gave them the mission and let them do the job. that is what we need right now. mr. scully: you have said you want to run your campaign with a message. what would those be? what would those be? former senator webb: if people look at what we have done throughout my professional career, we have been able to get things done in and out of government. in the time i was in the senate, i personally wrote the post 9/11 bill. we developed a leadership prototype which republicans and democrats listened to people. in 16 months, we put together the best g.i. bill in american history on the model of the world war ii g.i. bill. we brought criminal justice reform into the national debate.

when i first came to the senate, the word was that if you were talking about over incarceration and alternate issues, you are "soft" on crime. we introduce legislation that cause people to gravitate towards our solution across the philosophical spectrum. i learned five months before the invasion of iraq that this would be a strategic blunder that would empower iran and cause sectarian violence we have seen since then. i also warned about the situation in libya. my message would be that we can sit down, innovate, take the

hits, and bring the country leadership. also, that we would be focusing on the same issues that i have been dealing with for years. economic fairness, social justice, reestablishing a sense of direction in our fallen policy and military policy -- foreign policy. and being very careful about the imbalance that exists between the president the and the congress. i think congress needs to take more responsibility on these issues. mr. scully: let's talk about you. you were born in missouri. you moved around a lot as a child. what do you remember? former senator webb: my father was a world war ii veteran. he did not have any college. he spent a year and a half in missouri where i was born and then reentered the military.

from that period all through my early life, we moved constantly. we have a lot of family separations. i like to say that i know what it's like to have a dad deployed, to be deployed, to have a son deployed. it's very much a part of how we grew up. the sacrifices that military families make in the sense of duty that so many other people who serve have. i also learned how to operate in a lot of different geographical and ethnic backgrounds. i went to nine different schools in five years at one point. we were in england and texas alabama, nebraska, california. i learned a lot about the country. i learned about duty and that i wanted to serve. mr. scully: you have to be a

native because you said missoura, not missouri. former senator webb: that's how i was raised to say it. i went to southern cal on an rotc scholarship. they recommended there that i might give the academy is shot. at that time in my life, it was if you want to be a top intellectual, try to go to yale. if you want to learn leadership, go to the needle -- go to the naval academy. i learned accountability. i was also on the brigade honor committee for four years which had a profound effect on me, watching how our program worked at the naval academy. i learned the value of proper leadership in tough situations.

we all knew then that the country was undergoing a lot of turmoil, and that we needed to provide leadership for people who were going to go to the war in vietnam, whatever their political thoughts were. the war wasn't going to go away and it was our duty to go there. mr. scully: you graduated in 1968. talk about the turmoil of that year. lbj was not seeking another term. you graduated at the height of the vietnam war. former senator webb: the night before we graduated, robert kennedy was assassinated. there were a lot of questions about the validity of our governmental process, the common sense of foreign policy, etc. we all knew what our duty was going to be and where we would be going. mr. scully: you are in your early 20's, about to be deployed to a war that had a lot of questions in this country, and you were front and center.

former senator webb: i had an interesting discussion with my father who really did not like the way that mcnamara was running the war. i think he supported the war itself. when your father is saying, "go in the navy, stay on the ship, don't be a marine," there were a lot of strong family discussions at home to rate i wanted to be a marine. the a marines over there fighting needed the kind of leadership that i thought i could bring and i wanted to go. mr. scully: what were your parents like? former senator webb: my dad has been a great hero. he went to night school for 26 years to finish college my senior year of high school.

my mother grew up in east arkansas. i think an existence as rough as anyone in this country has experienced, out of the eight siblings, three of them died of disease in childhood. her father died when she was 10. she chopped a lot of cotton and picked a lot of strawberries. i have two sisters and a brother. we cover the political spectrum when we have our discussions. mr. scully: what is the leg over thanksgiving dinner? -- what is that like overthink giving dinner? former senator webb: i use to get a lot of e-mails when i was in the senate. mr. scully: what advice do they give you? former senator webb: we have a lot of political differences in our family, but i have always respected them.

mr. scully: you served in the marine corps. then you came back to the u.s. you worked on nap -- you worked on capitol hill for a while to do what? former senator webb: i was wounded in vietnam. i tried to stay in the marine corps. i went to law school at georgetown. i started writing when i was in law school. actually, i started writing my last year in the marine corps. i found a strong passion for all i was in law school. i wrote on our strategic axes in the pacific. i worked as a military planner while i was in law school. i worked for the governor of guam and traveled the region. i became a committee counsel for

four years in the congress, working on veterans -- veterans' issues. world war i veterans hadn't gotten of terrific deal when they got back. the world war ii veterans were the beneficiaries of the world war i people. i learned a great deal. i also learned that i love writing and i could make a living as an independent writer which is hard to do in our country. i started this period where i would write for a while and miss leadership challenges and go back into the government for a while. then i would miss writing. i began this alternate career path. i loved both. mr. scully: you have written 10

books? you have won an emmy. you wrote a screenplay that turned into a film. have we ever had a president that has done all of that? former senator webb: not yet. mr. scully: how do you go about writing a book? former senator webb: each one is different. i have also worked on a number of film projects. a novel always starts with the theme, something that i would really like to be able to explore. then the characters fall out of the themes. as a good example, i wrote a book called "the emperor's general." when i would read about that story, it always came back to me, why would a great man kill a great man? taking that theme, i ended up writing a novel into world war ii and postwar japan, all about the complexities and what was going on. that is typically the way i would write.

mr. scully: vietnam is now a close trading ally. would you have thought that 40 years ago? former senator webb: this is what we were trying to do 45 years ago. i have always believed that vietnam is one of the key countries for the united dates in terms of how we approach eased and southeast asia. when i came to the senate, i brought my staff together. we began the strengthening movement in asia two years before the administration came into office. i said, we are going to work to invigorate our relations with korea, japan, vietnam, thailand, singapore, and change the

formula in burma. we had a pretty good track record on all of those. with respect to vietnam, i started going back to vietnam in 1991. i participated very strongly in the evolution of our relationship with their present government. it was pretty much a stalinist regime in 91 when i first went back. they were kind of the little brother of the soviet regime. they were being subsidized by the soviet regime. when the soviets went down, they needed alternatives. that is one of the reasons i started going there. i was a participant in bringing vietnam into the international community in a positive way, and also addressing the issues of our overseas the enemies -- overseas vietnamese.

