but also the possibility that the strike may further strengthen al-musra. >> if we step back and look at the developments during the civil war -- this started out as a general nonviolent movement, for political change in syria. two and a half years later it is not that anymore. this is a very ugly sectarian war.

with terrific violations of human rights by the syrian rebels. what began as the arab spring turned into a sectarian war that put 15% of the population and the christian minority against the sunni majority. leaving out the kurds, who are the third player and have their own entity in northeastern syria. this conflict between the christian front and the sunni front becomes increasingly violent and dangerous. the opposition and the resistance is incredibly fractured. the defense intelligence agency this summer could identify 1200 separate parts of the sunni opposition movement. even if they are armed by 50%,

there are only 600 -- this is a very dysfunctional movement. there was no al qaeda at the beginning, but now they have come on very strongly using their nearby base in iraq. we have two specific franchises operating in syria. one is the al-musra front, who say they are syrian in origin, but knowledge a lot of assistance from al qaeda in iraq, controlled by al-zawahiri in pakistan. and there is al qaeda in iraq -- they are in charge and running this operation. and have the authority from bin laden, if he was here. anyone who says these functions are 50% of the resistance your

alarm bells should go off. just like anyone who tells you there are 5000 al qaeda fighters in iraq and syria. it is not clear that they know how many fighters they have in syria today. do not settle for oversimplifications. two significant groups have now moved into a rack, and become among the most robust parts of the resistance to the bashar al- assad government. if we killed the playing field against this regime, inevitably that will help al qaeda. there is no way we cannot help them, the way that we degrade the syrian regime and their military capability. we can offset this to a certain

degree and i have written about some ways to mitigate the impact, but we should have no delusions that at the end of the day, the more we weaken, or hit them hard, we're going to end up having bigger al qaeda problems in the future. if you have a strategy that says, we are willing to take that risk up front now. we are confident that we know that we will get to the end, that is one thing. if we have the yada yada yada strategy, you have to spend more time thinking about the. inadvertently, we have to help we will be helping them have a stronger base in the middle east. al qaeda is at a crossroads. they were threatened by the arab spring when this began. the whole philosophy is that the only solution to the problem of

american influence in the middle east was violence -- this was challenged by the arab spring. it was not jihad that toppled mubarak, it was twitter and facebook. now al qaeda is in position to say, it would not work. mubarak is back. what this president does for the entire region right now will determine the vector and the importance of al qaeda for the next decade. we are at a crucial crossing point. in the more broad middle east. >> you may have riled michael duran. i want to talk about what may be the more difficult scenario. both houses of congress in their own separate ways, both down to the idea of the strike. if they've of vote yes, what

does the president do with that new permission, does he just pocket this until a future date, or you would support the strike? or has he essential committed himself by asking to their -- for their permission? >> let me start by saying something that is very obvious but that we should think about for a second. i agreed with almost everything the per -- that jeremy said. what i want to say that is very obvious is we have a resident who, for two years, showed not

just a reluctance, basically informed the american public, that intervention in syria is pure folly. nobody can argue that president obama has been looking for a pretext to get involved. another factor, public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to this. this is also obvious. the third factor is that the military doesn't want to do this. i have never seen body language less supportive of the military action than what i saw from the chairman during the hearings. the president doesn't want, public opinion doesn't want to, and the military doesn't want it. here we are, talking about a proposal to intervene in syria put forth by the president. to me, this is an incredible statement, that the president, up until this time has not

defined american interest correctly in syria. this has been my point all along. interests are objective things out there in the world, the meeting place between objective things in the world and the way that you conceive of them. there is a point in which your conception of the world -- the way that these objectives things objective things determine interests. if they are too far out you may find yourself in the uncomfortable position where, if they vote against this in congress this is a real political defeat for you at home. they are severely weaker at home if he gets that no vote. there has to be a paradigm shift and recognize that we are here for a reason. this slippage is not something

that happened because people were trying to go that way. all along they were trying to hold the line and defined this incorrectly. i am sorry, i am going on a little bit. our allies in the region, they have all come -- they have all come to washington and said, you have to do something. the turks, this is an amazing thing. not just a sunni muslim powers but the european powers, they have said, you have to do something. first it was quiet, and then, this is to the white house combined with leaks to the press and now we have the turkish politicians saying out loud, we want an intervention. i have never seen anything like this in 20 years of following the middle east. the president could have, two years ago, taken those elements and created a coalition, and when this moment came he would have had elements that we would

put out front and we would not look at unilateral american action. if i start building the coalition i will be there with boots on the ground. now he has the opposite. when he realizes we do have interests in the middle east, we have to take action. nobody is there because he did not build up the coalition. we have to build this coalition now. he has to act whether he gets authorization or he doesn't. because the goal of acting is not just simply to have a military effect on the ground, this is to transmit our intentions, and a willingness to put skin in the game for all of our allies to start coordinating them.

part of the problem in syria is not just what the enemies are doing but what the allies are doing. the turks are turning a blind eye to all of the people coming through. they are not supporting al qaeda. they are just letting the border open. supposedly we have a global strategy to combat al qaeda. and one of our most close partners is supporting them in syria. this is a huge strategic failure which we have to think about. >> jeremy, assuming that there is a yes vote for both houses. you would advise the president not to strike anyway? works he is not bluffing on this. he did change his opinion of the wisdom of a strike as a result

of this attack on august 21. i think that from the standpoint of the u.s. government and the chemical weapons issue -- this has always been different. you see this change in the president's view on the list of intervention. a very limited intervention in the last few weeks. this was always the case that -- this will extend back into the clinton and bush administration. there is no credible institutional focus -- chemical weapons are considered part of them. we have a completely different process for chemical weapons within the u.s. government on syria and the u.s. government has taken that interest a lot more seriously. they have thought of this as

separate. so the chemical weapons development within the syrian civil war is some and that the president was not kidding, when he drew the red line one year ago. he was not kidding. that is because of the way that the u.s. government sees chemical weapons. i don't think that this is the right way of seeing it. he will act if congress gives their permission. the reason the policy has developed in this way, the president has always been seeking a sort of balance with the audience -- they have balanced on this question. an anonymous official said they were looking for a response that was just muscular enough not to be mocked. that is sort of how they did

this all the way through. every time something happened the united states had a response. the chinese did not feel the need for a response. we were always sort of looking for the minimum that could be done to satisfy the desire and the political culture for a response. but that would not get us any more involved. that is how we have gone to this place with the nonintervention and the interventionists are sort of pissed off. i would prefer if you mention the person you would most like to answer the wetjen. we will accept your question anyhow. we will go down the line. please identify yourself when you get the microphone. we will begin with gary and harlan, and then we will go to

the woman five rows back. that will be the first group. >> thank you very much. i am garrett mitchell, and i write the mitchell report. i think the person i would pose this to is to michael. and his role as the moderator. it has been clear that we have differing perspectives about what we should do in syria. there is one thing that seems to me that the panel is in complete agreement on. the president has not been able to state the case for the american strategic interest in syria. i would make the observation that nearly has the panel. i would like to ask if the panel could give us what they consider

a working definition of america's strategic interests in syria. and that assumes that there is one. we know that obama had a similar problem with afghanistan. he was never able to articulate what the american strategic interest was in afghanistan and i don't think he is an intelligent man. so it raises the question whether these terms that we love to use in washington, like america's strategic interest, if this is a lot of hooey. narrowly put, the question is, is there such a thing as an american strategic interest, and

if so, can we take a swing at this today? >> the panel did exceedingly well in discussing a lot of these things and i want to associate my views with you about russia, which we don't appreciate in washington. i have a three-part question stemming from marty dempsey and his testimony, when he said, yes, we can degrade and determined. can the panel tell me what it will take to the terror assad -- to deter assad. what do you think that the syrians will do next? >> six rows back. >> i have worked on the protection of civilians in armed conflict and that inc. that is what we are talking about today. one question that has not been asked today, is, do the syrian

people want intervention? it appears that on both sides there are westerns about what will happen. we are already seeing a lot of movement. we have given up on the un security council, who have dramatically failed following their resolutions on the protections of civilians. but there is a third path where the americans can take leadership but perhaps back away from what will be a big mistake, and will not make things better for the civilians at all ends. . the third path is going to the general assembly, utilizing resolution 377. this has rarely been used, but this is a way to go around the security council, and major demands such as referral for both assad and others, including

the rebels who violated international law, and to investigate the atrocities and create an arab league u.n. proposal that has been turned down in the security council in the past. with the french and the u.s. taking on the role of the no lie zone. this would give us some time, with a lot of planning required and would allow the president to maintain credibility and take some interest in this step back and think about what is best for all the syrian people. this will help tilt to one more thing -- this would help to build support for the councils world government. the jihadists are providing food and taking leadership with the local people, and the opposition is doing nothing when it comes to taking terms of responsibility for these people. this is very expensive and -- we recognize that this is expensive anyway.

