when it is small have a deeper understanding and a unique approach before something that everyone is chasing. >> what are some of the lessons that people should look into, such as lessons learned from old media? >> every big media company was once a started. if you look at cbs there is not that much you can land because they are a giant and your small and starting out for you if you look at them when they were losing money, that looks like a lot of startups. when you look at time magazine that looks like a lot of new media startups that are starting today. people do not realize, i was surprised reading about the early days of hollywood that you

would go to a movie theater and you would see a bunch of short films and then you would see in israel updating you about the war or something and then you would see a 60 minute western. that is what you paid to see. people look at startups in the media space and they are doing these small, silly things. they're not like these big movie studios but if you look at what paramount was doing, they were making short films that are more similar to what we are doing on youtube than they are to the future films they're doing today. it is a case where there is something to learn from history. there is lots of differences. old media companies are the model and there is lots of interesting lessons to learn.

>> do you have a list or what would it look like if you were to give advice or wrap up the history of old media in a list? >> i am not as good at lists like the pros at buzzfeed. newspapers, early magazines, early hollywood studios, and early cable television and those are huge interest trees that wound to be multimillion dollar industries. when you look at their early days it is shockingly similar to the way small media startups are operating now. it would need a better name created by an editor and not by

me. >> it looks like we're just about out of time. we have some time for questions. we have a question every year. -- over here. >> you published the 96 page report of the new media people as to what they need to do different. good advice. did you see some lessons and therefore new media companies, what they need to do differently based on the new york times research of where media is headed? >> it depends a lot on what the new media company is. certainly mobile is huge and cannot be ignored. if there is a new media company

that are not thinking deeply about mobile they should create -- they should be. that report was -- had a lot in it. there's also the question how do you focus. there's a lot of good ideas that you can only focus on a few things. there is the question of what are you going to focus on if you are a particular company. you still have to stay focused. sorting through all the good ideas is sometimes the hardest part. even harder than coming up with them. >> other questions? >> do you see yourself as a media company, getting into other media like conferences and events that you stage and record for your own purposes? and other areas.

>> we do some of that. we interview people like jerry seinfeld and anthony weiner and the ceo of hbo. it is an interesting way to generate media as a live event. there's a trend of live events that is pretty interesting.h it. you are seeing that with the super bowl and industries like this one. >> any questions? ask you one right here. -- you one right here. it will be quick.

>> i want to tell you how much i isk at your business model. am from atlanta. you are absolutely right. it would mean nothing if it wasn't for him. he is in his 80's and lives in new york. in his book reads was that -- reese was the one took them to atlanta. they lived in a flea brag hotel -- fleabag hotel. >> i read his story. lots of amazing there is -- of the-- stories

entrepreneurship. running theactually news operation. >> thank you very much. >> coming up, president obama ands a statement on iraq the contest in missouri. discussion on national security threat posed by iran's and isis.rogram >> coming up on the next views of theurnal, obama administration's fiscal policies and then a discussion of the woods. musical festival.

later the changing demographics of the 65 and older population, the so-called baby boomers. >> friday a look at the continuing conflict between russia and ukraine. >> hi, i am there a. >> i am shelley. >> it is an interactive center. we bring these and public affairs to you and your community. more about the tour

schedule, go to www.c-span.org .bus/community we represent you and your community. stories fromht, the civil war including the battle in chattanooga. war era medicine. -- civil war era in. .- medicine here is a preview. send theill confederate army retreating east and back into georgia. success and an

brief pursuit chattanooga is firmly and union hand. it will be turned over that coming winter into a giant supply base similar to our operating basis today. following spring that sherman will take a combined southwardadvance towards atlanta and into that military-industrial heartland and disrupted and bring the war to a close in the spring of 1865. anervers believed it was indication of the union success

in the war. back c-span american history tour of the war. obama spoke about the situation in iraq and called for ari -- ferguson, ms. missouri, where protesters clashed with police following the death of an unarmed teenager . >> good afternoon. today i would like to address the american people on two issues i've been monitoring. we continue to make progress in carrying out our military operations in iraq. last week i authorized two limited missions, to protect people and facilities inside of iraq, and humanitarian operation to help save thousands of iraqi civilians stranded on amount

and. a week ago we assessed many thousands of yazidi people had abandoned their positions to take refuge on mount sinjar to avoid slaughter. we knew that isil terrorists were laying siege to the mountain. without food or water, they faced a terrible choice -- starve or be slaughtered. that is when america jumped in to help. over the last week, the u.s. military conducted humanitarian air drops every night, delivering more than 114,000 meals and three 5000 gallons of fresh water. we were joined in that effort by the united kingdom, and other allies pledged their support. the military was able to successfully target areas around the mountain so areas could be evacuated. yesterday a small team of americans, military and

civilian, completed their review of conditions on the mountain. they found food and water had been reaching those in need, and that thousands of people have been evacuated safely each and every night. the civilians who remained were aided by kurdish forces. the bottom line is the situation on the mountain has greatly improved and americans should be very proud of our efforts because of the skill and professionalism of our military and the generosity of our people. we helped vulnerable people reach safety and we help save many innocent lives. because of these efforts, we do not expect there to be an additional operation to evacuate people off the mountain, and it is unlikely we will need to continue humanitarian air drops on the mountain. the majority of the military personnel to conduct the assessment will leave iraq in a

couple days. as commander of chief, i cannot be more proud of the men and women of our military who carried out this humanitarian operation almost flawlessly. i am very grateful for them, and i know that those who are trapped on that mountain are extraordinarily grateful as well. the situation remains dire for iraqis subject to isil's terror throughout the country. we're going to be working with our international partners to provide assistance to those who are suffering in northern iraq where every we have capabilities and we can carry out effective missions like the one we carried out on mount sinjar. we feel a great urge to provide some humanitarian leave to the situation, and i've been

encouraged by the interest of our international partners in helping on these kinds of efforts as well. we will can team you airstrikes to protect people and facilities in iraq. we have increased the delivery of military assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces, and perhaps most importantly we are urging iraqis to come together to turn the tide against isil by forming a new government under the leadership of prime minister-designate abadi. i had a chance to speak to him a few days ago, and he spoke about the need for the kind of inclusive government, a government that speaks to all the people of iraq that is needed right now. he still has a challenging task

in putting a government together, but we are hopeful that the iraqi government situation is moving in the right direction. second, i want to address something that has been in the news over the last couple days, in ferguson, missouri. many americans have been disturbed by the images we have seen in the heartland of the country as police have clashed with police while protesting. today i would like for us to take a step back and think about how we are going to be moving forward. this morning i received an update from attorney general eric holder and have been following and been in communication with his team. i have already tasked the department of justice and fbi to independently investigate the

death of michael brown along with local officials on the ground. the justice department is working to find ways where they can maintain public safety. i will help determine what exactly happened and to see that the us this is done. i also just spoke with governor jay nixon of missouri. i expressed my concern over the violent turn that events have taken on the ground and underscored that now is the time for us to reflect on what happened and find a way to come together going forward. he is going to be traveling to ferguson. he is a good man and a fine governor, and i am confident that working together he is going to be able to communicate his desire to make sure that just is done and his desire to make sure that public safety is

