what is your hope that he will and that executive order what is your best estimation of actually do? >> tell us who you are and what do for a living. [laughter] [laughter] > i was in honduras in '96 and i was traveling. careful.d me be polite.d, please be t that time it was not so

violent what is the relation all the people that have 3, 4, ported in the last years and the increase in violence? you. >> two short questions related. respect to the coyotes, who pays the coyote? the family in the united states receiving or is it family in the region, a combination perhaps. manuel, you've had some -- your on that. some light and second of all, i'm emphasis on your

development because at the ottom -- at the roots of all this is really the problem of the political economic of these countries. of critique would you have interamerican bank and national of rs, et cetera in terms their emphasis and follow through on this development issue? you might put that in the context of the countries hemselves, their own sort of approach. do you want to start us off this side? >> sure. i will take some questions and i aght defer to manuel, perhaps one.lation n terms of president obama and will he pass? what are our hopes of passing an order.ive we are hoping for the last eight

years that this will happen or greater would have happened in the first half of his presidency when he could it. done politically if -- we sort of see this as -- politically we feel position ton a good do it and that we -- we think of his ome to the end presidency not having to risk and he ion he could should, right, proceed with something. some of the more likely forms of could that we think likely happen would be a sort of deferred action that was given to the youth now action g that deferred to their parents. that would probably not help all 11 million people in the country

a greatill sort of list number of people out of undocumented status. now the problem is that him on administrative relief or executive -- any executive fearing and re we've seen this through some and phone conferences they fear losing seats in november. and so politically the president s still sort of kind of gauging, right, whether he should or shouldn't. and time again already that he's been sort of coming out periodically over the last few months making a public statement. so we strongly feel that he's in get d position to finally

something done. nd politically it's the only able to do ight be as much as he's able to because f fear of backlash from the other side or seeming easy or less restrictive on immigration, of this idea he's going to open up the border so he'll give amnesty. i'll leave it there. want me to -- the easy ones. the data said it's not here so i answer the specifics of your correlation question. deportation, to u can't generalize about violence.

45% of homicide are gang related. only 5% in hon durs. the minority of homicide in honduras are drug cartel related. you are dealing with different population groups. with dwat mall la about 20% are gang related. the rest is coming from undies closed association to organized crime because it is not drug cartels. it is a lot of extortion networks that are composed of five people and there might be 1,000 of them across the entire country. people who ask to you get paid n extortion, not in cash but with phone cards. now there are prepaid cards that are being used for those activities. i have a very serious problem

talk about the northern triangle countries because it's a term that was actually used during the cold war to trofere completely different circumstances and now it's being extrapolated as if the three countries are having the same problems and they are not. on the question about who pays. the payment takes place in the home country and people carry cash as a contingency in the likelyhood of some emergency. this in some cases and is tricky and problematic because in some cases you might be talk about 3% of the cases, we don't know exactly. there is a lot of kidnapping. once you've been taken to the u.s. and a lot of the kidnapping

occurs in facilities by trafficking networks in the united states, in texas and places like that. nd they are getting paid using wire transfer companies. not that the company is in the business but it's the quickest way to get paid. this is something nobody is looking into it. it's a political one. but if there is human trafficking taking place, it's taking place in the united states. so this is an issue that nobody is paying attention but the organizations in mexico that have been working for years to deal with the problem of relief to people who are kidnapped were beaten up because they were not able to pay and a lot of it happening in arizona and texas in holding facilities by the networks. and finally, the follow through. i think the follow through is a

by product of politics in terms usaid.loping strategy of all of the members of the washington consensus have different views on what to do on development. those contrasting views have seldom coins sided and they are not prepared to work together. the central american governments unfortunately are always expecting to be told what approach to take. so what approach central america took the approach of developing clusters. and it was to develop non-traditional exports. central america is growing now and r drivers, migration christina aguilera exports.

- ago gri culture exports. that's what the economy runs by. so the models relatively obsolete because it relies on unskilled labor forces. why people like the world bank don't -- they know there is a limitation. why is there not a shift? i don't think -- it would be simplistic to say what's wrong with these guys. and it's not that easy. because you want immediate resolve and immediate resolve you see visiblely is increasing export markets. expanding market access. and you see it in a matter of quantitative perspective. increase unemployed people in

the labor force opening new markets and you do that in the industries. unfortunately that is something that blinds you. and then the central american government dozen lack a vision of the right developing strategy. departmentized to the approach more thuroughly. i'm a maryland state delegate . my question was partially answered by your last response and it's a concern that i think we are not yet dealing with the larger issue of the crisis. i think that everything you said

something oms of very serious that needs attention in our countries. i was in el salvador recently and i was quite surprised at the lack of attention that this issue was getting by the government officials as well as with the legislators. i asked to debrief. there wasn't really that much interest usually on immigration, i have opportunities to share a lot with the legislature being a legislator myself. then all of a sudden it appeared that there was a summit. unfortunately i was down there. we had been calling with a group here for a summit because we

think there needs to be a regional perspective and politically it even helps to take the decision away from congress and from obama. but again i was down there. i don't know if there is anything that resulted from the summit. it was not that well covered. so my question is: being that there needs to be a broader regional view, what is it that we can be pointing to here to make this issue more of a topic with our international agencies, with our u.s. agencies because i've also personally seen the shift in investment in el salvador away from tall social

issues, education, health not even mentioned. and the money that is being provided targeted to that approach. i think we're completely missing the in depth understanding of what are the next steps, what kind of solutions we need to take. and i think they need to be addressed both here and in laten america because our countries are so different, i'm afraid there is not going to be a united view. but i'm appalled they are not even talking among themselves. it's as if under the circumstances a different problem. i know it's a long winded question. >> we'll get a long winded answer for you. is it that every time we ask for donations for hurricanes nd things like that we get it?

how many hispanic families would be willing to donate money? how many hispanic companies, how many states would be willing to donate? why not ask them instead of the , why ment taking tall pot not show what a great country we are. retired foreign service officer with service in south america. for a couple of years director for the center for immigration studies. question i have you touched on it but i wonder and your presentations have been fantastic in putting these enormous issues together and

seeing how they fit. i am wondering if though there isn't some stimulus coming particularly for the children. i don't know whether it would be nepharious, not necessarily of the coyotes promoting more business by getting these kids involved or people encouraging and want the u.s. government to do something about all of this torks get the children involved to embarrass us and to make us a little bit more forthcoming. i'm just wondering if that is part of the stimulus from somewhere. >> take one more right here. >> international trade and ommunications corporation. the central american countries

know what the coat tess are are doing.es why isn't there legislation to stop these people. the human trade is trading with hildren. >> i'm going to touch on the last two questions first. i think that's my question all along. why -- what are the central american governments doing? i think i made the distinction between coyotes and traffickers. the coyotes are there because there is a need to have somebody to mediate in the process to cross the border. and there is not a force process.

now i don't know what would be the implications of stopping them. but definitely something has to be done about that. at the very least, the government should be able to detect these networks and break them down. , the k more importantly issue of the stimulus that you talk about, i think that's definitely a by product of presence of coyotes, etc. i meanwhile violence is driving, developing is driving, a demand for foreign labor in the united states is driving migration. ere is something of an opportunity when the network of intermediaries is easily accessible. and you can't deny that.

