have i commune -- communicated the best? probably not. i made tough decisions. i was hired to change the lture of harassburg -- harrisburg. maybe we didn't communicate that well. i know we went from an 8.1% unemployment rate to a 5.8. if i can control some of the things that are going on in washington with the cost of health care, with the whole cost of obamacare, that would be one. second term, i can't answer that. i want to grow pennsylvania. i think i'll do it in my closing. >> ok. let's set the clock at two minutes. ladies and gentlemen, closing from tom corbett. >> thank you all for being here. i certainly have njoid this. i hope you will have enjoyed it too. [applause] , r ok. that cost me five seconds of time.

you know, this has been such a wonderful experience for my wife sue and i. she's here now. we really enjoy seeing the people of pennsylvania, all the people of pennsylvania. we're in a much better position than we were when i took office. no more $4.2 billion deficit. no more relying on the federal government to balance our budget. new jobs coming to pennsylvania. recently we reported by insight magazine, we're the number one state in the northeast, number four in the country for the establishment of new or the expansion of corporate headquarters. why? because we have created the atmosphere for businesses to come and grow from jobs in the private sector here in pennsylvania. we have built the foundation. but what am i really looking at? i didn't make any one one of my

decisions as many do and i'm not that good of a politician because i try to keep my promises and look to the future, not to two, four or six years. because we have a responsibility to do better. not to give debt to our children. not to give debt to our grandchildren. i believe many of you here have grandchildren. every day i get up and i look at the picture and many of you have had to stuffer of looking at my picture of my soon to be 3-year-old grandson and i talk about him. i'm looking at him and all your grandchildren because we need to leave a better state than just today. i'm happen -- just today sue and i became grandparents again to identical twin boys, elliott and theodore and i want them to have a better pennsylvania. that's why i'm doing this. thank you. [applause]

>> mr. wolf, two minutes. >> well, again, thank you to the chamber for hosting this great event. thank you. you've been a great hon audience. i look at this challenge as governor again coming out of the background i come out of in much the same away i looked at my business when i went back to it in 2009. it was flat on its back. i saw some great virtues, great potential, great inner strength in that company. i turned it around. i worked with all of my employees and we turned that into a very successful company over the last four or five years. and i did it not with ideology, not with partisan camp, but practical problem solving. that's what i brought to that business and i think that's what we need to bring to this state because as a citizen, i look at my state and i say i don't like the report that the auditor

general and the state structure put out last week. i don't like the cash balances that seem to be deteriorating each year. i don't like the fact that we're not creating jobs the way we used to create jobs in ennsylvania. here in -- i lamb ent the fact ha -- lament the fact that our schools are being hollowed out. i think when i look at those things as a citizen, the state i love, we need a fresh start. i think we need to go in a different direction. i think we need a new governor. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, regardless of your politics you have to appreciate that these two gentlemen have put themselves out there. can we have r have a big round of applause for tom corbett and tom wolf? [applause] >> the election is six weeks

from tomorrow and our keynote speaker is about to take the stage. thank you very much. >> live campaign 2014 coverage on c pan from pennsylvania. incumbent republican governor tom corbett facing challenge tom wolf. here's more about our campaign coverage for this week. >> c-span campaign 2014 continues thursday night at 9:00, nebraska debate between lee terry and brad ashford. and sunday the iowa debate. c-span campaign 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> up next on c-span, former chair hiefs of staff general hew shelton talks about the group isis. then crbs news correspondent

ill host a discussion on isis. >> general hew shelton is a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff having serve frd 1997 to 2001. he joins us as we continue discussing u.s. strategy to combat isis. as you look at the threat to combat isis, do you think isis can be defeated without having boots on the ground? >> first of all, i'm delighted to see that we now have a strategy and it's being articulated. the thing i think that is very worry some is we can't use solely air power to defeat isis. if you can't do that, then do we need to put boots on the ground? >> i think you heard general dempsey testify last week say that ultimately we need to be prepared to have to put boots on

the ground. i would submit -- i would say first and foremost, we need to think about the thousands of iraqi forces that we trained, for example, in iraq that should be capable now of being the boots on the groubd and fighting so to speak. it's their nationlet we trained them. it's time now to fight against isis and therefore they serve as the boots on the ground. and they should be able with american air support to defeat isis in anyway, shape or form. >> you mentioned general dempsey, his comments getting a lot of reaction on capitol hill with headlines like this strategic rift widens between obama and the pentagon, talking about the isis strategy. do you see a rift here on strategy? >> i don't see a rift. but i think marty is doing any good chairman and a military advisor would do. that is he's giving the

president his best recommendation based on what the military sees is the right eants. -- answer. we all know this problem is not just a military problem. i would submit it's more of a political and diplomatic point at -- problem at this point. president obama has got to receive all the information, fighting against the social media and lobbyist that tehran as well as isis in washington, d.c. and all the other capitals of the world. president obama has got to put it all together. he's got to bring together the political diplomatic, informational and the military and come up with a strategy. i think what's lacking here or what's very worry some is we say we might can win this without boots on the ground and i think limiting ourselves in that matter sends the wrong sing nal to the enemy. if we are not going to put boots

on the ground are we serious about winning the war? i would say lets use the troops we trained. we spent a trillion dollars and a tremendous numbers of lives and casualties of this war to train the iraqis, to defend themselves, to give them a chance to form a democratic nation. let's push the president into doing exactly that, form an inclusive government and then start to use his ground troops that we trained to start carrying the war to isis and those militant groups that are fighting with support from he'sn and they are more -- got to form his own strategy within iraq hopefully with our help but go after them ourselves. this is a iraq war not a u.s. war per se. >> you talk about sending messages. are you concerned this administration has been too open

about what it's willing and what it isn't willing to do when it comes to isis? >> as a military man i would tell you i would never agreeing showing my cards to the enemy. let's let him wonder what our next step will be. the american people understand that there's certain things in this government that ought not to be given to the enemy. for example, ab example strategy should not include a precise date attached to it. that plays into the hands of the enemy. he could wait you out. let's don't show everything to the enemy. i would say that saying up front we're not going to have to use ground troops or american troops is telling you're not going to face america so go ahead and keep going. i think it sends the wrong signal clear le. >> can you talk about the dynamic when you're trying to figure out which cards to show and which cards you don't show

the dynamic between the president and the joint chiefs of staff and a secretary of defense who was on capitol hill testify being this, how did that work and who decides what you should and shouldn't be talking about. >> i think that goes to the national security council and the meetings you have with the president, the vice president and all the key secretaries discussing our national policy, our national security strategy and talking about what we should and should not lay out for the world to see because it's more than just the american people. if today's age if it's out there, it goes to everyone. you have to decide right up front. the dynamic i think goes from the secretary and the chairman when necessity go to the white house hopefully they're one mind. the secretary dealing with the policy issues, which includes our communications plan, also a chairman coming in with the military options we have and a

recommendation as to what would work best from a military standpoint. now, the secretary might not totally agree with the chairman if this case. if that's the case, they lay out their concerns and inform the national security council the president is the deciding member of that council. he makes a decision as to which way he wants to go, what ties him best with the military, political and information plan he envisions for his strategy and that's the plan we go forward with. >> do you personally think that the mill stakes here against -- the political stakes here are getting in the way of the military strategy that's being discussed? > not in any way, shape or form? . the fact there may be a little bit of disagreement within administration is nothing new. when we went into kosovo, the

president understood president clinton that air power might not be able to win that war. we thought it could. but we were not convinced we could win it without ground troops. we did everything we did to make sure we did not have to put american troops on the ground. and ultimately with carrying the war to serbia we got them to pull their troops back. you can't use that same model when you look at isis and iraq because in iraq they can pull their tanks, they're headquarters into mosques, into hospitals into schools, things of that nature so that our air power going after them has to kill a tremendous number of ensint civilians and destroy mosques and schools and hospitals in order to kill them. we don't have a homeland to go after like we did in the kosovo

war. you've got to go in and route them out and that's where the ground troops will become critical if you're going to win the war against isis. i would say again first and foremost it ought to be iraqi ground troops. i wouldn't take american troops off the table if that's what it's going to take to defeat isis. >> general hugh shelton former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff here to take your questions and comments. we'll start with a caller from missouri. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for a great program. thank you general shelton for your service. you talked about isis and terrorism, iran is the biggest threat in the middle east. iran is supporting terrorist group. iran regime should be out of the political equation in the middle east. my question to the general is if the general was going to advise the president, would you commend supporting

