priority, are the individual death claims and the catastrophic injury claims. these are the individuals and their families most in need where we want to try and get the compensation out within 90 or 180 days as fast as we can. just as with the 9/11 victim compensation fund which is really the precedent we used in coming up with the compensation model, every single individual filing a death claim or a catastrophic injury claim may choose one of two paths to pep sayings in the -- compensation in the protocol. track a. all we need under track a is the age of the victim, how much she or he was earning at the time of the death or catastrophic injury

or the if he or she was going to school, we go to the bureau of labor statistics and come up with a number, annual wage number as if they were working at the age of 25. so if somebody died who was 5 or 10 or 17 or going to school, we have the formula included in this program. and whether or not they had any dependents. that's all we need to know on track a. that's all we need to know. now, we can meet privately with individual family members if they want to talk about other things. that's find. that is fine. that's fine. welcomed. but under track a if somebody will just provide us the age of the victim, how much that victim was earning at the time of the accident and whether they have any dependents, that's all we need to calculate a track a award based on national statistics about what that person would have earned over a

lifetime. the claimant doesn't have to file track a. it's up to the claimant. but if the claimant wants a quick, prompt processing of his or her claim under track a for death or catastrophic injury, they can do so. we will add to that claim, in addition to whatever economic loss is calculated by the bureau of labor statistics, we'll add $1 million in pain and suffering under track a for the victim, and in addition $300,000 for any surviving spouse or dependent. that'll be added to the calculation. same, that's for death claims. examples, now, these are presumptive examples without

regard to any individual claimant, but i want to give you some idea of the scope of the compensation under track a for death or catastrophic injury. a 17-year-old driver, single, unemployed going to school, living at home, no dependents, $2.2 million. track a. $2.2 million. economic and non-economic be loss. a 25-year-old, married, two children, earning $46,400 a year, $4 million under track a. a 25-year-old, 'em low -- employed earning $75,000 a year, married, two children, died, $5.1 million.

examples under track a. any individual family member who doesn't want to use track a but wants to come in you should track b -- under track b and explain in their claim form other extraordinary circumstances that should be brought to my attention, those numbers don't apply, we will look at the individual claim submitted under track b, see what other extraordinary circumstances exist in that claim just like we did in 9/11. and these numbers will not apply. we'll be considering track b. catastrophic or track a. some two examples if you go track a for catastrophic injury, just two examples, a 10-year-old

individual, young person, no earnings, of course. paraplegic. track a, $7.8 million. if you go track a. a 40-year-old paraplegic earning $70,000 a year, haired, no children -- married, no children, paralegion irk -- paraplegic, $6.6 million under the fund. again, the reason i can just project these numbers is it's based simply on national averaging. it is not -- just like 9/11, it is the bureau of labor statistics providing us the data. any individual family member or victim who doesn't like this track a presumptive model and would rather have a tailored

track b consideration of extraordinary circumstances, glad to do it. in 9/11 we had a series of track b extraordinary circumstance cases. mr. feinberg, my daughter was going to be married next week. she was our only daughter, and she died in the world trade center. we recognize that as track b. mr. feinberg, we lost both our children in the world trade center or on the airplanes. we recognize that as track b. mr. feinberg, in the general motors matter i represent a client who ten years ago was driving when her boyfriend was killed, and for ten years she's thought she was the reckless driver.

it destroyed her life. we want to go track b, of course. of course. track b. we will work with individual family members to try and develop track a or track b for death or physical injury. catastrophic physical injury. then there is the third category , less serious physical injury. all we want to know under this fund, under less serious physical injury, we do not want to be flooded with less serious physical injuries and medical records and doctors' reports. so the protocol builds on the virginia tech program that we

established and one fund boston marathon that we established. we just ask a couple of questions. one, assuming you're eligible, how long were you in the hospital? hospitalization is a pretty good surrogate for seriousness of injury. how long? overnight observation? $20,000. over a month, $500,000. in between, a sliding scale. mr. feinberg, i didn't go to the the hospital, or i went to the emergency room, and then i went home. now, originally we weren't planning on including that as eligible. we got such pushback from so many people, plaintiff lawyers, center for auto safety, others,

