us at 202-626-3400. or comments @ c-span.org. leak us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next national security advisors susan rice talks about national security and foreign policy. then remarks by the united nations high commissioner for human rights. after that a discussion on the international effort to combat isis. now national security advisor susan rice discusses president obama's new national security strategy at a forum hosted by the brookeings institution. ambassador rice outlines his foreign policy priorities and agenda. this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> good afternoon everybody.

it's my great pleasure and honor to welcome all of you here. with respect to our guest of honor, ambassador rice i want to welcome her back to this premises. she is a former colleague of martin index and mine both here at the brookings institution and in government during the 1990s. and special welcome to her mom, how about that? her mom has come out -- [applause] to hear her daughter speak on a very important subject. i have to say just a quick word on lois rice. i'm quite sure 99 year history there has only been one mother-daughter team both senior fell lows. one in foreign policy and susan

and lois in economic studies and lois continues to be an important part of the since staougs. as all know, susan is here to talk about the national security strategy for 2015 and into the future. the origins goes back to the aftermath of world war ii and the dawn the cold war. today the big challenge facing the united states and its partners and allies in the international community is not contain the. containment. although russia is back and moving backwards in troublesome ways. rather the number one challenge today is building an inclusive cooperative international system

that will, among other things, bring rule-based order out of violent chaos of the sort raging in eastern ukraine and in the self proclaimed islamic state. that's a goal of a new initiative that martin and his colleagues in the foreign policy program which is susan's alma mater here at brookings will launch next week. we hope, susan, our efforts here at brookeings and those of other think tangs will reinforce the government eight efforts that you'll be talking about today. the podium is yours. let me tell all the tweeters here can follow and report on what susan has to say under the #2015nss.

susan, thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you very much for that very kind introduction. and thank you to everyone here at brookings. as strobe said, this was my home for six very peaceful years, and truthfully i miss it. and thank you especially for saying such kind words about my mom, lois rice, whose ties to brookings goes back many years. looking around i am grateful to see many friends who challenged and encouraged me throughout my tenure here at brookings and continue to generate some of the best ideas for america's foreign policy. so, broadly speaking in every respect i'm very glad to be

here. this morning, president obama released his 2015 national security strategy. fundamentally it's a strategy to strengthen the foundations of america's power, political economic and military. and to sustain american leadership in this new century. so that we can sur mount the challenges of today and capture the opportunities of tomorrow. our strategy's guided by the same four enduring national interests that we laid out in the 2010 national security strategy. security prosperity, values and a rules based international order. our interests are enduring, but in many respects 2015 is a whole new ballgame, much has changed in the last five years. as a nation we're stronger than we have been in a very long

time. since president obama took office we repaired the biggest collapse in world trade since the great depression and 2010 unemployment in the united states was almost 10%. today businesses have added more than 11 million jobs and unemployment is down to 5.7%. in 2010, our deficit topped $1 trillion. today we've cut that in half to less than $500 billion. our kids are graduating at higher rates and millions more americans have healthcare. we unlocked domestic energy boom that's made us the world's number one producer of oil and gas. strengthening our energy security with huge ripple effects for global oil markets

and g.o. politics. we brought home almost 170,000 american troops responsibly ending two long and costly ground wars and pre purposing our strength so we can better respond to emerging threats and crisises. the diverse and creativity of the american people fin to be a well spring of american power. driving innovations that are revolutionizing everything from the way we hail a cab to the way we treat disease. by fortifying our foundational strengths, america is in a better position to confront current crises and sees the opportunities of this new century. yet, few know better than we, the complexity of the challenges that america faces.

every day i start my morning with a briefing that covers the most sobering threats and the difficult problems that confront us around the world. these include the fallout from the arab uprisings russian aggression ebola cyber attacks and the more diffuse terror threats. too often what is missing in washington is a sense of perspective. yes, there is a lot going on. still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature that we confronted in world war ii or during the cold war. we cannot afford to be buffetted by alarmism and nearly instant

taeupb news news cycle. we must dot hard work of seizing opportunities and of winning the future for our children. strong and sustained american leadership remains as essential as ever. think for a minute where the world would be today without decisive american leadership. ebola would be spreading throughout west africa and likely to far corners of the world. instead america galvanized the world to role back this horrible disease. without us russia would be suffering no cost for its actions in the ukraine. instead the ruble is in a pre fall and russia is playing fearly for tphrouting the rules. without us there would be no military campaign or 60 countries encounting the advance.

and no prospect for a global deal on climate deal and no pressure for iran to be at the negotiating table and no potential for trade that meets a higher standard for our workers and our businesses. nonetheless, there is a loud debate in washington about american leadership in the 21sts century. but the issue is not simply when we should have started arming the syrian rebels or whether we should provide lethal assistance and weapons to ukraine. it's about the nature of u.s. leadership for the future. with this national security strategy we stakeout a much larger role for america in shaping the world while anticipating the challenges to come. before i go through the elements of this strategy i want to note

how our approach may differ from what others may recommend. we believe in the importance of economic growth but we insist upon investing in the foundations of america's power. education and healthcare, clean energy and basic research. we'll always act to defend our country and its people but we aim to avoid sending many thousands of ground forces into combat in hostile lands. we have renewed our core alliances while also building partnerships with emerging powers and neglected regions. we're committed to fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons even as we ral lit world to meet the threats of tomorrow. malicious cyber actors and deadly pandemics and climate change and competition in space. we focus every day on the crises

in the middle east and ukraine but we are simultaneously rebalancing to the regions that will do more to determine the course of the 21st century. east asia and india africa and the americas. so with that in mind, let me outline the four-ways that we are advancing our core interests. the first element of our strategy is to secure the united states, our citizens and our allies and partners through a dynamic global security posture in which we employ our unique capabilities, forge diverse coalitions and support locate the partners. this approach builds on a more secure homeland and a national defense that is second to none. president obama is committed to

maintaining the best trained best equipped and best led military force the world has ever known. while honoring our premiseses to our service members veterans and their families, to ensure success we call on congress to work with us to support responsible investments in our national security including by ending sequestration. to counter today's threats, we're implementing a comprehensive counter terrorism approach that takes account of how the enemy has evolved. as al-qaida has been decimated we've seen tkeuf fusion of the threat to al-qaida affiliates, is sill and local militia and home grown violent extremists. this reduces the risk of a spectacular attack by 9/11 but

raises the probability of the types of attacks that we have seen in boston, ottawa, sidney and paris. to meet this morphing challenge we're combining our decisive military k5eu7 abilities with local partnerships with the financial tools to choke off funding and the international reach of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. we're strengthening the capacity of weak states to provide for their people. while countering the corrosive ideology of violent extremism. fighting terrorism is a long term instrumenting. there will be setbacks and there are no one size fits all solutions. we have to work across multiple lines of effort in diverse context to be effective. to degraded and ultimately