[indiscernible] in go for the regime change iraq >> general, a subject you wroit about recently in "the boston globe," but go ahead. >> thank you. thank you for your question and your kind comment. i would tell you right up front, iran is the major source of our problems throughout the middle east. let's don't forget that iran is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world. let's not forget iran is pursuing nuclear ape capability and they have steadfastly uraniumto give up their enrichment program and ballistic missile stockpile. they are a problem and they are not part of the solution. they part of the problem. so i would tell you right up front, i would first and foremost put iran to the side. i would not let them get

involved in iraq in any way, shape or form. all they they would do is use that as an entree to strengththen their position with the ouster of mal key. the next thing i would tell at this moment is to turn to the mervings e.k. -- that are stationed right now at camp liberty, let's treat them as human beings. let's start treating them as citizens and getting them freedom of movement. let's let them have hospital care and take the sewage water out of their camp. quit treating them as if they're criminals. they're an enemy of iran and iran is the greatest threat we face in the middle east. if you look at the 10 points. it reads like america's

declaration of independence. why should they -- consider should we not support them? i would tell the prime minister we expect that of him. after all, america did guarantee their safety and their security and we should not say that we no longer have a role in that just because we lo longer are in iraq. we need to let the prime minister know, treat them as if they are american citizens and any attack on them is an attack against america. >> before we leave iran. u.n. ambassador smith power was asked about what the u.s. is willing and -- >> secretary kerry said last a k that every country has part in this, including iran. what exactly is iran's part? >> let me stress we are not coordinating military operations or sharing intelligence with

iran. i think what the secretary meant was that iran has made clear it isil a threat. in that respect our operations are oriented the objective of degrading and destroying isil and we're waiting to see if irans that has a constructive role to play. i would note iran's behavior and its actions in syria have been very zruct you have ive in our perspective. spending much more time going after civilian neighbors and a moderate opposition than going -- r such a profound monday threat. those action wozz have to change if we're going to deal with isil in a comprehensive way. assad is not someone who can be

relied upon as a partner in the effort against isil. >> i think she hit it out of the ballpark so to speak. i think she said basically what i would say is that we've got to treat iran has a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. however, if iran has some constructive role they think they can play in this, we should be open to hearing them. but lets don't fall prea to their propaganda. let's don't give them an entree back into iraq to strengththen the position they have lost. as she said, they have been very instructive in syria. i don't see that getting by. lets not forget that iran wants to be the key player in the middle east. they want to be the one that everyone in the middle east has to cater to, has to listen to. we saw that in iraq with the influence they exhibited over maliki. i do believe iran would continue

to pursue that to the last degree. they're not going to give up on their long term goals and therefore we need to watch them like a hawk. >> a caller from minnesota. good morning, sharon. you're on with general shelton. >> yes, good morning. i would like to ask the general a question about terrorists here in the united states. the former guest mentioned about minnesota having great poblation of somalians and a lot of the fighters had went back to somalia and different places and been recruited and also the boston bombing. and what i don't understand is why we're not focusing more on united states' safety than other countries. at first the republicans were talking about there's no money. there is no money for unemployment, for different people here in the united states

. minnesota is run -- the cab companies shall the doctors, the banks, everything is run by other people that come from other countries. >> general shelton, jump in. >> i think first and foremost i think you make a very valid point. we have to be very concerned about the homeland. but i would say that the director or secretary johnson in homeland security and director comey with the f.b.i., that's part of their major focus is protecting america. i would not suggest that just because we have a large number of people that come from different countries in the world that seem to be congress ree gated in one spot. i think you look at washington, d.c. you would find almost the very same thing that you mentioned about minnesota. we need to be vigilant. we need to watch that. i would also say any time we have an individual that individuals -- visits another

country, whether it's an attempt to go to syria, whether it's trying to get into iraq. we need to make sure we understand why they're going and monitor them very, very closely. our previous speaker on the program this morning suggested that maybe it ought to be a crime to go to some of these countries. i believe we need legislation to say it is a crime to visit a country like syria right now. i would also say if we have americans that want to go join freedom fighters in somalia, or join isil or isis, we ought to have a law that says that's an act of trees yoon punishable by death. that is a very serious offense in my opinion. when an american turns his back on his own country and joins his outfits he ought to give up all rights except the right to be tried in our court. >> we are talking about threats

against the united states and legislation on travel restrictions. we are joined now by general hugh shelton, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. presently works as the director of the hugh shelton leadership center at n.c. state? >> we are basically starting with young high school students going all the way up into the corporate level stressing the importance of values -- based leadership, integrity, ethics, diversity, compassion. the things that make great leaders: and trying to stress that leaders that lead by the golden rule people respect. it would leave a legacy of a great leader and a great person. >> general shelton served from 1997 to 2001 as joint chiefs of staff chairman. on our line from republican, you're next. >> i would like to thank the

general for your service. i myself aam a vet. i served in kosovo and several other places. ust as -- i was part of one of the last groups that was supposed to go to iraq and was pulled from that because the president wanted to pull all our troops. our mission was going to train the iraqis. that created a vacuum and people need to realize that. when we did not follow through, which the general probably say it was common sense thing at least to keep an concontinue -- concontinue jenny -- we can't -- the american military, this is what we do. i know everybody doesn't want the military to be in certain places but this is what we're trained to did. >> let's let the general comment on that:, >> first of all thank you for

your service. i would agree with you 100 plers. you have to have an orderly withdrawal plan whenever you go into a country. you have to have an exit strategy. but part of that exit strategy is to make sure you leave in place a government that can stand up and defend itself, a government that can survive. now, i think it's very important that as we're doing this that we make sure as we're trying to pull our troops out that that government is one that is not going to be as in the case of maliki very controlled by another foreign entity, in this case iran, because if it is, no matter how long we stay there, that government is headed in the wrong direction. but unless we have an exit strategy that includes a long term presence to give that country time to to get on its feet and operate the way we feel they should be able to operate, defend self, then we are going to leave a vacuum. in this case in iraq, we saw the

iranians move very quickly with influencing maliki and start to turn things around with a very nonsectarian government, one that was not inclusive, did not include the sunnis which constitute 8 million of the iraqi citizens and therefore it started to fall apart pretty quickly. all in the middle of all of that were the 3,000 iranian december dents out in camp liberty that we should be supporting or we should be getting them out of the mess that we left them in. >> melvin, you're on with general shelton. >> yes, first of all i want to thank the general for his service and also the program he is taking with the students. but one thick i want to remind him of when you do this, make sure the information you lay is always accurate. general dempsey -- what what he actually said with respect to

the president's plan he agrees with the plan as is. after being questioned several times he indicated if there came a time when i think troops will be necessary, then i would make that recommendation troops could capacity. a advisory he didn't say troops on the ground. it's like the doctor saying i think we can treat this without surgery but if it comes it that we will do so. he didn't indicate anything about put iting troops in from the initial. he said i agreed with the plan as is. >> general shelton. >> i think you're exactly right. that is exactly what he said. but what he did say is that ultimately if the plan could not succeed without troops on the ground then that might be required. and, you know, yeah, he agreed with the plan and i think that's a very important point to make.