the protocol does permit eligibility for outpatient medical treatment, $20,000. capped at $20,000. now, on these less serious injuries, there's a prerequisite. all we want is the claim form filled out with a simple letter from the hospital or your doctor confirming medical treatment, hospitalization within 48 hours of the accident. why not a week? why not a month as some suggested? the priority here of the death and the catastrophic claims. these less serious physical injury claims we want some contemporary documentation that people received immediate treatment. so it's 48 hours.

now, if you received outpatient medical treatment within 48 hours and three weeks later you went in the hospital, that's fine be as long as there's an initial hospitalization or medical treatment within 48 hours. and then the sliding scale in the protocol kicks in. a flat amount, no calculations. those are the amounts that will be paid. i will agree, as i did with 9/11, as we did with boston marathon, as we did with virginia tech, as we did with aurora, colorado, and newtown, connecticut, i will meet privately with any family member or their lawyer privately who wants to chat with me about their claim, about their lost loved one, about their needs, about life's unfairness. whatever they would like to chat about, my door is open.

i will meet with them. it is easily, without a doubt, the most difficult part of this assignment. meeting privately with family members. it is very stressful. but it's essential, because there are family members who want to be heard and want to have their voice heard, and i'm the fellow that's the administrator, and i'm willing to meet with them and chat with them about anything they want to tell me. this program is designed to help claimants. this program is not designed to punish general motors. if people want punitive damages, if they want to use litigation to go after general hotters, then -- general motors, then voluntarily they should not submit a claim to me. because if you submit a claim to this program and your, with

award a certain amount of money, you have to eventually sign a release that you will not sue general motors. don't sign the release if you want to seek satisfaction or you want to sue general motors. but remember, the program is voluntary, and you don't have to decide whether or not you want to participate in this program until we offer a resolution, here is what we're prepared to a, you're eligible, here's the amount, track a or track b or hospitalization or outpatient medical treatment. only then if you are satisfied with the program will you participate and sign a release. and there will be many family members who will want to see me personally before they agree whether or not they want to sign

that release, and i welcome those meetings. i welcome those meetings. that's the program. now, two final points, then questions. the 9/11 fund, 97% of all the eligible families that lost a family came into the fund. 97%. $7.1 billion. taxpayer money, the 9/11 fund. bp, 92% of all eligible claimants came into the fund. these are tough statistics to match with this program. one fund boston, 100%. virginia tech, 900%. -- 100%. newtown, connecticut, 100%. these are tough statistics to hatch.

to match. we will work with the lawyers, with the families the try and do this. i must say in a way it's a pretty poor substitute. i say this all the time in the these programs. money is a pretty poor substitute for loss. you could give people $20, $30, $50 million. it's a pretty poor substitute. it's the limits of what we can do, unfortunately. we can't bring people back, we can't restore limbs. it's the best we can do, and it is a pretty poor substitute. hopefully, the program will work. the only test, how many people participated. this summary, all the words in the world don't matter at the end of the day. the only thing that hearts at the end of the day, how quickly

did you get money out the door to eligible claimants. that's the only test. so when people say to he, well, it sounds like this way or that way, i've hard from some lawyers we'll see, we'll see. it sounds maybe this can work. we'll see. i agree with that, we'll see. but we're ready to start the process. august 1 we will be ready, and i'm ready to take questions from you. yes, sir. >> quick question. based on your conversations with general motors, with attorneys, victims' families, do you have any sense of how many victims -- general motors keeps saying 13. do you have a sense the it's going to be over 50, close to 100? >> i will not speculate about this. i've been asked over and over again even before announcing how many death cans, how many serious injuries? what will the cost to the program -- i haven't got any idea. it would be pure speculation at this time. seem have to file their