so i think you point -- i think your point is well taken. there is definitely an element of fact in the sense that coyotes do a very good marketing job at this. on can argue that they prey mystery. i don't think they do it to embarrass government. i was able to -- i don't know ow to say it in english. on your question what to tell. i think there are three things one can tell. you have to hold central american goveps accountable and we are not doing that totally. the central american presidents with all due respect, it was a little of a shame.

i think you have to hold them accountable on different basis. someone migration is occurring because people are not getting the right solutions in their home countries. takeaway the united states debate that there is a demand for foreign labor. i can demonstrate there is one. but then if you make migration a , oice rather than a necessity people will think twice. the second issue is that it's important to take on a developing strategy in the region that requires a lot of commitment from the united states international community and the central american governments. and we are not short of ideas and solutions on how to implement that strategy. what is central is to put

central america in the path economy not make the export market the only growth for the region. that's why focus on the labor force is really important. and the third element is one needs to integrate migrants in many ways to eliminate entry for them to invest in their home country, to increase production through trade. to increase mobilization in their home countries both for them and their families. it's a wealth of money that is mostly formal that hasn't been dealt with because of neglect from central american governments. and so i think that's the kind of message one needs to provide. >> to that i would just add that

the idea that sort of we need to sort of work -- look at central america in a silo and then use the united states in another silo is i think should be obsolete. i think we need to be able to look at the region together. we share a lot of the work force. we share a lot of sort of this kind of flow of goods, flow of people. i think yes, we do need to hold central american governments accountable. but just as much as we need to be able to hold our own government accountable. so i feel like you can't speak of one without speaking of the other. and i think that there really needs to be more political will on behalf of both sides. here needs to be more -- a

different approach that is taken in terms of how we deal with migration in the general sense of the word. our country here hasn't done anything, as i said, in the last 20 years to allow people to migrate in a legal manner. , so when our president central american president and our own come and meet and speak and i was i wasn't a little ashamed. i was a lot ashamed we had predicted nothing would come out of that meeting unfortunately. it's sad. there is no political will on behalf of either and the region needs to be looked at as a whole. as consumers and as american people we need to be more

vigilant in terms of how our tax dollars get used. that's is back on us. where are we ininvesting, how are we ininvesting it? why are we throwing billions of dollars to the border and we're still where we're at today? that's the larger question i would ask ourselves is how can we sort of but our advocacy hats on tighter and get out there and take a critical look at how ore own government is spending our own money. >> thank you. >> you start off this round. with uld not agree more the last two comments. i think that unless you address not only development in these countries why the violence is

taking place, it has to do with the drug consumption in the united states. we are guilty on the drug con sullings and weapon side. something have to be done. why doesn't the u.s. government talk to these dwovement more effectively to get something done? one last point, nobody has mentioned mexico and the obligations they have to do with the train. inaudible] in your on i think conversations with migrants, did you talk to people who had come without human smugglers and if so what characteristics do they

have? what country did they come from? do they tend to be poor? that's all. we are a human rights organization and we are working closely with commission of human rights addressing this issue. i have the two questions about mexico. if you could expand a little bit about the problem with mexico migration of children because this has been silent, the problem. and as far as i understand the situation has allowed officers to deport mexican children in even 24 hours so they don't even go to court. and the second question i had was related to violence. we have identified violence with

drugs and unorganized crime but there is also state violence that mrs. garcia mentioned a little bit about. we have heard about people fleing from their countries because there is violence from the army or from state police. have you identified any of you both have you identified any of those cases with any of the people you are talking to because these will deal with different issues of protection than only refugee protection fleing for violence related issues, it would arouse the issue of torture and domestic violence. we have heard about cases of domestic violence as also a reason for fleeg out of the country and these will relate to the institutional response by the state with a lack of judiciary with a weak state police and judiciary, people are afraid of going to their

governments. >> you said 34r than 80% of the children who come stay with family. i wonder how much is family reunification if the family had the possibility of bringing those children to the u.s. >> one last question and then to respond. >> the government of el salvador, you talk about have a in 1996 they

program to insert themselves in the economy -- >> i've seen the power point. >> they have the vision to upgrade the skill of the youth and education. so the problem in laten america, i'm not talking from the world bank. we have changes in the government and sometimes when you are building something you destroy something [indiscernible] . >> just to answer quickly on the children. -- so the what some children already have some blood relatives here. and so it could be a mom or dad or uncle or aunt. doesn't have to be an immediate

parent. but so what is hang is they are being placed in housing site run by institutions like heartland aligns that gets federal dollars from hhs and they are waiting trial. they are awaiting trial for their court preegged. and what we as advocates are seing is that because the children are now being given access to legal counsel, initially there are some children who have been deported because of this hard line approach to the coming of the children in large numbers from central america, appearing tough on illegal migration if you will . that was being swept under the carpet. the immediate due process of that. kid were not being given. so it's not until now that providers and legal

organizations nationally are sort of rallying around this issue to ensure that children are being given a legal representation. and perhaps there is some relief. as u.n. report noted is a lot of these children could potentially have access to some form of relief here. because they are not going through the channels of having legal counsel, we are not necessarily knowing because the child has gone through a dangerous journey. he's not going to tell you x and y has happened to me. it's a blur. so you have to give the child some time to recuperate from that dramatic experience and be able to talk to attorneys and social workers, etc. that's a big gap that we're trying to address right now. other organizations and ourselves. in terms of sort of like what is

the mexican government doing, not a lot. unfortunately i wish i had a better answer. ey themselves haven't been responsible i guess in terms of seeing for their own migrants. there are people that are migrating from mexico to the united states. they have i think responded, i think the latest i was reading on the mexican president was responding to this crisis by sending more troops to the southern border. exact thri same model we're utilizing in the united states which we have seen not work. 700 mile board and there is a lot of patchy areas. it's very forested and it's impossible to man or militarize the entire board just likes the

impossible to do it here. the other thing they try to do is stop the train. but how is that exactly supposed to get to the core root of the problem? stop the train which say train that traverses all of mexico which migrants jump on and off of. not nearly enough in that regard. and the question of sort of corruption and military and officials being impolice it in this entire web of corruption and trafficking. it's a blur. i don't know if he has better data on that but as far as we can see under the circumstances a blur. so families and children aren't necessarily ready to kind of spill all and name individuals or be at free will to be able to

denounce if there are authorities 1r068d, we know that there -- involved. we know that there are but we haven't seen a way that can be proven thus far. >> i'm just going to touch on the question on the human rights issue. it's very hard to make this distinction, especially in a country like these. political violence occurs when the use of force is used by a security and authorities in a country to achieve a political gain or a political aim. in that very strict sense of the word, there are many cases of violence taking place politically motivated.