however, he also was very quick to say that that plan might not be sufficient to ensure victory against isis and if it wasn't then that might call for putting troops on the ground. and that, in fact, is what we'll have to wait and see. if the iraqis come through the way they should, the troops on the ground will be the iraqis. it will have to be troops on the ground that will defeat isis because already we're seeing them modify their tactics and techniques to include starting to move up to populated areas so you have to kill a lot of innocent civilians. if the iraqi troops go in there and root them out of there and put them in places where our air power can get to them then we could win it with the iraqi troops. >> in the wake of general , psey's testimony last week yesterday on one of the sunday

shows retired navy admiral mike mullen was asked about this disagreement and here's a bit of his reaction. >> well, actually -- i think when general dempsey our current chairman anticipating a question at a hearing that he would be asked about ground troops took it off the table in his opening statement from the standpoint if the circumstances warranted it that he'd go back and he recommended the president the possibility or the option of using ground troops. i think that's a natural part of the discussion in this debate about how you execute a mission. there should not be any question in the end of who decides this. and that's the president. so i think what general dempsey was trying to do was certainly explain to some degree how the process works. i think it's been blown way out of proportion in terms of the

disagreement between the military and the president. >> general shelton, would you agree it's been blown way out of portion? >> yes i think to a degree it has been because this is a natural debate that takes place when you go in with any kind of strategy. most of the time i would would say when you come out of the national security council meeting the president has made the decision, it's -- you've got pretty much an agreement across the board. i think in this case as i indicated earlier marty looking down stream from a military perspective could see exactly what isis might do if we use just our air power. and that if the iraqis weren't capable of rooting them out of those populated areas and getting them out where air power could get to them, then that would change the dynamics of the game so to speak of our capabilities. and so i think marty was laying the groundwork to say this might not not work. if it doesn't, this is what i

would recommend next. hat's -- that is a part of the overall i think solution to the issue. and the way that the system works. >> steve is up next calling in from new york on our line for independents. steve, good morning. you're on with general shelton. >> good morning, gentlemen. general, it's an honor to talk to you. >> thank you. the am wondering about surface to air missile in syria. i'm wondering where they rank in the world with new york korea. if we're going to put all this emphasis on-air power [indiscernible] >> i'm not sure that i know exactly where they stand or where they rank in the world, but they do have a capability. i would also say that any time we use our air power in a hostile environment, that's one of the first things we have to consider is what type of systems do they have and that dictates

what type of defense systems we use in order to nullify the effects of their air to air missiles. we enforced the no fly zone and the no drive zone and they never hit one of our planes in the process. that wasn't by accident. it was because of the defensive systems that we use, our electronic warfare systems etc. were all in place and doing their job. we did the same thing in both cases in making sure we protect the air power that we employ to win this war against isis. >> there were concerns about syria's air defense capabilities last year when the u.s. was considering air strikes after the chemical weapons attack, correct? >> without a doubt. one of the first things you do when you're fighting against an enemy that has that type of capability is you go in and take out the systems.

you make sure you nullify them for the sake of the airmen that are going to be flying the close air support or the bombing missions over syria or iraq. >> bridge, new jersey is next on our line for independents. good morning. >> yes, good morning. this is chris. general shelton, i just want to thank you for your serve toice the country. i am concerned about the kinds of munitions that are being used in iraq because i care a lot about when i hear about troops coming homesick and the high cancer rates that have been discovered both in iraq and the former ewing slaufyaw, i'm concerned -- yew gowslaufyaw, i'm concerned if they're still being used and where they've en used, are the trooped adequately protect snd -- protected?

we heard the troops were not being adequately protected when going into war zones because of budget cuts. i was hoping for some answers. >> one of the first things i think any president, certainly the two i worked for, concerned about were the safety of our troops whenever we were committing them into a hostile environment. that would include protection against everything we knew that was in that particular zone. i feel very -- and budget cuts never entered into it because first and foremost we pry -- prioritize those things that are necessary to protect our troops, their safety and their security. that was at the top of the list. so that got funded. i feel confident, although i'm not in the administration now, that those types of concerns are being taken into consideration and that the troops are being provided with all of the protection that we can, realizing that if you have a war

that you put troops on the ground like we did in iraq and like we have now in afghanistan, that there are going to be certain hazards not only from the uranium but also from unexploded ordinances that's on the ground that can be devastating. that's always a consideration and that's what our force commanders on the ground are taking into consideration when they make out their battle plans. >> we're talking with retired general hugh shelton. he served two combat tours in vietnam, commander of operations for the 101st airborne division. in 1996 promoted to general and became commander in chief of u.s. special operations command and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we have him for the next 20 minutes or so. tom is in collegeville, pennsylvania on our line for republicans. tom, good morning. >> km, thank you, general for your service. i would like to know when we

were doing this thing with assad, we were training fighters in jordan. it was publicized. it was on the news. we were -- i don't understand why we need to train muslim fighters to go fight isis who trained isis. it's very clear to me that we created isis. we funded these guys to fight assad but their liegeens is to islam. they're not going to fight with u.s. troops. we lost a general in afghanistan by a muslim fighter we trained n afghanistan. we can't trust these people. why would we train muslims when they're our enemy? >> general shelton. >> thanks, tom. first of all, i would be very cautious personally about putting everyone in a category and saying because they're muslim they're enemy. we have as many different types

of muslims almost as we have baptist or as we have democrats in this country. what we're talking about are the extremists. we've got some great muslims and i know a lot of them. we have muslims that volunteer that help us fight. right up front before i went to the first meeting in the white house not not on 9/11 but on 9 /12 the next morning i received a call from one of the muslim nations saying we will do whatever is necessary to help you. i think we have to have to get involved with training what we -- first of all, you have to identify who the good guys are, who the bad guys are. obviously those extremists, those that want to bring harm to the united states and against all the west, we've got to be careful about that. in fact, they are the enemy. but for the ones that are willing to fight and to stand up for their government and for an

inclusive government, if you will, we need to train them. we need to arm and equip them because they will do the fighting on the ground that will be necessary to preserve an inclusive government that maybe even is going to be one of our great friends in that region of the world, which is a region that is in the vital -- national interest of the united states. the problem we have in syria is we have to be careful the ones that we fund and help train and that we help on the ground today helping fight are the good guys so to speak, the ones that we want to win. isis is clearly a group that we want to eliminate. we want to defeat. we want to kill, capture, destroy. but not all people that live in that region are enemy. and so you've -- we've got to make sure we target our efforts against those we want to succeed and if and when they succeed,

we're going to be proud of our effort. >> and the caller brings up these insider attacks of people who are trained and carry out attacks after we train them and we arm them. how does the u.s. military cut down on these sort of attacks that we've seen, especially in afghanistan in a situation that the caller brought up? >> well, we've had them right here in the united states, ft. hood being a good example of where we have a guy that went off the deep end. i think commanders throughout our armed forces have to be recognizant of our sursurroundings and our own troops. we have to look back on ft. hood and say why didn't we pick up on that before now? it goes into our background checks and our intelligence networks that we have, looking at all of our forces and potential areas that we could suffer harm or grave damage and certainly when we're overseas, you've got to be very careful.

vietnam was no exception. they tried to infiltrate our rights. they're trying to do the same thing we're finding out in afghanistan. you have to be very vigilant and have a background check on these people and try to weed them out. every now and then you're going to miss one. you just can't be 100% unfortityly. but we need to be as close to it as we possibly can. i'm confident that we are about as good at it as anyone in the world. caller -- on the republican line. >> how do we stabilize syria after we defeat isis on the ground? it doesn't seem we have a long-term plan in dealing with assad. in world war ii we lost our troops in germany and japan and that helped stabilized those two countries. how do we deal with an unstable syria after isil? >> that's a great question and i

wish i had a good answer because i would tell you that you've got assad that's there now. he obviously is not the answer. he needs to go. isil we've got to defeat. although iran claims they would like to help eliminate isil, iran is part of the problem. they have created the problem in both syria and in iran. they take advantage when you don't have an inclusive government. they go right into that crack and they start getting both groups to start fighting against the incumbent with the hopes of whichever wins will be if favor of iran. and so i think that this time we need to look at the freedom fighters. we need to look at those that want to have an inclusive government and decide early on who we're going to support in this battle and that should be the one we feel like would come into power and form an inclusive government panned be able to stabilize the country with our help. but not just with our help, with

the help of our allies and friends, 40 or 50 nations that would come in and stabilize the country. that's the only answer. there's no quick solution to it. but it will mean using all the tools, diplomatic, politically and the military to try to make sure if syria comes out in the -- right in the long run just like what we would like to do in iraq as well as afghanistan. >> allies for this fight against isis, secretary of state john kerry says the united states is expecting turkey to step out now that 49 hostages were released. who's going to be the key nations in the region the u.s. needs to work closest with? >> i think we need to have all of our nato allies involved in the region. then we need to look at all of the e.u. and they hall need to be involved. then we need to look at our

friends and allies in the middle east. certainly saudi arabia, u.a.e., bahrain, kuwait. the list goes on. we ought to be -- our friend king ab dolea in jordan. those are the key states i think that we really need to focus on. i look back at each of them for a lock -- egypt was one of our greatest allies and one of the most helpful nations in the middle east in terms of helping us trying to achieve peace throughout that region. now we don't have that. we saw the arab spring break out all of a sudden egypt is in turmoil. we need to look at all of the nations to help us in this fight. >> a few more minutes left with general hew shelton. e'll go to a caller in nashville, j.a.g.