claims -- people have to file their claims. we've got to look and see what they're submitting. we'll do it as fast as we can, but i will not speculate op numbers. >> and one quick follow-up, have you talked to any victims' families as you've been putting this program together? >> no. i've talked to many of the lawyers representing victims' families. i have not imposed myself. i didn't think it was appropriate. families grieve in private. it's not my place. if victims' families as a result of this conference today want to meet with me on the phone or in person, wonderful. i'm glad to do it. can you just tell me when you ask a question who you represent? >> thank you, mr. feinberg, poppy -- with cnn. we've heard this number, 13 deaths over and over again from general motors, they have acknowledged that may rise once you go through these claims. a key question throughout all of this is we have talked to victims' families. will deaths be counted that occurred in a pack seat of a car? >> yes.

>> they will? >> absolutely. >> even if they didn't die as a result of an airbag deploying -- >> doesn't matter. >> what about side impact? >> doesn't matter. irrelevant. if the person, if it's an eligible vehicle, the airbag did not deploy, driver, passenger, pedestrian, occupant of another vehicle where the airbag might have deployed, doesn't matter. eligible. >> side impact crashes? >> eligible. >> thank you. >> yes, ma'am. julia. from reuters, right? >> yes, thank you. thank you, mr. feinberg. some of these families have said they want to go to court to seek punitive damages against gm because they feel that will bring gm further to justice for covering this up, for lingering this problem for so long. why should they take what you're offering rather than -- >> they shouldn't. they shouldn't. if an individual family member wants to seek to bring general

hotters to justice -- general motors to justice in their mind by seeking punitive damages, they should not come into this program. they should sue. now, i would say this about litigating against general motors: it's one thing if somebody wants to litigate to get additional monetary punishment of general motors. i'm here to compensate victims, not punish general motors. i'm here to compensate victims, innocent victims. sometimes i hear victims tell me or their family we want to litigate because it's the only way we can find out what really happened. i'd be careful about that argument. there are other, more efficient available mechanisms and avenues to pursue to find out the facts about what really happened. the congress is very interested in finding out what really happened. i read in the newspaper the u.s.

attorneys and the department of justice are very interested in finding out what really happened. there are other avenues to pursue to do that. if it's the money that drives the punitive damage avenue, then this program is not for you. but if compensatory damages -- hopefully, very generous -- are what you seek and you'll use other avenues to find out what really happened, that, to me, is the optimum way to go. yes, sir. affiliation? >> [inaudible] "usa today." just to be clear on something, although i think i already know, is the money that you pay in addition to actual expenses the person might have incurred, or is it designed to be total? >> total. >> okay. >> total. we're not netting out other expenses or what have you.

we are calculating a damage on a blank slate and paying the total award to the claimant. we're not factoring in attorneys' fees, we're not factoring in other costs. we're paying the lump sum payment, all in. >> so whatever you might have spent already is out of your pocket or out of this settlement? >> well, that's an interesting question. if what you have already spent is litigation costs or expert investigative reports, yes. if what you have spent are medical expenses, well, we'll see about that. we'll -- we in the protocol look at the very last paragraph of the protocol. we will work with the claimant to make sure the claimant gets a lump sum payment, and we'll work with them on the medical expense problem which is implicit in your question. note the last paragraph of the entire protocol in that regard. >> thank you.

>> i'm sorry? >> my name is laura christian, and i'm the birth mother of amber marie rose. i have another family with me here today. i have personally found 165 deaths. i have this information in my hand. would you like it? >> i would, indeed. >> thank you. >> i would like not only that information, ms. christian, i would be glad to meet with you or your family members privately, and i would like to know anything you have or anything you think would be helpful in this program. i would love to sit and chat with you at your convenience to learn more about what you think and how this program can be made the most effective way. >> thank you. i welcome that very much so. now, as far as the non-airbag deployment, we have evidence in a few cases it looks like, and the black box shows, it looks like the driver actually managed to get the vehicle on a second or two before impact.