defeat defeat is sill we are training iraqi security forces and supporting opposition to encouraging political reforms in iraq that foster greater inclusion. together we've taken out thousands of fighters and destroyed nearly 200 oil and gas facilities that fund their tearer and pushed them out around baghdad sin jar and the mosul dam. this was defeat in the month long siege. and the horrific executions, is sill should know that their barbarism only fortifies the world's collective resolve. our counter terrorism strategy is still at work in afghanistan where we've ended our come tpwat

mission as planned. now we're focused on supporting a sovereign and stable of an an afghanistan that is an safe haven for terrorist. even as we develop afghan security forces we'll continue to put pressure on al-qaida through capable counter terrorism mission. american leadership remains essential. not only to tackling today's threats but also to addressing the global challenges that define the nature of security for our children and grandchildren. and here too we have to lead with our heads and enlisting partners to work alongside us. american leadership is addressing the danger of nuclear proliferation. no threat poses as great a risk to our security as a potential

use of nuclear weapons. that's why we continue to secure nuclear material and strengthen international norms against the use of all weapons of mass destruction. moving us closer to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. american leadership rallied the world to toughen sanctions against iran through diplomacy and sustained economic pressure we open the progress of iran's nuclear program and rolled it back in key respects. now we must give diplomacy a chance to finish the job. if diplomacy fails it will not be for lack of good faith by america or the p five plus one and then if necessary, we would be stronger in leading our partners to dial up the pressure and in making sure iran does not

obtain a nuclear weapon. american leadership is addressing the dangers of pandemic disease. our agenda to improve health security and global health security doesn't end with ebola. it strengthens the capacity of states and international institutions to prevent detect and respond to future outbreaks before they become deadly epidemics. american leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change. the science is clear. the impacts of climate change will only worsen over time. even longer droughts more severe storms, more forced migration. so we're making smart decisions today that will payoff for generations like our ground breaking climate commit wplt

china that will limit both our greenhouse gases and bend down the global emissions curve. american leadership is addressing the pressing need for enhanced cyber security. as more of the world comes online, we're leading an international effort to define the rules for how states engage with one another in cyber space while ensuring the internet remains a powerful tool to drive advances. at the same time we have new resources to bolster security and the infrastructure kph government networks and other stems against cyber threats. second, we will expand prosperity by using our renewed economic strength, resurgent economy and energy security to

bolster the advanced system and advance economic order and reduce inequality and poverty. with the world's top universities premiere research facilities and a culture of entrepreneur entrepreneurship america already has the keys that will drive our knowledge economy through the coming century. with critical investments in technology and innovation, will keep sharpening our technological edge to keep the american economy at the forefront of innovation. we're opening more markets to american businesses workers and farmers. while forging trade agreement that's set high standards for fair wages, safe workplaces and environmental protections. and to make sure new trade and growth benefit people around the world will continue to pursue a sustainable development agenda,

grounded in our commitment to end extreme poverty. we'll work with congress to pass trade promotion authority so we can finalize the transpacific partnership thus securing a flee trade agreement with many of the world's fastest economies and working to make rapid progress on the european union. expanding what is already the largest trading relationship in the world and committed to renewing and enhancing the african growth and opportunity act to further deepen our investment in that promising region. africa is primed to become a major center of global growth. we ramped up our commitment across the continent, including through the president's power africa initiative, to connect

millions more people through reliable electricity. through our feed the future program, we're helping farmers plant better crops and raise their incomes while also improving the food security of the region. and last august for the first time ever, president obama hosted some 50 african leaders to chart ways our nations will do more together and sees opportunities for u.s. businesses to investment in africa's future. third, at a time when citizens in every region are demanding greater freedom and more accountability from their governments, our strategy is to defend democracy and human rights and combat corruption and promote open government and stand with civil society. we do so by living our values at home, by growing the reigns of

capable democratic stakes and defending universal rights. we'll help countries in transition like berm pha, tunisia and sri lanka to become more democratic and inclusive societies. we'll support democracies that are in danger of backsliding. we'll at the same time president obama has deepened our commitment to that basic american val aourbgs equality. we believe everyone should be able to speak their minds and practice their faith freely. we believe that all girls deserve the very same opportunities as boys. we believe that all human beings are created equal and worthy of

the same love and respect including our lesbian gay bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters. these beliefs are fundamental to who we are. advancing equality is both morally right and smart strategy. if we reduce disparities which lead to instability and violence we increase our shared security. reams of impure cal evidence demonstrate how countries do better across every metric when they tap the talents of all their people. so we champion the rights of vulnerable communities, those targeted by abuse or excluded by societies and encounter cycles of hatred that can spark violence. mass killings threaten our

common security and diminish our shared humanity. we affirm that governments have a responsibility to protect civilians. we'll continue to lead global efforts to prevent atrocities and hold accountable those who commit the worst abuses. we're also reaching out to populations that america can ill afford to neglect. with more than half the world under the age of 30, our strategy invests in and empowers young people through educational exchanges and on the trepb in yourship. our young leader initiatives in south asia identify and mentor the next generation of talent to grasp opportunity. and because we seek to lead by example, we'll keep working to make our own laws more inclusive to

sustain our prohibitions against torture, to protect civil liberties and privacy and improve transparency on issues like electronic surveillance. we have reduced the population at guantanamo by nearly half and while there are very tough challenges ahead we mean to keep going until we finish the job. finally our strategy leverages american leadership to uphold the liberal international order which is served us and the world very well for 70 years. by reinforcing the rules of the road and strengthening and diverse identifying in every region of the world. russians aggression against ukraine is haeupb news affront against long standing reforms. in lock step with our european

allies we have built a coalition of partners around the world to impose steep political and economic costs on russia in contrast to cost invasion of georgia and turn up the pressure unless russia decisively reverses course. at the same time we're providing vital economic support to help the ukrainian people write a better future for their country and strengthening our enduring alliance with europe by reassuring eastern europe and modernizing nato to meet emerging threats. as we update our international system, our strategy is to enhance our focus on regions that will shape the century ahead, starting with the asia pacific. our rebalance is deepening long standing alliances and forging

new partnerships to expand cooperation. we're investing in ozzie on, the east asian summit and strengthen their capacity to enforce regional norms and respond to crises like natural disasters and resolve disputes peacefully so the asia pacific remains a region of growth and opportunity. with china, we're building a constructive relationship that expands practical cooperation across a wide spectrum of issues from global health to non proliferation. even as we confront real differences over human rights and economic espionage and the use of coercion trip to india strengthened and other critical relationship that will emphasize benefits for both of our nations and help uplift

the lives of more of their billion people. i am pleased to announce today we have invited prime minister abe of japan and president xi jinping of china for state visits and look forward to the welcoming of other asian leaders, including president park of south korea and the president of indonesia. at the same time, we seek a middle east that is more secure, prosperous, and where democracy can take root. that is the ultimate vision we are working towards with partners throughout the region. we will continuously strengthen the unique bonds that unite the people of israel and the united states.