>> good morning. i'm a veteran myself. i served in the desert storm war. one thing i want the united states take to take lay look back on when they were talking out -- you got to understand [indiscernible] of the united states and also i -- has done a great job -- this is a very complicated situation we are involved in right now. so through the president, to you and others that is doing a good job, i think we should be very cautious before we actually put -- pull out our cards. >> general, for the amount of time it took for the

administration to come up with this strategy some criticism that has been leveled against the administration, including from folks on capital hill. >> i would have to say on that one i we stayed too long an allowed the rack to disintegrate. we allow them to come in and gain a foothold and now we have to fight isil. maybe with or without the troops, we will see how that unfolds. the same thing happened in syria. i think america did have a lack of leadership. service, by the way -- i agree totally that you have to be very cautious about

rushing into the situations because we want to make sure in the long term but you are not supporting a group that will go into control and become another organization that you wish you terrorist exporting organization had never supported in the first place, like maliki turned out to be. anytime america walks into the room, and i know this from having been the chairman with a all turnaround and look at the american in the room to see what he is going to say and what he is going to do. the american in the room to see what he is going to say and what he is going to do. they look to america for leadership. it is the same way with our president. if we wait too long, others will step into the void. putin,e seen that with first in georgia, and now when you carry -- and now in the ukraine. of americanvoid

leadership. a cautious, but stay in the lead is what i would advise. the boston globe from september 11. our linealling from for independents. caller: i would like to respectfully disagree that the syria-- iran and main terrorist exporters of the middle east. we have allied with the sunnis in this conflict, and doing that ellie and its us in the middle

east. initiates are seeing us as siding with the sunnis. this is a problem, seeing how iran is diametrically opposed to isis being a sunni fundamentalist group. logically -- it would be logical to ally ourselves with those who have completely disavow these groups such as the kurds, the arabians, and the syrian government. host: general? first and foremost we need to understand that what we have supported throughout the united states is an inclusive government that includes everyone. we have not cited with a particular article and we see , excluding 8rge million sunnis from the government, and the kurds and the iraqi tribes.

that is not right. -- saba start to disintegrate good we did not do anything about it. we did not put pressure on maliki to form an inclusive government like we should be doing now. it is important that the united states remains neutral up to a point. it needs to include all of its people like our government does. it is undisputed fact that they are the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. everyone knows that. our cia, and ei, everyone will tell you that. i have no doubt that they are of of the problems we have in the middle east at this point. thene who is an enemy of united states as a friend of a ron, that is just how it works. cautious of any deal

we could make with iran in low long-term -- in the long term. good morning. thank you very much for sharing your time. extremists being iran, who are [indiscernible] as the enemy of everyone, what role cap may play -- can they play? guest: that is a great comment. she represents what the

united states hold near and dear to their heart, she wants an inclusive government. dress,ts a freedom of freedom of religion, things that we feel are right in a democratic system. she represents that. she also represents -- she is the leader of the iranian dissident group that is outside of her ron that wants to see iran get rid of the mullahs that are executing individuals right and left. is a very serious thing. the iraqi people deserve better than matt. that is what she would like to carry back to iran. and see thelike her doremist and the damage they make them valuable allies.

host: a call from an independent. israel tonominate clean up the mess seeing as how according to edward snowden, peeps supported has -- they supported head of isis. they shippedamas, an in the 1980's to use against a rock. iraq. host: do you want to talk about the role of israel? blame israel for

having trained different people. we have trained people as well. they do not always turn out the way we would like for them to turn out. but you identify who you think the good guys are, who represents what you feel are important for the people of that particular region or that country, and you give it your best shot. i think israel can play a role in this, and i think they can play a role through a number of means. they can play a role in supporting an individual taking charge in iraq. they can eliminate the shia militia that are closely allied to make sure that they do not create an inclusive government and become another puppet of iran. they can play a role in advising, the same way the united states plays. they are much closure to the

region -- closer to the region. there are some issues that we do not have, but they could play a valuable role. good morning. veteran.etnam andnted to make a comment ask a good question -- asking question. war, when they engagement,rules of it has gone a lot of jihad is killed over the last 40 years. f1used what we called 00s, a tactical nuclear weapon. them, the army used them

in the canon. i would like to see them used in , to say did you get the message? and if they don't, to say did you get it this time? host: tactical nuclear weapons? employi am trained to tactical nuclear weapons, i went through that course when i was a young officer in the military. i declare long way away from where we would want to use nuclear weapons because of all of the issues that they do create. the damage that they do. it is hard to separate the good guys from the bad guys, so you feel a tremendous number of .ivilians in the process i do not think we need to use nuclear weapons in this.

there was a time and a place in our history when they were appropriate. and they may be again in the future. i would not rule them out, but i would not say to eliminate any type of ability, but now is not the time or place in my opinion. our democratfrom line. caller: good morning. i am a retired sergeant major from the first infantry division . i went through the marine corps for the korean war. it is a pleasure to talk to a man with your caliber. in big mistake when we were a rocket gave the country back to them to we did not leave a general to set up a government like we did in japan and we did

in germany. that was our big mistake. that is what we should have done. we should have dictated what had to go on, not let them to us what had to go on. with this administration in power queen do not know what they're going to do, but this man was never in command of anything. he was nothing but an organizer. he does not know the first thing about military or foreign affairs or anything. no president should be an president unless he has had some type of military service. as far as what we should use, i would use napalm over there to teach them a lesson. service.anks for your semper fi. i think you're 100% right that we should have had a neck since strategy for iraq that left -- and exite

strategy for iraq that left someone there. to make sure that the transition went as wernment envisioned it going. an inclusive government of all of the iraqi people, and left behind a stable government that could protected of borders and secure its own country with its police force. we trained both of those forces to do that. the problem was we pulled the and on them in 2009, without that residual force in deteriorated rather rapidly. with the help of the iranians who wanted to see it deteriorate , and it developed into what we have today. a loud i sold to move into that sectarian cap and immediately start bubbling up to the surface and become a sizable force before we reacted to it. recognize that it was deteriorating, and we could have done a lot better.

that is not what i would call america's finest hour. host: we do app >> on the threats posed by foreign terrorist groups -- on the next washington journal jay solomon of the wall street journal will talk about that meeting. grumet examines washington gridlock. mitch daniels looks at higher education cost and economic -- and economic standards. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> just a few of the comments we've received from our viewers. education shows,

for a lack of a better expression, are very informative. andly educational invaluable to the young society today that does not value or impact ofderstand the these historical sites have on how the ancestors shaped this country. i highly encourage you guys to put more programming to light. thank you so much. i watched the weekly briefing center. i think c-span is being liberal. this is a classic example of what i am talking about. we don't need nancy pelosi giving us a weekly briefing. c-span sees that we get a steady diet of nancy pelosi. most of the time, she never tells the truth. give us a break.

>> i enjoy our programming, especially the historical programs that you have on. concluding the examination of little bighorn. all of it is very good programming and continue to do so please. >> continue to let us know about what you think about the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us. well.n send us a tweet as join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. of cbs, bob schieffer news hosted discussion on isis and what the u.s. response to do to combat the group. wishcludes a former administration adviser and julian goldman of cbs news. at the schieffer school of

journalism. >> the topic today is jiahad 3.0. the director of the middle east program and served in senior posts in government as part of the iraqi study group shared by james baker and lee hamilton and andses -- teaches at lectures in more than 30 countries. of senior adviser transnational threats, homeland security and counterterrorism here. nationally --y national security adviser. a former federal prosecutor who worked on the investigation of the uss cole.

juliana goldman, who i am proud to say is our newest cbs news correspondent. she came over from bloomberg in august and has more than a decade of experience covering international news. she covered both president obama's presidential campaign, went with him to china, got the first one-on-one interview with the president after reelection, and reported from the white house on the night osama bin laden was killed. jon alterman, let me start with you. you wrote after trying hard to downplay policy in syria and iraq, the white house has dived in. you said the beheadings of americans had crystallized the new policy approach by the administration. you said while the new policy is more than merely military, it is more military than it should be.

it seems like a good question to start us off with, what do you think about that? >> i think the next 800 words i wrote tried to capture that. [laughter] it is on the csis website. for a long time, the administration was cautious about being drawn too far into syria. we saw that caution manifested when the president a little more than a year ago hesitated to use military action. there seemed to be a confluence of forces, and we pulled off. people in the white house kept saying we are not sure what we can do in syria that would not open the door to further involvement. in many ways our policy was to find almost as much by what it was not as what it was. there was a desire to avoid getting too sucked in.

having isis spread into iraq where you have a government welcoming of u.s. involvement, where you have kurdish allies of the united states desirous for american involvement, it took it out of this messy how do you attack a hostile group in a hostile country and you are trying to work with a group to take down this government and on the other hand you don't want the group to win, it seemed much clearer in iraq. it provided an opportunity in iraq. the american public said we should be active against people killing americans in iraq. we support military action in iraq. the problem the piece talks about is all the things worth doing, very few have military components.

the harder part, diplomacy, economics, politics, intelligence sharing, maybe have a military role in convincing people you're serious. but you have to accomplish them away from the spotlight with more qualitative actions than merely bombing things from the air. bombing from the air comes down to physics and chemistry. changing the situation on the ground is more complex. i remain worried we are doing what we can, but not doing what we need to be. we have to focus more on doing what we need to do. >> do you think the policy is too focused on the military? what is your assessment? what do you think the policy is right now?