mr. scully: you have written that vietnam has really shaped u.s. foreign-policy over the last few years. former senator webb: a lot of people have expected me to make that simple parallel. i have resisted that. i know that vietnam is kind of like a rorschach test. even in my first book which i wrote when i was in law school at 28 years old, i was talking more about how we should articulate our national security interests around the world and where we should be willing to be vigorous in terms of our involvement, which led me on the one hand to say the invasion of

iraq, the occupation of the united states of countries in that part of the world would be a huge strategic wonder. at the same time, i believe i have been one of the leading voices in discussing chinese expansionism and the ways we have to deal with the situation we are seeing in the south china sea. mr. scully: we are seeing it right now. how worried are you about what is happening in that part of the world? former senator webb: i have been writing, speaking about the situation with chinese expansionism and how the united states must remain as the strategic balancing force in that part of the world for many years.

what has -- what have come to the four -- fore here in the past month or so has been going on for the past 15 years. it is a classic pattern of an authoritarian expansionist nation, where they make claims of sovereignty and, in their case now, a region all the way down off the coast of malaga. more land mass then japan, philippines, and vietnam put together. they make the sovereign claims we have spats out there. we tend to think these are tactical claims. over time, they have created a political jurisdiction encompassing the entire area which reports directly to their central government. we have to be firm that this is a violation of the international law. what they say now is, this is

our land, this is our political jurisdiction. if you say anything, you are violating our internal government. it's just not true. i made a point a few days ago on a show that i believe if i were the president, i would be directing my administration to pursue the notion of limited sanctions against china with respect to trade on defense matters. i would be reviewing defense cooperation with them. we have to be able to communicate that this is a very serious matter. mr. scully: how would you assess the foreign-policy of this president? former senator webb: he was given a pretty poor hand when it came to the situation in the middle east. i would say i think the great mistake of the administration was the way that the arab spring was handled.

it is going to take us a while to untangle the decisions that were made there. particularly, with respect to libya. there is no direct american interest there. there are no treaties in effect. no attack or threat of attack. it was not even a civil war. i have made this point over and over again. what were the consequences under which -- what were the circumstances under which that the president should have been able to use military authority without coming to the congress? i think that's the issue that is really going to have to be unraveled over time. mr. scully: has the president been a strong leader? former senator webb: i believe that, in some areas, president obama has. i believe, in terms of working with the congress, we would be a lot better if there were more

direct sit down, people from both sides of the aisle, working through issues. mr. scully: take china, russia. how do you think they view the u.s.? former senator webb: i believe that our country needs a new and clear strategic doctrine. the last clear strategic doctrine was actually the nixon doctrine that came in 1969-1970, regarding when the united states was going to be involved in internal violence inside different countries. particularly, since the fall of the soviet union, you haven't had a clear explanation of how we are going to pursue our national interests. after 9/11, it has gotten more difficult. i think all of these major regional powers or countries

like china, which is attempting to be more than a regional power, china and russia are going to be conducting naval exercises in the mediterranean this summer. they need to hear from us that these are the areas in which we as a country will declare our national security and we will back up our concerns. not just with military confrontation, but with economic sanctions or messages as well. mr. scully: you have seen this not only through your own eyes but also through your son who serves. what advice did you give him before he was deployed? he served in iraq, correct? former senator webb: yes. my son left pennsylvania state

and enlisted in the marine corps and was a rifle marine. he was in some of the worst fighting. advice about military service is not something you can just sit down and give somebody right before they go. we have thousands of hours of discussion, the same way that my father did with me when i was growing up. this is what we talked about at the dinner table. how do you motivate people, lead them, make hard decisions. what kind of leader would you want? do want some one who makes you do something or who makes you want to do something? so by the time my son left, we , had a pretty clear understanding of what our family has done for a very long time. mr. scully: you are smiling like a very proud father. former senator webb: it was a hard time. particularly infantry combat is

in any war hard. on the one hand, you feel a great amount of pride and respect you read on the other you know that people pay the price when they serve. it is our obligation as leaders to make sure that they are properly rewarded. mr. scully: directly behind you is a replica of that statue that is that the vietnam war memorial. not far from where we are on the mall and washington, d.c. you insisted that an african-american was represented in that memorial. how did that come about? former senator webb: that's a very long and complicated story. this sculpture was given to me as a gift to thank me for the work that we did to get a sculpture at the memorial and working with him over many months.

he is an artist. he talked and he wanted to know different things before he put the sculpture together. we were successful in getting a sculpture there, getting a flag, at a time when they were not a part of the original design. i wrote the inscription on the flagpole. i'm very proud of that. when the sculpture was first agreed upon, it was going to be an american soldier. my father was visiting at the time. he turned around and said, "where is the black soldier going to be?" i told him he was right. you couldn't do it with one, you had to do it with three. we had a lot of confrontations on that, but it worked. i am very, very proud of what we see out there now. mr. scully: your wife is originally from vietnam. former senator webb: her family, like so many others, fled from

the communist in 1975. the entire extended family got on a boat and were scooped up out of the ocean by the united states navy. she went to refugee camps. one in guam, one in arkansas. she spent most of her growing years in new orleans. she worked hard. you know the story. the american dream. she got scholarships, went to the university of michigan in the asian studies program. she went to cornell law school. we met when she was an attorney here in washington and i was working on a project inside vietnam. one of a number of projects inside vietnam. mr. scully: in 2005-2006, you were thinking and then announced your candidacy for the senate. most people told you couldn't win. how did you defeat george allen? former senator webb: first, i

spent a lot of time thinking about it before we announced it. people were worried. as i see now, people become worried that you have to make a decision and get out there and do these things. i wanted to be clear in my head that i could put 100% of my energy into a campaign before i decided. i announced it nine months to the day before the election. we had no money. we had no staff, we were 33 points behind. i decided to put the issues out that we cared about and to stay on the issues as best as i could, rather than getting sidetracked and a lot of the other things that are inevitable in political campaigns. we stayed on message. we never approached the money that the other side was able to raise, but we got 14,000 volunteers to come out and help us. i think that was the difference. mr. scully: i have to ask you about the moment when george

allen used the term "macaca." it became a youtube sensation. to this day, political science has studied the impact on your campaign and his campaign. did you realize at the time it significance? former senator webb: for me, the key moment -- i think what happened with that moment, and george allen could probably give you more insight than i would, but i think what happened was people across the country who were dismissing the campaign started paying attention. that is only started getting money. the defining moment of the campaign, in my view, was in september at "meet the press." when tim russert had us side-by-side and asked both of us a lot of hard questions and i was able to have a floor on which i could explain my views. that was our big turning point. mr. scully: what did you find when you came to the senate? was it what you expected? former senator webb: it was.