after the coup there has been a lot of cases. what the scale of it is,s the one in 1,000. now the next step is migration. and in that case, under the circumstances a very hard issue to demonstrate especially when we're talk about the u.s. legal system. we're not dealing with refugee but asylum claims. where you have to demonstrate that you are escaping for fear of your life. and you may be escaping because police forces, security forces threaten you but not for political reasons, they were doing it for reasons associated to organized crime. that makes it a little difficult. however, i think it still constitutes if you escape gang violence, if you demonstrate

it, it can constitute ground for asylum. there are other grounds when you can demonstrate. the problem is how many people that escape, that left their home countries able to demonstrate thate effectively. this is why some groups are are talking about refugee status because the situation is one of a critical mass of people who re just simply leaving in mass given they fear for their lives. none of the people we have lked to came without a smuggler. so we read reports where they say about half of people don't use a smuggler to cross a border. we haven't come across with that to be the case. that -- iher issue is

lost the train of thought. h the train. when you look at the numbers, it's perhaps might be one in four or five people who use the train. so the issue is not the train alone but the whole journey itself that gets people through the united states from mexico. i'm a by product of the cold war. i left my country for political reasons and crossed the board in the 1980's. and train or no train, i was going to leave the country. so i think we are going through the same experiences today but in different circumstances. >> i think we're going to have

to call it a day. i want to thank you and your team for your report and the presentation today. thank you very much for your bringing a different perspective than we usually discuss here. thanks very much. let's give them a >> veterans health care was one of the key issues congress worked on this year. our prime time programming .onight will include highlights here is part of one of the hearing. i think the v.a. has a potential to be one of the finest institutions in the world. --have seen certain aspects the pharmacy cannot be matched. it is very efficient.

many things are efficient within our system. ourselves,uld ask when someone came up with the idea of seeing a veteran in 14 days, that sounded like a good idea. that veterans should be seen promptly. what we should be questioning is if we made a mistake and overloaded the system. how come people's names disappear off lists? how come hundreds of thousands of veterans you electronically no longer existed. that should be the question. retaliation exists because of the culture. this culture of retaliation, that is really the cancer to the veterans administration. most positions -- most physicians and nurses and people working in the hospital are disgusted. people come up to me all the time and say, "that happened here?"

when i heard some of the testimony i heard from the phoenix v.a., it was gut wrenching. i could not sleep. i believe there are a lot of people within the v.a. system that feel the same way. cancer withints a leadership. a few individuals that perpetuate this idea that we should be silent. that we should not stand up and do the right thing and be honest. everyone makes mistakes. but when you make a mistake and you try to conceal it, that is really the question we should be asking. who are these individuals who will alter data and hide the truth and prevent patient care? primetime special on veterans health care is tonight at 8:00 eastern. several live events to tell you about. the world war i centennial commission will be at the national press club to talk

about legislation for a memorial in washington, d.c. a.m. eastern.00 at noon, the cato institute how thediscussion about affordable care act is administered. later, the pew charitable trust focuses on unaccompanied immigrant children on the second anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, allowing young immigrants to work legally in the u.s. for two years. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. now, more about u.s. operations in iraq from "washington journal ." this is half hour. on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. , from theconnable rand corporation, retired military intelligence officer, iraq.g us to discuss

is the air campaign so far working? guest: so far right now it has a tactical purpose, to protect the civilians trapped in the mountains and to prevent isis from penetrating to a relatively secure area in the north. and it looks like it is succeeding in stopping the islamic state now from moving. what is the larger strategy here? have startedat we bombing, now that we have entered into central combat with them, what is the long-term plan? the president articulated the trueof an iraqi problem, to an extent, but if you are killing people there has to be a long-term purpose behind it. right now i feel there is still an open debate about what the long-term strategy is. host: you did not support the idea of airstrikes in iraq? why was that?

it ties back into what the president said. this is an iraqi problem. norio malik he has been unable to articulate long-term solution for sunni uprising. because they are completely disenfranchised, because the government has been unable to show them a different path forward and show them an alternative, they will probably just keep fighting whether they it -- we are bombing or not. headline today, talking about the bombing campaign going -- "the heavy fighting makes it -- host: what happens when some of these targets start to dry up? when the u.s. does not have more targets to bomb? butt: a great question, even trickier, we are not even sure that this longs to i asked

-- i.s. they are linked to the baath party. we may accidentally or non-intionally be bombing groups. there may be a point where this dries up, but right now we need to be very considerate of who we are killing. what affect does that have on the sunni community? i would guess that most of them do not support malaki -- i.s. written before the divisions exist within the .slamic state can you talk about it those divisions still exist and if they can be exploited by the united states usher mark -- united states? ?

guest: the real divisions that we want to focus on are the ones between i.s. and other groups. if we can do that, show the sunnis that there is another way forward, we might be able to help tear them away. can you talk about your experience on the ground? you were in country there. i have stayed in touch with a lot of those folks by e-mail and phone. they have made it clear that they do not want to separate from the rest of the rock -- the rest of my rock -- the rest of rack -- -- the rest the the rest of iraq. the problem is there is no alternative for these folks.

host: ben connable will be with us for the next 40 minutes or so as we continue to discuss the .ewish and in iraq you can call in with your questions and comments. host: a look at how the sunnis are viewing the campaign right about thean you talk relationship to the kurds? this is a fascinating opportunity. up until about three weeks ago we would have assumed that the kurds were back to declaring independence and that the iraqi government appeared to be moving further away from supporting them. now that we see that they have

been incapable of protecting their own people to a certain extent, the prime minister is coming in the support. there might be a realization within the community that there is still a to stay within the iraqi state, good news for people who vision that whole and its future as a successful future. that is a positive step. an opportunity. it can still fall through. nobody envisioned that i.s. would be half an hour away from them at any point in this year. host: what about the people saying that iraq should be about separating? when you --guest: when you talk with the sunni, you realize why they don't want to be a separate country. they tend to view themselves as iraqi first.

some of them believe that they should control the iraqi state. view, that, that kind of believe propelled them forward to try to stay within the state. there are few resources within the provinces, like embarq -- on the natural resources in the country, this would impoverish them permanently. the: how do you bridge divide between sunnis, shia, and kurds in the new government formation in baghdad? guest: i wish i knew. the trick is having a prime minister with a vision for the whole state. it will be difficult for some of them to recognize that they are a minority. it may be many decades in the coming. but right now it does not look like the prime minister has that

vision and we are hoping that either he will have a 180 degree shift in perspective or that someone else will come into print -- to persuade him. last 24 hours we have heard the term coup being thrown around in baghdad. guest: that is strong language. , it looksster malaki like he won the election. coup.d not call that a to the irrational mood to make sure he retains power in a country like that. it is not necessarily what i would want to focus on. ben connable is with the radcom -- rand corporation. dd on twitter wants to know more about the random or parisian. can you explain more about these -- think tankoups groups, she asks? don't that's funny, we

think of ourselves as think tanks. we are supposed to be providing objective, nonpartisan viewpoints on deep, long-term problems. host: [indiscernible] what do you do there -- what do you do there, specifically? guest: intelligence issues. calling in from charlestown, rhode island, the line for republicans. good morning. this is where the problem started. bremmer went over there and the first time he was there he kicked out the sunnis running the government and they did a pretty good job. malik he gets in there, he is a shiite. he is aligned with iran. the sunnis were a buffer for us. they were the more congealed, the more democratic art of all of it rack. i don't think you should be bombing them now. i really believe that malik he just has to get out of there.