>> that is a great question. in part, that is the challenge for the administration. what is the policy? what is the regional strategy and how does this fit into the other things we care about? things like what happens in damascus, in our relationship with iran, how posture for the long-term. how does this fit into a broader vision for the region? it feels like it is very reactive. we are reacting to the videos and the sense of threat. we are reacting to the reports of thousands of foreign fighters that potentially threaten the west. that lends itself to a whack-a-mole approach. military solution is not the only solution, but it has to be part of changing the landscape on the ground. this is about the laws of physics and geography. this group has created the

largest safe haven in modern history. you have to dislodge a group like that. that takes military force from the air and ground. one criticism from the military standpoint is to execute a long-term strategy like that in a complex environment like syria is going to take more than just proxy forces hoping can build the forces over time to take on the fight in a place like syria. 3the danger for the policy is a halfhearted attempt to dislodge the group, and at the same time we are distorting the policies that matter to us on things like iran and syria. >> juliana, i know you have done work on this. i was surprised yesterday when ambassador samantha power called it "eesill" or something like

that. i know the president calls it isil. some of us call it isis. where is cole porter when you need him? [laughter] what is the deal? what is the name of this outfit? >> we can confuse it even more because isis calls itself the islamic state. it rebranded itself in june. in the arabic world, it goes by daish. but isis does not like that name for itself. the problem for the government is it wants to refer to the group but does not validate the idea it is the islamic state. if we drill down at the name, in arabic, the rob is the last word that refers to either syria or greater syria.

is at the end of isis is this. the greater syria refers to the levant. there are some in the government who want to come up with ways to talk about it differently. daish could be among those options. the french announced they will be using that. that is not to validate the name islamic state. >> did we ever come to closure on obl and ubl? the government had a whole debate. >> the question of lexicons is important for two reasons. the group is trying to hearken back to history and the lure of the movement they are trying to lead. this group establishing itself

as the islamic state is announcing itself the vanguard of the new movement giving the right to the imaginings of ubl and trying to give life to that. one of the dangers is in its inspiration, it is not only establishing territory, but inspiring others to imagine what is possible in terms of an islamic state. the other thing important about lexicon from an american standpoint is we go through contortions to make sure the terminology we use does not inadvertently aggrandize groups. jon brennan gave a speech at csis early after president obama took office talking about not using the term islamic extremism and jihad because jihadists use that term to validate themselves. lexicon matters quite a bit.

the problem is we contort ourselves quite a bit to describe the enemy. >> let me ask all three of you, the secretary of state said last week there is a part for every nation to play in the fight against isis and terrorism, including iran. what is the role of iran? how do they fit into this? >> iran is in an interesting position because on the one hand they hate these guys as much as anybody. partly because isis is attacking their allies in iraq, in syria. it is attacking some of their allies in iraq, the kurds, who they have a historic relationship with despite the fact they have a historic

relationship with the united states. iran also fears u.s. plans for the region. iran does not want to give things up to the united states without getting something in return. i think where that leaves us is the challenge of how to work in parallel with the iranians without coordinating with the iranians, certainly without cooperating with the iranians. it seems whenever we ask the iranians for something, the next part of the conversation is, what are you going to do for us? the challenge, i think our diplomats and others are up to it. how do you signal to the iranians what we are doing, what we have an option to do but will not do in deference to them, what we might do that will annoy them but maybe we won't in case other things happen? and keep that in a constructive

direction and not fall into the trap of if you do this, we will do that. on a series of levels, that would put the u.s. in a much more -- >> where do you see iran in all this? >> that is one of the most difficult questions. iranians have learned and played a great game of duality. where there is commonality of interest, they have been able to work with the united states or other adversaries while at the same time attacking those interests. the u.s. and iran were aligned in attacking the precursor to isis, islamic state of iraq. at the same time, the revolutionary guard was corn mating against forces to create instability in iraq. they were working on narcotics issues with nato while working with the taliban. being opposed to al qaeda while

taking steps to put senior al qaeda leaders under custody, but allowing al qaeda facilitation networks to operate through iran. iran is a curious animal in this game because they have learned to play multiple games at once. they can feed from one hand and bite the other. that is what makes iran difficult to work with. i don't think we are going to find the sweet spot of commonality in this context. if you're going to see activity happen, it will happen in parallel. not in coordination. >> in the middle eastern context, in able to play two science is seen as a sign of sophistication. >> i think right now the challenge for the administration and why kerry is making the distinction is because they are trying to assemble this

coalition of arab countries. they want to bring the saudis on board. what are they going to say about coordinating with iran? the white house announced today the president will be meeting with netanyahu when he comes next week. the israelis have long voiced their concerns with the u.s. engaging with iran on nuclear talks. >> the iranian and saudi foreign ministers met this week. >> samantha powers said yesterday on all three networks we have gotten commitments from some arab countries to join in airstrikes on syria. do you have any idea who they are? >> an official said there will be multiple arab countries making military commitments. >> did they tell you one name? >> it would not be going out of

the limb to save the uae. jordan would also be likely to be one of those commitments. >> will you take that seriously? >> i think it will happen. it won't be terribly decisive. >> don't you think it would be important? >> it is important to say we have the uae and other countries with us. in libya, it made it seem like there was a broader coalition. it does not necessarily get to better outcomes down the line, as we have seen in libya. there are lots of roles people can play. you can be the refueling guy, the logistics guy. you can fly surveillance. i think one of the things that will be discussed is whether the

egyptians signal something visible in support as a way to try to limit hostilities. we just announced we were giving them 10 apaches that had been in the u.s. for repair. one characteristic of this is you can contribute on many different levels, just like in your church or school. there are different levels. i think we will see different levels. the challenge is how to make it out up to mean something. you need all of these pieces. you are going to rummage sales and picking up this and that that people contribute. how does that translate into the sustained campaign the administration has committed to doing? and not just for a month. this is a multiyear commitment long after people have lost interest in the headlines.

>> what is the latest number? about 190 airstrikes we have flown so far? has that made any significant difference that you can tell? >> i think the notion of degrading the group, remember we have two goals. degrade and destroy isis. for our allies, it has been effective. the release of isis control of the dam and other infrastructure, very important. the beginnings of getting supply lines probably important longer-term. the real question is we can do this in iraq. you can imagine what the scenario in iraq looks like with the peshmerga fighting along with us.

what does it look like when it crosses the syrian border? i think that is the tricky military, political, social conundrum. in terms of the coalition, it is important symbolically to have these countries involved militarily. it also is critical to have them behind the u.s. going after the ideology and funding. this is where turkey becomes important. and providing a patina of legitimacy in the heart of the middle east for what is to happen. this is not going to be a month-long effort. this is going to be years in the making if we are to really destroy this group. >> two other important pieces for the sunni state. one is persuading the sunni

tribes to come back over. one is creating incentives for the government of iraq to be more inclusive. they have been ostracized from their neighbors. one thing that is attractive is you can be closer and in a better environment. that is something a country like saudi arabia can offer the iraqis. > this is a moment of opportunity for the u.s. to rejuvenate some of the strained relationships it has had an serve in a leadership role that the region has been thirsty for. not that we put thousands of troops on the ground but that the u.s. serve as the quarterback aligning forces to go after this group. the region and world is hungry for u.s. leadership. the question is whether we can

do it credibly and whether we have staying power. >> you're close with the president. you have interviewed him numerous times. you have been with him on good days and bad. it took a while for them to get to where he is now. talk about that. i am amazed to hear him in his recent speech. he has come a ways. >> i looked at the david remnick interview from last january. one of the key takeaways was something obama said about how we are swimming in the rapids of the river of history and he takes the long view. he is writing the paragraph now. his presidency will be seen as a paragraph. these are not going to go away with my presidency or in the

next. he would rather take his time and take a more cautious approach. when you look back, in august, some of his messages and statements have hurt him now and hurt the credibility of this administration. whether it was saying we don't have a strategy, whether it was in the same press conference saying our goal is to degrade and defeat isis and then saying there are manageable problems. it reminded me of the attitude and issues obama had before the first debate with that romney. one of his advisers at the time said he was suffering from presidency disease and had kind of checked out. through august, that was the rhetorical approach he was taking to isis.