i spent four years as a committee counsel in the house. we used to put 20 to 25 bills through per year. i understood the process, the legislative process. what i didn't really expect was the way that campaign-finance drives american politics. for someone who has lived in or near washington for a very long time, written a lot of political commentary, that was a stunner to be in the middle of it and to realize that campaign-finance -- and to realize what campaign-finance did two o campaigns. mr. scully: what did you accomplish? former senator webb: i think we had a lot of major compliments despite the paralysis that

infected the system. right out of our office, we brought the best g.i. bill in history, more than a million post-9/11 veterans have helped. we were a voice in foreign policy, particularly in asian policy. the strongest voice in congress in terms of asian policy. before this, i had been involved in the military in one way or another all my life. i made a lot of contributions of the armed services committee as well. my number one accomplishment and i've said this before, where the people that we brought in.

i said that my people would be my legacy. we brought in good people. we gave them my approach towards leadership. i used an oil slick theory. we got these people out in other places right now, the country is going to hear from them. mr. scully: i want to go back to your service in vietnam. when you came back, did you feel gratitude or scorned by americans? i ask you this because we have seemed to swung the pendulum where we say thank you for your service. so much as changed with regard to those who served in the military. what did you experience? former senator webb: the it on veterans -- the vietnam age group was sparkly -- starkly divided between those who supported the war and those who did not. those who did not support the war in many cases were among the more privileged and elite in our generation. by the positions that they took,

they had made it very difficult for a lot of the people who came back from vietnam. in other words, instead of just saying, thank god i didn't have to go, the word on the street was that this was an immoral evil, genocidal war. i am not going to take part in it. that was a heavy burden for the people who came back. at the same time, the country as a whole has always loved its veterans. always. we had a landmark survey when i was on the house veterans committee, $6 million survey. 9.8 -- on a scale of one to ten, 9.8 was where americans scored vietnam veterans. mr. scully: you decided not to seek reelection.

you said i faced the hardest choice of even turning to surrendering my part of my personality. former senator webb: if you look at the senate and the way that the larger bills come to the floor, the caucus has a tendency to neutralize a lot of strong opinions. you either end up voting on these large bills, and people still ask me about them, or you end up down on the floor like some senators who were just talking. i am very thankful for having had six years over there. but i like to get things done. there are other places where you can get things done better. mr. scully: do you enjoy campaigning?

former senator webb: i enjoy the face-to-face campaigning. i enjoy getting out in the town hall meetings and talking to people and listening to what their thoughts are and being able to clarify mine. what i don't enjoy is campaign-finance. i'm very blunt about that. one thing i can say is that i will never oh anything to anyone if i am elected. it's a very tough proposition to be able to raise enough funds in order to conduct a viable campaign. that is where our decision point is. mr. scully: based on that, what would potentially a jim webb campaign look like? former senator webb: we would get out and talked people, i would say exactly what i believe in terms of the issues in the country. whenever i go to a townhome the -- whenever i go to a town meeting, we have bigger risk discussions. we had a contested primary. we were outspent i think 10 to

one. we got out in a jeep. i called one of my old radio operators. he quit his job and moved into my basement and off we went. we would go to three meetings per night, talk to people, tell them what we are about. we won the primary. mr. scully: any campaign is about a choice. your campaign, if you are to run against hillary clinton or martin o'malley or lincoln chafee or senator sanders, what's the choice? why you and not them? former senator webb: i wouldn't be running against any of them. i would be running for the presidency of the united states. that is my message. this country really needs leadership, not only that you

can trust, but that you can look back and see a pattern of getting things done and a consistency and a willingness to listen. i think that's what we need now. mr. scully: finish this sentence. the state of america today is what? former senator webb: we remain the most unique society on earth. and good leadership will enable more greatness. mr. scully: we are in your office in virginia overlooking the national mall. you spent some time in arlington cemetery what do you think about it? former senator webb: that is a good thing to think about. it is a great place to go and

think the country and service and to remember people. mr. scully: do you think a lot right a lot here? former senator webb: yes. mr. scully: what is your timeline? former senator webb: we have to make a decision soon. mr. scully: what your kids tell you? maybe your brothers and sisters? former senator webb: when i am with my kids, i talked to all of them pretty regularly. we can talk about issues, we don't talk about whether i should run or not. we don't talk about it. mr. scully: finally, when you're not involved in a campaign or writing, what do you do to relax?

former senator webb: my oldest daughter amy was asked that, she said to make sure he was working on a creative project. i will always write. on a project for fx, a 10-our series. i am an avid bass fisherman. one of my great connections with my brother and son and other people in my family, going fishing trips. mr. scully: jim webb, thank you for your time. se >> this sunday, we will be air our interview with jim webb at 6:35 and 9:35 eastern on c-span. >> coming up, former secretary

of state albright and former national security advisor stephen hadley on middle east policy. later, a senate banking committee hearing on the export bank. on the next washington journal a look at the legislation changing government data collection. on how radical islam records followers. and the national center for transgendered equality on transgender rights. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> on friday, the defense

department will given operation update on the coalition nations to combat the terrorist group isis in iraq and syria. we will have that live with them to the general john has esterman. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn about the history of lincoln, nebraska. >> she was given almost every literary award possible, before she died. except for the nobel prize, she was known for her masterpieces like "my antonia." many others in 1943, she made a will which had a few restrictions on it.

one was that she did not want her letters to be published or be quoted in whole or in part. she left behind at least 3000 letters that we know about. the biggest collections are here in nebraska. in her will, she left to the discretion of her executors to decide if they enforce her preferences. they believe that for educational purposes, cather belongs to us and we should know more. >> another important figure was mr. butcher. >> he was in western rascal. n nebraska. he took photos until about the early 1890's of homesteaders. and he was able to tell the story of development in american

history. i'm going to show you one of my favorite images from the collection. it is the photograph of the sisters. it is four sisters who each took a homestead in the county. this shows women homesteaders. it was the first time that women could own land on their own. it did not belong to their husbands, their fathers, single women could own their own land. that was a big deal with the homestead act. each sister, they took a homestead -- near their father's ranch. they each built a small house on the homestead, part of the homestead act. and they would take turns staying in each other's house and working the farm.