>> we will work down to anyone who wants to respond to one of the three questions. i should say on the more broad question, brookings is holding an event here at 10:00. i am sure that you saw the estimate in syria -- this is in the range of 3 million. we will ask them to handle other questions. we have said that inside of syria -- this does not reach the threshold of president obama. mr. assad has cost us a lot of trouble with hezbollah, which has been tolerated by the united states and syria, president clinton and senator kerry thought that assad would the a reformist. this does not get to the syrian importance, but what we have seen three years ago, this was

not a popular thing to say. al qaeda may establish new sanctuaries in the more broad public asian with her neighbors is that the syrian civil war has now been correctly seen as something that does not stay within their borders. and ken pollack -- who is celebrating rosh hashanah today and is not on the panel -- this is the regional focus that will have to be determined. within its borders, you could argue that syria, perhaps is

something that we could have ignored and it ignore for many years. michael the ran predicted that we would be heading for trouble and it would not stay within its borders. this is where the u.s. strategic interests are engaged. >> i would like to add a bit to that. since the assad dynasty took power in 1970, we have had a hostile relationship with syria. every president from nixon until now has maintained sanctions. we have lived with that. this is a problem, but this is a manageable problem.

but the spillover from syria spills over into the things that matter to us. my own view is that israel and turkey are pretty kick goal of taking care of themselves, especially the israelis. that is why i think one thing the president has done over the last two years, that everyone will agree with, is to try to strengthen jordan to handle the spillover from syria. but now this is almost a flood. degrade and deter. no one thinks this is a good idea to bomb chemical weapons. this will disperse the chemical weapons. boots on the ground to get them, secretary kerry briefly hinted at that, but if he had not walked act -- they would have voted no right then and there. we will not go in and get this. this is a very complex and dangerous task. the ability to deliver the ability to deliver -- to degrade

the ability to deliver them -- this is a hard task. the syrians basically said in 1987 nothing. they said nothing, literally. we can draw from that. the danger is this -- if assad

feels the end is in sight and the christian alouite community feels the end is in sight, they will do anything because they are desperate. many believe if they lose the civil war -- it is not a matter of being relegated to second- class citizens, it is the question of mass slaughter. until that impression changes inside syria, at the end of the day the assad regime will use any weapon it has once it sees that dark hour coming, and any strategy to tilt the battlefield needs to think about that. >> on the degrading question, >> on the degrading question, the best guy to answer that is ken who is not here. he has written papers on the military analysis of the whole conflict, and i would urge people to see his paper on our website.

again, to your question about interest, a few points -- let me make one observation that i do not think has sunk in. extremely obvious if you think about it. we have 120,000 people killed and we have 2 million refugees. the vast majority were killed by the regime. the regime has been carrying out horrific battles against its people, and if you have not seen them, go to youtube and see some of the torture videos that are out there. i do not want you to see torture videos that is what the entire sunni islamic world is looking at. we are not doing anything about it. we may feel we are not culpable in any way. the assumption is in the islamic world that we are culpable. the assumption is we want the slaughter to go on. that is a perception we need to think about it we formulate policy because the ring of misery around syria is so

unbelievable it is a matter that this -- there is going to be a lot of blowback. this is no longer a civil war. this is a fight for the regional order. it is iran, syria, and hezbollah against saudi arabia and its allies. it is more complex. we have the kurdish component. we have al qaeda. al qaeda, iran, russia -- they understand this is the fight for the regional order. they are trying to shake the order so that it works to the advantage of their friends and then. the united states is a spectator, basically. we need to do what they do and that is shape the regional order

so it works to our advantage. all the spillover that bruce mentioned is the whole regional question. this is what we are faced with, we are going to have a middle east for the next 30 years, how do we structure this thing so it serves our interest, including our interests making sure that we do not carry out as many unilateral military operations as we will have to carry out if we do not put structures in place on the ground that can look after our interests. if we want to run through what the interests are other than this regional order question at stake in syria, there is proliferations of weapons and use of weapons of mass destruction, countering al qaeda, countering iran, and humanitarian -- there are humanitarian concerns, stopping the slaughter, and simply

alliance maintenance. i would say all those. >> thanks. [laughter] where to begin? i think the strategic interests in syria are basically, as mike said, about regional stability. first was the regional stability that he talked about, all the spillover problems. second was the weapons of mass destruction, the chemical weapons, and, third, the extremist issues, and those are the three core strategic interests. i agree with you that the president has -- and this panel have had trouble articulating those interests, and it is

interesting to think why. the reason the panel has is obvious, not that talented, but the president gets paid a lot more money, and he should be able to do it. why hasn't he? i think the reason he has had a problem is because within our political culture, as president you are expected to accomplish a strategic interest, satisfy it, and he does not have a way of doing that. he does not know how to solve the syrian problem, so he is reluctant to define it in stark terms as we did, lest he take on responsibility and be judged against it. this is a core problem with american policy in a sort of age of relative decline among which is that we have within our

political culture a sense that we are omnipotent, but we have within our presidency a sense of limits. and that is very difficult to explain to the american public. and so we are where we are. in terms of -- to respond to some of mike's points -- the horrific violence we are seeing in syria put upon sunnis, it has the effect we are talking about. sunnis blame the united states. alouites also blame the united states, and in the case of intervention, -- in the case that we would get everything they ask for, they would still blame the united states for something else. there is no greater crime you can commit against a people than to liberate them and they will never forgive you for that. i think when you get -- when you intervene, you get wrapped up in the best extra goals that you do not fully understand and you inevitably become an object of domestic politics in ways that are very difficult to control.

we have seen that strongly in iraq, in egypt recently where the only thing that the egyptian political spectrum agrees on it is all america's fault. the difference we have now is that we are not as involved, we can step back, and i think if we were to get involved we would not relieve that sense of blame. we would simply reinforce it and spread it. thank you. >> i will jump in briefly, because i am not sure the

question that's at what is missing in the debate. you hear in the debate on the hill and elsewhere in washington a number of compelling arguments about what our strategic interests are or are not have been articulated by my colleagues, so i will not go over them. the problem is, as jeremy put it best, we do not have a strategy. whether or not we have the interest you can debate, but we do not have a strategy, the president has not articulated a strategy, and neither have proponents of aggressive action mccain. no one has articulated a strategy that is likely to advance our interests. the idea of getting into it will shape the regional order -- these are buzz words. that does not tell you how you get the end state in syria that

leads to an outcome we prefer, a stable country with democratic institutions which is not a threat to its own people or its neighbors. i do not see a way forward, and i continue to have ringing in my head the words said to me by and iranian senior official when i visited shortly before the american intervention in iraq, and he told me this is going to go very badly, not because we are going to make it go badly. they are looking at syria with very much the same eyes. it is wonderful for many allies to want us to jump in and use our resources among which they may compensate us for or not, in order to advance their own individual self-interested agenda. it is another thing for the

president to chart a path forward which in fact does not leave us with a big problem and is a sinkhole in the middle east in a place that is already a beacon for extremism. >> as i said, there is a cultural deficiency -- because i said, yes, i have seen this movie before, with peter o'toole looking rather dashing in his robe. we have been watching this movie for a long time. this is lawrence sitting around, not with glasses of water, but with gin and tonics talking about the collapse of the ottoman empire. the last time we saw this there were armenians in exactly the same way with a lot fewer attempts and a high casualty rate. in 1915 we had the genocide of the armenians that led to the fall of the ottoman empire. it has not been lost on putin.

he starts talking about the collapse of the russian empire. we are 100 years out from all those events -- the ultimate spillover. we are still trying to figure out that regional order. unfortunately, it is not as nice and neat as mike has been able to make it on occasions because we have no idea how this will play out. the sectarian lines are incredibly complex. putin has a strange set of alliances in the region. it is because they are not in his view proselytizing sunni regimes, and he does not want to

be put on the sectarian conflict either. he is looking to israel and others. putin would like to see everything back the way it was before, the nice strongmen who were keeping everybody behind closed doors. this is the mess we're in now, and the problem is nobody knows how we are going to sort it all out. as we look back in 1914, maybe we should have a screening of "lawrence of arabia," but it would show us that what we are dealing with today. >> another round of questions, we will begin in the second row, and then work back. >> thanks very much. we were talking a lot about the justification and the strategic frame in the context of the american attack, prospective attack.

my question is about the aftermath. bruce mentioned the lack of a syrian response to the attack on the nuclear reactor -- what is the most likely response from syria and hezbollah? do we expect assad will take a limited attack, or do we expect a response through an attack on israel, further destabilization of iraq, a response to u.s. allies in the region, and what will that curve look like? what is next most likely to be indications of a u.s. strike? >> we will go to the gentleman across from each other halfway back, in the blue tie and --

>> thank you. my question is for suzanne. you describe for us how you see iran's perspective on syria. i wonder if you could also go into what role you see iran and the president's decision saying that he feel he should take action in syria, but also his decision for the congress. >> i heard a report that a few days ago we sent 600 rebel fighters who we trained in camps in jordan back into syria and not only were they not welcome by the rebel elements in syria, but they were routed by the syrian army. does anybody have any information on that, and at least you could talk about what we are doing in jordan these days?