he is turning the country upside down. we could not negotiate with him. we couldn't do anything with him. i believe the sunnis are the backbone of a rack, really. i will take my answer off the air. --guest: those are great points. the prime minister really blew his opportunity to bring with the shiatate on top with 60% of the population. he really had an opportunity to show the sunnis and the kurds that they had a place inside a new state. he has done everything to further their sense of disenfranchisement. i am not sure that the answer is , but i think state the leadership could do more to be inclusive. host: was there a straw that

broke the camels back in terms of losing the sunnis? when did the prime minister lose their conference -- confidence? in his shoes.ot i was there at the time. army was probably serious. law, it hasnto really kind of followed the iraqis past the border. is still using the process to disenfranchise the sunni political movements. he has actively sought to fracture the political leadership. movementsent protests he has moved very aggressively the military and security

forces to physically fracture the heart of the population. is next.gon steve, independent line. good morning. my question about the kurdish minority, if we give arms to the kurds, isn't there an issue potentially where they kurds inr way to the turkey? how would that work? guest: a good question. the turks and the kurds have been on a path towards effecting reconciliation is years. it would be hard-pressed to take any weapons that we give them to employ them against isis. giving them weapons is not the same thing as arming them. if you can someone a rifle, you

need to spend months training them. kurds probably know how to use a rifle, but when we talk about advanced artillery and other types of complex weapons that require service, that is not something that you can simply do overnight. the effectiveness not only against isis but the turkish targets is limited. host: alan is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a two-part question and i think they fit together. the first part, your opening remarks, you made the comment seemeds. -- that malaki unable to find a way to bring all of these groups together. that cause me to ask -- is he unable or unwilling? the second part is -- it seems to me that we are willing to spend anything, any amount, to

build democracy in iraq. that maybe a me rack does not want to accept the democracy we are forcing upon them. am i wrong? i will take my comments off the air. great questions. first of all, if you look at the , heory of nouri al-maliki grew up and became who he is under an oppressive system. he was the oppressed minority in iraq for a long time. there is a certain amount of survivor mentality that comes along with that. unable or unwilling? he is probably both at this point. he may not be the right person to carry a rack forward -- carry a rock forward -- carry you rock iraq forward.ry

they all have the potential to represent themselves about living under brutal dictatorships. one palestinian negotiator once said that if you don't think that arabs can be part of a democracy, you are racist. i'm not sure -- well, i would take it that far. all people are capable. how much should be invested? the iraqis are capable. the definition of democracy in iraq may look different than the it shouldtes, but include the protection of minorities, which is not strict rebuilds into the constitution at this moment. a fundamental problem with the state there. these comments from "the new york times," "starting at the top."

that?you agree with [video clip] broken system and the politicians are beholden to constituencies that really are not even clear paralyses. -- per -- pluralities. as are badly fragmented there for the leadership is also fragmented on the don't know who they represent or if they represent in the body. i recently spoken to sunni tribal leaders who say they have very little corrosive powers and that's true of many of the shia leaders of the have to make some bold statements and many of times those statements don't make sense. host: if you talk to people since the u.s. air campaign? guest: they're all very busy right now. host: we will talk about this for the next hour or so. in herndon,abdullah virginia, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span.

my comment goes to lindsay graham. john mccain has been defeated. obama wants to end the war but that had consequences. --ther comment is [inaudible] people like myself who have cell mosts -- obama remains the popular president in the united states in my opinion. to make sureicans they reach out to minorities more. otherwise they will not when a general election. . host: he brings up lindsey

,raham and senator john mccain two senators have been -- who have been critical about the decision to pull troops out of iraq. it's a question with her viewers this morning -- should the u.s. have kept forces in iraq beyond 2011? what are your thoughts? guest: i think it could've gone either way. it could have failed if we kept forces there. we could've been drawn into combat. there could be people criticizing the president for that decision as well. i don't think there was probably any good decision there. if we had kept troops there, we would have also had a more senior title x military presence with his the department of defense authorized military presence which would have allowed us to have authority over the iraqi military. not only is there no political solution presented but they are not being offered anything at the tactical level.

there's a difference between counterinsurgency and counter guerrilla warfare. counterinsurgency shows that the but thent is legitimate iraqi government has been in engaging in counter guerrilla warfare. that's the campaign the iraqi army is conducting now. perhaps if we had been there, we would have been able to influence that. host: on the question of whether we should have left their -- let's troops there, should the u.s. have looked toward other decisions as far as pulling out an whether to leave troops? guest: in 2010, we published a study where we look at the dynamics of insurgency. the one thing that rang true across most of the cases we looked at was that the insurgency never really ends --il the group that causes the root causes of the problem are addressed. s the disenfranchisement of theunni is the issue.

nothing was addressed when we left, i think we would have a plate have some kind of -- we would probably have some kind of fracture down the road. host: matt is up next in concord, new hampshire on our line for independents. toler: good morning, i want make a quick statement --: pel one said you break it, you own it. we went to iraq on false pretenses and gave them trillions of dollars worth of equipment and training. now we have isis with the most advanced tanks in the world in their possession. how can these people who are supposedly terrorists, uneducated, anil is right, how can they get a tank and run it? it blows my mind that we are now bombing our own equipment. the republicans run around and claim we are broke and that the country is bankrupt when we gave away trillions of dollars. i live in the state of new

hampshire, one point 4 million population, we have 600 homeless veterans living in the woods. it's about time the united states starts leaving their own democracy back. i appreciate what the rand corporation does and i read a lot of your reports. i firmly believe you are an intelligent person and you are rational and the rand corporation as a whole is very nonpartisan. i agree with that. we sent our toys and girls over there and they come back with massive scars. i helpthese homeless -- these homeless vets and they live in the woods because they are frightened and scared and society does not accept them anymore. why don't we just let iraq and the middle east kill each other and when they are done killing each other, maybe we can straighten it out then. i served in iraq and i have many close friends who are

veterans and many of them suffer a great deal. i certainly sympathize and i will leave it at that. in terms of the armor, i did not know that they had seized abrams tanks. that's a also billion they are concentrated in one director division for the most part. from what i have seen in open source reporting and on youtube videos is that the is fighters have seized t-55 tanks or versions below that. those are not the most advanced tanks and their typically versions of those tanks that are really barely functional. they don't have advanced sightings of a are fairly easy to use and operate. their use across the african continent and the middle east by the regular fighters. they do present a good target. is fightersl running these tanks? humvees werms of the

have seen, are these the most advanced humvees that have been on the battlefield? what do we know about the specific u.s. equipment? marine, thisetired is kind of funny because they are all kind of mediocre. humvees are just trucks. you can slap any kind of armor you want on them and put any weapon you want on them. at the end of the day, they can be taken out with midrange arms like machine guns. i'm not that concerned about the equipment they have. even if they had advanced tanks, we can deal with that. that's not the problem. the problem is population and interaction with a population. the problem is the support they have. not theer of gravity is armor and the equipment and technology, it's the people. areong as the sunni

disenfranchised, that's what we have to work on. host: from columbia, south carolina, on -- john and our line for independentss. this guy does not seem to see the forest for the trees. he is talking about sunni and sh kurds and al-maliki. these are the trees. are trying to kill christians on the mountaintop. the intelligence committee should wake up to that. we're a country of open borders. in about two weeks, we will have 100,000 people surrounding a 100 yard football field and how easy a target is that? these people have to concentrate on stuff like that, thank you. clearly, we are doing everything we can. the islamic people are killing

shia and sunni. they are doing it across iraq. they have probably killed for mark hello muslims than they have christians. i take your point, it is something we are concerned about. that was the trigger for the president to act. yet i think we should be equally concerned about the fact they are killing muslims. it's not because we want to invest ourselves in every single problem around the world. stepping back here, there is a much bigger question, not much the -- not just the unity of a wreck but what the instability in fracturing of a rock visa tiddle east and how would i affect the united states not only from the issue of oil production but also simple instability and the impact on the global economy. there are hundreds of thousands of u.s. citizens that live across the middle east that we would have to help protect.