our commitment to israel's security remains enduring and unshakable. we refused to give up on a peaceful resolution to the conflict between israelis and palestinians. we will keep investing in the ability of all partners like saudi arabia, united arab emirates to deter aggression even as we deepen cooperation. since libya, syria, and yemen present persistent violence and instability, we must protect our people, work with partners to shrink terrorist safe havens and support those working to achieve political and social reform. to be sure, this region's challenges are many, including a generational transformation, citizens' legitimate demands for political and economic reforms, ethnic and tribal

tensions and iran's destabilizing influence. we will continue to draw on all sources of our influence, not just a military and we will work to foster a process that endures. closer to home, there is a region that has experienced rapid growth with a large and growing middle class and it is grappling with issues like transnational crime and trafficking that have serious implications on our own security. thanks in part to our opening with cuba, turning the page on 50 years of fruitless policy, we now have new opportunities to strengthen our partnerships with

our neighbors. we are investing particularly in central america, to improve governance, citizen security, to address the root causes of mass migrations like we saw last summer. across a range of issues, with an array of partners, the united states is proudly shouldering the responsibilities of global leadership. as president obama made clear during his state of the union address, the question is not whether america leave in the world, but how, and the answer is we are pursuing an ambitious, yet achievable agenda worthy of a great power. the president's budget directly supports his strategy. our national security leadership is united around this shared vision and agenda and we are eager to work with congress to

restore the vital bipartisan center to u.s. foreign policy. our unparalleled leadership is grounded in america for all enduring strength and guided by a clear sense of purpose. we approach challenges using all levers of our power -- diplomacy, broad-based development, economic leverage technological advances, talent diversity of our people, and where needed, our military might. we rally partners to enact sustainable solutions when challenges arise. we strive to set the highest standards by our own example and we lead with our eyes fixed firmly on the future, alert to opportunities to make the world safer and increasingly just. president obama has two years left in his term and that is

plenty. this is a blueprint for what we plan to get done over the next two years -- from degrading isil and opposing russian aggression to fostering a world that can more effectively meet the dangers of climate change and disease, cyber threats, and extreme poverty. if we run through the tape america will be better and more sustainably positioned to continue to lead on the issues and in the regions that will shape our future. one thing i can guarantee you, president obama is going to leave everything on the field and so will the rest. the challenges ahead will surely continue to be many and great. progress will not be quick or linear.

we are committed to seeing the future that lies beyond the crisis of the day and pursuing a vision of the world as it can and should be. that is our strategy for sustaining the leadership that future generations deserve. anything less would not be worthy of the american people or of our great nation. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much, susan. susan has agreed to have a short conversation with me. then we will open up to questions from the audience. before we start, i want to say something that does not get set enough. i have seen the pressure you are under and you have been slaving in the vineyard sports six years now. i just want to say thank you thank you for your service. [applause] >> what i heard in your presentation, and the documents i had a chance to read this morning, essentially the headline seems to be america is back. we are going to lead. but we are going to lead in a

different way. the emphasis on the troops coming home of the focus essentially on issues that don't get the usual attention of headlines, except when ebola strikes pandemics, cyber security, a focus on africa. these are things that seem to be things which they report does emphasize. the relationships with major powers -- certainly the mention there was mentioned in the speech, but it does not get the attention that someone say they deserve given what has happened in the world, particularly with russia. i'm wondering if you can explain to us how relations with major powers continue under this broad national security strategy?

>> firstly, thank you for your kind remarks. apologies to everybody. i am grateful that my voice has held up the us far. i'm uncertain how long it will continue to do so. i will continue to do my best. in the first instance martin, this is a multidimensional strategy. it recognizes in short we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. we have to deal with immediate crises and threats and at the same time have a long view and be prepared to seize opportunity. we have to focus on the regions that have traditionally consumed american attention and energy like the middle east and europe, particularly now with an aggressive russia, but at the same time we cannot neglect or leave untapped parts of the world that have not less attention, particularly in recent years. we have to do multiple things simultaneously and believe it or not, we can and we are. that includes dealing with great powers and dealing with very

proximate threats that we are very well aware of that we face. i did spend a good amount of time in my speech and also in the strategy itself on a relationship with china, which we see is one of the defining relationships for the 21st century. complex, one of bo and competition, but it is very much a part of how we view the world. we also look at emerging powers that have great potential and there, too, we are investing and the president's recent trip to india, coming three months after prime minister modi, an example of another large power relationship we intend to invest in. russia is a particular challenge and there is no question that a great deal of our effort and attention and our resource will be devoted to dealing with a russia that is now acting in a very aggressive and threatening

fashion. if you read the 2010 national security strategy, it has a different perspective and a different orientation towards russia. at that stage, there still seem to be prospect of a more cooperative and collaborative relationship. now we have to deal with the realities we face, and that means we will continue to reinforce our partners and allies in nato. we will invest the resources and posture ourselves to be sure there is an adequate defense and we are calling on them to do their part as they are increasingly. and we will push back and impose costs for russia's aggression. we have made clear unless russia reverses course we will look for ways to continue that pressure and we will do so in partnership with our european allies and

others around the world who share that concern. so, that is the reality. of course, the second piece of it is the issue with upholding arms-control obligations to collaborating with p5 plus one with respect to iran. we have managed to work together, and to the extent that that remains possible, even in the context of these other challenges, and even as we necessarily increase the cost and deter the effects of russia's actions, we will continue to cooperate where we can. >> you said in your speech and now that you will increase the pressure on russia until they reverse course and ukraine. in the document itself, you say you will help ukraine provide for its own defense.

the big debate whether arms should be provided to the ukraine. can you respond to that question? >> yes. i am well aware of the debate. as he only says, he has done a very good job with friends and colleagues of putting forward thoughtful recommendations on the way ahead. we are very much looking into a partnership with our european allies, what comes next? what comes next with respect to economic pressure and other forms of russia. we are already providing military assistance to ukraine. we have not taken the decision yet to up that, and the nature of that assistance. it is something under consideration. it is a significant step and we

will want to do so in close consultation, adding coordination with our partners who with us thus far have been a core element of our strength in responding to russian aggression. >> china, what you said in this document about the way you'll cooperate with china, welcome its rise, but compete where necessary and build up relations with traditional allies in asia . but the language in terms of india is different. it talks about, the document talks about "strategic convergence" with india, with india's east policy and america's rebalance. that seems to be a pretty clear indication that you are going to

be working with india in this region, not necessarily against china, but where necessary to balance china. is that a fair read of the strategy? >> i would not put it that way. i would say that these are two very important relationships and we are committed to building them, but they are very different. obviously our relationship with india, as the world's oldest democracy in the world's largest democracy, has the potential to be different in important respects, with respect to shared value, and perhaps a broader sense of interests, but it is not about pitting one against the other. it is about building the potential of both these important relationships to the extent possible. and let's be pragmatic. even with india, obviously, we have had differences in the past.

india has enormous and very real development challenges and it has a history and the international system that makes it different than our own and where we can expand the scope of for cooperation and i think we , have demonstrated that potential is now greater than ever, we will do so, but i would suggest they would be without -- i would not suggest it would be without some moments of disagreement. >> last question before we go to the audience. on iraq and syria, the national security plays out in terms of dealing with the challenge of isis in iraq. in syria, it talks about the notion of some sort of political rearrangement there that will be necessary. it does not really sound like a plausible strategy.