>> why don't we start with fiona. >> most of these are more specific. >> i will speak again to this issue of the role of iran in motivating a response. it has been articulated by others that this strike will have an important demonstration effect for the iranians to demonstrate american resolve, and forced the nonproliferation regime, and i believe that is sincere. it has a utilitarian role in terms of persuading congress to produce the outcome the administration would like to see. iran is an easy win when it comes to getting votes on that bill. it makes sense for the administration to continue to refer back to that issue.

clearly, the administration and the congress have had a contentious relationship on iran. the administration has considered sanctions that have been passed on the hill, and they think that he'll for in fact passing those sanctions and helping to persuade the iranians to come in a more serious way to the negotiating table. i believe it is inevitable if the president were to seek a party for more forceful action against the iranian in their program he would have no difficulty. i do not worry about any precedent set by the debate we're seeing today on syrian terms of iranian resolve.

clearly some are recognizing how serious this set of issues is. they do not want to be on the wrong side of a shooting war with washington at this moment. and that is why the an awkward attempt to shift their public rhetoric on syria in a modest way, if not, in fact begin to pivot away from assad himself. >> jeremy, either of the two questions remaining. >> i will try to handle the most likely response about syrian hezbollah to an attack. it is difficult -- the thing i the learned in the two years of trying to understand the syrian regime is i have no idea what they are thinking.

i think that broadly speaks for most of us. i do not know why they used chemical weapons in this particular instance, because i do not think it was a smart move. and i am wondering to the degree to which it might have been an accident. so it is difficult to predict. having said that, i will make a prediction. i think it is unlikely that we will see either syrian or hezbollah escalation outside of syria in response to this attack. the reason for that is because they have enough problems. they have enough enemies within syria to occupy their time and they are not really looking to expand this war, either to israel, united states, or to turkey. they have shown a consistent

pattern of that. they do have some escalation options within syria, and in particular they can drive more refugees, they can commit more humanitarian atrocities in order to expose the hypocrisy, and they can conceivably challenge the united states by using more alternatives to turn to beyond chemical weapons in terms of conventional weapons for killing people. they have not really used all their arsenal, and they still have places to go. there is a possibility that action will make the syrian civil war bloodier. there is research that shows typically when there is an outside intervention in a civil war it becomes bloodier because one side feels the need to step up its game and because other external supporters feel the need to prop up their side.

so that would be my prediction. >> who was it -- jon stewart said about seventh-grade diplomacy? what was the phrase? >> operating on the basis of credibility is seventh-grade diplomacy. >> that is the level i am on. [laughter] we do not have to get to seventh grade because that is basically international relations and politics in the middle east. iso know exactly what assad thinking and i can explain it right here. it is a mistake that educated people make. they think it is more difficult than it is. the hard thing is figuring out what is going out on the ground. once you know that, it is simple because they want to win.

they want their friends to win, they want to win, and they want us to lose. it is as simple as that. it is not hard. the tools they have at their disposal to win -- they are thugs, right? -- all you have to do is watch "the sopranos," and then you understand how they thinking. why did they use chemical weapons? for two reasons. number one, they suck -- that is a military term. their regular military cannot take and hold territory. it cannot. it is shocking the extent to which they suck as a military. for a year, for a year they have been trying to take this place and they cannot. the youtube videos are beautiful, by the way, of showing syrian tanks being blown up in this particular neighborhood by the -- because it has big boulevards with high-rise buildings around it and the tanks are just sitting ducks. they tried, they cannot do it, it is strategic territory

because it is the gateway into damascus, and it is very close to the airfield where the iranian support comes in. if they hold on to it, this is the battle for damascus is what this is, and the syrians have failed in conventional terms, so they went to unconventional terms -- it is clear, when our military talks about clearing in afghanistan, clearing the population center of fighters. when assad says clear, he means clear, clear the whole population out. why did he do it while the u.n. inspectors were there? he is a thug -- he is sending a clear message to all the syrians who might think of one day taking up arms against him. you do that, i will wipe you out, i will wipe your family out, and don't you for a second think that the united states, the international community, the u.n., or anybody else will help you. i will show you how tough i am. even when the u.n. inspectors

are here, i will gas you. he will go slam the population, he will brutalize his own population as he has been doing. they might do some other things externally and they have done terror attacks in turkey to deter the turks. they were probably responsible in some way for those rockets that went into israel and so on. that is to make us fear that there maybe some wider world war iii or whatever. but basically the message is

going to be domestic. the iranians are the same thing. they created hezbollah, they are backing assad, they want assad to win. publicly they play it this way and that way. on the ground they are supporting. there's one conversation that never takes place. the ayatollah khamenei sits down with the head of the irgc, and his people they say to him, we cannot solve syria. the united states is a superpower. the use of force is counterproductive. if we use force in syria it make it worse, so we should forget about it. that conversation never happens. they say how do we cause maximum pain to the americans, and that is the way they do it. that is the way we need to do business as well. we do not have to solve syria. our interests are protect our

friends, punish our enemies, create a framework that allows other people to get on the ground so we do not have to do it. that is international politics. we do not have to solve it. we have to make our side stronger. >> who is our side? >> the saudis and the turks. the way you find out your side is who do you want to have the most pain. we want to make it run suffer and we want to make assad suffer, and then we ask who can line up to do that who will not cause us pain? there is a lot of people out there we can work with. >> bruce? [laughter] >> jeremy says where to start. let me start with the question asked before, protection of civilians, which i am afraid we

have ignored, because there is a genuine humanitarian issue here. what the syrian people want is an end to the civil war. they do not care whether they are dead from chemicals or conventional weapons. part of the debate has become lost from reality in that sense. the best thing is an end to the war. is a cruise missile strike, being told by this administration, and we are told by the administration how many missiles are there -- is it likely the syrian conflict will be six months after that? there is a consensus that it will be worse in six months. are there no really good options here? let me turn to the questions of allies. i mentioned earlier since 1970 the united states has had a hostile relationship with syria. there were two occasions when that was different. one was in 1990 when the saudis asked us to be the best friend of the syrians to fight saddam husain. the syrian flag actually came

down pennsylvania avenue as part of the victory parade. that did not come out so well. the successive israeli governments said we want to make peace with the assad government. we think the assad government will be easier to make peace with than the syrians. why do i mention these? i would not spend a whole lot of time listening to what the saudis or the israelis have to say. their advice has been taken in the past and has not been very good. our new friend, the general of egypt, says do not do it. stay out. you put your all in this, you will create a hornets' nest. i would not take his advice either. there is no reason to believe he will be better in predicting the future of the middle east than his predecessors. i do not think our allies' advice should be the determining factor in what we do here. our interests, as you have rightly said, we need to hear

from the president before the congress votes on national television, in a national speech, defining what our national interests are and what is our strategy to get us there. not a bunch of stuff about a red line. the strategy for the accomplishment of our national interests in syria. the reason why we have had a hard problem here articulating all that is we have not heard yet from the man who the american people want to hear from the most. >> very true. >> i think we will stop there. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> we are joined now by ian swanson, the new editor for "the hill" newspaper, giving us a look ahead on the situation in syria. start with the house, what is happening there in the coming days? >> nothing for sure, at least nothing behind -- nothing of the record. aboute the learning for one week and right now we have 31 house members who are reconvening in terms of the syrian vote and the president has a lot of work to do to get more members to support this idea of military strike. >> the congressman has a hearing on thursday and then eric cantor mentioned a house vote, but maybe not for about two weeks. why that long? could we see it sooner? a reason to have a vote in

the house, there is not one if it is going to fail. right now there are 139 members on our lists who are saying that they would vote against this right now and, as i said earlier, their members publicly said that they would say yes. of behind-the- scenes work, a lot of arm- twisting and phone calls from president obama and his lieutenants trying to convince people to support the idea of a military strike. >> what about the senate? >> we will see a vote in the senate on wednesday. it will be the first procedural step in voting to move for a measure with the military strike on syria. it is not clear that they have the votes necessary either. we have 55 senators right now on

25 or so whoonly are saying they would vote for it. >> vice president joe biden is meeting with senate gop, what do they hope to accomplish? >> he is hoping to get as many of them as possible, again for the idea of a syrian strike, only nine senate republicans have come out so far and said that they would support the president on this. you will probably need a few more than that because you will see a lot of liberal democratic senators voting against this. he is trying to shore up those numbers. >> president obama, is he making his case as this unfolds? >> that is going to be the story of the week. monday the president is doing five television in. tuesday he is going to go in and make a speech for the american public from the oval office.

lawmakers and the house are going to hear from the constituents about syria, they're going to say not to vote for this. the president is one to try to shift public opinion as much as he can so hopefully there will be hearing something a little different from their constituents. >> public opinion is leaning largely against u.s. strikes, how is this affecting how things might play out? >> you can see it in the house right now. house members, of course, represents smaller geographic areas and they are very in tune with their constituents. several have come out and say that -- said that, like 100 to one, they want to move against military action in syria. president obama is attempting to shift public opinion on this. >> ian swanson with "the hill,"

thanks for your time. >> thanks a lot. >> on the next open " washington journal," we will take a look at what they -- our guests will be susan ferrechio and manu raju. then a look at the affordable care act and how it affects people on medicare with the new senior correspondent, mary agnes carey, and later the obama administration offered $2 billion for job training programs joined by inside onscott jaschik that. >> we have a lot of issues before the fcc, in a lot of ways they oversee the digital information economy, which accounts for as much as 1/6 of the economy itself.