american embassies and consulates across the middle east as well that would be vulnerable to extreme violence. host: can you talk about the iraq he army -- the iraqi army? guest: parts of the iraqi army collapsed. it was the parts operating in the north. some reports say there was infiltrations by sunni into the army which is possible. iraq he army is held together in southwest. this is an army that was purpose built to include all of the different ethnic minorities and setcs and bring them together. it was supposed to be functional. that has failed in the north and to some extent it appears to have succeeded in the south. over time, as the army is used to defend baghdad and the shia areas, it will become increasingly a shia army and we

hee seen reports of iraq army vehicles flying black flags which is a shia flag >> on the next "washington bought q sat, editor-in-chief of "the hill" newspaper. we are also joined by carl schmid. onshington journal" is live c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. several live events to tell you about. the head of the world war i centennial commission will be at the national press club to talk about legislation for an oriole in washington, d.c. eastern.t 10:00 a.m. at noon, the cato institute hosts a discussion on

conflicting circuit court rulings on how the affordable mr..act is at later, unaccompanied immigrant children on the second anniversary of the administrations deferred action for childhood arrivals program that allows young immigrants to live and work legally in the u.s. for two years. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. now, former secretaries of state and operate an condoleezza rice and former cia director robert gates on u.s. foreign policy. at the aspen institute in colorado, they discussed vladimir putin's strategy in ukraine and u.s. action in iraq. they are interviewed by nicholas burns for 1.5 hours.

[applause] >> bob, thank you very much. i want to thank bob steel and walter isaacson for their leadership at the aspen institute. [applause] as bob said, we are extraordinarily fortunate to have two great secretaries of state, madeleine albright and condoleezza rice. the third person will arrive. i spoke to him by phone. his plane was diverted. he had to drive in. i said we would filibuster until he arrived. one way to do that is to say a word about our aspen strategy group. we are a unique institution, i think, in the american foreign-policy because we are nonpartisan. not just bipartisan. we are republicans, democrats, and independents come together once a year. we have dialects with the chinese, indian, and the brazilian leadership. we are in our 30th year. we were founded by two great

americans. , who isbrent scowcroft not here right now but will be here in a couple of hours and professor joe nye. i would ask you to salute joe. maybe you can stand. [applause] we are going to be discussing russia over the next 3.5 days. there is nothing to talk about, u.s.-russian relationships these days, but everything to talk about. as we await bob's arrival, we might talk about the issue that united condoleezza rice and madeleine albright. it was a shared interest in russia. it was one individual who brought them both to that shared interest. maybe the way to do this, condoleezza rice, for you to start and madeleine will finish. >> absolutely. thank you all for joining us here and thank you, nick for this conversation.

i want to echo thanks to bob and walter who pull off a really extraordinary conversation. in a wonderful and civil life. -- civil way. well, i was, not to put too fine a point on it, a failed piano major in college. i was supposed to be a great pianist. i started playing at the age of three. i came here as a 17-year-old rising junior at the university of denver to go to the aspen music festival school. i met here, 12 year olds who ight what it took me all year to learn. i thought, find another profession. i went back to denver. fortunately, i wandered into a course of international politics taught by a soviet expert and a great diplomat. it was joseph korbel that stimulated my interest in things

international and things russian and interest in diplomatic history. and he convinced me that it was ok for a black girl from birmingham, alabama who wanted to be a soviet specialist. that was the start of my career. he also said and i have a daughter that i would like you to meet some time and she is studying at columbia. her name is madeleine and now you can take that story. >> what happened was my father was a czechoslovakian diplomat who did not want to work for the communists and came to the united states and defected. at that stage, i understand the rockefeller foundation found him a job. at the university of denver. we had no idea where denver was. my parents bought a car and started driving across america and my mother said it is the mile high city and we are not going up so maybe we are going the wrong direction. [laughter]

my father started teaching at the university of denver and ultimately became dean of the graduate school. he died in 1977. by then, he was a very big deal. there were lots of flowers and tributes at his funeral. among them, there was a ceramic pot in the shape of a piano. i said to my mother, where did it come from? she said from your father's favorite student, condoleezza rice. in 1987, when i was working for my long-string of losing democratic presidential candidates -- [laughter] i thought, why not in fact get in touch with his woman, condoleezza rice, who was i knew an african-american music major from alabama who wrote her dissertation on the czechoslovakian military with my father. she teaches on the west coast, soviet expert, i will ask her to

join my group. joe was a part of the group. she said i don't know how you -- i do not know how to tell you, i am a republican. i said, how could you be? we had the same father. [laughter] so, here we are. >> ok. [laughter] and bob has not arrived yet. let's get started. russia. condi and madeleine, the question i will want to pose is to you the following. at the end of the sochi olympics, maybe the opportunity when viktor yanukovych fled tov, vladimir putin decided invade and take over crimea. the russian duma and next -- annexed it. we have seen a rather deliberate campaign to support -- >> hold on.

>> here he is. [applause] how was the car ride? >> fortunately the colorado state patrol was nowhere in sight. [laughter] >> we won't tell. we were filibustering until you made your very dramatic entrance and i was posing the first question. what unites the panel is madeleine started her life in czechoslovakia. she had to be concerned about russia. condi did her dissertation. bob, a career soviet specialist in the central intelligence agency. they have all lived in this issue. >> so have you. >> i have as well. we have seen the formal annexation of crimea and have seen a deliberate policy to destabilize eastern ukraine through russian military forces. intelligent support. ukraine is in the throes of a

civil war. we have russian troops on the borders of that part of eastern ukraine. the question for the three of you, is this the most serious east-west crisis since the end of the cold war? and here is the easy part -- what should we do? [laughter] >> yes, i think it is the most serious east-west crisis since the end of the cold war. in large part because it has been a long time since a country, a big power in europe annexed a part of its neighbor. when great powers start behaving badly, it is really dangerous. the malaysian airplane that was shot down was shot down because of the sophistication of the equipment. 30,000 feet is a long way to catch a civilian aircraft. when great powers behave badly, it gets really dangerous. we have a great power in europe behaving badly. vladimir putin never accepted the outcome of the end of the cold war.