thus, the airbag deployed. would you consider those? >> let's see what you have to offer. i'll be glad to consider anything you have. i haven't heard about this. if you have some, you know, relatively rare example like that, at least i would like to hear a what you have to say. absolutely. >> thank you. appreciate that. >> anybody else, anybody who hasn't had a question yet? yes, sir, up back. david? >> dave shepherds, detroit news. two questions. one, in terms of the protocol on the newer vehicles, can you explain why it only applies to vehicles that had the part replaced? >> gm tells me -- and you should direct that question to general motors -- but gm has told me it's not just the ignition switch problem, it's the whole context in which the recall occurred on the 2.6 million vehicles, this inability to disclose it, the fact that gm should have disclosessed it, information in the lucas report. gm -- i'm not an automotive

engineer, but gm tells us over and over again that this is a unique problem at gm that arose. it's not simply the defect itself, it's the context in which it arose and the failure of gm to respond. so they have decided, they have decided this is the limitation of the authority i have under this program. >> and will you make a public accounting of your findings on an aggregate basis, how many claims approved, denied and payouts? >> absolutely. now, it gets tricky. i will at the end of the ram, camille and i, we -- as we always do, we will have an audit, an executive summary; how many claims, how many were eligible, how many ineligible, aggregate dollars, etc. we have to be very, very careful here that we don't discloses at any time -- disclose at any time the confidential submissions of individual families. they don't want people to know

that they filed or that how much money they received. we found out in all of these programs, 9/11 and other programs, that in order to maximize participation, confidentiality is critical. and that, many, many people just don't want any of that information disclosed. but we will come up with, as you say, some summary information that will be useful. let me just say one other thing before i forget that i neglected to say, a tip of the hat to the center for auto safety. joan claybrook and clarence diplow. their number one issue with us was notice. how do you reach people and tell them about the program? how do you though that people around the country and elsewhere, canada, will know about this program? we are notifying by letter 2.6

million people who are the subject of the recall. we are notifying be by letter hundreds and hundreds of people who have already notified gm that they this think that they were involved -- that they think they were involved in an injury or death claim involving the ignition switch. we'll send a letter to them. we also at the center for auto safety's personal usualing, we will notify -- urging, we will notify all former owners of these vehicles so that the former owners who no longer -- who sold their vehicle or traded it in or whatever, if they were subject to death can or physical injury, they can file a claim. it is going to be about as -- [inaudible] a notice program as we can come up with. and this was a big issue with ms. claybrook. and we plan to have as expansive

a notice program as we can on this. but remember this also: this program is limited to physical injury or death. i read in the newspaper that there are all sorts of lawsuits pending involving damage to automobiles, diminished value of the automobiles involved. that has nothing to do with this program. that is off on the side. we are not in any way involved with any economic property damage claims. this is strictly physical injury and death claims. julia. >> these numbers, i know that you -- thank you. when calculating the money that would two to these victims, i know you're looking at bureau of labor statistics, but just when you're starting with that baseline of one million or for the hospital stays, who came up with those numbers?

did gm give you those numbers? >> no. >> how did you reach them? and then i have a follow-up question. will these families be told to keep silent if they do sign and take the claim? >> entirely up to them. these families, if they decide that they want to call a press conference in taking this money is entire my up to the families -- is entirely up to the families. i wouldn't begin to impose any conditions on families. i've learned over the years that's none of my business, and they can do whatever they want. that is not my business. now, where do we get the numbers? these numbers aren't gm's numbers. these are numbers that camille byros and our team of modelers, economic modeling, we came up with these numbers. non-economic loss, $1 million for a death claim under track a. where did that come from? well, 9/11, which was a long time ago, that number was