there are a few things we have going on that are of particular interest. one of them is wireless communications. you to look around and see the proliferation of phones and it would not be a surprise that this is a big interest, but we now have more wireless phones in this country than we have people. one out of three in a -- american adults have a tablet computer. all of those devices are using more of our airwaves than ever before and we are just getting started because worldwide global data demand is going to go up 13 times in the next five years, said the fcc has a lot on its plate when it comes to our air waves. at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> from today's "washington

journal," a look at how these efforts could affect foreign affairs from the world. are around the world. -- around the world. >> joining us for our sunday roundtable, think you. a huge question -- thank you. from the house of representatives. the president and his national security staff, attempting to get the votes. thequestion is, what is president going to do, but it is about been administration's credibility.

is the backing of the congress without it. it is about making good on what he has been saying for the last week. iran, and if he does not go through with it they will be taking a lesson from us. ,> a new york times story saying that a defeat in the house would be devastating to his presidency. >> it is the political dynamics at home. to turn up the heat in the seat and then not get it will be a devastating blow. it is a much broader issue. the syrian conflict is much broader in the middle east

anything that makes the president look weak place into a much better broader context. >> this was a decision that he made. guest: absolutely. wrote anrman ,nteresting article last week the iranian government is watching very closely what happens in congress. regardless of what is happening

, he would have nowhere else to go than to carry out the attack in syria through congress when the house of , heons had been denied would never get the approach -- approval of the russians. i think that the cost of not carrying out the attack in the short term would definitely out because hefits, would be weakened in the eyes of these allies, particularly in the middle east if he did not go

through with the attack. >> both of you gentlemen have seen this video and we want to caution you, these pictures are graphic, they were released by the senate intelligence committee over the weekend, we want to give you a sense of what was released. the question is -- why? how does this tie in? the president hopes to use in his address? guest: this was about the use of weapons of mass destruction, to not respond to it sets a horrible precedent globally. someone using global weapons -- chemical weapons, it says something if you do not act. it says something about the fear of weapons proliferation accelerating. that is why this is an iranian issue. tehran has this nuclear program that everyone is worried about,

chemical weapons attack, iranians will see this as a green light to keep going. host: but there is no evidence that president assad issued those weapons. there is a connection, but no smoking gun. guest: clearly the administration is struggling with that. the allies, at least if you will leave with -- believe what john kerry has been saying, clearly to us the regime has carried this out. other alliesthe are saying no, it is not him come it is the opposition. there is little consolation for barack obama here in the fact that no one is arguing that there are not weapons of mass destruction in syria. even asssad, in his latest

interview with a french newspaper, said that he did not deny or confirm being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but it is the fact that the syrians have not said -- we do not have weapons of mass destruction in the first place, just as they did not carry out the attacks. that gives some room to maneuver for the administration and its allies. look at many people who are now saying -- let's wait for the outcome of the investigation by the united nations inspector in syria. we know from the history of these investigations, for example, in iraq over many years, they only say yes and they always say no. it leaves a gray area for various members of the security council to have different positions on a given issue.

they always give it everyone something to work with. host: who are the rebels? guest: the guys we are dealing with are a lot of effected , painting aicers very pragmatic face for the west. we want an inclusive government, we want syria to be safer for the minorities. that is the face we deal with. i was on the turkish syrian border just last week and we spoke to people going back. if you cross the border there are al qaeda can write their, some of the same groups that were fighting us inside iraq just a few years ago. it is a real mix. presence ofeavier al qaeda in the south, a lot of

the former regime soldiers and people affected, but it is not clear. mixed and the criticism of the administration has been that the longer return -- stay out of this -- we still have not given them any weapons. the al qaeda elements, the more radical islamists are gaining ground. attacks and it becomes very chaotic for the more radical groups, they can take advantage of the situation. mixed and the criticism of the administration hashost: we s morning on the latest in syria, expecting lawmakers to return this week. we will give sure calls and, in a moment. on friday the president did not answer in the news conference. if the house does not give the president approval, does he still strike syria?

guest: i do not see what other resources has, after having committed himself so far and wide to the attacks. regardless of what happens in the house, my sense is that he will go ahead. if the house gives additional cover, the fact that the administration is now sort of scrambling to widen the international coalition, they could be thinking that if the house does not come through and the u.s.val, at least is not acting alone internationally. guest: i agree, he is so committed he will find a way to do it. secretary kerry said he now has dozens of countries in the team, but he was very vague as to who this was. you mention france and -- france

and denmark, but it looks like he is back even if the house blocked some. keeping track of where things stand in the house, first you can see that there are 24 senators saying yes, leaning yes, 19 know, leaning towards know, 27 undecided. what does that tell you? guest: just a lot of indecision. of lawmakers have been going back to their constituencies saying that they do not want another war in the middle east. even from the national security seen rep. boehner, out strongly behind this. have to -- rep boehner come

out strongly behind this. they are not necessarily convinced this is a national security level. there is a real split here. host: in the house of representatives, again courtesy of "the hill," "130 lawmakers saying no or leaning towards know, 92 undecided." as you look of those numbers, 136 republicans, joined by two democrats, saying no military strike in syria. be no peoplecannot supporting in the house. there are people in the house who support speaking against the effort and part of the iraq,tion goes back to where there was never conclusive evernce of anything

discovered. even 10 years after the invasion, it was still a huge iraqis,not just for the but for the united states. i think that part of the at theion in the house did not plany, he to go to congress until things went wrong. is the interpretation of many people in congress. i am not surprised that there is a much opposition in the house. line,glenn, independent welcome to the washington journal. caller: does anyone have any information on the clean break

report? with regards to the israeli security problems. guest: i think i know what you're referring to. some of the conservative strategists saw iraq as this linchpin, changing the middle east. i think that syria is a lot different. saying that we need to take of the regime? traditionally the israelis have had a love-hate relationship with them. while they did not like each , they feared what could come next. i think that israelis are still pretty much split because they want to see some sort of military action or warning, but they back with the administration is saying, saying

they're not taking the word of the regime right now. host: a few articles i would like to read for you -- guest: part of the huge problem of the obama administration is facing is how to convincingly describe what is going on in syria and what they are planning to do as a direct threat to national security. guest: i think part of the huge problem that the obama administration is facing is how to describe convincingly what is going on in syria and what the

administration is planning to do about it as a direct threat to u.s. national security. beyond that, it is not very clear what the obama administration is trying to achieve from an attack on targets held by the bashar al- assad. if the ultimate goal is to actually topple bashar al-assad, the administration has spent almost the last two years saying that if he goes, there is nothing to guarantee what happens after him. the threat to the united states and to its allies around syria would be greater chaos. we don't know if that is the real goal to actually help topple him. if the goal is to help the opposition on the ground militarily,roll back the military territorial gains that the regime has made, that will make the opposition exile did. to what extent will an attack enable them at the end of the

day to roll back those gains or advance to topple assad, but we don't know. if the goal is to tell the international community that i said over two years ago that assad must go and i talked about red lines and if i don't to anything about it and i lose credibility -- that is not convincing a lot of people in the united states. host: what does success look like? guest: i don't think anyone really knows. it feels like they will mark off a few boxes and say we basically weekend their chemical weapons capability.

that is what the president is saying that this is the response to a chemical weapons attack in will degrade their ability to deliver them which means hitting various airfields and commands. amongst the rebels, the real fear is that assad could come out stronger from this. this won't be enough to destroy his fighting machine. it does not seem like we are coordinating what we will do with the rebel so it will be hard for them to take advantage of this. we are still not giving them weapons even though the white house signaled a would start doing that in june. you have a situation where a site gets it and uses it to rally support in his country and the rebels are no stronger and then you are neither here nor there but that's what it feels like. they are saying this is not about regime change. it is about integrating the chemical weapons convention a. you can see some heads but not a major change and the dynamic. host: this is from " the weekly

standard" -- guest: obviously, the larger picture here i think that is the correct assessment for the larger picture is iran and what happens with them down the road. the iranians have a new president who sounds more moderate than mahmoud, damage. he's he sounds even much more conciliatory on specifically the issue of syria. i think the iranians are closely watching what happens in congress. if barack obama manages to get approval from the house, that would be a huge boost to his position and to his credibility when it comes to dealing with the iranians. they will see him as being a very strong and popular position in the united states. they will take it much more seriously than they would otherwise. if he loses that vote, the assessment is that the iranians

will sniff them out in any and negotiations that they may be willing and able to have with the united states and with the west. ultimately, even if this strike does happen, as i said earlier, it remains to be seen what the ultimate goal is. if barack obama is ultimately trying to topple bashar al- assad, the iranians made it absolutely clear that assad is a vital interest in the region and they would do everything they could and -- they can to keep them in power. if barack obama comes out in a weaker position, it will become much harder to deal with the iranians over their nuclear issue down the road. host: the washington bureau chief for al jazeera joining us here at the table. this is from larry in richmond -- another viewer says --

host: sarah joins us from port chester, new york. caller: good morning. i would like to tell president that wed chuck schumer should not attack syria. this is not our issue or in our interest. the only countries looking up to us to go to work are the countries that we should not be paying attention to such as saudi arabia and france. we will end up paying more at the pump. this is a religious war that we should not get involved in. thank you. host: thanks for the call. guest: i think she represents a

lot of lawmakers going back to their constituencies. people don't want another middle east war and they don't necessarily see why this is an imminent threat to the united states. they don't care what saudi arabia, israel, or these other middle east allies are telling us of the threat to them. yes, i think your comments are consistent with what these lawmakers are hearing when they have to debate this. host: one of those lawmakers is republican representative eric cantor wrote it he's supporting the president.