it may never be possible to have a plausible strategy in syria given the situation. but how do you deal with the fact that this is a phenomenon -- there is no border anymore. do you have a way of dealing with it in iraq -- it does not so much we have a way of dealing with it in syria? >> martin, there is no question the challenges in iraq and syria are different and by necessity we have to approach them differently. yet, it is a region where the violence is spilling, not only between iraq and syria, but other nations in that same region. in iraq, we have the prospect of working with the government in a fashion that provides hope and a nonsectarian way, and inclusive way to give us a partner on the

ground that, however weakened, it is established can be built up. that is exactly what we are doing with our coalition partners in the iraq context. we are building up, assisting the iraqi security forces, providing active support from the air, and as a consequence, pushing at numerous contested areas. in syria it is different. we have a government that has violated all of the norms and lost its legitimacy to govern. it has implemented horrific violence against its own people. that is not a partner, for the united states or any other member of the coalition. but at the same time, we need to not only take the opportunity to degrade and defeat isil from the

air and cut off the financial flows and cut off the support -- we ultimately need partners on the ground, and they are building from a lower base, no question. we have committed and we are working and have been to bolster the moderate syrian opposition. but obviously that opposition is weakened and under strain. so, the process of working with our coalition partners to build that capacity will be longer and more challenging. even then it is in iraq. >> great. let's go to the audience. i would ask three things. identify yourself. ask a question. and number three, please let's focus on the national security strategy that is the focus of this meeting today. yes, please.

yes, the lady. >> [indiscernible] the hostage policy of the u.s. in terms of national security. there was news today about a hostage. >> in the first instance, we are obviously very concerned about the reports that have common in recent hours. we do not at the present have any evidence to corroborate isil's claims, but obviously we will keep reviewing the information at hand. we have a broader policy with respect to hostages around the world. we don't make concessions to terrorists and hostage takers. we don't pay ransom. we adhere to that policy because it is our strong view and our

experience that when you make concessions and pay ransom, you are only generating greater incentive for additional acts of hostagetaking and you are providing resources to fuel this continued operation and horrific attacks. so, in the broader sense, that is how we approach this. we are in the process of doing a review of our hostage policy -- not with respect to the no concessions aspect i have outlined, but with respect to how we can support and be more responsive to the needs of -- for example, the families that are suffering so enormously when a loved one is in that circumstance. frankly, this is an area in which the president believes we can do better. at and we are

trying to learn from the experiences of other partner countries that have similar approaches to the united states and we are in close consultation, for example, with united kingdom on this, and we try to learn from the experience of families themselves. part of the effort is to be in broad communication with them and ask them, what is it you have experienced? what has not worked for you, and how might we do better? >> yes, please. >> thank you. my name is martin. i'm the ambassador of switzerland. i did not have a chance to read the strategy, but from what you have explained, multilateral institutions, multilateralism does not play an important role. is this impression right? >> it's wrong. >> it's wrong, ok. [laughter]

>> obviously, it has just come out. i commend the strategy. but, no, multilateralism remains an important element of our approach. it is treated in some depth in this strategy, as it was in the 2010 strategy. i think throughout the document, you will see a great emphasis on partnership, alliances coalitions, and collective action. some of that will be best conducted through existing international institutions. there is emphasis on international order and norms, the rules of the road. but also, updating these institutions for the challenges of the 21st century. i think you will find that team

is well treated. >> thank you very much. thank you for encouraging messages. this really brings back the united states as a world leader. my question is about our part of the world. we have a very large scale crisis around the ukraine. to my knowledge, in moscow there are talks on a possible new deal. according to the leaked information, i do not know to what extent this information is correct, the subject of the talks can be ukraine's neutrality, or a cease-fire along the new contact line inside the ukraine state.

if it is done, then we are talking about freezing of the conflict zone. also, we are trying to get the ukraine and friends to drop orientation. and agree on russia's terms. how do you think this strategy which is very nicely developed and design, can act quickly and efficiently? and to protect freedom of choice of those in the neighborhood of russia? >> i think it is way too soon to make judgments on what may be on the table in moscow today. our german and french allies are in moscow.

i have been in close contact with their national security advisers today and yesterday and earlier in the week. what they are bringing with them to moscow reflects their agreement with the president yesterday in ikiev. they are not out there unilaterally cutting a deal with putin at ukraine's expense. that is a misconception. we have to see how this evolves. certainly, it is -- and i do not prematurely expect a success or an uncertain outcome. in the broadest sense, our approach to your region is to stand strongly by our allies. and make clear that article five

of nato is inviolable, we need to uphold our obligations in the most serious way. we are building the capacity of nato, not only to defend its own territory, but to support and grow its relationships with other countries in the neighborhood. including your own. this strategy is about strengthening and deepening. our oldest and most fundamental allies in europe. and to make very clear that aggressions in the 21st century will come at great cost, and will not be tolerated or upheld. as i said in response to martin's question, we are continuously revisiting with our european allies how to best approach this challenge and how

to support, not only the people and government of ukraine, but our partners throughout eastern europe. >> we're running out of time. two questions from two of your former colleagues. >> uh-oh. >> susan, it is great to see you back on our stage. i just had a chance to glance through the document. you talk in here about five his story -- the stork -- hostoric transitions going on in the world that the united states would like to influence the trajectory. one of which is the struggle for power underway in the middle east. this includes the struggle between citizens and governments to redefine their relationships. it strikes me that throughout the document, there is a connection between domestic

governance and strong institutions, transparency responsibility, security. in the middle east, we face a challenge balancing the short-term security imperatives with long-term recognition of the relationship between good governance and inclusion, and rights respecting governance and security. i think my question is how does the united states intend to address this consistent dilemma between short-term and long-term imperatives in the middle east? at a moment when our partners are saying this is not the time to push for change and reform, this is the time to trying keep control. thank you. >> we will just take the last one from tom. tom rice. >> thank you.