for him and his advisers, at primetime speech and his speech at nato, they knew they had to change the language they were using and come out much more forcefully and send a stronger signal to the international community, to congress, and the american people. >> one thing i find interesting. i have seen a lot of administrations. you get into the second term of every administration and there are always one or two people that leave. they did not like what happened. they write these books and so forth. i can't remember when as many people in the national security area -- i mean, yesterday on "60 minutes" you heard leon panetta. you have had gates come out. hillary clinton has said she disagreed with the president.

we know martin dempsey, jim jones, the former national security advisor has not been that complimentary. what do you make of this? >> in defense of the president, just because something is not working does not mean something else would have worked better. we consistently have that problem in the middle east because there are lots and lots of stupid ideas. sometimes we do the stupid things. it is not to say anything other than the stupid idea would have turned out better. this is an administration where even on the inside people complain this is a very tiny circle who make all the decisions. there is a lot of debate. people get tucked into these endless meetings, and then the decision is made when two people are in the room.

i think that has created an environment -- >> who do you think is the president's most influential advisor on foreign policy? >> i have never been in that small meeting. i can't tell you. people say the president remains closest to denis mcdonough and valerie jarrett weighs in on a lot of issues. the speechwriter has a mind meld with him. whether susan rice is in that circle, i don't know. >> you have not mentioned john kerry, secretary of state. >> john kerry is not here very much. he is not, honestly. proximity matters. when i was working in the state department in the early years of

the bush administration, colin powell was terrified to leave the country. >> that did not seem to bother henry kissinger. >> i think you see an erosion of trust and confidence. you also see this in the stories about the split between military leadership and the president. i think the president and his inner circle have been trapped by their political narrative of not wanting to be the bush administration. in that way being sort of captured by inaction. not all action is advisable. they've really been captured by inaction. i think there has been frustration at the top level there has not been more strategic vision. the redline debate with respect to syria, i am not sure the

president realized how strategically relevant that moment was. john kerry has issued an indictment against the assad regime for chemical weapons. the president countered his own redline, undercut his secretary of state. and i think begin a cycle of growing mistrust and lack of confidence among his senior team. i think you are seeing reflections of that in what you described. >> when it comes to the decision to not arm syrian rebels, they were digging their heels in. there was a story last week quoting some off the record sessions he had with journalists.

even then he said, he defended the time it took to vet the rebels. they look at this and say in hindsight this is not a silver bullet. they can't say this but it was a few months later the u.s. through covert operations began arming moderate rebels. they said it was important to take that time to vet them. to his point, this is a tight inner circle. when they do reach out, one of the biggest criticisms is there is never any follow through. the president has a bunch of former national security aides, advisers, who came to dinner a couple of nights before the big speech. it is not just a matter of

having them come to the white house to listen, but whether or not there's going to be any follow through and follow up. >> do you have any disagreement with jon on who are the people closest to the president? who would you say are the most influential in foreign policy? >> i would put susan rice in there and samantha power. in the white house state today, probably denis mcdonough and ben rhodes. >> let's talk about this new group we are hearing about. all of a sudden, this name surfaces. who are these people and where did they come from? >> this is the al qaeda senior leadership caravan that moved from afghanistan and pakistan into syria. in part, to take advantage of the chaos and to plan from syria attacks against the west.

cbs news broke the story. the reality is the group that is most lethal and focused on the west is not necessarily isis. it is this al qaeda group which is linking other elements of the al qaeda constellation. linking the master bomb maker in yemen with other parts of the network. in some ways these guys are becoming an operational and strategic core for a new al qaeda universe. that is why officials are worried about them. >> is the reason the president is so circumspect or focused on listing what we are not going to do -- i was just thinking about what juan zarate said. do they just not want to be the bush administration? is that is what is going on

here? >> i think getting involved in a -- in iraq and open-ended way, that's true. the alternative to it, how do we think about terrorism from what is truly strategically important. one of my concerns about the way the administration approaches it is often times they want to get the language right. i'm not sure there is the same commitment to the policy follow through on the language. you need to set the language so you can set the bar. abrams is probably the best

person i have seen in government being able to set the language in government. what feels to me to be happening is in a lot of cases, there's a lot of focus on exactly what the language is and the policy doesn't always follow to it. a few months ago, in many ways, with the speech on isis. i'm not sure they are doing as well as they need to understanding strategically where they need to go. they had a big middle east policy review and notably, nobody involved was outside the white house and nobody had ever lived in the middle east. >> talking about communicating. you've done a lot of work on this.

juliana has become kind of our expert on jihadist social media. it is amazing how sophisticated they are. >> isis has its own media arm. they are behind a lot of the savvy and well produced videos we are seeing. it is all shot in hd, looks straight out of hollywood. and it had one thing the intelligence community really took note of, that it had an american at the end, an american isis fighter in syria overseeing syrians dig their own graves and then he killed them.

one of the reasons why he had this sophisticated partnership is that it is propaganda. they brought more western fighters and they bring their knowledge as well. we have french jihadist reaching out in french to french individuals. german to germans, brits to brits. i had a crazy experience last saturday or two saturdays ago when i was in the newsroom and we started to get word that there was another isis beheading video that was about to be released. i had uncovered this twitter handle called jihad matchmaker. and i went to see anybody who had been mentioning it and i clicked on somebody and i saw

that they were teasing out a new video that was coming. and within a few minutes, they posted a link to that video and a few minutes later, they posted one that said it's up on youtube. so the other side of this story is that you have youtube, facebook, twitter, and what is the responsibility of these companies to try to crack down on their use of social media to get their message across. facebook has done a better job of that but then they went to a russian competitor and over the last couple of weeks, it got a little better at tracking down as well. there is also a counter argument that the intelligence community makes which is we don't have the intelligence on the grounds of

this is how we are able to track these guys and get more information about them. it really is remarkable to see the advances they have made and how they might be going about editing these videos. they are clearly shot with very sophisticated amber is. someone has the possibility that they can be in chat rooms and talking in the chat rooms about how to be editing these videos. >> do these people actually meet people on these -- making rights? a jihadist who likes to cut people's heads off like to meet girl that -- >> we asked the very same question. we were tipped off to this site, we didn't have it completely verified. however, you go on and see that these guys are actually using it, there was one guy that said something like, hook up brother up and send other twitter

handles for other jihadist. going through that twitter handle took us to a new video. they are on it and using it. >> this is a group that has employed sexual savory and have taken over territories. it is a movement that is well-organized and no status afforded followers. the multimedia approach is one of the most open campaigns you have seen of any terrorist group. 400 pages laying out, all of their attacks for a particular year, broken down by region. not just of the headings and brutality but how they are trying to govern and demonstrate legitimacy and engage different trolls. this is an all-out multimedia efforts to gain legitimacy and terrorized their enemies. >> there is a personalization to

this which we've never seen before. it is unprecedentedly sophisticated ways. not just on a chat room but reaching out to you wherever you are in whatever language you speak and bringing you on board. >> have the 62nd videos and one of them showed us a zealot and in syria going around and handing out ice cream to little children. it shows the softer side and thus -- a way to say that we are not all the headings and blood and guts. come join the fight. >> let's step back a little bit and talk about iraq right now. the new prime minister is trying to put together a new government. how is that going? >> slowly.

the iraqi government negotiations are slow, full of threats, full of uncertain progress and the failure to put things together. i wish i were more surprised, but it seems to me that the normal of politics in iraq is the kind of messy politics we are seeing. >> do either of you think this new government can be more inclusive? that you can field an army and provide ground forces, ground combat operations, and we could support with airstrikes? >> i think you can rejuvenate the iraqi military force. i think that is doable. the real question for the new government is, can you revert the sense of bitterness and disillusionment among the tribes that have bought into the idea of putting their lives and communities at risk and felt

very much abandoned by the maliki government. there is lingering resentment and disillusionment there. and even after the new government was formed, you heard tribal leaders and others talk about that not being enough. can the government be inclusive and the rejuvenation of the sons of a rack? that you begin to see inorganic that you begin to see inorganic countermovement and fighting force in western iraq. those tribes also sort of cross the border and so isis has erased the border between iraq and syria. some of these tribes exist along the borders as well. >> one of the other challenges follows directly with what we

were saying, a spectacular sense of entitlement that people have, that we are the key and therefore we have to get this much. you end up sharing 300% of the pie. and there's not enough haida go around. getting people's expectations down the size is a real political challenge and that is part of why you can't rush this because everybody comes in with this stratospheric sense of entitlement. >> yesterday we had a roundtable and joe lieberman was there. he said we should just go ahead and attack assad and get it over with. disable their air force, crater their air fields, just do it. if you were sitting with the president, one of the advisers that suggested that, what would you say? >> la, la, la, la, la.