he has said the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. that is something when you think the russians lost as many as lost 30 million people in world war ii and to say that was the greatest tragedy. and he said something that was particularly dangerous and that is the reason it was a great tragedy was because 25 million russians were orphaned outside of the soviet union in other countries. he meant poland and ukraine. i remember sitting with him at nato in 2008 at his last talk to the nato russia council and he said something that every body said, did we hear that right. he said ukraine is a made-up state. and i can remember going to see vladimir putin in one of my last encounters with him and having say, you know us, condi, and you know russia has only been great

when ruled by strong men like alexander the great and alexander ii. like peter the great. i remember thinking, is vladimir the great supposed to be in that line? i was too polite to ask that i was secretary of state. and so, we have for i think a very dangerous, perfect storm between a leader who was unreconciled to the postwar , post-cold war order in europe willing to use a combination of , economic pressure, military force, intimidation, and surrogates to get his way to undo the order. and ian international community and that seems at times uncertain on how to respond. let me leave it as in the analysis question and then perhaps we can get to ways to think about approaching it after madeleine and bob. >> i do think it is the most serious event since the end of the cold war. and we all have been a diplomat or in the government and many people here with the same

background. there are things that happen all over the world all of the time. there are changes, border disputes, various arguments to go on. that is what people like us do for a living. the bottom line is there been two huge game changers. in the last six months. that is the russian annexation of crimea as condi sad. and the other is what is happening in the middle east. in many ways, i think they are related and maybe we will get into that. i think that -- i have had, i have been further away from when i met putin. i did not like him from the moment i met him and he did not like me, either. the bottom line is i think he has developed his own version of history. that is the troublesome part. as condoleezza said anybody who , can say the dissolution of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century is delusional. i do think that he has lived in his own version of history as he

keeps making it up as it goes along. we depend on the fact that there's a rational actor on the other side of the table. i am worried about his own approach to issues and it does lead to the question of how we deal with it. i think what he has done is identify himself with a very -- this really sounds like psychobabble, problem that russia has been having. you were there. one of the things we were asked to do, and so were you bob, basically how to dissolve the power of our major adversary at the end of the cold war without doing it in the field of battle. it is true. i happen to think they lost the cold war rather than we won it. the system did not work. we, in the 1990's, were working to figure out how russia could be brought into the system and be a normal country and operate in a functional international

system. i went and i was doing survey work in 1991. i will never forget this. i was in russia with a focus group and this man stood up and said, i am so embarrassed. we used to be a superpower and now we are bangladesh with the missiles. that loss of identity is something that is a motivating factor in russia. what has happened is putin has identified himself with that. vladimir the great. i think he has what accounts for his popularity at the moment. i think we have to deal with what has been happening in russia since the end of the cold war, what is the relationship with the united states and the identity crisis and a leader who has made up history. >> bob? >> first of all, i agree in terms of the magnitude of the crisis. also agree it has its roots in what happened after the collapse of the soviet union.

in the early 1990's, we did not fully appreciate the humiliation that the russians felt. with the collapse, not just of the soviet union but of the centuries-old russian empire. one of the reasons we face it as such a serious crisis and why it is the worst since the end of the cold war is because putin is trying to upend two aspects of that. two points of international order that people thought was settled. one was, border changes could only be resolved through peaceful negotiations and the consent of the parties and not a satisfaction of revenge or claims by force. the second was the freedom of

sovereign states to choose which other countries with whom they wanted to ally, politically, economically, and for security. both of those, putin has essentially thrown aside. and so what the europeans and we for a long time felt was a matter settled at the end of the cold war is now very much back on the table. i think putin has two goals. i do not know that he is delusional. maybe because we both came from the spy business. he and i had a very interesting relationship. [laughter] we did not like each other, but there was a certain interesting respect. or suspicion. i am not sure which. [laughter]

we would speak very frankly with one another. partly because i was not a diplomat. neither was he. but i think he is after two things. one is what condi alluded to, this sense of historical mission to protect the russians who were left behind. the second is more traditional russian behavior. and that is the creation or the re-creation of a band of states on the periphery of russia that lean toward moscow economically, politically, and for security. he does not want to re-create the soviet union and be this -- and being responsible for all the economic basket cases on the periphery. but he does want to re-create

this buffer, if you will, that has been a big part of russian history for a long time. and frankly, i think he sees ukraine as the linchpin of that. kiev is where the russian empire was founded over a thousand years ago. i think he does see it as a made-up state. and i think that he will never rest easy as long as he thinks that ukraine might slide west. and away from russia and not a part of that buffer of states. >> let's get to policy. what should the united states do? we will hear tomorrow from the assistant secretary of state for who hasvictoria nuland, been at the center of this. i appreciate what president obama has tried to do and he has worked very hard on this, sanctions on russia to drive up the cost of ukraine.

he did not have much help from the europeans until two weeks ago when they finally joined the united states and canada in tough sanctions. second, try to help the ukrainian state, which is a basket case of its own, economically, high levels of corruption. to raise economic performance and try to pull together an effective military. and third, try to reinforce nato. states ofnt-line nato, estonia, latvia, lithuania are protected. ,so they have deterrence there. is that the right strategy? should all of that be reinforced? >> i have no problem with the three pillars. i think they are the right three pillars. you have to do them in a way that is committed and likely to have a really big effect. when it comes to sanctions, i am of two minds about sanctions. i think some of the sanctions are going to have an effect. after all, 80% of russian exports are in oil and gas and minerals and they are likely to run out of money before europe

runs out of energy. anything that takes what is currently, according even to the russians, an economy that is probably in retreat and puts more pressure on it, that is fine. i do not think we can expect it will have a short term or even medium-term effect on putin. in the long term, there is more we can do to the energy front. go ahead and allow keystone today. [applause] and permit export terminals today. because you have to show russia the future of energy is not going to be in russia if they continue to behave this way. yes, sanctions -- let's call it economic pressure. the second element, by all means, the ukrainians have demonstrated they are more capable of fighting than i thought they were. arm them. it is not provocative to help people defend themselves. >> so you put provide legal assistance? lethal assistance?

>> i would provide lethal assistance to them. not just nonlethal assistance. i would provide further intelligence to them so they can help themselves. third, i would do more with the strengthening of nato. we do not know what is coming out of the september summit. perhaps more will come out of it. let me just, for this purpose, position myself between madeleine and bob on the question of vladimir putin. i am not sure he is delusional. i am sure he is not wholly rational. [laughter] leaders of great countries do not go around fighting tigers bare-chested. he is a megalomaniac. and you have to deal with the 5% chance he might be delusional and he is making up his own version of history. and i do not see anybody around him telling -- and he is talking about russia becoming self-sufficient.

an autarky. how long has it been since we heard those words, joseph stalin? you have to prepare for the 5% of him that may not be totally rational and that means when you reinforce nato you do it in a really serious way. we do not need forces in italy. let's put them in the baltic states and poland in large he may indeed be a megalomaniac but he is not going to attack a country in which there are american forces deployed. i would make a much bigger move to make nato a real bulwark in case he has some notions he might do some of the things he did in ukraine in the baltic states of which we have an article five guarantee. you do not want the president of the united states to have to make a choice of refusing to act on our article five guarantee or fighting russia. deter it now. >> thank you. madeleine? >> i think all of us here in our

a little humility in terms of our soviet expertise. i want to tell a story. in october 1964, i was a student at columbia at the russian institute where nobody predicted the ouster. nobody predicted the disintegration of the soviet union. and so, trying to predict putin's behavior is pretty difficult. i am not a shrink. maybe he lives in a parallel universe or whatever the right term is. i think one of the problems out of there is it has to be a part of the solution that whether putin can only think in zero-sum terms because these countries are where they are. as bob said, ukraine has a very complicated history and geographically, it is a buffer. there is no question about it. what could be done is to try and figure out some way where the ukrainians have the possibility of turning westward which is what they want.

the ukrainians want to be poles have the kind of life they have in a poland. and they could have a rational economic relationship with russia. the question is whether putin only sees things in zero-sum terms? -- the question is whether putin only sees things in zero-sum terms. i teach a course. i say foreign policy is just trying to get countries to do what you want. what are the tools? there are not a lot of tools. i think that president obama is using the tools in the best possible way of finding a regime finally in cooperation with the europeans. it is going to hurt. i have said that putin's victory in crimea for the same reasons -- is an imperium victor three, and a lot of it for the same their economic situation.