maintained in an appropriate way. it is important or member how this started. we lost a young man, michael brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. he was 18 years old. his family will never hold michael in their arms again. and when something like this happens, the local authorities, including police, have the responsibility to be open and transparent for how they are investigating the death and how they are protecting people in their communities. there is never an excuse for violence against police or those who would use the tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. there is also no excuse for police to use excessive force in a peaceful protest or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their first amendment rights. here in the united states of america police should not be bullying or arresting journalists just trying to do their jobs and report to the american people on what they see on the ground. put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us positions in authority. i know emotions are raw right now in ferguson, and there are

certainly passionate differences about what has happened. there are going to be different account for how this tragedy occurred. there are going to be differences for how this needs to go forward. that is part of the democracy but we are part of one american family, united in common values, and that includes belief in equality under the law, basic respect for public order, and the right to peaceful public protest, a respect for the dignity of every man, woman, and child among us, and the need for accountability when it comes to our government. so now is a time for healing, peace, and calm on the streets of ferguson. now is the time for an open and transparent process to see what justice has done, and i have asked the attorney general and the u.s. attorney on the scene continue to work with local officials to move that process forward. they will be reporting to me in

the coming days about what is being done to make sure that happens. thanks very much, everybody. >> attorney general eric holder released the following statement thursday, saying -- by the same token, the law enforcement must seek to reduce tensions, not hide them. gathered toacefully

must be free at all times and journalists must not the harassed. nixonri governor jay spoke first-day following the police shooting and death of michael brown. he announced he is placing the highway patrol under security. this news conference also includes the missouri highway patrol captain ron johnson. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> good afternoon. i want to thank all of the local elected officials with us today as well as the leaders in this region. we appreciate the stress you have been under. we also went to thank our great friends in st. louis. always deeply involved in the community and willing to assist us in any way, and i thank him for the excellent leadership he provided in this region. i want to thank everybody for joining us. let me go through with what we have done today and then we will hear from a couple folks and take questions. this morning i was briefed by city officials on the events of yesterday evening and morning. i also spoke this morning with president obama who conveyed his concern and appreciation in our efforts to resolve it. i took a moment to visit the

scene this morning where earlier this week a young man, a man not much younger than my own sons, lost is life. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with and hear from members of the neighborhood directly affected by the events of the last six days. they told me they want a community that is helping and happy and safe. they want their streets to be free from intimidation. they want to be treated with respect. today my message to the people of ferguson is that these voices have been heard. we have been troubled by this crisis. what has gone on is not what missouri is not what ferguson is about. this is a place where people work, go to school, go to church, a diverse community, a missouri committee.

lately it looks like a war zone, and that is not acceptable. we will all need join hands to rebuild the trust that's been lost and help this community regain its stability. the eyes of our nation and world are on us. the process of healing and reconciliation should begin. i'm announcing that the missouri highway patrol, under the supervision of a captain who grew up in this area, will be directing the team that provides security in ferguson. what i'm announcing today does not affect the responsibilities of those involved in the investigation. i would like to thank general holder for agreeing to my request that the justice department conduct a parallel investigation in this matter. i want to thank local officials who have been working so hard on the investigation here at the local level. while that investigation continues, the immediate security response abilities will be directed to the missouri state highway patrol. i want to thank the hard-working members of the local and regional police departments who have and will continue to work with the highway patrol. i want to thank those officers who have been working double shifts, out there on the cutting edge, working and putting themselves out there.

i appreciate the work they have done. today is a day that our words and deeds -- i know that ferguson will not be defined as a community that will be torn apart by violence. today is a day that we will bring peace to the families of ferguson, that we commit to our responsibilities of ensuring the safety of our communities and make they are served with justice and respect by their leaders. it is a day we embrace our obligation to address our grief in a peaceful manner and voice our expectations for fairness and justice. we must pledge again to build up this community and direct it in heart cells toward the better angels of our nature.

we will hear from a couple of folks, and i will be glad to take questions. i want introduce you to make a few comments, captain ron johnson of the missouri state highway patrol. captain johnson? >> i appreciate the significance of the responsibility, and the fact that this community and state and the nation are looking for law enforcement leadership that protects and serves our citizens. i grew up here and this is currently my community and my home. it means a lot to me personally that we break this cycle of violence and build trust, and show the utmost respect. i am confident the control of resources in ferguson will do just that. they understand as i do how important it is that ferguson has of that in law enforcement, works with us and understand that we are here to serve them.

i understand that the anger and fear that the citizens of ferguson are feeling, and our police officers will respect both of those. thank you. >> now with us is the chief executive of the region, and i appreciate the cooperation and support and the professionalism they bring to a myriad of opportunities each and every day. let me ask the county executive of st. louis county, charlie, if you would? >> good afternoon to all of you. i come to you this afternoon with a very heavy heart. what we have seen these past few days in st. louis county has been a tragedy. for the michael brown family, it has been a tragedy. they have lost a son. in st. louis county, the world is looking at us and how do we treat our own.

is there freedom of assembly? of course there is. we support freedom of assembly. but what we do not support is disobedience for the law-abiding people in st. louis county. i have been saddened from what i have seen these past few days. individuals have come to this community not for the right purpose. i am for justice. i am not for revenge. i am for what is doing is right and making it right. we have a large job ahead of us, bringing this community together. it is not going to be a simple thing. there are too many questions

that have not been answered that need explanations. people need to know, to have closure of what is going on around them. are they going to be protected in their homes? are they going to feel safe in the communities? more importantly as we move forward, can the community and our law enforcement come together to work as a unit? neither one can get there by themselves. we need each of them to participate in this process. i want to thank governor nixon and his team for stepping forward, recognizing we need all the resources that we can possibly garner to make this happen, to improve the process. i want to thank my good friend the mayor for being with us and captain johnson. it is going to take all of our agencies to make this situation better. it is going to take all of us, but even more importantly, it is going to the people in their communities, to stand down and

let's be reasonable. let's have a conversation about what is happening in our community. how do we perceive ourselves? how does the world look at us as a community? this ought not to be a black-and-white thing. this ought not to be a disrespectful thing to the citizens of our community. we can do better than this. i am confident that as we go forward we are going to make you difference, and one of the things that i pitched to you, i'm going to appoint a blue-ribbon committee to report to me, to look at what are we doing, how are we doing it, but even more importantly, get people in the community involved in this process. they need to feel that they are

part of it. they need to feel that they are part of the solution. the only way is to involve those individuals. i plan in the next coming weeks to get together a blue-ribbon committee from both sides, and let's get together and talk about what are our expectations, what do we expect, and how are we doing, and give an update on what is going on in our community. we have nothing to hide. it is transparent, and, oh, by the way, we want the media to be involved in this process as well. we want to make sure that they are kept up to date on what is going on, why are we are doing certain things, and what is the outcome we can expect. i look forward to this medication. i look forward to this resource is coming together. more importantly, i believe that we can make a difference in people's lives. people expect us in st. louis county to make their lives safe, their businesses safe, their families safe.