$250,000 as an average settlement number for than economic loss. that number today is $750,000 average. we decided the number should be higher, and we went to $1 million. bob hilliard, bob hilliard, a lawyer in detroit and in texas and other lawyers as well, ms. cabresa and her colleagues, mark landier in texas all said even on a presumptive award -- we don't have to take it, but presumptively -- it ought to be more than that. $1 million. and the $300,000 is much more than 9/11 in the average as well. now, you also asked -- oh, the second question about silence or a condition. no such condition imposed on families at all. yes, ma'am. cnn? >> yeah, poppy harlow with cnn again. in looking at what you have done

in the past in terms of the bp oil spill and 9/11, they're different in that it was very clear who died as a result of the deepwater horizon rig explosion or who died as a result of 9/11. here can you talk to us about the process? i mean, are these victims and their families and their attorneys basically going to be holding court in front of you with you as is sole arbiter to decide? and also you talk about having to be expeditious in getting the money out. at the same time, in some of these cases there's a lot to pore through. how do you make that determination that the proximate cause was the ignition switch and also do it in the time frame you'd like? >> it's very, very difficult, it's a challenge. but now, don't, don't be misled into thinking that we didn't have the same problems in 9/11 and bp. we did. in 9/11 you'll recall the statute creating the program said that physical injuries had to occur in the, quote,

immediate vicinity, unquote, of the world trade center or the pentagon. and and that medical treatment had to be immediately thereafter. well, we ran into a storm of problems with first responders delaying their medical treatment -- >> [inaudible] in terms of deaths. >> well, the deaths, you're right. they were traumatic deaths, it was easier in 9/11. now, in bp, of course, we had a huge problem not with deaths, but with whether or not the economic damages were caused by the oil spill. this is a challenge. it is a challenge. the main problem we're going to have here and we'll work as we say right in the protocol to cure deficiencies is that so many of these accidents occurred long ago. the car is gone. and we've got to come up with circumstantial evidence that satisfies proximate cause. now, all of the menu of ways you do that we've laid out, but you're right.

speed is going to be challenged here while people collect information. and we'll work with them to try and do that as fast as we can. it is going to be a challenge, no question. >> [inaudible] with the "wall street journal." i just wanted a little bit more on the interaction with gm. you come up with a claim. i know that they'll be able to also give you information, but are you going to meet with them and sit down and talk about your methodology to coming up to it, or are you just sending them the claim and say pay it? >> read the section -- good question. the section in the protocol that gives the claimant and gm the opportunity to be heard. the claimant files a claim, that claim information doesn't go to gm. that stays with us. but we'll notify gm of the basic nature of the claims this week or whatever, a spread sheet that just says these are the claims. if they have any information that they want to present to us, if gm has any information that

they think would be helpful to us in making our decision, fine. i welcome either side providing me information as long as i'm not exchanging anything confidential. i'll give either side the opportunity to be heard. but here's the key in this protocol: once we make a decision, eligible x dollars, the protocol gives us sole, final discretion to do that. gm may not challenge it in court, gm may not reject it, gm may say that they think we made a mistake. that's fine, but they have to honor it. and they have to pay the claim. and they cannot refuse under the protocol to pay any final determination that we make on the grounds that it's a mistake. we heard you, gm, we respect your right to disagree. we've decided it, and that's the

end of it. yes, yes, sir. you're with to who? >> [inaudible] several of the members of congress investigating gm have sort of taken an interest in the victim compensation fund. did you meet with any members of congress or did you brief any of them sort of on the final protocol? is. >> i met and briefed the most visible, i think, one of the most visible members of congress, senator blumenthal of connecticut. extraordinarily helpful. i met him personally with his staff. he had written a letter to the justice department urging compensation. i met with him. he expressed certain views about helping claimants and some suggestions that he hoped i would follow up on which i have, and i welcome any input or think suggestions from members of congress other than senator blumenthal, and i'm glad to meet with them as well.