you spoke in the speech, but also in the document, about how russia is not an existential threat. it has committed crimes in ukraine, and then an aggression there. vladimir putin very much sees himself in a cold war with europe. i was just wondering what specific challenges posed like a major power like russia over the next five or 10 years. what things worry you about what they might do and how it might escalate either on the economic front and how should the u.s. respond? >> two easy questions. >> let me start here and come back. i think first of all, that is not exactly what i said. the broad question about how we deal with russia -- there is no

question that and aggressive russia is taking territory from its neighbors. it's of grave concern and it's at the forefront of our agenda. having said that the tools that we will employ to counter and try to will back that aggression are not necessarily in every respect military tools. in this case we have relied on alliances and partnerships to impose costs to support ukraine itself which is a vital element of our strategy and to recognize within the 21st century where the vast majority of nations

stand for upholding basic international laws and norms and find it outside of those laws and norms to roll in and take portions of your neighbor. russia is paying an enormous cost. and over the long term if these choices are sustained the cost will mount. i think it's hard to dispute that in reality even if in the term russia's behavior has not demons -- trably changed the economic impact is having a major effect on its economy and having a growing and major effect on its economy. and the variety of thools we -- tools that we have at our disposal economic and otherwise are once -- ones that we will continue to use along with our

traditional tools to reinforce our collective opposition to this type of behavior. but i don't think it's correct to suggest that you can minimize the concern of this. but it is -- it is one that we will address through a variety of things. i mean, there's no question that in the middle east we are challenged by short term and long-term to wrestle with in tandem. when the president spoke at the united nations in 2013, he talked in very direct terms about other core interests in the middle east and he outlined four and colleagues didn't really like that because it didn't give in your estimation -- i don't need to put words in your mouth sufficient emphasis

on promotion of democracy and human rights. it focused on countering terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and upholding the security and integrity of our partners and allies and showing energy security and the free flow of energy. many of his speeches have -- including i think in that one as well. but the point being that we -- we do have some overriding core interests. but that is not to say and i think i said this in my remarks that we don't need and seek and wish to help support and build a middle east that is far more democratic far more respectful of human rights and one in which women and all of the citizens of the region are able to enjoy the same rights that we hold dear. that is the objective.

we think such societys that are respectful are more stable. they are more just. they're better partners. they're better able to confront the kind of security challenges that we face today. but it is a very difficult thing as we've seen over the last several years to succeed in those type of transitions while at the same time dealing with some very real both internal and external security threats. i think any of us would be oversimplifying to suggest that there is an easy one-size-fits-all answer. we have seen this from egypt to bahrain to saudi arabia. but that does not suggest that we have less commitment to or have jetson's -- jettison or very real answer to establish

democracy in this country like everywhere else in the world. many of these transitions and many of the changes we seek to implement will not come quickly and nor will they necessarily be linear and we're going to have to manage these tensions as a practical matter as policymakers for many years to come. >> susan it's been five years since we've had a document like this. >> lucky you. you guys now get to dissect it. i remember how much fun i had with other people's national security -- >> putting forward a paper like this will provoke debate and discussion. and we're grateful to you for that. and we're grateful for you for launching it here and discussing it here today. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.visit ncicap.org] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> next, remarks by the united nations' high commission fer for human rights. after that a discussion on the international effort to combat isis. then president obama in indiana talking about college costs and the economy. >> on the next "washington journal" kevin barren executive director of u.s. talks about ice -- isis. pa tricia stiveragefield on

vaccinations and public health. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span's book tv saturday night at 10 on "after words" washington bureau chief tony harnden on the british efforts to stop the taliban advance in afghanistan while awaiting u.s. marines' reinforcement. on sunday at 10:00. mark on the u.s. senate's torture report and why his company decided to public it. all this month interviews from former korean war p.o.w.'s. and charles roth who was held as a p.o.w. from 1950 to 1953. and just after 9:00 a look back at selma and the vote rights act. you can find our complete television schedule on

c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. caw us at 220-626-3400. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. or send us a tweet @c-span/ comments. like us on facebook follow us on twitter. >> now u.n. human rights officials zade raadal-hussein. it was a betrayal of islamic position. from the georgetown university law centers human rights institute. that is 30 minutes.

>> thank you very much for coming. i just like to introduce to you the u.n. high commissioner of human rights two took office in september of last year. and i won't say anymore. i'll go straight to the high commissioner himself. >> thank you. good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the press. permit me if you will to begin my remarks by speaking plainly. as a jordanian and the u.n. human rights chief, i am filled -- filled with anger and disgust at what the people did in syria to my compatriots to the two

japanese captainors, to the -- captors, to the american captors to many others in the form of burning, beheadings and racing sometimes of children. and the perpetrators who have committed these monstrous crimes killing the defenseless in defense of what exactly? who would want to live this that so-called state? a state that crucifies, burns and buries children alive? let us be clear killing and torturing defenseless captors is a betrayal of the islamic tradition. it is forbidden in customary

law. it is forbidden in international humanitarian law the geneva conventions and previously to that or prior to that the hague regulations. the human experience is forbidden, period. what virtue or courage is there in beheading someone defenseless raising a young girl does a person who calls himself a fighter believe this is -- this is the definition of courage? these people are annihilated are so far the human experience. the young adherence seeking to join them must know what they pro port to join is not some adventure. it is a road to destroy criminal

existence. if you are looking for some meaning in your life do good deeds. that would be your salvation. this is the first trip for a high commissioner to washington in eight years. it has been important for me and my office to re-engage with the administration and with members of congress particularly during these troubled -- deeply troubled times. just as a first step, i hope to be back for more visits, of course to cover other issues. and this is a preliminary visit. not surprisingly given what is going on in iraq, syria, somalia

and elsewhere, the main focus of the discussions has been violent extremism. this was brought into stark focus with the appearance of the video showing the horrendous killing of mohammed. his gruesome killing on top of the beheadings overshadowed every one of my meetings and i had serious discussions of this and related issues with many of the senior state department officials whom i met as well as members of both the house and the senate from both parties. as you may be aware yesterday it's an event kindly and very appropriately host bd the holocaust museum i laid out some ideas about how we should and how we shouldn't attempt to

deal with the spread of extremism and violence carried out by the group such as isil boca ha ram and others. in addition to some government forces shiah and shabiha militias in iraq and syria. and of course, it is not simply syria and iraq, but also an increasing number of countries especially in the middle east, south asia and all across the northern part of africa, libya is in -- an extremely armed state, the central african republic and south sudan could easily plunge back into ethnic violence. boko haram is rampaging across northern nigeria and

increasingly in cameroon slaughtering and kidnapping people wherever they go and laying waste to towns and villages. i have suggested that a security response, an armed response is clearly not enough. we have been responding in that way for more than a decade now. and yet these groups have simply spread and grown like some particularly viralent cancer feeding off our efforts to contain them. i've also taken pains to point out that isil in particular for all its bar barity is extremely quick and clever and the way that it exploits our reaction our overreaction, our mistakes. we must be extremely careful not to allow us to drag us into betraying our own principle namely the power system of human

rights protection that we have built up after world war ii and when we do, it helps their recruitment and feeds their any hi -- nihilistic killing machine. if we've seen all the horrors is that we are starting to understand this. later this month, the united states will convene a summit on violent extremism if i understand it correctly to delve deeper with this lethal phenomenon. i hope and believe we will develop more sophisticated ways to under mine isil. simply bombing them and denouncing them is clearly not enough an more and more people are starting to realize this. we have to fight their ideas with better ideas.

stop undermining our own worldwide system of human rights because they push us to do so. tack the hopelessness and the solution that is providing them with the apparent endless stream of young men and even young women. confronting a world that is in some way offering them too little hope. we are in a very grave period confronted by a phenomenon we have failed to comprehend how we handle or mishandle these issues may affect us in increasingly unpredictable ways for many years to come. i thank you for your attention. and i'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> grateful if you could identify the organization you work for when you ask your question. >> [inaudible]