they have a right to that. that is our job. and we are going to do it. so, in closing, i am committed to this process. our team is committed to this process. all of our agencies are committed to this process. i need the people of st. louis county and this region to be committed to this process. this is our community. the world is looking at us across this world and how we represent ourselves speaks volumes to our young people. they are our next leaders. we are the mentors. we are setting the bar.

what type of our are we setting for our young people? they're looking at us. it involves responsibility to make it better. thank you. >> let me also thank these members of the legislature who are with us today, who have their finger on the pulse of the community and represent that so well in jefferson city. i appreciate these leaders being with us. we have been in contact with them and will continue to be with them in the coming weeks. i thank them for their involvement. >> thank you, governor. michael brown was fatally shot in ferguson this past saturday. his parents, family, friends, and his community are all in mourning. these are facts that are not in dispute, nor is the need for a full and transparent investigation, nor is the need for justice to be served or people to be heard. the governor asked me to stand with him and the county executive to demonstrate our

common agreement on this situation. justice must happen. the angry must be heard. the innocent must be protected. i agree on the direction the governor has set. i offered him the experience of two senior police commanders from the st. louis metropolitan police department, both of whom are here this afternoon. they are available to provide advice and support. they will bring a wealth of useful and practical knowledge to the effort, and whatever support they can provide. they can help protect people in their right to assemble peacefully, protect the right to talk about and report it, and to help keep people safe. i want to conclude by recognizing the officers of the st. louis county police department and the fergusons

police department and other law enforcement officials that have been involved on the streets of ferguson over the past several days. i want to thank you for your service, thank you for respecting your badge, to honor your oath, and for again the service to our community generally. i hope that the decision made by the governor will make your mission clear, safer, and shorter. thank you. >> >> we will take some other questions. >> >> i think we all have been oncerned about the vision that the world has seen about this region, and i think we are all

bout making sure that we allow peaceful and appropriate protests, that we use force only when necessary, that we step back a little bit and let some of the energy be felt in this region appropriately, but that is only possible to succeed if you have, as indicated by the executive as well as others, the support of the community, and that is why these leaders are so important. i think you are going to see -- i want to speak operationally other than to say that i think that while maintaining the peace, but allowing more movement, trying to bring in a

ifferent tone of the amplitude of protective force. my sense is that will have an effect, and know the teams are working on this changes the way, and i appreciate that. >> >> wait, wait, plenty of questions. >> >> all of us have seen some level of escalation and some level of escalation of the arms that have been used to deter. at that level we feel that we need to dim that acceleration, provide an avenue for folks to speak appropriately, but that will allow us to have a that are chance, a better focus on guaranteeing more public afety.

learly i think you will see, as the afternoon and evening starts, a little different picture, and our hope is that will begin. we should also note that there will be resources out there, to make sure that people are kept safe. i think clearly kind of the strong front force on the frontline, our hopes would be they would have the ability to give more peaceful interaction on the front. >> how would you explain the nature of the presents we saw on the streets yesterday? there were armored personnel carriers them about 100 police and military-style uniforms, high-powered rifles trained on the crowd? who is in charge of making those decisions, and are they going to be held for account for making -- >> yesterday is yesterday,

tonight is tonight, and tomorrow is tomorrow. you seen the acceleration of he intensity, and we hope this operational shift will begin the process of lowering the intensity of those direct interactions and potential risks while at the same time expanding an opportunity for folks to speak out appropriately about both long- and short-term issues that have struck a nerve. >> it was one-sided yesterday. it was a response to a peaceful protest. the nature of that response, trying to understand how that could happen. who is in charge of making those decisions? >> i am looking forward, and forward when we saw the acceleration in this situation and our sense that a softer front might yield an avenue for

appropriate energy, absent irect confrontation. i see something perhaps much ore muddled than that. not a strategic choice between the two, this is and where i will close, i do not think pragmatically see the united tates for all of the talk of ustice can gauge and -- this engaging we still have a wider network of partners in the

region. right now it includes the uae, saudi arabia, jordan, israel, qatar, turkey, egypt for the most part. no other country has the diversity relationships. i see the attempts with iran as a bit more tactical. but i did not see us going in the tank. even if there is a nuclear deal, i see this hedge small site -- multifaceted approach. i see it as downsized. it also has wisdom to it, too. i think the real debate is how do we move forward? how do we prioritize the region and the region actually in

you want to support folks that are out there making the tough calls and doing this. we watched it very carefully. i just felt that at this particular point. the attitudes weren't improving and the expression appeared to be a flash point and that if we we'd me people first that be in a better situation. so i've been monitoring closely and felt that this was the appropriate time to make this shift.

>> we'll have significant resources in patrol but they will be part of that multidisciplinary team. we expect we'll continue to rely on a joint force in this area to make sure with the various shifts that are involved and all that stuff. but operationally the patrol will be the lead agency when it comes to security. >> we'll have whatever is out there. i think the challenge we face today is not whether you have enough officers or not. the challenge we face today is not whether you have enough resources or not. it's not whether you've shown

enough strength on the police side or not. i think we've shown that. that's why i think a little shift here and a little operational shift with more flexibility at this point could provide breathing space for both. we're certainly going to protect business owners and families and others from indiscriminant acts or illegal acts. there will be adequate force there. i just don't think the size of the force has been the key stress. >> there were several people that were arrested protesting peacefully yesterday and they spent the night in jail, some of them 16 hours and then just released and walked right out of jail. so my question is your thoughts on that. will you look into that. and secondly as you talked about the presence from last night what you hear repeatedly is they are dumbfounded by the overwhelming and over the top

response they saw last night and you tried to touch on it but i don't think you quite answered that question. >> there has been gunfire on both sides this. has been a difficult zone. of has been a great deal activity in that region. i think tonight you'll see and today you'll see without going through operational stuff that is up to the team as they work this morning and tonight to move forward. i think what you're going to see is an attempt and successful attempt in my view to move forward and to move back a little bit. that doesn't mean we're giving up on keeping the rule of law or control of any criminal behavior. >> what doucet to the underlying concern in the community that there has been a long habit of police harassment in north st. louis county,

traffic stops, multiple housing violations particularly to gain . venue for municipalities this feels a little like an old wound that has been hit again. and so the pain you feel is not just from the individual action. it feels like a little bit of a long time simmering. and that i think is natural for all of us to see and to watch. i think that the challenges we face here go much more deep and that doesn't show a lack of respect for any of the victims so far or deaths we've had in any shape or form. but the key to this is to get control. let voices be heard. showing less force on the front

side but ultimately getting to some of these deeper problems. hese are deep and existing problems not nonl missouri but in america and this has clearly touched a nerve and that is not merely from this horrific sneant happened just a few short days ago. it touches a deeper nuve. and that i think while we're focused on the short operational things, i think we will be engaged as to whether or not this was an opportunity used to make some longer term understanding and healing. i do believe that this touched a old wound, a deeper nerve and incumbent upon all of us to respect those that have been lost, to make sure that justice is served. but to make sure we keep order, to allow voices to be heard.