[laughter] >> i don't think you open the gates of damascus to islamic marauders, but i think you can triangulate here. they are known for the ability to do multiple things at once. the u.s. approach to things is very linear or binary. we can ensure that what we do doesn't legitimize him and his rule long-term while also attacking isis. keep in mind he has traded with them and allow them some buffers. he has attacked the free syrian army, i think you can do some strategic things. not an all-out bombardment but things like attacking the airbase taken over by isis where they got military weaponry, fighter jets, blow it to smither

-- smithereens so that they don't have it or the free syrian army for later. let's due installments with the last bastion of what the free syrian army has held territory. it a are under assault from the government and isis. let's look at the artillery. i think you can be creative without opening up all-out war. >> i wonder under what pretext of legal justification would you have for doing a lot of these things. if we were to take down the assad government, we would then be thinking about how to prevent the slaughter of 2 million now that certainly would feel vulnerable. this idea that we are one step away from breaking the logjam and all hell breaks loose.

>> and sometimes you do nothing and hundreds of thousands -- >> i totally agree. >> and a worse nightmare is emerging. >> there are multiple bad options. >> i think there are bad options and worse options. >> and they did not change that much from a year ago when obama was faced with a chemical attack and deciding whether or not to try to take assad that way. one of the reasons they didn't is because they didn't know what would come the next day and that question still exists. >> i want to go to questions in the audience and while you're thinking, tell us why isis is different from anything we have confronted here. >> they have more men, material, and resources and an established safe haven in the heart of the middle east in a way that al

qaeda has only imagined and the world we have not seen before. the danger is they can not only inspire foreign fighters, we have seen plots in australia and others disrupted around the world, but they can also find inspiration in a new platform for this global movement. to continue to hold territory, we saw the syrian kurdish refugee problem because they are pushing in the northeast and syria. they overran some iraqi military, they are not stopping. >> they run a war economy and use the same smuggling routes that they have tapped into it. and they are flush with money.

>> please tell us who you are. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am from syria. i moved here a couple of months ago. i resent the whole thing. i want to be like a different advocate. i am lucky to know the americans' point of view but i want to tell you what the syrians or muslims say. for america, they are helping the world. they are getting rid of terrorism. but for the rest of the world, there is a country attacking a muslim people. the owners of the u.s. government are treating with, let's say, the symptoms, not the root of the problem. they did it in afghanistan, iraq, and they are doing it in syria.

people just fighting in the mountains, we are seeing them on social media. i am very educated and i can understand the reasoning behind the intervention. the others are not and they are using that in the propaganda. what my question is, i didn't mean to take so much time. what is the american government policy in terms of media justifying this intervention? for the rest of the islamic world or in general, they believe that isis is created by the cia. it is dominating. the same thing with al qaeda, the same thing with radicals. my background is arabic islamic, they are driven by an ideology.

this ideology is if you kill those people, you will see much worse than those people because they have the ideology. if you compare al qaeda with isis, both having the same goal, they are competing for who is the worst. if you eliminate isis, you will see much worse people because for the new group to earn legitimacy, they need to prove that the previous people are not doing enough to support islam. i want to know about the media and what you're doing to address the arab world. >> i don't think we are very good at persuading people that we come in peace for the most of

-- muslim world and it is partly because there are so many well-developed operations and so many people that the u.s. does come with an agenda against islam. i also think that we shouldn't want to be loved. i think we should explain what we're doing and why we're doing it, and demonstrate the sincerity of our actions. if people want to say the united states created isis -- assad was desperate for an enemy like isis. because that creates precisely the opponent he wants to fight against. who do you really want to win? side with me against these monsters. and i think there is a lot of money either coming directly out of damascus or implicitly permitted by damascus. you can talk about it. i'm not sure you will persuade people. i think the united states as a

government is miserable at keeping secrets. it is absolutely incapable of having a secret strategy. we can't do it. i think we should be clear about what we are doing and ultimately not get too involved with the approval rating of the united states in a country like egypt. talk about what you're doing, leave it where it is and part of our goal should be if people are equally bitterly against the united states, make them neutral and grudging as a success. they can go bitter and violent and for a lot of people, that is a big step. >> i've heard a counter narrative is well. deep resentments and the syrian population for what is felt to be abandonment from the west. it is a dammed if you do, if you

don't approach which is often the case in middle east policy. i think that's why the administration has put so much stock on coalition building and legal and international legitimacy. i think we are terrible at trying to counter violent extremism and the ideology. the most credible voices don't sit in washington and new york. they sit in baghdad, cairo, and beirut. >> my question is about the organization. a couple months ago, there was news in pakistani media from saudi arabia and that pakistan used to send -- being directed in the syria area. [indiscernible] i ask this question to the

general. he said this is all propaganda. we have been telling america for a couple of decades that they will not get anything out. she will tell you it is pakistani killing other americans. my question to you is this. if pakistani armies are really that kind of evil thing, why didn't we go after them? if they are not, maybe we have to learn a lot from them because one penny equal to $100, they are more effective. i hope you understand the question. >> absolutely. i think there are competition relationships across the board here. pakistan is a great example of this where clearly the pakistani intelligence and military have seen defense in the context of afghanistan and forces as part

of the national security and their national interest. and has been direct opposition to u.s. interests at times and pakistan has been an ally and the same thing goes with guitar, -- qatar, an ally to the u.s. and has also supported extremist causes. there is a balance in the relationship and part of it is having an open and honest conversation and holding these regimes to account, realizing that we need them. we can't go it alone. >> formerly with the state department focused on iraq. my question is that one of you used the term dismissed. what is the role of the clerics in terms of discrediting isis?

i have read the quran and nothing says you can rob banks or behead people without sharia law or trade women for sex trade. what role do you see in terms of organizing the islamic clerics like the islamic scholars to make public statements and discredit them? >> we have seen a lot of that already. this is one of the things that started in saudi arabia in 2003 when they themselves were victims of a terrorist attack and really began to line up the clerical establishment. we have certainly seen more of that. i spoke to somebody today who is in saudi arabia last week who knows the government is scared that clerics are lining up. the people are not so hostile with the government and the clerical establishment.

if you look at the defeat of al qaeda's ideology. and remember there was a genuine fear that the germ of jihad as jihadism would spread throughout 1.5 billion muslims around the world and it really didn't. we systematically underestimate the role of states, the state's relationship and the clerical establishment systematic rejection of jihadism. i agree that there is a role for clerics to discredit this. what i hear from people that know more about islam than i do is that the theology of isis is somewhat more mainstream than other jihadi ideologies. it's not quite as easy to discredit but certainly the

effects in terms of slavery of women and murders and all those other things, there is ample argument in islam that says it is absolutely atrocious and we will continue to see as part of this effort -- >> i'm sorry, john. >> i'm done. >> we have heard and you have confirmed here that there is an endgame. you pointed out the introduction. if i recall correctly during the kosovo campaign, there were several thousands identified the third-rate enemies to bend them to our will and let kosovo go. each sortie is one machine gun, this progression at this rate,

it will be the moderate fighters that will take more than one year to train them. the iraqis you illustrated, we're not sure how long it will take to organize them and get enough credibility to convince the tribal leaders to come on board and really reengage in another surge if you wish like 2008. given all this, there is an endgame with no boots on the ground, no american military forces committed. we don't really understand who is on our side at the moment. their allies may come, mostly of symbolic value. we do not call it that when the president said it will be more akin to yemen or somalia. it's not a conflict, no american boots on the ground and so far,