that was not in " the new york times" but in his home newspaper as he tries to convince his own constituents why he supports the president. guest: we do not know what degrading bashar al-assad plus capabilities actually will mean at the end of the day. will they be so weakened that the opposition together with its allies outside syria will be able to topple his regime? will the iranians allow that to happen? the international community and not just the united states is that was not in " the new york times" but in his home facing a real conundrum in syria.

do you let the carnage of civilians continue in syria? it has been going on for 2.5 years. do you say this is not our business and let darwinian law take its course in syria? it depends whether you are talking to the policymakers or you are talking to the moral and conscience of the international community. each set tells you a different course of action. if you talk to the conscience of the international community, we this is so outrageous that countries like the united states are called upon to do something about it. that poses a problem for barack obama, convincing americans that doing something in syria is in the national interest of the that is posing a

problem for barack obama, convincing americans that doing something in syria is in the interest of the u.s. the international community has waited until over 100,000 people have been killed in syria. why now, after 1400 people have been gasped -- gassed? why do they want to do something now? the other question is, is it not too late for the u.s. to try to do anything about what is going on in syria? these are all questions being raised. it's not until the president fires the first bullet that we will know exactly where this conflict is headed, and what the final outcome will be. the final outcome will not be dictated in washington. it will be dictated their in the ground after the first bullet is fired. >> and abderrahim foukara and jay solomon -- as the president put himself in a corner? >> i think he has. he clearly said that president assad must go. he said that use of michael weapons is a red line -- chemical weapons is a red line. i think he is boxed in. he's also being pushed by our allies in the middle east. he's in a tough position where you have to act, after taking the steps he has made. we have been discussing, is he a weaker president for the last three years. host: a caller is joining us on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i tried to keep things simple. and based on action

reaction. docannot just allow them to these acts. whether it is by gross force, or covertly -- i'm ex military. i don't want my military friends on the ground, but there has to be a reaction to what he done. there are people that are dying, people that are praying for some sort of help. it's ridiculous that the international community is doing nothing. we are talking about these

things in the comfort of distance, but there are people being affected by his choices. it seems that he doesn't really care what anyone outside of the country is feeling or doing. that is my statement. thanks again for letting me voice my opinion.

host: let me turn that into a question. is sent us this e-mail, why there no punishment prescribed by the geneva protocol for committing these crimes? guest: over two and a half ago, the protests in syria started peacefully. wascrackdown of the regime so hard that the protests gradually changed nature and

went from being peaceful to being violent. even within the people who support the syrian rebels, there is a trend of thought that says that the syrians were too quick to pick up arms against bashar al-assad. they should have persisted in the peaceful process. that would up at assad -- have put assad in a tighter corner. i'm not in a position to judge

whether that is right or not. but the gassing of 1400 people -- this is an argument that john kerry tried to make -- regardless of who was behind the attack, the ultimate responsibility of being in control of weapons of mass destruction in syria is the responsibility of the syrian state. the fact that the conflict has taken the course it has taken over the last two and half years, with the searing regime having lost control of many parts -- syrian regime having lost control of many parts of syria, that opens up the question of people coming into possession of weapons of mass destruction. the peace and security of all syrians is the responsibility of the syrian state. regardless of who is behind the attack, the gassing of 1400 people, the international community has responsibility to

protect syrians grade -- syrians. the united nations has something that says, the responsibility to protect civilians. the issue of sovereignty in a state goes up in discussion. what happened to never again, that we heard in the genocide and are one of -- in rwanda? there are those who in the past had shown themselves to be so outraged. never again, what happened in rwanda, what happened in bosnia -- it is understandable, from the obama administration, that the president is so outraged that he wants to do something about it so it doesn't happen

again. the question is, how do you do that? why have you waited so long? why have you put up witha red line being transgressed so many times in the past? has: let's go to tom, who been waiting on the republican line. caller: my opinion is about the consequences of a syrian strike. president obama has broadcast to the world what he plans on doing. we have not heard from russia, china, iran, syria what they're

planning. it makes me nervous to not know exactly what the consequences could be. host: jay solomon? guest: that is a big fear. i think the real fear here is with iran. there have been mixed messages coming out of tehran. the revolutionary guard has said, enough is enough. retaliationbe against u.s. interests in the mediterranean. ae new president of iran, calmer response, they do not want a direct conflict with the u.s. or israel. hezbollah has been accused of attacks in bulgaria.

there is a lot of uncertainty and fear about what iran and hezbollah might do if there is a strike on syria. much't think there is so fear that they will get involved hotel he. -- militarily. host: here is a question from "time" magazine -- will they follow the president into a war that no one wants? guest: it's really tough because their constituents -- there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of support for this. the shadow of iraq plays over all of this. host: publicly, house republicans and democrats say they're not whipping.

guest: there may be a sense in both houses of the congress that if this happens, if the attack happens and things go wrong, the president would be able to say, things have gone wrong but i'm not alone in this. i have the support of congress. back to my original point, there's a sense that the obama administration went to congress as an afterthought so that if things can go wrong, it would not find itself isolated here in the u.s. if things go wrong and are

reminiscent of iraq -- people have elections coming up from congress. we saw what happened to the republican party when things started to go wrong in iraq, in the congressional elections. a lot of members of congress have that on their mind. apart from these humanitarian situations, what happens in syria if things go wrong -- they know that if things go wrong, they would be held to account. they don't want to put the president in a situation where he could say, it's my decision supported by popular well. host: a comment sent by e-mail --

jersey,ebanon, new independent line. caller: is abderrahim foukara suggesting that president obama has no choice but to follow congress? when you put civilians in harm's way to represent the interests of a foreign country, not the u.s. by isrepresentation, that treason. we are representing saudi arabia and israel as part of a that started with libya, egypt, and that is to dysfunctional

countries by attacking them and rebels to do that. this is all a set up to justify our involvement an attack of iran. how can you sit there when the rebels that are in syria are committing atrocities against the christians, which we saw in libya and it israel? -- in israel? these are the same people we are representing. guest: there are no christians in libya. the color has made some serious points. -- caller has made some serious points. i cannot see the president sleeping peacefully, having announced the decision to attack bashar al-assad. many of these thorny issues will be weighing heavily on his mind. what happens if things go wrong? he would be held to account. he will be held to account here in the u.s.

he finds himself having announced that decision, he finds himself in a very difficult position, and i think he finds himself in a position where he has no other choice but to go to war in syria, already made the decision that he would. host: let me go back to the war powers act, passed in 1973. on three separate occasions, congress gave the president the authority to attack the persian gulf, iraq, and afghanistan. if this goes down in defeat, the

fourth time congress has voted on a war issue, what impact does this have on the presidency, the office itself? guest: it will raise a lot of the questions that were raised with the iraq war. does the president have to listen to the congress? who ultimately makes that decision? the president has been waffled -- waffle-y. he has been without congress's support. i'm sure there will be a huge date, just like there was over iraq -- debate, just like there was over iraq. he can act even if congress doesn't support him. host: do you think inside the white house there is regret that they took this step eight days ago? guest: this was the president's decision. you saw john kerry give this speech on it -- a friday. even president obama's advisers have said, this was not handled the best way from a communication standpoint and a strategic standpoint. there's probably a bit of concern and regret that the president made these comments about a red line more than a year ago.

it didn't seem like he really thought that through. u.s. and allied intelligence services say there have been dozens of attacks using chemical weapons, but on a smaller scale. host: otis is joining us from california on the democrats' line. caller: i'm calling to address two things. onmonday, a new report terrorist threats. it talks about the threats that could arrive as a result of the

military strikes in syria. joyous life for that conversation. speaking atill be the new america foundation. she is expected to discuss the call for military strikes in syria. >> trying to maintain family time and maintain privacy, peter roosevelt purchased a family retreat. purchase a roosevelt family retreat. ashe came out here as often needed, and it was far enough away that it felt like wilderness. it was a family place, and unique to the roosevelts. hubbub ofa constant activity in their other home. this was the one place where it was private, family time.