i do think the ukrainians need more assistance. i think the question is, and i cannot answer this. i was in ukraine for the elections and i was there as an observer. i met with not-yet president poroshenko and he said that his real agenda was to do security and the economy. the question is, if all they do is fight in the east whether they forget the fact their country is basically are basket -- an economic basket case and provide, they have to get their act together economically. we needed to give more assistance to the ukraine. we have to figure out a way. i certainly agree on the intelligence. i would probably give them some lethal weapons and i would definitely strengthen nato. nato has turned out to be the best and most political military alliance. the other countries that do have russian speakers, latvia, the baltics, they are under nato. they have article five rights privileges.

and i do think i was strengthen nato. >> i want to get on the table, too. we have to try and hold in place relations with russians who putin is not the future. we have had 20 years since the collapse of the soviet union, we are a whole generation of younger, middle-class russians, some them are in my classes. you have worked with them. they work in western banks and law firms. they are in a terrible state. i've had a couple of e-mails from the students saying i am about to apply for american citizenship. it is possible that russia would experience a brain drain. i would hope and it is hard to do that we go find a way to isolate putin and the putin regime without completely turning our backs on russia's future. >> just to distance myself from two secretaries of state in this respect.

i always like the definition of diplomacy is saying something "nice doggy" until you can find a rock. [laughter] i think putin -- the thing to remember is putin could remain president of russia until 2024. he is playing a long game. and i think we need a long game. i agree with everything in terms of reaction, short term. condi and madeleine have described. i would provide lethal weapons but with a heavy emphasis on those that are largely seen as defensive rather than an offense if capability. sometimes that is a thin line. i remember the long game -- i remember in 2008, condi and i

realizing how much intelligence we were getting on how extensive russian black ops were in central asia and so on trying to stir up anti-americanism. this is not something that just started six months or a year ago. and i think what we need to do is not only strengthen nato's military presence, my biggest worry for the baltic states is not that putin will send troops across, it is that he has such an extraordinary economic leverage in all three of those places. and so one of the things we ought to be looking at with respect to the baltic states and ukraine is how -- what can we do to create a better safety net economically under those states so that if putin does turn screws using russia's leverage

in the baltic states, economic leverage and also cyber capabilities that he demonstrated against estonia back in 2007, that those baltic states do not have to knuckle under, that they have an economic alternative. our focus ought not just be the short-term security but we need to focus. let's face it, that country's government has been a basket case since independence. focus on reform, supporting reform in ukraine. but also, how can we help them economically? and then i think we need a more coherent, pro-american, pro-western agenda and activities all along the periphery of russia. i would not cede those states to putin. i think we can make a strong case -- and we did fight back in

kyrgyzstan. we fought back against what the russians were trying to do there. i think in addition to the short term sort of military the appointment, we need to be -- deployment, we need to be thinking of the long the game. how do you prevent this buffer for being created? -- this buffer from being created? and by taking these actions economically and in security terms, how do we try and push putin or others in russia toward and adjusting the zero-sum game attitude? >> i want to ask the secretaries about the last news in iraq and talk about american leadership. the final question on russia talked about amongst ourselves. our good friend and colleague, richard hawes, wrote an op ed. he made a very important point that we have not talked about yet. all of us agree -- we need a relationship with putin and russia. as we sanction and isolate and

push back, we need the russians to prevent the iranians from becoming a nuclear power and stabilize the afghan government and entertainment north korea and fight terrorist groups. we are both victims. how do you keep their relation with president putin? richard suggested that perhaps what did the united states and west should do is to essentially say to the russians, we, the west, will not support ukraine and georgia for nato membership. in return, putin will respect the sovereignty and control of the ukrainian government.

is that a bet? is that an agreement that we should? >> first of all, the countries in question should be the one making a choice of whether they show want to be a member of an alliance or not or what their future is. as someone who was born in czechoslovakia, during the munich, the checks were not at the table and do nothing can be done without the ukrainians and being a part of the decision-making process. nato is not a charitable organization. it is a functioning military alliance and countries have to be ready to be a part of it. and countries have to request to be a part of it. they have indicated they are not working in that direction at the moment. i think is important for us to maintain a relationship with the russians, but not at the cost of where we they think they are more important than they are. it may have something to do with what happened in syria. i think that there needs to be -- the channels need to be maintained. there are relationships that have to stay in place. we cannot be a zero-sum in terms of thinking there's only one way to do things.

i do think it is up to ukraine to make the choice. >> i agree completely. country should be able to make their own choices. we several times in history have done this thing where we negotiated over the heads of small countries and it has not ever worked out so well. i think there is an assumption that this is what putin wanted. he may want a relationship with us right now and he may want other things. we also have to remember that when the russians act, if they act on north korea, they have certain interests that may be identical to ours. we can continue to work where we have coincident interest. i always felt between 2006 nick, you helped to set up the p5 plus one with iran. the russians were not the problem. chinese were the problem with dealing with iran.

the russians have had their own problems with iran. the ethnically islamic states. again, not to make them seem more important but to recognize that have their own interests. very often, our interests will come together. it is beneath us as a moral issue and simply also does not work to negotiate over the heads of small states. >> i agree with both madeleine and condi said. >> ok. [laughter] >> kansas brevity. two more questions. i think all of us would agree that we are facing a burning middle east with a crippled egypt, economically, with a big sectarian and religious fissure. syria, 22 million people and 9 million homeless. isis controlling northern syria and western iraq.

isis has taken the second biggest city in iraq. now 30 kilometers west. kurdish forces have been defeated in battle's over the last two days. the administration has airdropped relief to refugees in the mountain. they launched three airstrikes against isis positions in the last 24 hours. what would you advise president obama? will it take a reimposition of american air power over weeks or months to contain and pushback isis so that iraq has a chance of remaining a unitary state? bob, this is right up your alley. >> first of all, i would say we need to keep in line that there -- in mind that there are multiple, huge historical conflicts going on simultaneously. shia islam led by iran versus

sunni islam led by saudi arabia. you have this struggle to see if -- you have secular versus islamist. and reformists versus authoritarians. and you have this struggle to see if artificially stuck-together states like syria and iraq and libya, comprised of adversarial ethnic and religious groups, can be held together without oppression. -- without repression. we overestimate our ability to shape events in the middle east. so madeleine talked about humility when it came to talking about the soviet union and what was going on. i think a lot of humility is required in the middle east as well. that said, my view is the president has done the right thing in terms of providing humanitarian assistance.

and also trying to stop those columns of isil forces that would like to slaughter all of these people. i think that our efforts to help the iraqis, first of all, the outcome, i hope this weekend, the power struggle in iraq in terms of who was to lead the country gets resolved without maliki coming out still in his job. he has been a very destructive force in iraq, particularly since we left and i think that somebody can reach out to the sunnis and give them a sense that they have a stake in iraq is absolutely essential.

if that change, my caveat is if maliki stays in office i am not sure i would recommend what i would otherwise recommend. which is, i think we ought to be much more aggressive in helping the iraqis and helping the kurds take on these guys. we should not let them take control of the mosul dam or have a stranglehold on water and electrical supplies for a good part of the country. i think intelligence and a variety of kinds of military assistance could be made available. and i think were already doing the intelligence. i think there is an aversion, obviously, in america to the introduction of any kind of ground troops. my own view is once we start targeting isil, they will start mingling or using civilians to

raise the public costs of any kind of western intervention. but i still think we need to make that effort. in terms of syria, syria is a much more challenging problem now that it would've been three years ago or so. but the challenge in syria seems to me is there a path through which you can weaken both assad and isil? my guess is that is more -- first of all, it needs to be done in cooperation with other, some of the neighboring states of the middle east.