>> the -- as i said in my statement that i've just read out. i think for all jordanians the killing of muhammad kasaster was so shocking. we know what they've been doing that it has galvanized the jordanian public into realizing that these people must be resisted. the arguments that many of us are making when looking back over the many years that they've been operating across many parts of the world is that it would

seem that armed action taken against them is simply not enough. there are attempts of course to seek out the funding mechanicisms that keep them going. but we also believe that there must be a new battle line in the form of an ideological battle line that response to what is it that they say and they do. and the lesser issued by 126 muslim scholars back in september is a -- an initiative i think, that is worthy of support, that if the muslim world and muslims take it upon themselves to answer back to the -- the ideas that they hold the

taxidis hold that this will be first step in terms of unwinding what it is that they seek to sort of promote in terms of their ideaology. and i think this will be good. >> first of all, members of the council. i wish to commend you for taking on this formidable and very important post. we know your office is concern with the declaration of human rights. is there a correspondenting university obligation for governments on all levels to foster the recognition of these rights and protect them? >> yeah. it's a very good point. as you know the declaration was adopted by the general assembly soon after it was written up.

and from the declare ration sort of drawing inspiration from a number of key treaties and conventions were developed. whereby governments tiket upon -- took it upon themselves bicepping these treaties certain obligations. and our office is there of course to remind these governments that these obligations are not simply declaretory obligations but obligations that must be implement at all stages. and even with the passage of the years there should be no support given to them. we believe that this is absolutely the right way to proceed and in particular when you look at certain treaties, such as a convention against

torture, for example, it's self-executing treaty. the moment you exceed to it, it's applicable in your law and it's a very clear convention, very clear convention. there are no exceptions, no exceptions that can be provided as grounds for breaching the treaty. and that is very clear. and so when governments undertake these obligations we hope and expect that they will abide by them. what we are worried about is in an effort to overturn extremists violence that we see, that government feel at times to -- and they would justify it as temporary measures to breach some of these treatys. what we are saying is that these

obligations relate to treaties that were developed as a response to wars an torture that have been part of human experience for the past few. the treaty attempts to distill this experience -- the experience as couched with human -- through human wisdom into a law that reflects that experience and so, there should be no grounds for justifying any breach of them. and i hope this is something that we will continue to press upon you. >> my name is michelle forcely. i'm from the national institute here at the university, mr. ambassador. i work in the health sector

obviously and there i bring the principles of rule of law and governance to assist ministries of help. it's been my opinion that too often governments do not know how to actually operatize their obligations under the law. and i note your -- some of the materials i've read about yourself and your thinking about the work you're setting out to do is that you are also looking at the health sector and we could look at education. we could look at the court system, we could look at any number of institutions within government that are probably failing in a lot of places where terrorists are rising up. in recent years i've worked in afghanistan where just a few days ago i read about the taliban constructing court to actually hear cases, disputes

between people because the court system is failing. i wonder if in your thinking and perhaps it's premature how to assist countries to operatalize their institutions so they can be rebuilt or built anew so that we can provide this level of support to citizens in the country. >> it's an excellent question. six million of our youngest people, little people, people between the ages of one day old and five years of age die every year from preventable -- preventable causes. and in many instances as you are so rightly pointing out, it is because the authorities that are

responsible for their health are delinquent in the discharge of their duties. six million is the equivalent of many average sized countries. you know, it's quite amazing if we -- if we were to say that -- that isil was killing six million people a year, can you imagine the reaction? so why is it that we are not as determined when we say six million people die as a result of preventable causes and that they're very young but we're not more determined to do better. and i -- i even said at one stage that in some case it must amount to criminal negligence and there should be local authorities -- more local authorities for that disregard. >> and you're absolutely right. if people do not see government

stand up to the obligations and respect of health, in respect of education. it creates spaces then for those of more extreme ideological bent to exploit this. that's what we have to integrate this into the discussion. and so i agree with your opinion. >> anymore questions especially from the >> any more questions, especially from the journalists present? >> i have a follow-up question. in regards to getting society to stop pushing for exceptions during times of war or times of violent extremism, how do you suggest that governments kind of encourage and foster these ideas at the most basic levels of society? >> it's important that governments, i think, take a comprehensive view of this and

understand that if societies feel excluded, if societies at the fringes are okay with allowing for alienation and are not determined to end it, we will have adherence or we will have young people attach themselves to philosophies or let's say idealologist of the -- idealologies of the more extreme. human experiences, as i said before especially in the 20th century, is filled with violent drama which we really do not want to see replayed in the 21st century. we really do not want to go back to the horrors of the 20th century that just passed. and so we have to take stock and learn what it is that

contributed to the tumult, to the spasms of violence that led to the deaths of millions of people violently and understand that we cannot put ourselves in the situation where we cannot arrest the trajectories from taking us to that sort of outcome. and so it is important for governments to view not just the people from or through a security prism to protect them in security terms but that the security paradigm has to be seen with a big "if," that it's not just security in terms of physical protection, it's security in terms of food health in terms of basic rights for all parts of the population. and if you can have that and

surely you can, you immunize yourself better against the forces of extremism. there is something else, i think, that we have to be clear about, that societies that are open to scrutiny, that are willing to accept scrutiny, are better positioned for the long term. societies that shun scrutiny are more prone to sudden shifts and instability long term. and so we, as the human right office, will remind governments and they will be uncomfortable when we do this, that they have obligations, that they need to uphold them. but we also believe that we are not doing them a disservice. we're actually doing them a service. they may be sometimes uncomfortable with what we say but all of us are pushing in the same direction. and that is for the betterment

of the people of the country concerned. and we're looking for them to enjoy a better standard of life with the full protections of the law. thank you. >> we have time for, i think, just one last question. >> i have a question on ukraine. so i wonder, what is your concern on the ukraine right now? you talk about this issue with u.s. officials during a visit, and what was their reaction? and what are the things the united states and russia should do to deescalate the situation? >> thank you very much for that question. the office which i lead has a monitoring mission in ukraine

that has been in place really almost ever since the crisis began in the eastern part of the country. we have periodic reports that we make available to the international community. and, yes we discuss ukraine with a large number of countries. naturally, it's of great concern to the international community at large. this is a very serious crisis. and we have seen, of course, even though we have -- all of us have called for further compliance with the acords, we have seen the cease-fire unravel. and the other day, i issued a statement, and i made clear that now what we see in donetsk is bus stops, public transport

marketplaces schools kindergartens, hospitals and residential areas have all become battlegrounds. at risk, 5.2 million people in the eastern parts are now vulnerable. i mean surely, and i think all of us share this, surely no one wants to see this crisis deepen and expand. and certainly the 5,358 people who have been killed are 5,358 people too many. we appeal, of course to all sides to de-escalate this crisis. the world can ill afford to have a crisis of this sort, given everything else that we have to deal with. and so we will continue to make this appeal, along with all the

other u.n. agencies and partners across the international community. i do expect in early march, to be discussing ukraine with a number of key officials when they come to geneva. and at that stage, i will address members of the press on the outcome of those discussions. thank you. >> okay. we can probably take another question. >> what's your view on the u.s. immigration, reviewing every option to support ukraine including sending defensive weapons to the ukraine? >> i won't comment about the actions taken by individual states because of course our monitoring mission is monitoring the situation there on the ground. we're not monitoring the performance of other states in

respect of ukraine as such. and what concerns us, of course is that they have determined action to restore acords and have the cease-fire put back in place, that the unraveling will continue. again, surely this is not to the advantage of anyone in the international community. >> very last question. we have to then rush off. >> so you have to remain neutral that you couldn't have a list of like the top ten worst offenders of human rights? and if so, how would america appear on that list? and what is the tie-in here for you to come to georgetown law to this venue? >> a top ten list. you've just given me an idea. we haven't had a top ten list.