>> meet edith roosevelt as the be in season two of our original series, "first ladies," looking at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. bring public affairs events from washington inectly to you, putting you the room for white house events, briefings, and conferences. all of it is a public service of private industry, created by and funded for our local provider. billxt, former president clinton speaking to a group in little rock arkansas.

the measures that arkansas is taking for full implementation. one less thane one hour. >> a student from the school of public service and the former president of the united states, william jefferson clinton. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. welcome.

we're extremely pleased to have you all with us today and we're honored to host this event at the clinton center. today president clinton will deliver remarks on the health care policy and the affordable care act. now through his work in the clinton foundation, president clinton has been a champion for increasing access to health care and improving health systems for everyone. before we begin, i would like to acknowledge a few of our special guests in our audience this morning. first, the governor of arkansas. and all of the elected officials from around the state of arkansas who have joined us [applause]

i would like to introduce mirada meiko. just last week, students began the classes at the clinton school of public service, the first school in the nation to offer a public service degree and she was elected president of the student bod the i. she'll tell us about herself and why she's invested herself in such an important subject. >> good morning. there's no topic timelier than the one being discussed today and there could not be a better spokesperson leading this discussion. both president and secretary

clinton have been working for decades to lay the foundation for something like the affordable care act to be possible. we've all seen the numbers. millions of americans are without health insurance. we have dire consequences on the health and well being of our great nation. i am a student here at the university of arkansas clinton school of public service. like many of my incredible classmates here, i am still on my parents eep insurance and so grateful that the affordable care act and my parents have granted me that possibility. i will turn 26 and will need to purchase my own health insurance for the first time. for me, this is an absolute necessity because i have a pre-existing condition. i was diagnosed with type i diabetes at the age of 7 and needed insurance throughout my life to best control this condition and remain healthy. on october 1 of this year, the clinton school will host an enrollment fair to sign up people for the affordable care act.

for so many people, our options were limited. now they are wide open. for millions like me, it is a dream come true. i came to learn from and continue the work of president clinton to make arkansas, the united states, and the world a better place. from the governorship to his presidency to the wonderful work in his postpresidency with the bill, hillary and chelsea clinton foundation, president clinton has created a remarkable record. he stablized the economy and worked to address climate change with opportunities to serve the community and country through americore and continues to work for peace and prosperity around the world. i speak for myself and my classmates to say it's an honor to continue the legacy of president clinton through the first master of public service degree.

having access to health insurance that's affordable and covers my pre-existing condition will help me to continue my studies and pursue a career in public service upon graduation. i sincerely appreciate the work of president obama for getting the affordable care act accomplished and for all of the work president clinton is doing over the years to improve the health of the people of arkansas, the united states, and around the world. i want to thank mike booe booe and the members of the arkansas legislature. in a bipartisan way, they developed an innovative bipartisan model that other states should consider and possibly replicate. my great honor to introduce the 42nd president of the united states and the person for whom the program is named, president william jefferson clinton. [applause]

>> thank you, thank you very much. to all of the officials who are here and my friends of many years, first i want to thank mirra for her introduction and for sharing a little of her story.

today the work my foundation does on health care and america largely concentrates on the issue of childhood obesity and the role that plays makes type ii diabetes the type you get. we can never forget there are people like mirra who are born with conditions that lead to type i diabetes and these two conditions combine account for an enormous percentage of health care spending pause of the consequences they bring to the people to their familiar lips. and if not adequately treated, can shrink rather than increase the abilities. thank you for being here. my work today in health care is mostly as i said, trying to contain and reduce childhood obesity and improve the health care of the baby boom generation so we don't bankrupt the rest of you. but around the world, i work with people who have no money,

no health systems, no nothing. all of the things that we take for granted. however all of this work began, i was attorney general worried about the quality of health care and the arkansas nursing home, or when i was governor to try to deal with the fact that there were still substantial numbers of rural communities where people had virtually no access to health care. where it was not possible to deliver a baby safely. where the infant mortality rate was well above the national average. so i've been involve in this subject for a long time. i've been involved with those though empower people to have their life stories. and that's what this whole issue is about.

i have i have agreed to give this talk today because i understand how much misunderstanding there is about the current system of health care, how it works, how it compares to what other people and other countries pay for health care and what kind of results they get. and what changes are actually occurring now and are going to occur in the future. so i have done something unusual for me. i have built this whole week out. i'm going to try to use very few adjectives.

thanks to the governor and the leaders of the house and the senate. and bipartisan coalition here. and what lies ahead. and i'm going to argue as best i can that we're all going to be a lot better off whether we supported or voted for the health care reform law whether we like it or don't, we'd be better off about making it work to identify the problems and to fix them, instead of just keep replaying the same old battle. that is my belief. and i hope i can intersuede you that that is correct. and that we should support leaders like the governor, the leaders of the house and senate here all over america who are just trying to figure out what's best for the people and get the job done. in 2010, nearly 100 years after president theodore roosevelt first proposed, affordable health care for all americans, the congress adopted and

president obama signed the affordable health care act. the bill was designed to address the two biggest problems of the american health care system, the extraordinary costs and lack of coverage and to do so in way that improves the quality of our health care. before the bill passed, just 84% of the american people had insurance coverage and we were spending almost 18% of our gdp, 17.9% of our national income only health care. that's about $2.5 trillion. other countries at our income level cover everybody and do it for far less cost. between 9% of gdp -- that's japan, and 12% of gdp, that's the netherlands and switzerland

with countries like germany and france in the middle. the difference between 17.9% and 12% is $1 trillion a year. a tril if you go to pay raises or the hire new employees or to make investments that would make our economy grow faster. hard to provide more capital to start small businesses or expand others. hard to support diversifying and strengthening agriculture, you name it. $1 trillion is a lot of money to spot our competitors in a highly competitive local economy. it would be worth it if we got $1 trillion in better health outcome. but that's not what the research shows.

it shows we rank first by a country mile in percentage of income we spent on health care, and 33rd among all nations in our health outcome. health care costs keep economic growth down, accounted for 60% of the personal bankruptcy filings before the economic crash. every single year for a decade, they've been going up three times the amount of inflation and manifesting themselves in higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. the costs are so high for several reasons. almost everybody pays health care providers for each procedure, medical device, or service.

not for the overall quality of health care. in most states, health insurers have almost no competition. inle 0% of the states, one or two companies have 80% of the market. therefore they're able to get from competition on prices or their ability to not cover people with pre-existing conditions tore to do so at unaffordable prices. the paperwork costs of our system -- because there are so many different people paying into it, are incredibly high. about a dime on the dollar higher than the next most expensive country in the world. that's a lot of money. and we all pay for this. we also pay more for drugs and our life style has led to a higher number of preventable

problems that citizens of other countries have, especially diabetes and the problems related to it. making health care coverage available and more affordable to all american, by approving health care delivery and paying for it based on the quantity but not the number of procedures performed and products provided and by creating more affordable options for uninsured people in small businesses. that is what arkansas governor bebe and the legislators are leading the country, i think. and bipartisan efforts do. the law isn't generating a lot of opposition, as we all know. it's been attacked from the left for not having a public option. that is for leaving the insurance companies with too large a role in health care and

it's been attacked for the right for increasing the role of government in health care delivery. people who are already insured have been told they're about to lose what they have in life. small business has been told they'll be priced into insolvency. poor people without coverage have been told they won't be able to afford it when it comes. in congress, there have been 40 votes to repeal the law, but no real alternatives presented to fix the current system. opposition has been fierce in many states which matters because they took in on a very big role in implementing this. something i like. they are eligible for substantial increase in medicaid funding to provide coverage for workers with lower incomes and to create and run health care marketplaces designed to run uninsured businesses to shop for policies that are adequate and

more affordable. several states are declined to participate in either the medicaid expansion or the marketplaces or both, leaving money on the table for other studies and the health insurance marketplace to the federal government to set up and run. we should work together to implement this law, whether or not to support the passage for several reasons. number one, its's better than the current system. that is unaffordable and downright unhealthy for america. number two, it gives states the chance to devise programs that work best for them and their populations. number three, not cooperating means the state's taxpayers will pay for this and the money will go to somebody else somewhere else. with consequences which i will outline.

number four, the problems with the law, and there are some, you can't change the complex ecostructure with the health care this much without relating the problem. we all work together to fix them. number five, this provides higher quality health care and lower the cost which we have got to do in a competitive global economy. and finally, it is the law. and i think we have to faithfully execute the law. [applause] to get a law, you have to sign an oath to do that.

i'll do my best to explain in plain language how the law works, what has to be done, what has to happen now, what the up solved problems are. why we're working harder to fix the problems to continue to sign a repeatable law or even worse, make sure the implementation is there. several provisions of the law -- several provisions of the law have taken effect. as a result, more than 3 million young adults under 26 like mara now have health coverage on their parents' plans. 6.6 million seniors pay less for prescription drugs as the law starts to close the so-called doughnut hole. 105 million americans have seen the limits, the lifetime limits on their insurance coverage abolished and preventive care is costly for them.