long range when we say voices be heard, it means people listen also. voices being heard is not just letting people say their side. it's opening their mouths and your ears. if we can all use that. clear in that sense a opportunity. >> we had rioting on sunday night as the police stayed back. they moved in more aggressively. we haven't had looting or burning since then. are you prepared if the kinder approach yields looting? >> those of you that know me and the people involved here, as i said before the question over here i don't think there is any doubt we have enough resources to deal with this. we will use those resources

differently, calibrated in different orderers but we're to g to do our best law ablish the rule of and subsequently expand the trust. you're going to see activity occur that have potential flash point mings. that's why it's important now to make a shift in there. this is a lot to be done but there are check points as we move forward that are going to be very emotional. there are going to be moments when folks may disagree or agree on what the outcomes are. there are a lot of steps between here and the finish. have you two investigations going on at the same time.

our goal here is to make sure operationally and systematically we are getting peace and using this on that front to garner opportunities in the future. >> you've talked about trying to heal that wound that has been here for a long time. do you have any specifics you can offer on things you'd like to see done? >> we're focused on operational things. we'd like to see folks feel comfortable in speaking and we'd like to see the danger level go down. we'd like to see the investigations completed. we'd like to see those done in a fashion that is transparent and timely so that these important facts get out in the public. think it's important for people to know what happened and how it happened and process that. the sooner we can get to that, that's extremely important

here. and long range institutions like this and schools, i do appreciate representative this morning listening sessions with students in schools here. that's an important step to engage with the young folks. some of the other representatives are doing the same. and that is an important part of this process too and i hope o be involved appropriately. >> [inaudible] transport folks that wear the uniforms. most of you know i have a

lifetime of being involved in law enforcement. they are stressed right now. it been a difficult couple of weeks here. getting this operational shift is something that will give everybody a breath of fresh air. we're not -- this isn't about looking in the rare view mirror. we're trying to look at what's n front of us. let hink we are going to them do their jobs.

i know they are hustling their tails off. nobody is enjoying the time lines. they want to get it right and they will. i don't think adding a third at this particular time until we get the transparency here and see the outcome of that is appropriate. there is already two folks looking over shoulders. that's unique anyway. i think that's going to work because general holder and his team are seasoned professionals and i would not at this junkure thinking bringing in a third is going to be helpful at that junkure. >> can you characterize a little bit your relationship with the black community and how it's evolved over the past week and shaped your response to all of this? > i appreciate the relationship i have with so many of my friends from so many years in this community.

and the stress and pressures that they've helped me with over the years not only these fine four leaders here -- five, i'm sorry charlie. others i tremmedously appreciate that. i'm going to continue to not use this as a time to divide or draw differences or see how loud i can talk or sharp i can say that. other people have first amendment rights. i have executive challenges here. i think that relationship is good professional and in many ways very personal with a number of folks and i look forward to the natural process of the first amendment democracy. a lot of people agree and disagree in public. that's part of living. if you are not up for dealing with the cries of actions and inactions in this job you shouldn't seek it. >> speaking of first amendment

rights, could you respond to criticism of your handling of the situation that came in the form of a tweet from the state senator that included a four letter word? >> good. >> aim warm? -- am i warm snits near the g's. >> are you familiar with it? >> i see some of it. . at's not how i communicate into the t gasoline engine of fire engines when i see them, not on the fires that are existing. i find doing that is more productive. >> we tried to.

we'll get that opportunity soon. we've been in contact with them. i have been impressed by their comments in calling for peace and justice and i thank them for that. i think they have been resolute in their recommendation to the communities that violence is not the answer. and i know they are going through difficult times, very difficult times and i think that while we had a chance to get together, the schedules got bumped and i'm sure we'll get a chance to is it with them. with the things in front of me right now it was important for me to get this strategic alignment accomplished and then work on tonight. i've been more focused today on the operational aspects. >> i'll let captain johnson make a few comments but i should say asking members of

law enforcement what they are is -- but do captain johnson. >> what are you going to do differently tonight? are you going to roll in there with armored vehicles and police and full body gear or are you going to have a different appearance? >> we're going back in a sense today and we're going to start from today and not look back in the past. when we talk about boots on the ground, my boots are going to be on the ground. i plan on myself walking to the quick trip that has been called ground zero and meeting with the folks there myself tonight. we are going to have a different approach and have the approach we're in this together. that's going to be the approach we're going to have tonight. and look at our resources and

make sure we're not taking resources out there we don't need. but when we do need them, they will still be here. we'll reassess. nd we plan on trying to keep doors open and let people speak and hear what they are talking about like the governor said, not just letting them speak but listening. we will have a different approach today and i believe you'll see that. i believe that was in the plan before this meeting. we talked last night with the police chief of st. louis county and those were the plans we had for today. we all went home last night and before we left we talked about going home and thinking about what we were going to do for today. and i can tell you that when i got home last night my wife was out of town and my son wasn't home. before i got in the bed like i do each and every night i prayed and i prayed for a different morning today. and i believe today is going to be a different day for our

community. today i had a chance to go to the high school and speak with 25 students. and one young lady said in the back with tears in her eyes and said i hate to cry. i almost had tears in my eyes. i told her we're going to make a change and make a difference. i told each of those students if they have any issues they should call us. i also gave the students my adress and told them to write me a letter about how they felt and how this impacted them. after this is over i'm going to read that to the trooper's assigned here. i got an e-mail to my phone from the head of the security at the school that said the students went back to class and told their friends they believe we're going to make a change oday and we are. >> i want to thank everybody better fr being here. we're prepared to move forward

and make a difference. thank you for being here today. >> coming up on c-span a discussion on the national security threats posed by iran's nuclear program and isis. after that a look at the role of religion and diplomacy in the middle east. >> coming up on "washington journal" --

>> this month c-span presents debates on what makes america greafment indepth looks at veterans healthcare, student loan debt and campus sexual assault. new perspective on global warming, voting rights and food safety and our history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find our tv schedule one week in advance at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us.