190 sorties. is that serious? >> i think it's an excellent question. >> part of the danger here is strategy and execution that is basically half measures. you're absolutely right especially as you move across the border. this is a president that has staked his claim on ending wars. and he has not wanted to invest. he has not used the term or in his presentation to the nation. and not wanting to commit boots on the ground other than special advisers and spotters, perhaps. at the end of the day we will have to degrade for a long time and hope that the allies come along with us. and are willing to fight on behalf of this cause

understanding what our own limitations are. >> a lady in the back there. and this will have to be pretty close to the last question. >> having been senior adviser and tactical instructor to the u.s. marine corps on counterinsurgency in both iraq and afghanistan, one of the things that struck me most is we say the right thing as one of the gentleman on the podium said. we very rarely are seen to be doing the right thing. very often that is manifest in the so-called experts we have sent to particularly around but to some extent in afghanistan and where there are lots of experts with no expertise, confined to mega bases and many cities and don't really know what we are dealing with. we need to be within a community, those that have grudges, grievances, and frustrations. sadly, we have abdicated that role either being unwilling or unable to tackle how communities

think and deal and the vacuum and avoid being created there has been taken over by the extra extremists and fanatics we are now having to deal with. so that has been the bane of my existence in the 12 and a half years in iraq and afghanistan and i don't know how anyone is going to be able to address that. >> it comes out to this issue i think we're very comfortable with physics and chemistry, and what you're describing is incredibly nuanced policy and politics. i have yet to see a bureaucracy

that is very good it is to show rising and under ending that elledge. having one of the problems of the u.s. intelligence community is how to go from knowledge to wisdom. you can know lots of facts but how do you know what to do with it as an institution? it's really hard. think tanks are all about letting people do things with the idea that a lot of different people do a lot of different things and somehow out of the middle, you will end up in the right place but no individual decision is necessarily absolutely the right decision. i think what your experience suggests to me is that we have to think of the nation. how deep into this can we get? what outcomes can we produce? and if you become too reticent, i think a lot of my friends have claimed the obama administration is much too reticent and they

think there's nothing you're willing to do and you become less relevant. as a country, we have to be better at figuring out where we can do things. there is physics and chemistry involved. there are times we have to be very precise about applying psychology politics. times where we say that is too delicate. we can't do that. and we dust off and compensate for another direction. i think this is about the world that has become much more complex in which there has been a democratization of destruction in which a lot of individuals can have global reach that was not possible 10 years ago. and we're still trying to swallow what it is we can do and i think it will take us a while to get there. but your experience to me not only highlights what we were unable to do in a narrative and that you encountered in afghanistan and iraq, but as you know better than anyone in this room, to get a really smart

bureaucracy, a really smart bureaucracy, and all my time of working with u.s. government, i haven't seen one. >> we got this right a little bit. the surge was successful. it worked. both administrations admitted at the end of the day that it worked. >> we will have to close here but we have the rare opportunity to call on someone who has been in washington longer than i have. he was here during the johnson administration and just raised his hand. lloyd, you may ask the last question of this session. >> i didn't think you would call on me that way. >> i may never get another chance.

>> if i had orange socks on the university of texas and i see your purple tcu socks, johnson, what school has fuchsia socks? >> these are vicious socks that i got at a supply store. my son and i got matching ones. >> the president has said and it has been repeated by others that if isis constitute an existential threat to the middle east, to the region, to others that adhere to the religious tenets, 71 percent of the american people as a whole believe our country should do something. it has been genuinely interesting to listen to the analysis and good questions. what should the president have done and what should the president do?

>> we will start with you, juliana. >> want me to go? >> i feel less comfortable saying what he should and shouldn't do. >> i sat with president bush the last four years of his administration, a very difficult time where it felt like we were losing iraq. likely began to lose in western pakistan. and a certain point, the president and the country have to commit to real sacrifice and a real fight if that is what we are up against. we can leave it for others, we can maintain and contain. but if we are going to fight a group that has global ambitions and wants to reach and touch the west and attack us, it is giving life to a broader movement, we have to be ready for a fight and that means not taking things off the table.

what the president should not do is stop saying what we are not going to do. start believing in what we say we are going to commit to. because then our allies will really follow and we can really quarterback like a good university of texas quarterback or tcu qrterback. and you know it's going to happen. otherwise we will flail around. the real danger for this president is all the things he's wanted to avoid are coming to fruition for lack of action when it matters. there are moments of reflection and moments of action. there are strategic windows were action matters more than most. we're running the danger of missing those opportunities. >> i think the administration should recognize the war on terror, whatever you want to call it, is not over. osama bin laden is dead and

general motors is alive. but the war on terrorism is still there and it won't be over until the terrorist say it is over. that is simply recognizing reality and i don't think that is going back on your word. they are there. they are trying to kill us. i think we simply have to recognize that. when americans are murdered on television, i don't think it calls for a measured first font. -- response. i think you have to hit back. and hit back hard, then step back and talk about the long-term strategy. >> i thought last august or september, the president should've have done something demonstrative and humiliating. not launching missiles from the middle of the mediterranean but

that says we can do whatever we want to do and the reason we are not is because we don't want to, not because we can't. and put everybody on notice that there is not a predict ability to u.s. action or inaction. as we look at isis, we have to think about what happened in the sunni awakening and we have to understand this is a lot about politics. it's a lot about resources and about people feeling very vulnerable. and we have to work to shrink the area where isis can operate and you do that by bringing people over and making difficult deals with nasty people and ultimately moving towards drawing this group of. there is a smaller number of people you will have to capture or kill. people will say, we will deal with this new environment. i don't see us thinking through where this needs to go strategically.

where it needs to go is some sort of deal whereby the people who are letting these guys operate, whereby the people who are buying oil and doing all these things say we see a better way. i'm not sure we understand where that's going and we keep trying to pound them into the ground. but as long as they have a place to operate, they will keep operating. >> the messaging will be very important. americans are scared and they see people beheaded on television and the response from the president should be one of leadership, reassuring the american people and being honest, not necessarily getting into the rhetorical semantics games, the question of whether or not there will be boots on the ground. there are essentially boots on the ground now and it will be up

to the president to be honest and admit if they need to recalibrate the strategy. and not automatically be ruling things out but welcome and transparent debate in congress as well. >> thank you all very much on csics and tcu. >> treasury secretary jack lew talked the economy and climate change. a governor debates between the incumbent and his democratic challenger. later, new jersey governor chris christie campaigns in new jersey. camera videotudent is underway open to all middle and high school students to create a 5-7 minute documentary around the three branches and you shall have policy, law, or

action by the branches have affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. for a list of prizes, go to student -- student cam.com. >> treasury secretary jack lew talks about the economy and climate change. ahead of's remarks are scheduledobama's meeting. john hopkins university and the brookings institution hosted this event.

>> good afternoon. on behalf of the hamilton project, thank you for joining us this afternoon for a public discussion of the economic cost of climate change. it is our privileged today to host u.s. treasury secretary jacob j. lew who will give remarks on the challenge of climate change. these will be followed by a roundtable discussion between secretary lew, former treasury secretary robert rubin, and professor of economics at the university of chicago, michael greenstone. before i turn the podium over, i would like to give a brief introduction to the hamilton project. the project is named after alexander hamilton from the nation's first secretary who laid the foundation for the modern american economy. it is fitting that today we welcome two treasury secretaries.

the project's vision and intent is to promote evidence-based policies that work to secure economic growth, shared prosperity, and economic security. our goal is to foster innovative, nonpartisan ideas, and ultimately to introduce new and effective policy options into the national conversation. we at the project knowledge that a defining feature of our nation's history is that succeeding generations of americans having enjoyed standards of living that are better than the generations that came before. but looking around us today can we say that america is failing to make critical investments in areas that contribute to our nation's growth and security. within this vision, we recognize climate change as posing real and present challenges to our nation and indeed our growth

economic future. this is about risks to our safety and our economy. we need serious policy conversations about what actions to take to address those risks. that is what we are focused on here this afternoon. thank you for joining us. i know invite secretary rubin to introduce our featured guest. [applause] >> thank you. let me apologize for starting a little bit late. i had to fly in from laguardia. if there is any doubt in your mind about our desperate need for infrastructure, take that flight. i just want to make a substantive comment. i have gotten pretty involved in this. the reason i've gotten pretty involved is that is a learn more about it i begin to realize that you have not only the most likely scenarios, which are pretty serious in many cases and