17 million children with pre-existing conditions. 17 million can no longer be denied coverage or charged [applause]es. almost 26 million women and almost 26 million men -- 27 million women, 26 million men, have been extended benefits with no cost sharing, including mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal screening, cholesterol and detection tests, stop smoking programs, prenatal chair and regular childhood. 12 million people have received rebates because companies must now spend 80% to 85% of your premiums depending on the size of your approval. on the health care, not keeping for profits and promotions.

this is also a major factor in keeping rates lower than they would otherwise be and slowing the rate of increase. total savings of rebates and lower rates are estimated in 2012 to be $3.9 billion. what does this mean for arkansas with nearly 500,000 people are uninsured, including 25% of our working age we -- one in four. 865,000 people no longer have lifetime limits. more than 32,000 seniors have seen a reduction. 35,000 young people are now covered on their parents' plans. more than a million people are eligible for preventive services without a deductible or co-pay. and 120,000 perceived about $3.5 million on rebates on their insurance costs. now what? what's next?

in january, small group markets will no longer be able to charge higher rates or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. this affects a lot more people than you think. it's estimated that 129 million americans under age 65, roughly one in two of us, are at risk because of pre-existing conditions. and therefore pay some higher insurance rates. but let's be realistic, the people who claim humongously higher rates or can't get coverage at all are a much smaller per spend taj. they're still a good number and i bet you everyone in this audience knows somebody with a severe pre-existing condition made them uninsureble or increased their rates. after january, these in the most severe conditions are concentrated in people age 50 to

64 -- all those irresponsible young people.[laughter] it's amazing what you say when you're 67. anyone, they're concentrated here. they can't be charged higher rates which is an opportunity and challenge. i'll talk more about that in a minute. women can no longer be charged higher rate than men which was a common practice before. [applause] and 8.7 million of them with individual coverage will have target services for the first [applause] no what about the uninsured. how are they going to get insurance? how will it be more affordable? how will it affect small business? currently, more than 41 million americans, mostly low and moderate income americans have no health insurance.

roughly 22.5 million men and 18.5 million women. the racial background is something like this. there are 110 million latinos. nearly 7 million african-americans. about 13 million whites. and the rest are native americans and asian pacific islanders. included here are 1.3 million american veterans not enrolled. what about men? people with incomes of up to 138% of the poverty line, that's $15,860 for individuals and $32,500 for a family of four, will receive support for their coverage through medicaid payments to come back to what arkansas did in the senate. people with incomes of 138% of

the poverty line and 400% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for tax credit, for individual and family policies on a tax policy on a sliding scale, lower your income, the higher the credit. the uninsured person can log on to health care.gov or a state site and shop for the most affordable and appropriate policy. the prices, which includes the discounts for the tax credit will be shot. and when a policy is ordered, the tax credit will actually be automatically sent by the government to the insurer so there's no hassle for the person buying the insurance. you just pay what the computer screen says you owe. to get this done, you do have to sign up on the state or federal website or at a designated call center between october 1 and

march 31. that's what's about to happen. that's what the folks are concerned about. that's what they've been working on. the toll-free national number is 1-800-318-2516. the website is health care.gov. you don't have to do that if you live in arkansas. look how arkansas is handling it? currently there's a mass of education and outreach programs to the half a million people who don't have insurance. 250,000 are at or below 128% of the federal poverty line. they are eligible for the private option plan. this is the bipartisan initiative led by the governor, supported by the leaders of the house and senate. and other republicans to replace medicaid expansion with the plan

to use the federal dollars to help eligible candidates. they will help not only them, but it will dramatically reduce the burden of uncompensated care to health care providers. that burden was $358 million in arkansas in 2010. today that burden is shifted to people who have insurance. you pay higher insurance rates to the uncompensated care that your health care providers are giving to people they can't bear to turn away. no one wants to turn them away.

but they ought to be reimbursed in a more direct and fair fashion. now whether or not you agree with the affordable care act, arkansas citizens are going to pay for it just like citizens of every other state. whether you support the fact this this private option is set up and will later have to be funded by the legislature, i think, in february, you should consider what turning back the money means. and keep in mind, some states have done that. but as the governor said to me, this doesn't make anymore sense than turning back federal highway funds. we had 18.3 cents a gallon federal gas tax, how would you feel if you gave it back. i don't like some of the requirements that the federal highway administration puts on us, so why don't we just not

take it and send our money to texas? you think if someone said that, they were three bricks shy of a full load. it doesn't make any sense for us to do it. and it will aggravate the burden of uncompensated care. substantially. now, by 2015, small businesses with more than 50 employees will provide insurance for their employees or face paying a penalty. without this private option, a lot of our small businesses, most of them have far fewer employees. but the ones that are covered without this option, they couldn't afford to provide insurance. and there's a bunch of people with fewer than 50 employees that would like to provide

insurance and without the private option, there's no way in the wide world they could do this. so so it's a real boone. but there's something else. if you have more than 50 employees. you've got to pay a penalty in 2015 if you don't provide the health care. the aggregate cost of the small business penalties is $38 million. is that right? that's what i thought. that's like a $38 million small business tax if you don't embrace the private option. to my view is that arkansas did a good thing of bipartisan thing, a practical thing, and will help a lot of people and the rest of us to get behind and [applause]rogram.

now, what about people who are uninsured because their incomes are above 138% of the poverty line? well, if they're between 138% and 400%, they can go the national website, health care.gov or the state site called rarhealthconnector.org and there's a phone number for people who don't have a view, 855-283-3483. and you just shop the best policies. the buyers are eligible for tax credits that will be put in automatically to insure, once they make a decision as i just said. to simplify the process, individual and family options are organized by categories, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. it's like the olympics.

the bronze price policies have the lowest cost and the least coverage. the silver is next, then gold, platinum has the highest cost and lowest coverage. there's also for young riders who are just over 26 a special catastrophic option. but it's not eligible for the tax credit. so those young buyers will be better off picking a bronze option, getting a tax credit. it would be cheaper than the catastrophic option. what about small businesses? businesses with 50 or more employees aren't required to cover their employees until 2015. they can do so because they'll have their own marketplace, it's called shop -- small business health insurance options. or if they offer insurance, they can just keep their present plans. there are tax credits to go up to 25% this year, 50% next year. beginning next year, it's only

for those who participate in the marketplace. and that's something i think congress needs to re-evaluate as well as decide the credits. i'll tell you more about that later. now, put all of these people in coverage, won't it drive up the cost of health care? so far, given the significant improvements that have been implemented that i mentioned earlier, the answer is no. for the last three years, the average increase in the national health care spending and the health care spending here in arkansas has hovered around 4%. that's the smallest increase in 50 years. now, some of it was due at the beginning of the period, the hangover for the financial crash in 2008.

not anymore. there are other things going on. medicaid and medicare costs are going up in less than economic growth. and governor bebe told me this morning the last time that happened was in 1988. that was in the dark ages when i was governor. so i -- i think this is important to note. there is something going on here. we are learning how to lower the inflation for most of the last decade, the medical inflation rate was three times the overall rate of inflation. and that's how we got this huge gap of spending 17.9% of our no one else would go higher than 12. so i think there's something going on here. there's something else you need to know. there is one lifetime limit which was put into this law which i like.

under the new law, there is a limit on the percentage of income any person can be required to pay for insurance premiums in any given year. it goes from 9.5% for people with 300% of the poverty level, to or 400% of the poverty level, down to 2% for those at 100%, 133%. and that's really important. now can this be continued? can we continue to hold these costs down? the answer to that is i think yes, but -- yes but only if we keep working together to cut unnecessary costs. a recent rand corporation study pegged unnecessary medical costs at a whopping $700 billion a year about 30% of total

spending. how are we going to do this. there are impressive differences on our way. the accountable care organization which is cropping up all over the country as a result of an attempt to come to grips with health care reform, are basically proving it is possible to lower costs and improve care by basing reimbursements on the quality of health care outcomes, not on the procedure. competitive bidding for durable bed call equipment, the reduction of medical errors that the ride in medical records has spawned. the new strategies to have in home care and community clinics, all these things are makes a difference. bloodstream infection, one of the most common medical errors are down 40% since 2008.

increased sterilization requirements, which is a way of saying you have to wash your hands in more places in the hospital, are reducing infections all across america. in the past year, hospital readmissions in medicare alone are down 70,000 people. also in the past year, finally, the national government began to publish comparative costs and outcome data. pennsylvania has been doing this for years. i read the report every year. this is what it shows in pennsylvania. there is no relationship between what something costs and the outcome you get. the biggest -- the closest correlation -- take surgical

procedures. the closest correlation between good outcomes and a given procedure is not the price of it, but how many of those procedures are performed at given place every year. we now have years and years of data in pennsylvania to support this. pennsylvania also has an interesting certified but long standing accountable care organization called the medical group with hundreds of doctors which started years ago getting all of the doctors to agree, whatever their ages to adhere to the set of best medical practices obtained in a mammoth group obtained weekly by the group for best medical practices if anywhere kind of procedure. essentially, it operates on the premise that medicine is both an art and a science. let's start with the science and then move to the art. that is you're operating on someone and with problems, you have to deal with that.

but first, we like a pilot of the airplane to follow a checklist. if for any reason anybody under their care premium, co-pay, and deductibles cannot be play. the medical errors drops to near zero and their profits increased as a result. they didn't make less money, they made more money because they had a fixed income from enrollment in the program. getting all of the payers of the health care system, employees, insurance companies, medicaid, soon the governor will work to get medicare. pay based on -- you can call it episode -- a flat rate which

basically works this way -- do away for fee per service, you award performance. good results in a hurry, going to make a lot more money. if you get bad results slowly, you'll probably lose money. but the incentives are designed to lower the costs while improving the quality. and the reason it can be done, i believe, is because this is like what you did with the public health. you got nerve the room. all the employers, all of the insurers, the medicaid, medicare folks, you have a broad spectrum, economically, socially, politically, if you can figure out how to make it work. i'm excited about this.