join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now a panel examines president obama's foreign policy strategy in the middle east and the threats posed by iran's nuclear program and isis. >> good afternoon and thank you

for coming. the subject which poses the gger threat to u.s. national security, iran or extremism. we are conducting this panel in the context of a number of different things moving on the ground in the middle east. most recently there was the war in gaza where various palestinian factions backed by iran fought a traditional u.s. ally. right now the obama administration is waging a limited campaign against isis in iraq. -- iraq keys ve have named a new prime minister and these are just a few of the things we'll touch on this afternoon. we'll go for an hour and 10

minutes and then we'll open up the floor to your questions. i want to introduce the panelist here. duran.eft is michael he specializes in middle east security issues. he's held several academic positions and been secretary of defense. his left is a senior fellow .ith hudson his articles have appeared in the "washington journal," world affairs, commentary and the weekly standard among other publications tofment his left, brian ho has been on panels here before. he's a senior fellow at the center for american progress where he focuses on the middle

east, what the world wants from america and what we need in return. with that i'm going to ask my colleague to my left, michael to begin with his short introduction and then we'll go in order along like that. >> thank you. it's great to be here. >> my sumple answer to the question which sthret the greater strategic threat is iran. but before i go into my thinking, let me describe what i believe to be the obama administration's answer to that question because i believe although the question hasn't been put to them and they haven't answered and i don't think they would like to have to answer the question, i think it's pretty clear the obama

administration regards isis as sooni.mary threat or think every other president countered iran. and the obama administration oubter iran as a goal. but there is nothing designed to counter iran and in particular we had this very significant intervention in the syrian civil war by iran and by iran's proxies that elicited almost no response and i would say basically no response from the united states.

and i think that was the first clear sign we had that the obama administration no longer regarded carrying iran really as a vital interest. if you look across the region in every major arena, you'll see increasingly the u.s. and iran are marching in parallel. the most recent example being the prime minister was welcomed by the united states and by iran. the supporters of the administration will say well it just happens that the united states and iran have the same interest and are walking in parallel like this. i personally don't believe that to be the case. i think there is a conscious effort to accommodate iran to arrive at a mod does and the

primary reason for that is the notion that isis is the threat. we have this problem of jihaddist from bag dan to damascus and the administration's attitude i think is much the same. it's attitude in sprivet much the same as what we've seen from ambassador pickering and lures and crocker who wrote in the "washington post" which said we have to ban together with all of the like minded states in the renalen that are hostile to isis iran being first and foremost among them so we should come to accommodation with them. we heard in the huffing on the post recently expressing what is a very prevalent view in the defense department and we hear from many other significant

figures in the policy world. that's how i think that they see the region. personally i think this puts them in a very contradictry position. let's just say for the sake of discussion that our number one goal at the moment is to counter isis so the administration's answer to that is what we need is a change of prime ent, a change of minister in iraq to have a government that is more inclusive of soonis so we can separate out the sooni tribes in iraq from isis because a lot of -- one of the reasons why isis has been able to take over the sooni arab portions of iraq is because it is benefiting

from the support of the tribe. so we have to drive a wedge. in order to do that we need an iraq government more accommodating to sooni desires more broadly. i agree with that analysis in general terms but not in the specifics. we're going to need much more than just the change of a prime minister. you have to change the whole structure of the security services in iraq which have become increasely she had over time and you have to hange the alignment between the iraq government and iran because the tribesmen in iraq believe they are being tar getted by a approximatey of i ran in the form of the government. we learned how to do this during the surge and we learned what it takes. it takes a significant u.s. security commitment. it takes relationships, direct relationships with the tribesmen on the ground.

we have to offer them security and we have to offer them a political path forward that will allow them to believe that if they go against isis somebody will have their back. and i just don't believe that the iraq government under any prime minister as it is currently constituted is going to succeed in that. then we have the second problem which is syria. and the president said recently when asked whether he should have supported the syrian opposition, he said that the criticism of his policy is horse ships which i take to be a strong statement he's not going to reverse course. we need the same thing he's describing in iraq. we need a political horizon for the soonis of syria.

until the soonis of syria have that, there is going to be no way to disconnect them from the most extreme jihadis. but the president's suggest he's not about to do anything. we're not about to have an awakening attitude or policy toward syria. as long as we don't -- as long as we are treating iraq and syria as separate problems we're not going to solve the problem because it's now a unified problem from baghdad to elep poe. we have to have a whole strategy which means baveingically an awakening style movement in syria and in iraq designed to pull the soonis away from the jihad diss. and until the president

approaches it in that paradigm, i think our policies is dest tinned to fail. or it becomes what it is. and this hasn't been admitted. the policy we have at the moment is an unfaded policy of containing jihad by aligning ourself with iran. it's not what we say in public but that's what we're doing. we're just trying to put a ring around this thing and hold it in place and i think that's going to be a very big failure. >> that's terrific. there is a lot to come back to shortly. in the meantime, if you would please give your introduction. >> thanks very much and thanks for the audience and my fellow panelists. first, i would agree with mike. i think iran is the greatest strategic threat although one

has to say that both threats both e considerable, that the islamic state and islamic republic of iran are fy gnat i can determined enemies of mostly they are enemies to one another but the one thing they can agree on is that we are the enemy. so there is first of all that. there practically speaking may be something to choose between them in the short term but not in general terms. second, i also agree with mike that the this is not the conclusion of the administration which is inclined to think that islamic state is the greater enemy and that there is some kind of aligns to be formed whether it's just defact toe or even

more managed between us and iran. some of this comes i think from something that has been characteristic of the administration for a very long time. >> can you speak in the microphone a little bit. >> some of this a result of what has been characteristic or several characteristics of the administration's policy for a very long time. first of all, it has been the privileging of the issue of terrorism. the president often lists a variety of national security interests that we might have, defense of the gulf and so on and so forth. but if you look at any one of his statements, the vast majority of the statement is devoted to the terrorism issue. he's come back to this over and over again. his one responsibility is to protect the united states from a 9/11 type of attack or other terrorism. so the whole policy has been

built on for a long, long time on prioritizing terrorism and addressing it. the only problem with that policy has been that it is now a failure, that the situation we face with the islamic state is much, much worse. s administration officials more admit than was the case with al qaeda prior to 9/11. on way they have to focus that because the administration's policy, legacy stands afold with whether they have addressed that. the other factor in the approach of the administration has been this notion that it was stated with particular clarity in the interview that the president gave to tom freedman that he looks to a

future in which the various parties to conflicts approach it with the under the no vector, no vankquished. that there is a kind of solution to be had on the horizon in which there are conflicts but the conflicts can be managed if everyone comes to understand that there are lose -lose situations and win-win situations. and he's put this in different ways. and this was elaborated by mike in a piece he recently wrote. he can give you the citation. his notion there is an eke lib brume to be had in the region and it has to be reached by the various parties it to. that means among other things we have to be our own

perspective more accommodating to our enemies or former enemies and he has accommodating to our friends. and we've seen this actually expressed in a variety of ways over time, most recently in the gaza war where practically speaking no one in the region could figure out what we were trying to do by inviting turkey in as mediators in the struggle. nd several described us as discovering a new craft one punishes ones friends and rewards one's enemies. but that follows if you are looking for a situation where there is a solution to be had hich involved this kind of equilibrium and compromise. >> the next thing i want to say is the president, especially

several of his advisors talk about having long view, that whatever may be the bumps on the road, they have a really clear and novel view of and much better view of where the region could wind up, should wind up. and they want to stick with that. the very fact that the question you posed as the question of this panel suggest that is a very dubious proposition. that what we can see is a emendous mess, an enormous mess in which we find ourselves faced with -- even if we agree the islamic state is the first priority, it has grown to be an enormous problem which is