the sisters pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch all of our events from lincoln saturday evening at 6:00. sunday afternoon at 2 p.m. on c-span3. >> next, madeleine albright and stephen hadley discussing the launch of their middle east task force. the goal of the task force is to gather information and make policy recommendations. from the atlantic council, this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. on behalf of the chairman of the board of the atlantic council, tom huntsman and the vice president and director,

frank doney and all of us at the atlantic council welcome to the , launch of the task force. i'm fred camp, ceo. we are pleased to be joined by some of the task force's senior advisers and many of our friends from middle eastern and european diplomatic communities. as you can see, we have a full house and a virtual full house. welcome, also, to viewers around the world. this event is live streaming on our website in arabic translation as well. and a full video of today's event, both in arabic and english, will be posted on the council website following the event. this is an innovation for us. frank, i believe it is the first event we have

done with live translation, live streaming, from the center. we now have this capability and will do this more often. we encourage you to interact online by following @acmideast and tweet using #mcacst. i want to welcome and salute the founder of the center for the middle east, baha hariri, who is in washington with us for the launch of this group. on behalf of all of us, i want to thank you or your vision. without which this center would not exist and this task force would not exist. thank you for entrusting to us the legacy of your father. today, after more than a year of behind-the-scenes groundwork, we are proud to announce madeleine albright and stephen hadley will

cochair the atlantic council middle east strategy task force in the bipartisan manner for which we have become known. it is an ambitious project to form a global consensus on how to address the challenges and opportunities in the middle east. in a moment i will invite secretary albright to tell us more about the task force's work, but let me give you some context on how the task force fits in the atlantic council's larger mission of working with friends and allies to secure the global future. through the ideas we develop and the communities we convene, we emphasize an active approach to policy around the world with a premium on highly relevant and impactful policy recommendations. over the last several years, we have seen a growing need for

well-developed, actionable strategy for addressing the world's problems. for too long, the united states and its global friends have focused on tactics, jumping from crisis to crisis without a plan for leading the world to a better future with friends and allies. to begin answering that need the atlantic council watched a comprehensive strategy initiative, led by the center for international security using a multi-vector approach developing a strategic framework to guide american for a policy -- foreign policy, irrespective of the 2016 elections. the middle east strategy task force we announced today, led by the center for the middle east, is an element of the larger effort with a specific goal of advancing the strategic

collaboration among americans our closest friends and allies in europe, and among our closest friends and allies in the middle east about the future of the middle east. this is not americans talking to americans about what others ought to do. this is a multi-stakeholder conversation about what those in the middle east believe their future ought to be and how we help them get there. the task force will explore alternative policy approaches that can lead to a breakthrough in a more stable, prosperous region. rarely is the world confronted with challenges more intractable than those in the middle east today. i am equally confident there has really been an initiative better equipped to address those challenges, or leaders more capable in cultivating the right kind of change, as we find in this task force. with two of the great foreign policy strategist of our time

in secretary albright and mr. hadley during the project , alongside the energy and diplomatic savvy of frank doney and a network of supporters that spans the globe, i think there is a real opportunity for impact. you will certainly give it our best try. it is now my pleasure to invite the cochairs to the stage to kickoff the event. one is an executive vice president of the board of the atlantic council. the other is an honorary director of the atlantic council , both friends of the organization. since leaving office, both secretary albright and advisor stephen hadley have been engaged in the issues of the middle east. steve is the chair of an organization deeply engaged with trying to mitigate conflict in the region at national and local levels. he is chair of the middle east

board, one of a many -- the many bipartisan operations. as chair of the national democratic institute and partners for the new beginning and organization that seeks to build understanding between the u.s. and muslim world, secretary albright has been a champion for both political and economic development in the region. her 2007 book "the mighty and almighty" cited the independence of politics in the region. secretary albright, the stage is yours. [applause] secretary albright: thank you for your kind words, and thank

you to the council for bringing us together. to examine one of the most complicated and salient issues of our time. i am gratified to see so many distinguished members of the diplomatic corps in this audience. your presence today underscores the global perspective we want for the project. our emphasis today on listening to voices from the region reflects our determination to incorporate the views of your citizens in our research. as fred mentioned it was last , year that stephen hadley and i began discussing the need for a focused effort to better understand what is happening in the middle east. i would like to say what a pleasure it is to work with steve hadley on this project and many others. the reasons are simple and compelling. this is a region of tremendous importance to the united states and the world. it is facing a set of

overlapping crises unlike any we have witnessed in generations. policymakers here in washington have been working around the clock to navigate these crises and protect america's full range of interests. having both served in the government, steve and i know how easy it is for the inbox to get overrun. there is rarely the opportunity to take a step back and consider the deeper issues at hand to get at the root causes of the crises and develop an effective and enduring long term approach in concert with people from the region. the important part is to take the time and step back and look forward. that is in part what we hope to accomplish with this bipartisan project. it is an ambitious effort, but we begin in a strong position because we can leverage the considerable resources of the atlantic council's center for the middle east. for that reason, i would also

very much like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank baha ha riri, whose generous efforts have made this possible and has done so much to progress the causes of peace which were so dear to his father's heart. thank you so much. [applause] secretary albright: i would like to thank frank doney, one of the finest diplomats the u.s. has had. thank you, frank. we are lucky that after a long and distinguished diplomatic career frank has chosen tuesday involved in the public policy debate. it is his vision that has shaped this into a distinctive and compelling project. i say it is distinctive for a few reasons. first, while it will be housed here at the atlantic council center

we are engaging with a wide range of think tanks and involving a diverse range of foreign policy practitioners and civil society leaders. we have established working groups led by experts from brookings, the simpson center, the u.s. institute of peace, and an independent researcher. i would note that two of them jennifer abdo and chris howard are here today. their subjects include countering violent extremism refugees, recovery, and reconciliation. politics and state society relations, and economic recovery and revitalization. you can see that that we are

fully covering many of the issues we see as root causes of disruptions and looking at ways to deal with the issues. in the coming months, the working groups will analyze the topics in depth and issue reports that will feed into a final task force to be drafted at the center and reviewed by a distinguished panel of senior advisors. this group of advisers include eminent diplomats and experts from the united states, europe and most importantly, from the region. in fact a majority of the , advisors are from outside the united states. that is another thing i believe makes the project especially distinctive. we are not going to look at how to codify the beltway consensus. we want to engage with people on the ground in the region and incorporate their perspectives into everything we do. in short, we want to listen more. and listening to voices from the region is what today's event is about.