we remind all states, i think just a review of all the comments that my predecessors and now myself have made in respect of many, many countries around the world. we don't pick on any one country or one region. we continuously review and study the comments that states themselves make. when they come to geneva and especially under the so-called universal periodic review. i shouldn't call it so-called. the universal periodic review. all states submit the human right performance to the screut niscrutiny of the human rights council and their peers. they all, of course, will point out that they have been able to

accomplish x y and z but there are still issues outstanding. and they're told they should do this and that, and they will accept those recommendations or not. we remind them of the recommendations they've accepted. and we hope that they then do so. there is no ranking as much. but maybe one day there should be. but this is the first press conference i've been to where the press are not just asking questions but making suggestions, so thank you. i met prior to the press conference with members of the faculty and students at the law school. very enjoyable discussion. and at times, of course somber as well, given the state of the world. >> thank you very much indeed. we should wrap up now. >> thank you so much. thank you.

>> next, a discussion on the international effort to combat isis. then president obama in indiana talking about college costs and the economy. after that, national security advisory susan rice discusses national security and foreign policy. on newsmakers, representative adam smith of washington ranking member of the armed services committee will discuss authorization for use of military force against isis. ashton carter's leadership at the pentagon. the defense budget debate and other key military topics. newsmakers on c-span. >> this sunday on q&a, david brooks, columnist for the new york times, on writing an article for the times and the awards he gives out at the end of the year. >> sidney awards are given for the best magazine essays of the

year. and they can be in journals or they can be in like the new yorker, the atlantic, or obscure literary magazines. the idea they always come out between christmas and new year's. the idea is that's a good time to step back, and not read tweets and newspaper articles but to step back and have the time to read something deeper and longer. and it's to celebrate those longer pieces. i do believe magazines change history. the new republic, until its recent destruction, was the most influential american political magazine of the 20th century. it really did change history. it created a voice for modern liberalism. conservatism barely resisted until the national review. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> the washington institute for near east policy hosted this discussion on the fight against isis and the role of iran and

syria's bashar al-assad. regional experts and former army colonel who served in iraq took part. this is about an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. and welcome to the washington institute. my name is david schenker. i'm the director of the program on arab politics here. it's nice to see such a large crowd. good to see you. we're here today for a policy forum entitled the fight against isil shiite militias and the coalition effort to talk about the release of two new fascinating institute studies. if anyone had any doubts, the video released earlier this week of the burning alovie alive of the jordanian pilot confirms the moral depravity of isil. but six months into the air coalition campaign against isil which commenced with the

beheading of american journalist foley, the results have been mixed, at best. the air strikes have driven isil out of kobani in syria. however, overall today the group controls actually more territory in syria and iraq than it did six months ago when the war started. air power alone is going to be insufficient to degrade and ultimately defeat isil. to roll back isil, the organization is going to have to be countered on the ground. we're witnessing right now the initial stages of this new phase in the campaign. in syria, the administration strategy of training up the moderate vetted syrian opposition remains a distant if realistic option. meanwhile, they are deploying a series of shiite militias to combat isil. across the border, baghdad, in cooperation with washington, is working to accomplish an

internal security force. to discuss these differing approaches to isil today, we have a great panel, featuring michael knights, phillip smyth and p.j. dermer. michael knights is a fellow at the washington institute, and author of the just released staidstudy" the long haul. phillip smyth is a researcher at the university of maryland and the author of the blog hizballah cavalcade, which tuscaloosas focuses on shiite islamic militaryism. commenting on their presentations, we're really lucky to have p.j. dermer, a retired army koirnl colonel who served multiple tours in the region, including tours of iraq. he served as senior military advisory for reconciliation to iraqi forces in baghdad in 2008.

before we start, just a quick reminder, please put your mobile phones on vibrate. we are live on c-span today apparently. so we'll start with mike knights. >> thank you very much for coming today. it's great to see such a full room. and my colleagues on the panel with me, it's a real honor to be alongside them. so i'm going to talk today about some of the themes coming out of our new study, the long haul, rebooting u.s. security cooperation with iraq. and i want to go through the study in detail. what i'm going to do maybe is to troo i and pick out -- try and pick out some of the -- i think

the key issues and quandaries that come out with the iraq state, with the kurdish peshmerga and our coexistence at the moment, alongside the popular mobilization unit plays a significant role in the war so far in iraq. now, just to run through a couple of graphics quickly which are in the study, which is stable in pdf form online for you to download we include for instance a full brigade order of battle for the iraqi army and the popular mobilization forces, graphically represented. and it demonstrates, for one thing, how much of the iraqi combat power is pulled around baghdad and the immediate environment. how few of the iraqi military units are able to deploy over long distances, the distances

required, for instance to commence an operation in the second quarter of this year. it's going to be very difficult to do that. and also, the lack of combat effective iraqi army brigades with the strength required to undertake a very complex, costly operation in mosul. it indicates that the nine brigades u.s.-led train and equip program to build oversized combat capable deployable units that can continue to operate after taking the casualties in urban combat. that train and equip program is vital. to me it indicates that we're not looking at mosul commencing until q3, q4, 2015. some people are even more grumpy about it than that. so again on this slide, you'll see the graphic in the study. iraqi army in yellow. ministry of interior in black.

and the popular mobilization units in red. if you're interested in looking at the detail, go look at the study. likewise, we've done the same for the peshmerga in terms of a slightly rougher but probably the most detailed order of battle you're going to see out there on what the peshmerga really looks like right now and how it is structured. now, on this slide we see -- even from the back it should be fairly visible. the blue is kurdish regional security forces. and the green is the areas where the federal government is contesting. one of the interesting factors in this is that you can see a little thin green line running from the iranian border. that's the iranian line of supply that directly supports the popular mobilization units who are gathering and building for a major operation just south. i'm not going to talk about the

progress of the war against isil. we'll do that in other forums, on other days, and through our written products. what i will say is to reiterate. i believe the war against isil in iraq initially is highly winnable. and in fact, slowly, slowly, we're on that trajectory now. for many people, the velocity will not be fast enough. but the vector, the direction is in that direction, towards cutting them down to the stage that they are a serious insurgent and terrorist movement. unfortunately, today's best case scenario was 2013's worst case scenario. so, you know what we're hoping is that in the next year or so we can cut isis down until it is our worst nightmare from 2013. and then we start again. and we start working on a way to cut them down to where they were in 2009, when the security

operations were at their most effective probably. and then finally, to get them down below that, to the hopes that we had in 2009. but what i'm going to talk about today more is what if we defeat isis but lose iraq in the process? what if there is another probably graver threat out there, which is the threat posed to some extent by the allies that we are working alongside? i'm thinking here about some of the popular mobilization unit elements who are strongly iranian linked. the movements that phillip is going to talk about in great detail after me. what if we committee feet -- defeat isis? it may sound a little dramatic but there's a lot going on in iraq. to point in that direction. is this america's moment in iraq?