president himself is not saying hat we have much to do against in the near term. what we really need to do right now is hold the line. and i will finish by saying there is a particular way in which the policy has become obviously dubious even to the administration and that has to do with the kurds. it turns out i think as we're seeing over the last week that the one thing we actually can do just at the moment if we mean to stop the islamic state is arm the kurds. something we have resisted for months, for years. and even resisted a month ago when they were here to request heavy arms because they anticipated having to go up against the islamic state which

would be heavily armed. at the i think it was just after the fourth of july, the president and his advisors said no. now it looks like we and practically everyone else will wind up begging them to take our arms. i noticed today the french want to give them arms. the british want to give them arms. even the germans want to give them military materials. that i think shows evidently a failure in the policy but also points in a direction for the short term that our -- one of our principle assets right now in the region is the kurds who are not friends but not enemies but friends that. we may need to go back to a policy in which we support friends and to the extent

possible punish enemies. >> thanks very much. brian if you would kickoff our first round here. >> it's great to be here with michael and hello and thanks for inviting me back here for what i think will be a very interesting discussion. first at the out set i wanted to make three points. one i want to respond to the question that is framing our discussion, second, offer a diagnosis of what is going on in the region and then third, maybe suggest points about where we go from here as i country and i want to highlight as a country and together because i think that's important. i obviously will talk about president obama and the obama administration but i think what we're seeing in the middle east requires a much more yuan need national response than i think we've seen at least for the last decade and our own division sometimes hinder our ability to deal strategyically with these challenges.

first what is the greater threat, the islamic state orgy haddist. when you asked me this question earlier this summer i said i have to punt because i see both of these as possible representing tremendous threats. you need go back only a few years when our military and officials found evidence that some elements in iran were supporting some elements of al qaeda in iraq. so there is and has been instances of what i would classify as tactical cooperation between these entities. i want to be measured here too. because when we use labels or talk about iran as a monolithic entity i think that's incorrect. there are many different strands within iran and as we've seen in history some elements of the iranian power structure will work with us on certain irkes like afghanistan.

there has been already under president bush and right now today tactical cooperation in a certain sense. it's not planned but just as a matter of happenstance and change in the region. the reason why i refused to answer the question is i think when you asked me that question, i went back to my old awe ge textbooks and the us tins were quite good. >> it's evil. when you see when the regime has done to repress the voice of individuals, it is evil. but i'm a pragmatist,

fortunately policy only list. we need to deal with his challenges with that moral framework in mind but then move forward. which is the second point. i hope this is useful. we did a report recently based on on the ground research throughout the middle east. and there is a report available over there. for those of you watching on tv it's on the american progress website. the diagnosis trying to be more clinical as opposed to talking about the moral challenge is that the middle east for the last three years has been in a period of fragmentation and fracturing and in intense competition for power amongst the key stake holders in the region. we've been a factor in that but our policy debates overweight how much we matter. sometimes i think if an as stroid hit a planet 100 million

light years away from here someone would blame president obama for that and someone on the left would sates because of u.s. imperialism. things happen because of demographic and political changes. our actions matter a lot. but i think what we've seen especially since the rise of the arab up risings has been this competition for influence first within countries. who is actually leading these countries. second is sectarian. and then there is a third larry not recognized but comes deeply into play in the syrian opposition is the intersooni ght between saudi arabia and

uae and cutter. i know that is a complicated way of looking at it but i think that's where the region is at. many have biten the apple and they see dots. they are exercising far greater influence over their own region and affairs. if there is a broader trend it's that countries that have more resources that are less internally divided are playing out their battles in their own approximatey wars in the region. we've been a bystander to this. i would argue and others will argue against me but i think when we were in the region with 170,000 troops, that presence matters but the politics and the shaping of power dynamics which i think some of our diplomats have helped guide and shape and i think we're seing that go on right now inside iraq is an parent part of this

struggle trying to figure out where do we intervene, how do we use our power so it doesn't lead to overreaction or a bit of underreach in this administration. which leads to the last point and i'll close here of what do we do about this? just some starting thoughts because i hope this is a deeper conversation to stimulate all of our thinking. the other challenge i had with your question that was it framed things very much in a threat based scenario and i think that's important but i also think our strategic thinking goes down that path without thinking about what are the opportunities, what do we actually want to see achieved. i think this tactical crisis management reactive mode we've seen under president obama and also certain aspects under the bush administration when it

walked away from its own doctrines on paper. it's driven by real threats but if we're not defining what we want to achieve in the long run, and i think it is a long battle, we need to think about what middle east do we want to see 20 or 30 years from now. moving from that point and this is where i might disagree with the current policy stance but you got to support your friends first, your most reliable and capable partners. we'll get into gaza and the tactical questions about this dispute between obama and netanyahu. i think there is a strong enduring strategic relationship there. our friends in the nation now kurds ael, jordan, the and a few others on some days. egypt we have to get to because

i fear it's slipped away from our strategic discussion. t bear bare minute helping our friends help themselves. i hope it's a step in the right direction with the kurds. for those who are pessimistic about iraq and i was a critic of the war. i was one of those left advocates of we should get out but i was saying we should stay engaged diplomatically and politically. the good thing politics. dysfunctional though they be it is not what you have across the worder in syria. you have an ability -- something that did not exist under hussein and for much of the period we were there there is politics and this is one good thing. what president obama has tried to do quite correctly inside

iraq in response to the isis rise is get others to take responsibility for their own affairs. kurds see, the when they are willing to fight with their grit and determination we will have their back. quite understandably president obama when they saw the scenarios when iraq security forces strip off their uniforms, hand over the weapons, there is a hesitation to offer support there because after $20 billion plus, you wonder can we fight more for a country than the people of that country. so i think the real debate here and we get in this rhetorical debate and i think the thing between president obama and secretary clinton there was a bit of if you read carefully there was a much more textured understanding of what was going on. the real debate is not

engagement versus disengagement. the u.s. is engaged. what is the right way to calibrate that engagement. who are the partners we need to work with? and some of the things michael may disagree, i don't see president obama going down this path that ryan or others put in their op ed. i see something more muddled than that. it's not a strategic choice between the two. i don't think how they are operating, i think they see the united states for all of the talk of us disengaging, we still have a wider network of partners in the region. right now it includes the uae, saudi arabia, jordan, israel, qatar, turkey, egypt for the most part. no other country has the diversity relationships. i see the attempts with iran as a bit more tactical. but i did

not see us going in the tank. even if there is a nuclear deal, i see this hedge small site -- multifaceted approach. i see it as downsized. it also has wisdom to it, too. i think the real debate is how do we move forward? how do we prioritize the region and the region actually in turmoil, and how do you implement a strategy that takes into the second factor that i talked about, influencing their own interests, which we saw in the old quarter of -- arab cold war. >> thank you very much. i am especially happy the subject sent you back to augustine. fantastic. many people in the audience will return and read it for the first time.