with that, let me invite my friend and cochair, steve hadley to step forward and set the stage for our discussions. [applause] mr. hadley: it is a pleasure to be with all of you this afternoon. i want to thank madeleine for the opportunity and the pleasure and privilege to work with you once again on one of our bipartisan policy initiatives. it is an important and exciting prospect. what we want to distinguish this project from others is to start with the views, perspectives and interests of the citizens and leaders in the regions on the problems of the region and the challenges it faces.

for that reason, the theme of the event is "a view from the region," and we want to address a number of questions that would be the basis of our work. what are the underlying causes of the current crisis in the middle east? why have so many countries seen their governments collapse or be overthrown? what explains the rise of extremism in the region? what sort of government would people in the region be willing to support and fight for? what do the people of the region need to help resolve the current crisis? and how can the united states, europe, and the rest of the world help? this is not your typical panel event today. let me walk through what is going to happen this afternoon.

first, we are going to watch a brief video of on the street interview produced by sky news arabia. next, we will hear polling data by jim zogby. then, we will turn to cairo to respond and participate in the panel. we will have a brief conversation among the three speakers with madeleine albright and myself presiding. then we will bring our in-house and twitter audience into the conversation for a q and a session. let me introduce the panel you will see on the stage after the video. first is james zogby, who had a four-decade career working on u.s.-arab relations and bringing an arab american perspective into the policy conversation. he is the managing director of

the zogby research services, author of "arab voices," and founder of the arab american institute. next is mohammed eunis, a gallup subject matter expert on the middle east and north africa. his research at gallup focuses on employment challenges in the arab world and relations between muslim majority and western societies. finally with us from cairo will , be rabab amadi, associate professor of political science at the american university in cairo. her work covers social movements and resistance and the political economy of social policy. now, let us turn to the short video of on the street

interviews of citizens in beir ut, cairo, ramalah, and tunis, explaining what they want for themselves and their country. [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language]

♪ [applause] mr. hadley: amazed address our thanks to sky news arabia for pulling that together.

-- let me address our thanks to sky news arabia for putting that together. now we can all take our seats. let's start with jim. jim: thank you. let me begin by saying that what you saw is validated and all of the polling we have done. when we first did our poll after 9/11, there were questions about what arabs want. we did a wide-ranging poll published in a book called "what arabs think." we found that contrary to the myth that they go to bed at

night hating israel, wake up in the morning hating america they actually go to bed at night thinking about their kids and wake up in the morning worrying about their jobs, and spend the day working really hard trying to get a better life. their values and concerns stacked up with what any man on america would say they want with their lives. they want to prosper, take care of their kids, make sure when they get old, someone will be there for them. we reviewed our polling over the last 15 years. i found that people are confounded in the region about the changes that are taking place and how to respond. there are conflicted, in particular about the united states. after 9/11, there was this notion about why did they hate us? so we pulled them. -- we hold -- we polled them.

they like our values. they don't like the way we treat them. they reacted to that by saying "we don't like america." one man said, " i feel like a jilted lover. i like america but i feel like they don't like me. " the two problems that people there thought they faced were the israeli-palestinian conflict . we asked a series of 11 issues

and asked them to rank them. terrorism ranks a bit high in some. health care, education employment our top -- are top concerns. interesting that questions dealing with democracy and reform of government didn't make it into the top tier at all. we then asked about what they wanted america to do, what they thought america could be helpful with. again, it was employment education, health care and israel and palestine. it was not unlike if you were to

ask americans, during the gun control debate, if they wanted britain to come help. again, israel palestine, and u.s. interference were the two issues that people felt were the most destabilizing in their region. given that, -- amigo to this first. -- let me go to this first. almost scant mention about iran and their nuclear program carried when we asked people how important or how effective was

american influence. the nuclear program with iran wasn't a factor at all. we were good at doing what they didn't care much about and not good at doing what they cared most about. maintaining good relations with the u.s. was important in almost every country we polled, but how good is the u.s. at maintaining good relations, we get credit for trying. let's look at a couple of individual issues. syria, for example. what are the policies he the u.s. should pursue their? humanitarian aid for refugees pursuing negotiations, and leaving syria alone.

leaving syria alone is a top issue in almost every country. they didn't want us to be directly involved, pursue it airstrikes. this is what i mean by the conflicted. they want the u.s. involved, but they don't want us to do any of those things, in part, because they don't trust our judgment. conflict in syria contributed to an increase in sectarian, yes. very dramatic impact of syrian refugees in every country. who do they side with in the conflict in syria? in every country in every -- in every arab country, it is the opposition, except in lebanon.

turkey was interesting because it was the one country where the syrian opposition groups did very well. it was the same in iraq. what would be the worst outcome for syria? for almost every country, it was that the country was partitioned or fragmented or the current leader staying in power. most of iraq's neighbors want iraq to stay whole and do not want iraq to fragment. is isis a threat to your country? a very grave threat in most of the neighboring countries where we polled. do they support the western-led military intervention? only in turkey where there was a significant majority, and in

iraq where majority was -- where opinion was divided. in every other country, opposition to that. they know what they want. they don't know how to get there. they know that the u.s. is a valuable participant in the region but they are not competent enough to have the u.s. play a leadership role that we often want to play or feel we ought to play. conflicted and confounded is how i conclude. and a little lacking in confidence as well. mr. hadley: think you very much. -- thank you very much. >> i took a different approach. i figured i would take the more longitudinal approach to give you a contrast of what we have

learned polling for the last 15 years. i was very a little bit about our school. in response to a very off-the-cuff remark by secretary rumsfeld in 2001 about the inability to pull afghans, our ceo is watching the press conference and thought to himself, why can't we start polling them? we started a process with stakeholders, we ran several pilot projects in the region and finalized our survey school. in 2005 and forward is where a lot of our data comes from and a lot of the learning that i mentioned. the first really important lesson we have learned is

leaders were sort of following the wrong message or not following enough of the right ones. i will give you an example. one very important question is asking people how their own lives are doing on a scale from zero to 10. they evaluate their current lives and where they think their lives will be in several years. if they rate highly, they are ranked in the thriving category. if they rate 4 or below, they are in the suffering category. egypt gdp per capita was very promising in 2010, 2009, getting