some people, they look at the altar, and they say, well, the u.s. government was just being realistic, the soviets were going to dominate eastern europe. nothing could stop that. others would say -- would have an emotional reaction. this is when we were consigned to 50 years of communism. left behind the iron curtain. even though i don't think it's a perfect analogy, where i think this is a bit of an altar moment is we're in the midst of a war. the war is not over yet. but it's time to start asking tough questions about how the war ends, why we're fighting this war to the end, who our allies are, and how they'll act let's say, after mosul is liberated, how they'll act towards us and other elements in iraq. i think, you know, in the old days afghanistan was the good war and iraq was the bad war.

2009. 2014, iraq seems to be the good war. and syria is the bad war. but in reality, iraq is going to be a lot more complex. i don't think iraq is -- i believe it's a war worth fighting. involving the u.s. but it's not a complex or a simple war or any sense of us being in any sense allied with iran in this war against isis in iraq. it's fraught with danger and far more complex than many people would believe. now, one thing i've noticed, since i was starting this study in researching,s talking, talking to a lot of people, just to complete the data collection on it throwing ideas out there about this victory we could win if we defeat isil but in the process hand iraq over to a hezbollahizeed iraqi security structure, first of all, it

struck me that -- i don't think i've ever heard kurds and shiite arabs went so much hatred at each other. our allies in iraq at the moment isis's enemies, are remarkably divided. remarkably resentful of each other. it's sad to see because the fighting hasn't even vaguely stopped yet against isis. a lot of young shiite guys usually will say to me, what have you got against the popular mobilization units? they're fighting isis. you're fighting isis. they're fighting and dying. are they really so bad? and don't you hold them to a double standard, if the peshmerga did the same thing would you criticize them as fiercely? you want to build up the sunni the awakening movements. didn't they do all of these things in the past? didn't they kill americans too? imwe do need to think hard about

these questions. we do have something of an emotional reaction against some of the hostile popular mobilization units. so let's just dig into that for a second. all these bad guys, i don't think so. the fight is going to the front line. many of them are not psychos. many of them are not there for sectarian massacres. they're just normal people. i had a similar feeling when meeting hezbollah infantrymen down in lebanon in '99 sitting with them and their families in their houses. but behind them, often far behind them, there was the islamic revolutionary guys that i never did meet. and they had a very different attitude. i certainly became personally aware of the difference between being in their midst and not their target as i was in southern lebanon till later when i was in iraq, being

actively targeted. there's something under the surface of these predominantly shiite popular mobilization units that we need to look at very closely. just to underline the point, on the left-hand side, we have the guys that look pretty scary. they're supposed to be our allies. in the top right, we have these crispily pressed shiite. who looks scarier? i would argue, for a number of reasons, that actually the guys on the left -- we need to treat both with care, but the guys on the right are not as custody cuddly or safe or trustworthy as they look. and the guys on the left, in some ways, because they are cut off, i think from major state support, because they are not intricately networked into the islamic revolutionary force because they pull in smaller increments, because they are

divided rather than having the potential to form into one large hezbollah-like shadow defense institution that could threaten and overwhelm ultimately things like iraqi ministry of defense ministry of interior, i believe the guys on the right are a bigger threat. likewise, look at the bottom. there you have a western private security detail vehicle taken out by extraordinarily accurate and effective explosive projectiles, fired by the shiite groups. on the right -- a marine corps ripped to pieces by a sunni i.e.d. way back. both have killed us. both probably would kill us again, if they needed to, if they felt like they wanted to. personally, i'm more afraid of the capabilities of the kurds force special groups. as late as june 2011, if you remember, they killed 16 americans, because it seemed like perhaps we were going to

rethink our withdrawal from iraq. i think they are much more dangerous than the sunni groups. but i'll talk about why very quickly. two main reasons. one, an increased involvement of the iranian-backed popular mobilization units, particularly in areas to the north, like mosul to crete, places out in the western anbar, where they're at the moment being welcomed in piecemeal, but i think they'll wear out their welcome soon, i think the overreliance on these units will lengthen the war against isis. these guys are -- if you look, they've blanked out the gruesome images of dead bodies -- a dead body suspended from a lamppost, left there by the pmu's. likewise a massacre, bottom left, this is not even images

from the most recent massacre of '72 alleged massacre. top right, heavy artillery bombardment of sunni villages. they may be mostly depopulated with isis, but nonetheless these guys come heavy when they come. and interestingly, the bottom right-hand image, you may say there's a bunch of young fighters, holding up an iraqi flag. what could be wrong with that? in and of itself nothing. but what they're doing is they're holding it up on the main road and taunting kurdish drivers with it. this isn't small. it's not helpful. and it's an indicator, even when these guys are not out abusing civilians and undertaking counterproductive military operations or at least military operations with counterproductive elements, they're also a source of constant friction in many of the places operating alongside the

krg. likewise, the second main point these iranian-backed militias, if not put under some form of control, will ultimately united line the strategic independence of iraq. i think -- we see some of the images here. behind that eagle, in the top left-hand side, sits deliberately a concealed u.s. designated terrorist since i think 2009, who has been pursued for various terrorist offenses, back to 1983, involving kuwait. up there in the front lines taking iraqi senior leadership on a tour of pmu successes. carefully hidden in this picture, because it was recognized it might cause

offense perhaps. likewise, a former pm president meeting up with senior leadership in hezbollah. likewise, on the bottom side, even though i think it's a bit of a stunt u.s. abrams with flags attached to it. i wish information operations was as good as these guys. everything we do -- when we achieve something, we line to fall into the background and you know, hezbollah iraqis could take credit for the things that they've achieved. well you know what? 100% wrong. when the kurds force guys have any involvement or even if they have no involvement in a successful operation, they get their senior leadership right there and plaster their faces on every social media outlet that they can find. i think we need to be doing more to demonstrate what the u.s. and

the international coalition is doing to stabilize iraq, because we're really on our back foot when it comes to information operations. so, you know, these guys are ambitious. they are not some kind of minor small group of concerned local citizens et cetera. in 2009, when the sawa was being set up these guys never disbanded. these guys never did biometrics. most of the movements came in, signed their little piece of paper, did the biometrics, which the iraqi government now holds on them, hezbollah never did that stuff. they just said, we might stop fighting you, but one day we'll fit you again, but for now we are willing to take the paycheck for being in, quote, a son of iraq. these guys are not from the minority like the sunni sawa. these guys are in