i wanted to defend a little bit the subject of the channel because i think the administration, the president has addressed this in various nterviews. i believe i made this case from the same stage a couple of times in the past. the case i will make is i think the way the president understand the on the mental issue is not mad, i think it is very sound. the way i will lay it out is the islamic republic of iran while extremely problematic and we regress against the support for terrorist activities, they are nonetheless a state. finally military operations if necessary. faces or organization like isis are somewhat of a state now, becoming more and more of the state. hese organizations are not states, they are not

capital. i believe the administration perceives these organizations are a bigger concern, and there are fewer resources or instruments to deal with that. that's why i think there actually has been a real choice. i don't believe the administration or the president iran is a reliable partner around the region. are certain there correspondences we are seeing played out right now.

it's not because the president believes the clerical regime is a bunch of good actors but this is the way the policies are moving. >> thanks. i think brian could possibly be right, that's what we're written the thing -- witnessing is a lot of ad hoc array, that the strategic decision the obama administration made was the one it made early on and that was to keep the region at arms length. it is possible. i believe the president has consciously decided to align with iran but nosy cannot state that because it is politically untenable mystically but that is what he is doing. possible. we do not have a smoking gun.

we do have statements from the president himself. but it does not matter. it amounts to being the same policy anyway. there is a fundamental decide -- divide in the region between the iranian alliance and the traditional friends. hamas was a little bit problematic that seems to be back in the fold. you can add to that iraq is pretty much a satellite of iran. and iran has other little players build up around the region. then everybody else. they operate as an alliance. they pursue their interests aggressively wherever they are. wait -- received a way they supported assad, even in his darkest days. i guarantee you he never said use of force is problematic.

we have a heavy footprint that creates active bodies and should really hang back. the kinds of the bates we have in washington all of the time, they did not have. they sell their friend in trouble and they went in and supported him. that creates a huge divide in the region between their guys and those who were our guys. we have decided we will no longer look at the region that way. each for whatever reason we will no longer test every arena and say how do we support our guys against their guys? so what that means is we leave our guys out on the battlefield alone and isolated. karl marx talks about peasants as a sack of potatoes saying

peasants as a class have an interest, a class interest but because of the divisions they are incapable of operating as last. photo moment you open it up they all go in a different direction. our allies are a sack of potatoes. left on their own, they cannot come together. the saudi's and i rated share almost -- arabians almost agree on everything. they will coordinate to a certain extent. but they will not come together and work to counter iran in syria or iraq or elsewhere. it is the job of the united states to organize allies, to make sure they're all moving in the same direction.

when we do that, we can get a very significant, strategic impact. if we do not play that role or renounce it, we cede it to the other side which continues to look at the region as a zero-sum game. it is very striking every major obama initiative in the middle east has failed. i say everyone. i would say they failed and we just do not want to call them a failure yet. everything other than the iranian nuclear deal has railed. y? we do not have allies to support us. if we look at each problem

independent from every other problem about reference to the pattern of power, security dilemmas that the allies face, and when we come up with solutions and gaza recently that has nothing to do with the players on the ground that are defining the problem, no one will follow us. we cannot achieve anything if we do not do it together with our partners and partners will not cooperate unless we take on board to a certain extent their perception of the security dilemma. done does not mean we have to be the tail that wags the dog but means we have to accept the understanding to a certain extent and have to understand the biggest card we have to play is the military, security assistance. that does not mean we need a massive invasion.

obviously the american public does not want that. the number one goal is to provide security to the partners, excepting how they understand the game. >> we spoke about this before but i want to transition from the statement. talking about the campaign against isis and you have thoughts about that. was wondering if you want to talk about that. >> we have been looking at the events carefully. we put this out in mid-june was should have been a wake-up call and think it has been a wake-up call for the united states and the region. the paper essentially argued we need to work with papers in the region and the rate on an occlusive, national way and ended with the note that we may need to conduct airstrikes

ourselves. there is politics. this i think with the debate inside the administration. we put it out there. we were hit by people for saying that. we have the confluence of events where there was action, necessary action and that the same time they were making a step in their politics. what we put in the paper as well was the problem of serious. quite obviously the wake-up call this summer is these two problems, which until earlier have been inside the administration but increasingly

different people working on different aspects. the problems have merged. i do think what the united states and president obama have been doing you should get credit for. as difficult as the situation inside iraq is working with this previous administration notwithstanding the critique about the previous war. all of that in the past. we are where we are now, work with what you have got. i think there is the makings of the pathway forward. my main point is the threats inside of western iraq in northern iraq and have the ground force some of the iraqi security forces, the threats

will migrate across the border back and forth. i cannot pretend to have the answer to this. i think we can go back to what could have been done and think that is a legitimate debate. i am more interested and what we do now. we just finished a month on the ground. we are really struggling with the question. part of it is you may have been easier in 2012 or 2013 or maybe not as the secretary and others have hedged. no one really knows. going back to a michael said, no matter what the u.s. did or did not do, we are where we are right now so let's figure out how we can build a foothold. i know you have proposals. i think this administration might be entertaining that you

cannot just work in a rock -- in iraq and meaning to squeeze the spread. we're partners on the ground willing to do this. i think we might have some inferior but they are weak. i think they are beaten down by a very aggressive security and ideological threat to the region. the second thing, i think it is important to do analysis on the statements and end actions matter quite a bit, too. what they have done with security. unprecedented and rivaling anything we have given in sales

in cooperation. upwards of $100 billion. i think that is why it is largely focused on the ideas of the security threat they pose. in a sense of actions the louder than words. we need to have the action of our friends, good guys, bad guys. what i worry about is when you look at the states like saudi arabia is that it has many different strands. on balance, they are traditional ally but look at what it is funding. you look at that from the sixth -- syrian opposition. the non-strike event of about a year or so. it led to the action that i

think contributed to the problem we have right now inside of syria. i am introducing more nuanced and perceptible and -- in strategy. -- acceptable in strategy. it is clear they are reliable and capable allies. yes, we do need to make a decision. the main point is i think we have made decisions on iraq. i think this administration has not clarified what they want to do with the proposed 500 million for this. opposition. what is your strategy here. >> i want to come back to serious shortly. in the meantime i wanted to use what you are talking about to transition. one thing we were talking about was the no-bid or, no vanquished formula, which suggests that a lot of our allies, and we have

known for a while, that our region are allies are problematic to say the least. many of them not as reliable as israel. but it is peculiar the idea we should be judging strategy or policy in terms of certain allies and horses we can ride in the region and seems to be about it. the formula seems to be tying it back to lebanon is where this comes from. why is the united states perceiving it that way in terms of allies we can ride to ensure we win in various places across the region, including most recently in gaza? >> frankly, i will include that in my remarks, but it seems to me engaging what

brian has just said. i wanted to say earlier that i think your revival of the word evil is completely appropriate. and i want to say also the use of it does not make it impossible to engage in practical calculations about lesser evils. there are probably people who will correct me if i get this wrong, but i think it is the case that at the time when nazi germany invaded the soviet union in june 1941, the british government regarded the soviet union as an enemy and the soviet regime was evil but one asked about the response, i believe

churchill said if hitler decided to invade hell, you would find kind words to say about the devil. and one can take that stance. the question of whether it is entirely appropriate in the circumstances. another point you made is where we want the region to be. i guess also people who have studied the region have made the suggestion where they think the region should be but the question is really where our country's interests are, and what are those interests at this point and what conceivable future could match up with them? that i think is really the thing that needs to take waste. >> we are where we are as you said.