over the 2011 economic forum. a lot of the macro economic indicators and some of the economic reforms had started to take place and things look very positive. when you ask the egyptians how they felt, this is what we found. this is a trend, this incoherence or cognitive dissonance between gdp per capita and a lot of other macro economic metrics and how people are actually rating their lives. we saw a similar graph in bahrain, tunisia, and here in egypt. the first dip is the spike in wheat prices. when we come around the arab spring, egyptians are already read it -- registering that something is going very wrong in

their world. not a lot of people were picking up on it. just to show you that it is not just a middle east phenomenon. i mentioned several of the high heating countries in terms of instability throughout the region. let's look at ukraine. gdp per capita in ukraine, let's look at how ukrainians have been rating their lives. there is certainly something there. i need to be clear. i am not claiming that this is a predictor for ability or any causal relationship between stability of these variables or the valuables -- variables in each other. i'm just saying there is something going on. to give you a positive example, here is columbia -- colombia. this is the desired outcome for

many countries i think. just for context, and he did leading up to 2011, the only people whose lives -- life evaluation were thriving were in the top 10 percentile. i want to look at this from a different perspective and examine some of the acute conflicts that we have unfolding in the region. instead of showing you a thriving rate percentage, i want to show you the average numeric score of a country on that scale from zero to 10. let's look at syria. this is how syrians have been rating their lives. in 2013, due to the security situation, we had to reduce our sample by nine -- 9% or 10% of

the population. nonetheless, you see that life today in syria continues to be horribly rated and declining. interesting that hope seems to be holding on. we did a series of topical polls with syrians about when they thought the conflict would end in various aspects on where things were going. most of them did not see it ending soon in 2013. maybe that has changed since then. life evaluation is clearly reflecting life for syrians on the ground. yemen. the yemenis knew something was going on in their country before we did. whether you are leading yemen or somebody who is leading a country trying to help yemen, these metrics become essential to understanding what is really underlying the changes taking place.

bread and butter issues. i was hesitant to title this the greater jihad or stupid. it depends on what side of the aisle you want to sit on. i figured i would just leave it as bread and butter issues. one of the underlying premises of this task force is the idea that movements like isis are actually a symptom and not a cause. i would argue that to understand the cause, is to address to -- is to address the issues they capitalize on to get people to ideologically support them or to feel like they are relatively a better alternative than the other choices. let's jump into some of these issues. one of the things we asked all over the world, in the last 12 months, was there a time you did

not have enough money to buy food for your family, that you and your family needed. i wanted to compare the post-soviet eurasia countries and latin america. steve brings home in his book that we have lost the ability to compare and look at other countries that have made it across the world. establishing democracy is not something we are trying to invent in the middle east. improving economies is not something we are trying to do for the first time ever. there are other parts of the world that have seen a relative amount of success. what lessons learned from those other parts of the world can be applied to the middle east? there is the post-soviet eurasia countries making significant progress on that item. here is the middle east.

that is the median average of middle east countries. this includes the gcc and many countries that have no issues whatsoever relatively speaking with access to food. you see an increasing trend of concern. payroll to population. we measured employment four to six ways. our most useful metric has been payroll to population. this is 16 older who work 30 or more hours for pay. here is latin america and the caribbean. post-soviet eurasia is a little higher as expected. here is the middle east. basically, no progress since the arab spring. is this the story everywhere? absolutely not. we had a great conversation over lunch about pockets that are exceptions to this reality.

in terms of delivering on the jobs issue in the region, we've seen a lot of talk and very little in the way of delivery. do you feel safe walking alone at night? this is been a huge issue in countries that have seen uprisings. there's the middle east, there is egypt with a serious collapse during the arab spring and a significant rebound. there is a rock -- there is iraq , jordan lebanon, and tunisia at the end. this is something that has dramatically shifted in the countries, particularly where we saw any kind of uprising protest, unrest. is it corruption widespread in the government in this country

or not? middle east. almost no improvement or decline. there is egypt. significant expectations that things will improve in that last rating of 2014. egypt is consistently one of the highest. iraq is surprisingly a little bit improved. lebanon, and tunisia. desire to emigrate. one of the issues that unfortunately has remained with us, when we asked respondents ideally, if you had the opportunity, you like to move permanently to another country or do you prefer to continue living in this country? we are looking at the percent of those who said they would like to leave permanently. there is egypt.

iraq. tunisia, significant improvement. jordan. lebanon at the end. think about this. until now, 15% to 30% of respondents in these countries want to get out. they want to leave. the steve jobs, the zuckerberg's , all of these people are still trying to leave. one thing for this task force to consider is, in terms of sustainable policy, until you can stop that phenomenon from taking place, but connect with the ex-pats all over the world that are leaving and succeeding that want to improve things in their own countries, how do we

form a strategy to connect those networks and communities of ex-pats that are very serious about wanting to give something back and don't necessarily see as bleak a future for the region as some of us tend to. i wanted to share a few slides from iraq because i think our latest polling there really demonstrates what happens when societies lose faith in institutions and how isis capitalizes on that. this is that same thriving rate i shared with you. this is iraq broken into isil held areas and other regions. baghdad and southern iraq are

the only two regions where we see thriving come back. iraqi kurdistan and the disputed areas still much lower in their thriving rates since september of 2013 through december 2014. august is when the new prime minister took over. this is six months after the prime minister is in office and still thriving rates are pretty low in non-shiite areas. the shiite majority areas and southern iraq show some improvement. iso-held and iraqi kurdistan

still some pretty significant loss of confidence in the military. the national average is last. you will notice on the slide it'll tells you nothing. -- it almost tells you nothing. when you look locally, you see a lot. confidence and national governments, unlike thriving and national institutions like the military, we saw a significant bounce back in the political appetite in giving the new prime minister a chance. in iraq, do you have confidence in each of the following? national government, confidence shot back up after 2014. do you approve or disapprove as the new prime minister? this is september 2013. at 13% of people in iraqi kurdistan approve. may 2014, even worse. to a point where barely a majority in baghdad and only a majority in the south approve.

very promisingly, at least initially, in december of 2014 a huge resurgence of a chance for this new political leader to strike a new page. i would challenge us to think about how much should we stake as policymakers, on these very fleeting approvals and disapproval. my argument would be, we are a lot better off focusing on those issues. so much of our rpms as washington tends to be focused on this part. using the right metrics, bread-and-butter issues, and iraq as the example. [applause] mr. hadley: thank you so much. i would now like to turn to our

studio in cairo. would you tell us your own views about what public opinion is right now in the region? what our citizens in the region thinking about right now? how does the line up with what you just heard and what we have seen in terms of the polling data? are you with us? >> yes. it's hard for me to tell you what every citizen in the region thanks. -- thinks. i would say that i didn't hear anything today that comes across as completely unacceptable or something that i have not seen through my interactions or studies or political activism.