>> ken, phil lebeau with cnbc. quick question on your interaction with mary barra from general motors. how often did you talk with her in setting this up? can you characterize the nature of those conversations? >> i met with mary or spoke with her two or three times. almost all of my conversations involved other people at general motors, but i did meet with mary two or three times. absolutely 100 cooperative. ken, we want to do the right thing. general motors is a great company, we want to do right by those who are innocent victims, and general motors has been extremely helpful. i thought it very important not to limit our input from just general motors. i went to various plaintiff lawyers around the country and asked them what they thought about some of the features of this protocol, and, of course, the center for auto safety here this washington. but i must say general motors at

no time -- now, they don't agree with everything in this protocol. they signed on to it, and you'll have to ask them what they like and don't like about it, but they did sign off and approve it. they're paying the freight on this. but healthy debate, very open, transparent discussion, and i give general motors a lot of credit for participating in this program. no cap on the ago e are gate -- aggregate amount of money. that is so important. i've found that when there's an aggregate cap, inevitably a claimant will say you're giving me less because you have to save more to pay somebody else. it's human nature. with no aggregate cap, i can tell every claimant you don't have to worry about what somebody else is getting. there's no cap on this program, and you will get whatever you're entitled to. so, again, that's -- general motors waiving contribute, agreeing no contributory

negligence. general motors reopening old, settled claims and allowing people to to come into the program. general motors not using the bankruptcy bar as a, to undercut what would otherwise be meritorious claims. i can't speak to the history of this problem, but i can certainly speak to the last three months, and i must say mary barra and her colleagues at general motors, absolutely 100 percent cooperative. >> just a quick follow up. there's a section in the data there that you provided talking about the -- [inaudible] seat belt, so does that mean that if an airbag didn't deploy and someone was wearing their seat belt, they would be be ineligible? >> it is an and/or. all i've seen so far, airbag doesn't deploy, seat belts don't work either. but that's ap engineering issue, i'd have to see. i don't think it's likely that

airbag didn't deploy, but seat belts work so you're ineligible. we'll have to see based on the individual claim. i don't know, i think that's right. yes, sir, with who? >> [inaudible] >> wait for a microphone. >> i'll be asking the question, sir. >> i'm sorry. you're next. you're next. >> jim healey, "usa today." will all the awards be lump sum, or will some be structured settlements? >> that's up to the individual claimant and their lawyers and their accountants and their advisers. i wouldn't begin to require any conditions on how individual claim malts want to receive this money -- claimants want to receive this money. we'll do whatever they want, that is entirely up to them and their adviser. lou? >> thank you. you consulted data from federal

agencies. now, granted that no amount of money is going to compensate really for death. but d.o.t. has a policy, has a policy of $9.1 million for each, for the value of a statistical life. okay? and i'd like to know did you consider that when you arrived at your protocol, which i have not read yet? >> you haven't read the protocol yet? no, i don't believe we did. our experts may have, i don't know the answer to that. but i have an overall policy answer to that which is very important and something that the plaintiff lawyers around the country constantly remind me about. whatever that presumptive number might be in an individual case, if the claimant or her or his lawyer aren't comfortable with

that number, they have the option under the protocol of going track b, presenting information like that that will result, in their mind, in raising the overall value of the award. we will look at it, we will examine it, we will meet with the claim planted or her or his -- claimant or her or his lawyer, and we will try and work that out. if the track a number is deemed by any claim planted in a particular -- claimant in a particular case to be insufficient. ..

no evidence yet it is a gm car or and ignition switch freely come anything like that. they are just combining these. we will take a look at those. [inaudible] >> names of people? >> what. [inaudible] any of the questions here? yes, sir. with who? [inaudible] >> a question about the second category of injuries -- >> catastrophic? >> no, described them as more moderate injuries. it looks like the death claims and the more catastrophic

injuries, associate with them come is that the case for the lower category of entries? if you lost an arm or an eye and you couldn't go to work? >> well, no, no. if you lost an arm or and i and you couldn't go to work, these less serious injuries are limited to how long you are in the hospital and that is all. if you lost and i are -- lost an arm and you don't think you can go to work for three months or six months and you're in the hospital for 30 days, you'll get a flat amount of $500,000, and that is it. that is all in and that is for the hospital session over the last arm. >> so if the injury did prevent you from going back to work at all in that profession -- >> you may opt out of this program if you think it's too little, indicate that plan. any other questions? i want to -- okay. i want to thank everybody.

i appreciate this. it's a complex program but i think it's easy to apply, and after this press conference if anybody has any other questions about the mechanics of how you will file online, by mail, what is expected, where to go to get 1-800 information. my colleague will be here until we get the edge those questions as well.

♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

died.islands and has he served in the u.s. senate from 1981 to 1983. are two that he was a member of the illinois state legislature before later serving as the state treasurer and secretary of state. wrote a memoir that was published water, the gentleman from illinois.

alan dixon was 86 years old. the endowment is the largest amount. it is pretty healthy. it is just shy of 6 million. to put that in death, there is the eurogroup in there at 6 billion. therd represents a group pinnacle of the nation's endowment. they have a $6 million one goin og on right now. if we're going to aspire to have that kind of facilities to produce that, you have to have a n investment. you in a you and you are in a

and you >>. aa look at the situation in iraq area by then jim and jensen from american university -- by benjamin jensen. let's start with the outlook on the future of iraq with militants proclaiming islamic state in iraq and syria and leaders of iraq, that kurdish is going from a referendum -- is calling for a referendum. is it possible iraq could break into three different countries? >> that's a great question and on the ground, iraq is already broken into up to three countries. for a long time coming you had the kurds having a defective

state in the north and this got stronger as they searched for exports further crude oil. toy grew closer and closer turkey that has energy demands. independente facto kurdish governing area that is increasingly distant from baghdad. with the advance of isil is sunni tribes in a negative coalition, groups opposed to a malaki-dominated shiite government and baghdad formally controlling -- formerly -- formally controlling territories but it is gaining significant pace as they marched to encircle baghdad and established itself by declaring a califet,. host: there is a full page spread them "the washington post," how we found maliki and lost iraq.

that's the name of the piece. what is your take on the future of maliki? guest: that is a must read piece. it really walks you through the detailed history of how the complex politics of how you find local leaders and groom them when you are involved in a clump -- in a complex counterinsurgency mission and how the facts on the ground and rapidly shift. that story draws out that mailiki was eric ally at one point. this was our ally at one point. maliki rapidly turned to iran. in effect, iran exerts significantly more influence over him than the united states could ever dream of asserting. this causes a much more difficult problem. if it's a regional war, what

side you choose? there are no good options for the united states right now. host: the piece ends by saying -- what is the u.s. role in iraq right now? what's your outlook of what the u.s. needs to do to help iraq? move tof you actually support malik he under the auspices of maintaining a stable iraq, and a rack all iraqi citizens, that that's a united states and these factions need willrk out -- maliki

somehow become more inclusive but the article points out that that is a dream. it's not likely to come to fruition. you have the dilemma that any action taken to support maliki will only further alienate sunnis and possibly kurds. supporting him is not necessarily an option. going against them is not necessarily an option because who do you support? if you overtly support the kurds, you have the possibility of the iraq he state formally cracking into three states and that has a huge precedents for syria. who do you support on the sunni side? the fact that that site has been crushed and driven to a gymnast cap does not present a viable individual to present himself. host: is this one of the wars within the wars that you have written about before? thewrote about that with battle of falluja earlier this year. does it apply to them? guest: absolutely, iraq is a

microcosm for the larger struggle playing out for the future of the middle east. this is a great power political game that pits the gold states against iran -- the gulf states against iran. in syria and increasingly the fight in iraq is not about syria or iraq -- it's about iran and about containing iran. that is the other side of the dilemma. has ongoingtates diplomatic efforts to try to come to a comprehensive nuclear dear with iran. how to come to a deal with iran when you are simultaneously backing groups that are fighting iranian proxies in syria and you have iranian volunteers? we had the first iranian officer this week pop up dead fighting to defend the shrine. how do you negotiate with iran for a larger comprehensive nuclear deal while also seeing iran formalize its military commitments in iraq and fighting in syria? host: we are talking with