>> let's not go over the past. let's not go over the present president obama and the former secretary of state, hillary clinton. >> i think this is the last possible moment we can have an effect. the islamic state keeps making progress in syria at the expense of all other groups on its side. the regime keeps making progress, most recently it captured more ground around damascus. within the next few months, a be even shorter, there will be only two sides in syria.

be one we can support. whatever has to happen is going to happen there. it will still be beneficial, has to happen extremely rapidly. this brings me to another thing about the way -- you talked about new wants. nuances tremendously important -- you talked about nuance. unless it allows you to forget the forest for the trees. you still have to graph what it is you really want and what is really out there, and the president -- there is a claim made on behalf of the administration by the administration that it has a very careful and calibrated, the word they use over again, calibration. that calibration doesn't seem to be working, so if one means to

be successful, one has to have a different approach. as for the gaza situation, i assume part of the discussion will go over the issues more generally, but there came a crucial moment in the war in which i would not say that israel had hamas down and out, but it had it down. egyptians were cooperating or aiding the israelis on not to stop her give way in any way to any other proposal regarding a cease-fire other than the ones the egyptians had offered. and the egyptians had to interest in that. one was that it was their offer, and the second was that it did

not yield on the embargo which they had imposed. then what did our secretary of state do? produce not immediately an agreement, nor was it expected to. hamas turn that down. but it then. a leg or a list of all the floor because the secretary of state went off to turkey and said you guys, hamas doesn't want to talk to egypt, we have to talk to you. that was an extremely foolish thing, certainly from the point of view of the egyptian point of view. if mike is right that what you want to be doing is helping your and supporting their interest. unless you think there is some enormously greater interest that

requires you to dim our. to demur.quires you of the most remarkable things about that event was that the day it came out that that was what had happened, the israeli press was filled with the tax on this proposal. not only the proposal -- filled with attacks on the proposal. they had gone to qatar in turkey, which are enemies. most vociferously hostile articles by authors everyone knows or left-wing columnist in israel. all of them thought this is really taking leave of their , ands to manage this abandon the position in which

egypt is in alignment with israel. that was remarkable. i'm going to ask for another little transition here. thehe general framework of subject of the panel, i'm going to ask you if you can -- and i really do want to get into syria , i would like you to stay -- state what are u.s. interests in the region right now, if you put it in the context of the larger subject of the panel. but our interests are what they have always been. we want to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. terrorist counter organizations of global reach. we want to stop proliferation. we want to make sure there is a free flow of oil at reasonable prices. we want to support israel and so on. if you look at it in terms of

syria, you cannot solve syria allies.suing the the idea that were going to reach out, the idea that assad regime or iran or any of their are the iraqi militias that are rand is deploying to have are going to political profile that is acceptable either to the sunnis on the ground in syria or to the sunni states in the region is completely fanciful. let's call it the pickering lure proposal. the pickering proposal suggested that that constellation of forces can actually solve the problem in syria. it cannot. the problem in both iraq and

syria is the problem of creating a new sunni order. to do that we have to have sunni andes on the ground regionally. as long as we are perceived as following a policy that is important, whether intentionally or unintentionally, of a rant and its allies, sunnis are not going to work with us. so we are not going to solve the problem. regardless of whether i think iran is the most evil organization or state in the region, regardless of what i --nk about the extreme list extremist in saudi arabia, which cannot solve our problem unless we work with sunnis. therefore, we have to be aware of this divide between iran and everybody else in the region and we have to take i. we have to pick a side. will play devils's advocate, why do we have to pick a side?

the u.s. is still the only superpower. it seems as though the administration has talked about trying to balance our goal arab allies against iran. , and we doesn't work are seeing how it doesn't work. said the problem in theory has metastasized. is going to destabilize the region. frankly i was laughed at when i said that. it doesn't do much good to laugh because we still have this problem and it's going to get bigger. we are at the stage where it is almost threatening free flow of oil at reasonable prices. the iraqi production is threatened by the growth of isis. it is just a matter of time before jordan gets in the

crosshairs. crosshairs ofthe both players. i agree with what brian said before about the fact that iran is not the enemy of isis. there is a long history of syria and iran playing ftse. it is not actively supporting al qaeda when it served their interests. a country like jordan could come andr fire from isis like-minded groups. a country like jordan could come under fire from iran and hezbollah if they decided it was in their interest to destabilize the saudi u.s. system further. i don't think a sitting back and irang let's let isis five -- this is the sarah palin strategy.

sarah palin said let a law sort sort itid let allah out. there is more than just a whiff of anti-muslim feeling about it. but that is basically what the program has been. i see no sign that it works in any way. they are two sides of the same coin. >> i don't have broad disagreement with it. i think there is a consensus about stopping another attack from iteris group, stopping iraq from getting a nuclear weapon and things like this. the problem i have with it is that it seems a little formulaic and stuck in the past. to widen the linens a little bit, the way i see what is going on right now in the civil war in syria is in a

broader sense of history, maybe 50 or 60 years. if you look at the last 30 years of u.s. engagement in the region, and many of you have served and distinguished capacity in that, we have engaged much more deeply since the 1980's in the region. the region itself is that a typical transition point. most of it is organic and from within. you look at the demographic bubble, the social and political pressures. i used to write about this a lot in terms of the potential threat and challenge in the previous decade. i think that is still the case. fascism and freedom. it is a broader landscape which i think is very important to keep in mind in our strategic and tactical discussions about different pieces of the probably

have right now. we have an interest to see the region and define it as the region that is much more cohesive and integrated with itself and the rest of the world. that may be too idealistic at this point. to be able to achieve that, it has to move beyond simply what we do in terms of security steps , or in terms of economic assistance. it has to have a component of moral values and ideas. does anyone remember the battle of ideas that people talked about after 9/11 which was a big wake up call? the broader trajectory of the is thisside this region fight of what we stand for versus what others say that they stand for. it touches on faith, religion, and power in ways that are -- we

just don't want to listen to it. but i think it matters quite a lot. the struggle for decency and freedom in egypt is ongoing right now and is much more complicated than the top lines have been presented since last year's ouster of morsi. would hope that is not too idealistic of a vision. i have a lot of worries about how president obama approaches this is an analyst. people do not comment on his notion that you have a sunni majority that feels disconnected from the global economy. i believe the figment of that. i think that is right. it is about people feeling like they have security and a job and things like that, but it is incomplete. the other aspects of basic freedom and human rits