overall, i tend to agree with the picture that was painted by james and mohammed. having said that, i think there are a number of points that i would like to address. we are not freaks of nature. basically, just like james said we are just normal human being. we eat, we think, we run a household, just like anyone else anywhere in the world. i think the idea of cultural specificity, that the idea there is something wrong with this region, needs to be rethought. i think this is the case with arab spring's. all those young people going out

and seeking freedom and social justice, there was an understanding that they are just like everyone else. unfortunately, with the turn of events, we went back to addressing citizens in the arab world as some form of actors who tend to have very strange choices either of the dictatorship, religion, or just hating the u.s. i think anything that we see in the public opinion, once we analyze it, it becomes completely clear how this is a reaction to their own experience. when people are given a choice between their personal safety and their freedom, the safety of

their children and being able to live in a democracy, they rationally tend to choose their own personal safety. that's just a human instinct. the idea is not the choices they make, it is understanding the situations we put them in in order for them to make these choices. the other thing that i think we need to understand about public opinion in the region nowadays and for a few years to come is that this is a state of flux -- is that things are changing so fast. the idea that the u.s. or any

administration focuses on stability and govern ability, i think this is wrong bet. the idea is to question the cost of what -- the cost of how stability is being brought about. this region wants a stability that will not, the expense of people's dignity, freedom, and bread-and-butter issues. the other thing i want to commend on, the idea of thinking about what is going on in the region in terms of a crisis. this is not a crisis or a series of crises. this is a historic transformation. a historic transformation, as we

have seen in europe in the 18th and 19th century, and in the u.s., those kinds of historic transformations are messy, they take a long time, and they need to run their course. the idea that they can be addressed or that we can seek mechanic conclusions between what people think and accordingly how we address it -- if we look at egypt and we see uphold -- and we see a poll that bread-and-butter issues are the priority, this should not full less into thinking that people do not care about freedom and dignity. democracy is a means to an end. dignity and freedom -- if dignity and freedom will not

come to a particular regime, they are well aware that they need to seek it. this does not mean that they have a different set of values. there are universal values. no one wants to be beaten up in a police station. that's what human dignity translates into. the people who left their jobs to stand in front of phoning stations throughout the region since 2011 are things we have never seen before. when they were given a choice to seek out freedom properly, they risk much more. thinking in terms that there are a number of priorities, it

doesn't work this way. they need a number of things. all of them, at the same time. sometimes they have the urgent need of survival or bread and butter issues. but that, for them, is not because they tend to not value freedom or dignity. it is because, sometimes, they are pushed into having to make a choice. the final thing i want to comment on and then we can go to questions is the focus on procedural versus strategic issues. i think if you conceive of what is going on in the region and

the urgency of asking people questions about procedural matters, such as, do you want elections or not? do you the u.s. to intervene in syria or not? i think we are missing the point. in those transformations, the important issues are much more structural. they are not just procedural and technical. the idea is not to give them elections. the idea is to make sure that there is an environment that will lead to a system that reflects their choices that will be responsive. elections become a need to them. same thing with the issue of syria. intervention or no intervention

i think misses the point because that is a technical issue. that is for people in the policymaking world to decide. this decision should be based on a more in-depth understanding of what is going on. the idea is not to put forward elections -- the idea is not to put forward elections or have an airstrike in order to momentarily solve problems. the idea is to guarantee to allow the people in this region to work for what they have been striving for years. most of the people i talked to have made huge sacrifices for what they saw as a better future coming with the arab spring.

this guy had lost his job. they are ready to make the sacrifices. up until a point where they can see if risking their life is ok, but as long as they can see a future. unfortunately, regional powers and international powers have put the majority of citizens of this region in a position whereby they have to become more empathetic, they need to resort to violence and extremism.

the hope of the arab spring was shattered. from the euphoria that happened for a couple of years after 2011, i think the presentations that today are missing feelings of despair and intense frustration that the citizens of this region are feeling. thank you. mr. hadley: thank you very much. that was extremely helpful. i think it showed the power of mixing polling data and then anecdotal data. you helped us understand, in the polling data, democracy and freedom could be a low priority in the face of bread and butter issues. as you point out, that does not mean it is not an important element of where the people in the region want to go. it is a question of priorities and responding to the

circumstances in which they find themselves. i think we are off to a terrific start in terms of trying to get some input and appreciation from the region. i think this mixing of the anecdotal and the polling is a very powerful tool. we will try to use that in the course of the study. we are running behind. we have a firm 4:00 stop. what i would like to propose to do is rather than conducting a dialogue within the panel, i would like to turn to secretary albright and give her a moment to comment on what she has heard. then, i think we will go right to the audience and to our twitter followers and get as many questions in as we can before the 4:00 stop. madeline, do you want to comment? former secretary albright: it truly was interesting. i made a lot of different notes. i think the question for our

task force is to look at the data and then try to figure out how we approach the longer-term part. a lot of the issues have to do with immediate polling. the question in terms of security, jobs etc. and look a little bit. i make the suggestion -- there is a paradox here. we want to know what they want to do and how they can act. they, to some extent, want us to have the united states do something but they don't particularly like some of the things we do. for the u.s., we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. i have done a lot of polling in eastern europe after the fall. it was very similar to what you were talking about, thriving versus suffering. how people see their own personal situation versus what's going on in the country. i would be interested, we don't

have to get an answer now, in who you actually polled. what is the age group, their jobs, because one of the things we found in eastern europe is that it really made a difference. if you are an intellectual versus somebody who is a worker and has a different approach to this and dividing that up. the other part that i think we need to know is to what extent the people in the country know that this is up to them. that we can provide suggestions, that i think we really need to figure out and institutional development is important. i find it hard to think that democracy is not important. but democracy has to deliver. people want to vote and eat. part of the issue is lack of faith in institutions.

i stole this statement from somebody. what has happened is that people are talking to their government on 21st century technology. the government hears them on 20th century technology and is providing 19th-century responses. there is no confidence in the institution and yet institutions need to be built in order to be able to deliver the jobs education, and health care. jim: we have been asking the reagan questions, are you better off than you were? do you think you will be better off in the next few years? are your children going to be better off than you? are you better off than your parents? it's an interesting way of looking at people and then looking at the demographics within. we largely find not a big shift among the different age groups or gender groups.