benjamin jensen from american university school of international service. take your calls and comments as we talk about iraq and the future of iraq. the phone lines are open -- fromll start with dave rome, georgia on our line for independents. caller: good morning and thank you. we never talk about the iraq war being alive. the surge was a failure and that's the cause of the problem. during the surge, billions of dollars was paid to these sunnis. once these people left and they stop paying them, all of this began to rise up again. the united states did not

actually win the surge. the surge was won by the sunni awakening, the same people disgruntled by what al malik is doing. we headed out billions of dollars in these people were giving out money like candy. can you respond to what happened during the surge and how much money was paid out to these people? how do you think these people are going to maintain this without this money? al maliki took the money out. call: thank you for that and helping us think about the complex strategic history of the search. at one level, you are slightly wrong in that the surge was an initial success. the immediate goal of the surge was to put sufficient troop strength on the ground to enable some type of larger political solution. separate from the surge but closely linked with the idea of

thealambar awakening was an the status quo. to call the sunni tribes the same as the isil is a bit of a misnomer. you are highlighting the complexity in modern war. ever rapidly shifting alliances on the ground that we find ourselves forced to deal with now even though we are technically out of iraq. is upwards possibly of 600 u.s. servicemen on the ground and we are establishing joint operation centers and most of the mission is advisory and assessments to figure out what the heck can we do and we can support and how to generate intelligence. please note that these are different groups but the problem's the same. when you start to put cash into a battlefield and start to actually try to make alliances, the fight against your enemies, it will blow up in your face occasionally. host: professor jensen joining

us this morning. michael is up next in biloxi, mississippi. why would we go against isis when they refused to be associated with al qaeda? depend on what you mean by go against them, if you mean deploying u.s. brigade teams to

control the battle on iraq i would have a trouble involving that level of voluntarily, involvement but if you mean turning the attention of a systematic high profile targeting mission in afghanistan where we use intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance assets on the air to identify leaders, we also go after their money with treasury, i think that clearly is already happening with isil and needs to escalate, these individuals had european passports, american passports and the most cohesive group that we have seen. they makin make al qaeda at moms look like amateurs. they produce corporate brochures. this is a group that will cause strategic problems for the region and the united states. after making a rare public speech and a video of him showing up of that speech, calling on the men in mosul to escalate the holy war and a picture of him from the washington post story this morning on the topic.

on isis, and the twitter, all of the trouble, how was isis able to do what they have done. this is a great question and i think you are to step out of iraq and away from isil and isis, it is really iraq, really the islamic state in iraq and greater syria which tells you about their aspirations and think about modern warfare. and just like you are able to use computers, accessible servers, basically information calls are cheap to companies for billions of dollars, the same thing is happening in warfare. groups like isil can actually grow rapidly because they can tap into the information technologies and spread their message, they can generate momentum, so i don't think it is that the intelligence community wasn't tracking them. i think what happened is that they were caught

>> tomorrow, a journalist roundtable. as usa today rick porter jane o'donnell talks about the helped her a lot and need for additional primary care doctors. robin harding discusses the role of the export/import in. you can join the conversation on twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> tomorrow, the new america foundation looks at nsa surveillance and lmi the compromise on the internet. the -- how it might be compromise on the internet and e-business f 4:00 pm eastern on c-span33.

later we will hear on a preview of the coming nato summit ends up denver. he will bestow a king at the atlantic council in washington dc live coverage begins at 5:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. let's really internet content should remain free from regulation. it is like confusing the conversation. of course we won the conversation to the free and unregulated. the have always made pathways they open. today we have the regulated phone system. they make sure the pathway is available, nondiscriminatory and therefore everyone. let it is crucial to think about whether the platforms remain

open. the internet has grown up in a net work for anyone can communicate. it's a company can give access .o the network you can make google and facebook a huge business. >> our opinions on the open internet policy and the speed of web traffic on monday night. >> coming up next, newsmakers with the canadian ambassador to the u.s.. discussion on the international community's response to war crimes being committed in syria. as 8:00, q&a. >> this week on "newsmakers," the canadian ambassador to the united states, and in studio, we have josh letterman of the associated press and ben geiman.