i think the state deserves a lot of credit for doing this as well. okay, so that's where we are. so you can say to me, come on, bill, there's something wrong. anything that sounds too good to be true is. this is pretty good. so what are the known potential problems? what could still go wrong? it hadn't yet, but it could. well, like any laws, it's this complex, there are some problems that i think will have to be addressed. first, the thing that bothers me the most which i hope was just a drafting error, workers with modest incomes like say $20,000 to $35,000 who work for a company that insures only them still are required by the law to

provide for their families. and if their families are uninsured, they have to pay a penalty. the problem is that under the law, because they have insurance at work, they cannot send their families into the arkansas exchange and get the tax credit. it's obviously not fair. and it's bad policy. but it's not clear to me, based on what i determined, if anybody intended it. if this is the only unintended consequence of the law, they did a good job. it's got be fixed. it's just not fair. so i think congress should fix it. secondly, small businesses with fewer than 50 people aren't required to acquire insurance, but a lot of them would like to.

however, many of them have access to the tax credit, a different one, and many don't. it may surprise you. for example, if you have fewer than 50 employees, you can claim the tax credit for up to 25 of them. but if you have 35, you can -- you can have a tax credit for 25. if you have 43, you can claim a tax credit for 25 of them. this is obviously just a budgetary decision based on what the estimated insurance premiums will be and what the cost of the subsidies. but i believe that the current tax credit is too low. sounds good. the taxpayer, it sounds like a lot. but if you read the fine print and how it's calculated, there

are relatively few companies eligible for 50% tax credit and it begins with the average weight goes up, the tax credit diminishes from 50% to something lower. and what i think is that the congress ought to do and it ought to be possible to get bipartisan support for this, is to come in and basically make a tax credit available to more firms for more employees under the 50 employee limit and actually make it more generous to more firms so more will show up. there's way more individuals to sign up in the individual market than small businesses. sign up for the small business market. because the tax credit system just doesn't work very well for small business now and it needs to be approved. -- improved. thirdly, this is the third big problem, and it's a whopper. but this has to be fixed at the state level where it needs to be fixed.

the supreme court ruling on the affordable health care act upheld the law but said the state had the right to refuse to participate in taking the medicare -- the medicaid expansion money and refused to set up their own health exchange. the law said, which is bad thought before the supreme court reviewed it that the federal government would run an exchange if the states do that. but they never dreamed that anybody would turn down the medicaid money. so amazingly, about half of the states have, comprising more than half of the eligible people, big states, florida, florida, pennsylvania, pkks texas, michigan voted to take it. they have a republican governor and republican legislature. here's what's going to happen -- in those states, working people

with incomes of between 138% and 400% will be able to buy insurance on the exchange with subsidies. but the exchange is not for the state of the federal government. but lower income working families with incomes of 138% or less, some of the people below 100% of the poverty line are eligible for nothing. so you get the worst of all worlds where you say, i'm sorry, you're working 40 hours a week, but you're too poor to get health, not too rich, too poor. and this is a serious problem. there's going to be a big jump in uncompensated care,

especially in urban medical centers like houston, miami, cleveland, and pittsburgh, amazing medical centers and they treat everybody, they do wonderful work. and they're going to get hurt. taxpayers money they're uncompensated fares will rise. that's why several states with republican governors, and most of the republican legislatures are taking the medicaid expansion money. because of the supreme court decision, this is the problem that only states can fix. so they're going to have to think about this. we heard other things about the law.

what is it going to do? a lot of folks are worried that not enough healthy young people will sign up and remain uninsured. why does that matter? because if you let the young people with severe pre-existing conditions buy insurance at the same price as everybody else, that runs everybody's insurance up unless you have healthy young people up and buy those bronze policies, that will level out the risk for the insurance companies. so that's legitimate. even though i am, i remember what it's like to be 27 and i was convinced i would live forever and i get a hangnail much less have a serious accident. there's a lot of worry about this. the recent study finds that this

may not happen. first large numbers of young people, 26 and younger, have enrolled in their parents' plans. the joirt of people still on their parents' plans are young republicans. the survey did want insurance but they didn't earn enough to afford it. the tax credits will allow them to afford one of the bronze plans. i think if young people can afford it they should buy it and contribute to the system if for no other reason than they will not always be young -- it's both

the right and smart thing do. second, a lot of people worried about a computer problem. think about it -- you have to have all of the state and federal computers running for oakland and run to end of march. ink i's remarkable he's able to get the federal systems up and running. there may be glitched but so far there's no evidence to suggest that they won't be able to be fixed quickly. i've been impressed with what i've seen what's happening, both here and around the country. third, there are people who thought that because of the small business requirement are the requirements to cover all employees who work 30 hours a week or more, that there would

be a lot of shifting of employees from fulltime to part-time. to avoid the 30-hour requirement for coverage. so far it hadn't happened. since 2010, this was it, since 2010, the law passed, 90% of the employment gains in america have been in fulltime jobs. in massachusetts, where governor romney served works a lot like the affordable care act will work, there is no appreciable impact on job growth percentage of part-time workers or employer drop in coverage. so far the direst predictions for the adverse consequences have not materialized. and i don't believe they will. now, this is doing a lot of good. it's about to make 95% of us ensured with access to affordable care.

it has built-in incentives to lower costs and improve equality including lots of opportunities for states that innovate. and arkansas is exhibit a. you should all be very proud of what your representatives and your governor have done. we got to do this because i will say again, the studies show that we are number one by a country mile in the percentage of the income that we developed the health care costs and ranked no better than 25th to 33rd in the health care outcome we get. this is the country that pioneered innovation in every other area of our national life. you cannot make me believe that we have to tolerate this from now to the end of eternity. i think we will become more competitive and healthier if we do this right. look what the rand study says about arkansas. it estimates by 2016, arkansas will have 400,000 more people

with health insurance, 2300 fewer deaths a year. just in our state. a $550 million increase in gdp, spurred by a $430 billion net increase in federal investments, leading to 6200 new jobs. for so long, so many have worked to remove barriers to quality health care, faith-based organizations, doctors groups, nurses' groups. unions and businesses working together. patient advocacy groups. they've all worked to ensure that people have good solid coverage. and all these people got a lot at stake here. they want to preserve what's best in our system as we make

the changes we need to make. so here's the bottom line to me -- it seems to me that the benefits of reform can't be fully realized and the problem certainly can't be solved. unless those supporters and the opponents of the original legislation work together to implement it and address the issue that arise when ever you change the system this complex. drafting errors, unanticipated issues. we have to do better at working together and learning together and we will try over and over again to repeal the law or rooting for the law to fail and refusing to fix relatively simple matters. i hope that congress will follow

the lead of the cample set by many, many republicans and democrats a it the state level and try to be the best you can to implement this -- be up front and open about the problem that develops and deal with it. we all get paid to show up for work. we need all hands on deck here. the health of our people, the security and stability of our families, and the strength of our economy are all riding on getting health care reform right and doing it well. that means we have to do it together. thank you very much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> 15 years ago, book tv made its debut. we are all keen students of love. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. maybe not quite as much as ken starr is. >> since then, we have brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. more than 9000 authors have , including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader the chance to understand the process by which i made decisions, the environment, the and this isten to, not an attempt to rewrite history. it is not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is an attempt to be a part of the historical narrative. >> also, the supreme court justices.

single one has a passion and a love per the constitution and our country. it is equal to mine. then you know that if you accept that as an operating truth, which it is, you understand that you can disagree. >> nobel prize winners. >> for me, what is interesting is the negotiation, do no harm. love somebody. respect yourself. reduced,at is simplified notions. the philosophers have spent a lifetime trying to imagine. what morality is. what existence is. what responsibility is. >> revisited book fairs and festivals around the country. >> life at the l.a. times

.estival of books >> there is a signature programming every month. >> if you save a child, once upon a time the child. , pause come and listen. now, you better cash or check and have more to say after that. that is still magical. >> every week afterwards. job -- myer, his mother wanted me to be born in prague where her mother was. and then my father was recalled in 1938. he was in czechoslovakia when the nazis marched in. >> since 1998, book tv has shown over 30,000 of -- hours of

programming. every weekend, throughout the fall we are marking 15 years of .ook tv coming up next on c-span, newsmakers. syriaes his view on regarding military action. he also talks about immigration and the state of the democratic caucus. then a discussion about u.s. immigration policy and how undocumented immigrants impact policy and security. ther that, talking about latest book on woodrow wilson. >> joining us on "newsmakers" is representative xavier becerra, democratic chairman of california. joining us with the questioning here in the studios, ginger gibson who covers congress for "politico" and stephen dinan of

"the washington times." thank you for being with us. does the president have the votes in the house of representatives to conduct action in syria? >> i know he will work very hard to get the votes. it has been drafted in the house. i know the president will work very hard to get them for his requests.