i also think it is more of a work of intelligence, operatives then perhaps overt military. but i think our objective would be to see if there is a seam there, particularly in syria, where we could weaken assad. if we were to identify an an opportunity for conventional military forces to accomplish both of the objectives, then i would be willing to think that ought to be on the table. >> well, i agree with everything bob has said. i think maliki is a big problem and i would be most happy if he could go tomorrow. i would have been happy if he had gone six months ago. whether he is there or not, we have a serious security problem. when isis, who is so bad that that al qaeda expelled them, have taken a swath of territory between syria and iraq and you might have noted moved toward lebanon recently, engaging the lebanese forces. by all accounts, that are organized. they are capable. but there are 10,000 of them.

one of the dangers and the president has said many times he wants to know there's a threat to the united states and our interests. we watched what happened when bin laden was able to use the territory of afghanistan to burrow in, to train and get stronger with al qaeda. when and if the hijackers, not a single one of them was on a european or u.s. passport. these fighters have amongst them probably 100 american passport holders and maybe 1000 european. that's a homeland nightmare. i think we have got to do something to help the iraqi forces and a particularly the kurds, for whom we have a long history of cooperation, to do something about this really dangerous circumstance in the middle of the middle east.

i agree with bob. one wonders whether the state system under the twin pressures now of their breakup of the states and the pressure still for popular revolutions, whether or not the middle east is going to go through a major convulsion anyway. if it does, one piece that we cannot leave standing is a jihadist group with that much standing that is capable of attacks across europe and the u.s. >> we have to worry to the threat of the homeland. no question and the way condi described it, absolutely accurate in terms of the number of people who have american passports was that is a concern. -- and so, that is a concern. the thing that is also a concern and is something that has led

the president to change in terms of the airstrikes has to do with the humanitarian situation. and one of the things that has troubled me all along is that we have not cared enough about the humanitarian situation in syria and not only the specific things about the numbers of people who have died were being displaced, -- or the number who have been displaced but the effect of , having those displaced people whether in the jordan which itself is a fragile place, or lebanon or turkey, the combination of the humanitarian aspect and political displacement is something we need to worry about. there really is a question of whether the u.s. can do anything about what is a major convulsion in the middle east. i happen to believe the u.s. has a role. i do believe we are the indispensable nation. there is nothing in the term indispensable that is alone. it is a problem for the international community and it is political as well as military. the humanitarian part is something that is an

international responsibility. what i find interesting is the blending over the weekend of the political and military. one of the questions, as i understand it is, in fact, a question of whether there was a reluctance to use force to be maliki's air force. humanitarian part of this has changed that analysis and equilibrium and maliki might be out. the bottom line is what the president has done and the last -- in the last 24 hours is exactly the right thing and may in fact affect the political situation as well as military. >> thanks to all of you. one last question. it is about american leadership and the willingness of the american people and congress to support an energetic american foreign policy. opinion polls show after the great recession and iraq and

afghanistan don't want to see american military troops committed to long-term ventures. congress is having a hard time supporting the state department budget. we had a huge number of american ambassadors waited for six months or more to be confirmed. when the 51 african heads of states came, we do not have an ambassador for most of those countries because we do not have ambassadors in those countries. have political paralysis in washington. are we turning inward? it is too simplistic to say we are facing a new isolation. are we turning inward in a way that would limit our ability to play the role we have to play? >> i am concerned about that and i do think -- i hate to see washington dysfunctional. i hate to see the fact that it is time to blame the press. the story about what is going on has not been explained enough to

the american people to explain -- to understand what our real effect is where we are not involved. i can understand why, given the problems that exist in the u.s., that we have no effect on this. -- that we think we have no effect on this. there really is a question at the moment about the united states turning inward. if you look at history, the times america have looked inward, terrible things happened in the world. i do hope our leaders try to explain why we need to be a part of things and why there has to be partnership. i believe president obama believes in partnership. americans do not like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables and ends in an "ism." [laughter] all it basically means is partnership. there has to be partners out there that are persuading that we can change the dynamic whether in the middle east or with russia, but we cannot let our people decide that america can be an island.

>> i completely agree. i would say i am all for partnerships. partnerships, usually in international history, at least since the end of world war ii, come about when america took a position and find partners for it. the international community does not function very well as a community in which one gets together and everybody decides what to do. i think with the situation we are in it now, europe more than ever looks at us as having turned inward. for a variety of reasons. having to do with its own problems. we have always hoped the new emerging strong democracies and places like india and brazil would step up to international responsibilities. they really haven't. they demured. the united states is left to define a pathway forward in this

extremely difficult circumstance in which we find ourselves. our subject matter today is europe and russia and in the middle east, but we know there are problems in asia as well where china is asserting certain responsibilities and a certain territorial claims that are also a challenge to our allies. the united states and i understand being tired. believe me, i understand being tired. i told a story in august of 2008. i was in the oval office with president bush. the polls were really awful and he said i do not believe we are this unpopular. i said, mr. president, the american people are tired. it has been war, vigilance, terrorism and they are tired of it. i said i am tired of it, too. it is time for us to go home. at that point, everybody was tired. the great power cannot afford to

be tired. vladimir putin is not tired. china is not tired. isis is not tired. the united states will have to find a way not to be tired. i have only one suggestion -- [applause] i have only one suggestion in how to signal that. it is actually just a pretty basic thing. washington is dysfunctional. that means you are not likely to get budget reform. and so, signaling that the defense cuts have been contemplated by secretary hagel, just reconsidering them might send a signal to our allies and foes that america is really into the game. i do think we have sent signals that we are tired. we send signals we will not ever use military force. we sent signals that we want

somebody else to step up to the plate. i am encouraged this weekend by president obama's decision for humanitarian support and to the iraqis. but we needed to do much, much more if we are going to turn the tide. when the economist is asking what will america fight for, we have a problem. [applause] >> in terms of perception of us abroad, extricating oneself from conflicts, and particularly two wars or any war did not end in a clear-cut victory, is a very tricky business. the truth is, nixon and kissinger were able to significantly mitigate the consequences of our losing in vietnam by the opening of the soviet union and china.

in effect, reasserted that the united states was still going to be the primary player in the international environment. that we were still going to be calling the shots. we do not have opportunities like that right now. the more we talk about coming home and nationbuilding at home and the more we cut the state department budget, the more we cut the budgets of all of the instruments of foreign power that we have, the more we send the signal that we are turning inward. i think this is going to be tough under any circumstances not to send a signal that we were pulling back. i think some the things condi has suggested and some of these madeleine has suggested for more aggressive leadership roles in putting together some of these partnerships particularly in the middle east, i think, is in order. when it comes to the american

people, i think it is important to remember that virtually none of our wars have ever been popular. world war ii was pretty popular until the middle of 1944 when people started getting pretty tired. the mexican war, the spanish-american war, world war i, korea, vietnam, the american people do not like wars. the truth is, the best advice i have seen in terms of war in