if there is hope in the country, it is widespread. if there is a lack of hope, it seems to be widespread across the demographic groups. mr. hadley: if the two of you are willing, i would like to have a dialogue between the two of you of other data you have. that would be a wonderful parts in parallel tracks to the working groups and contributions to the studies. we can talk about that as a follow-up to this conference. let me open the floor for questions from the audience and via twitter. jessica is somewhere here and is our source of twitter questions. i will look to her when we have a twitter question.

for those of you in the hall here, i know it is a little dark. if you would raise your hands, i will hopefully see it. after you are acknowledged please wait for the mic. would you state your name and affiliation. i would ask both the questioners and responders to be brief. we want to try to get as many questions in between now and 4:00 as we can. let me begin. >> good afternoon. thank you for such a proactive task. i think there are a couple of timelines we need to have a better understanding of. the first time line is, i hope that the to discourse and discussion should lead to better and rich discussion with the

2016 elections in the united states. as to the timeline you have for your own project, it is important to understand the roadmap so that your description versus your prescription of what to take place. at what stage has the descriptions taken place versus when will the prescriptions take place? another issue is what the united states wants from a region versus what the region wants from the united states. i don't think the regions fully understand the dynamics inside the united states. how is that evolving? further description of what is

taking place here might help in at least setting expectations of the region. i think it is important. mr. hadley: those are very important points. i think one of the things is that it gets too much about the united states and the region and what the region wants from the united states. we think a step back look needs to begin with what the region wants for itself. what is the conversation going on in the region, what are their thoughts and expectations of what they want for themselves? that seems to us to be the starting point to then have a conversation. what might the united states and europe and other countries be able to do to help and how to

make that -- how to do it in a way that is acceptable and positive for the region. we will get to that interaction. we really want to start with a better appreciation of what is going on in the region. we say the region as if it was all one thing. of course, situations are very different country to country. that is something we need to get grounded on as well. thank you. in the back there. >> i have a question. do you think that the growing anti-isis contingent throughout the region would be enough of a basis for the united states to create a relationship with those people or with people on social networks? do you think that would be enough of a groundwork for a

stronger relationship between the united states and middle east countries? >> let me first very briefly comment on what secretary albright said. people in the region are aware that they are the main actors and they don't look to the u.s. to bring them anything. the arab spring did not come out of any kind of u.s. plan or support. secretary clinton came on tv in january of 2011 to talk about it.

it was the plan of this region the people of this region new very well what they wanted. the idea of doomed if you do doomed if you don't, i think this has nothing to do with the perception in the region. this has to do with how the u.s. has positioned itself as the police of the world. and with the continuing asking. how can the u.s. help? what are we supposed to do? in one of james -- in one of the parts of james' presentation, it was about leave us alone in a crisis. many people opted for that.

leave us alone. in terms of anti-isis, i don't think that being anti-isis is enough for people of the region to bond with the u.s. and believe in the capacity of this administration or the following administration to deliver. we can have common enemies, but that doesn't necessarily make us friends. plus, there is a lot of talk in the region about isis being an outcome of different forms of u.s. policy from the invasion of iraq to the position on palestine.

not supporting the arab spring. this is seen as an outcome that now the u.s. complains about. it is part of its doing. what you need to do is to proactively seek to understand what they want, what they believe in, and to understand that the u.s. cannot be the leader. it should just try to coordinate between its own national interests and what the people in the region might be striving for. >> i want to push back and say when you are the biggest actor in the room, you are always

going to be dammed if you do dammed if you don't. i say this as somebody who has committed a lot of time to public opinion. public opinion absolutely matters, but making the most appealing decision that will appease the streets and cairo, if you have and watching what is been happening, that is not a strategy. in many cases, public opinion is not very consistent with our values, democratic values, a lot of values. public opinion is extremely important, but when you craft policy, i would caution against deciding which policy is going to be popular. what was very popular in egypt just 18 months ago was bashing u.s. aid. u.s. aid, nobody wanted to touch it. 80% of the egyptians didn't want it.

the conversations now have a very different attitude. what we have seen in the region with public opinion is that it has been very effectively manipulated in some environments to provide a very convenient fact pattern for whatever powers are trying to operate, from al qaeda to the muslim brotherhood to isis. following the ad and flow of public opinion can be extremely disastrous. it doesn't mean we should ignore people's opinions, but it means that we should give a lot less credence to the dammed if you do dammed if you don't as a problem. jim: i do have to take issue with that. it's important. my sense is that that is right. the policy actions have not been good ones for us to carry out.

and yet, there is a reason why we are damned, and that is to do with our trajectory, our history in the region that has not been pretty. when i did my book, i went around the country asking americans about the myths about arabs. somebody would say to me what myths do they have about us? the first one is they think we are very smart. i would get a giggle. i would say it's because they think we are all powerful and that we make decisions based on the time on our interest so that when something happens that is really stupid, they think we knew what we were doing and got the outcome we wanted. we invaded iraq so that iran would become more powerful so that the arabs would have to turn to us for more weapons and it was all part of the master plan. the master plan was because they

couldn't explain our stupidity. thankfully, they couldn't. that is an issue we have to wrestle with. as americans, if we are going to look at ourselves as the agents of this change, this project ought to be -- we need to understand what the arab world wants. one of the things that confounds the whole study is that they don't look at us as the positive agent of change as much as we -- we look at ourselves in the mirror and we say we are a great bunch of guys. they don't see as an the same way. i think that is the problem we have to wrestle with ourselves as americans. former secretary albright: people compare this to eastern europe. what happened in eastern europe is they wanted to be like the west. that is not what is happening here. jim: i love the speech that president obama made. he said that we didn't start the arab spring. he then said what we can do is help them in the ways that they want help from us.

the conversation we need to have is that one. you hit the nail on the head a couple of times. when we ask people if this is true for the majority of countries, what is the number one thing you admire most about america, liberty and freedom are the first thing they say and technology is the second thing. >> i am in no way saying that people don't want the outcomes of democracy and good government. i'm just saying that democracy has a really bad brand with those people right now. we have made a plethora of very bad policy decisions in the region, especially in the last 15 years. moving forward, i point was, we should not simply just do what is popular, because what is popular and what has become popular at this late date in the arab spring is not something that we can get behind in a lot of countries. mr. hadley: i'm going to bring this to a close and we will do