are very influential in the united states. i think he was surprised that this deal is going through. in their world, which is dominated by conspiracy and expectations that everything is pretty decided, a lot of people may be overestimating the power of the republican party and the affiliated lobbying groups because they thought they would be able to stop this, and this is not happen. host:ary people are this.will hear more about

live on tuesday, on c-span two. senate minority leader harry reid will talk about his support for the nuclear agreement as the thate prepares debate for issue on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. coverage here on c-span. >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-date coverage. top nonfiction authors. new or the end of september, we will be in new york for the brooklyn book festival. southernober, the festival of books and nashville. after that, austin for the texas book festival. and there the end of the month, to book festivals. festival in madison, and on the east coast the boston

book festival. then portland, oregon for woodstock. then, we are live for the 18th year in a row from florida. that is just a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on book tv. coming up next from washington journal, a discussion on the events. iraq and other then, the ambassador to the u.s. talks about his politics. and the efforts to combat housing discrimination is after that. i want to start by showing the cover of the book

>>the photograph on the cover ws photographer, and i purchased the rights to the photograph to put it on the book. to be more specific, i was about a mile away from that when it went off. i was walking from my one job at the ministry of defense building rate at the end of the green zone -- the international zone we called it when i was there -- and i was walking down a barricaded walkway back towards the phoenix is, the ux -- u.s. base where the commander of ,ultinational security command back to my office there, when this went off. honestly, the earth -- the

ground shook. i thought a rocket had landed on the other side of the wall. we found out about an hour later that that had gone off. it was about a ton, attended a half of explosives -- a time and on and of explosives -- t a house of explicit, and about 34 iraqis were essentially vaporized. about 360 were seriously injured. when i saw that photograph on the cover of "stars and stripes" two days later, i had already thought about writing my book. at that moment i looked at that and i said i want that picture on the cover on my book. it describes -- you know, a picture is worth 1000 words, the destruction that has been going on since we invaded in 2003. with so what happens here the security of that market is an example of the sort of lack of landing that you are so

critical of in this book. explain that. invaded andnow, we all that. then we disbanded the iraq he army and the national police. so the whole thing was creating an army, a national police from nothing, which is one of the reasons i was there. but the story in "the stars and stripes," which i cited in my book, the guard is just an iraqi guy trying to feed his family. he lived and he was interviewed the truck pulled up with the explosives and he was told, don't let anybody in. no vehicles, just pedestrians. and the insurgents pulled up with the truck and he said -- the guard said, no, these are iraq is talking to each other. he says no trucks. then the insurgent said, according to the guard, i really have to get in.

i really have to deliver my stuff. and the guard wes, ok. and that was that. and all those people died. it was the biggest single attack in -- that that was was in 2007, i can't rubber the exact dates. it is just a snapshot of the situation over there. host: michael o'brien, author of perspective on the warof iraq and the rise of sizes. if you want to join in, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line for iraq war veterans, (202) 748-8003. toward the end of the book you write, i did not write this book because i hate my country. i lovepeople.

unfortunately it is still going on. who do you blame more here? the military or the political leaders in this country? course everybody has a hand in it, but in our country it all starts at the top with the president. really itk at iraq -- started with getting out of kuwait in 1991. 12 years, and then we go in in 2003. and i need to-- say this before i forget to say it -- my book is about ,ccountability, or i should say the complete lack of accountability. and we went in in 2003 -- for your viewers, i have a west point graduate. i know a little bit about the military.

2003,e went into iraq in why did we go? that is the political thing. why did we go. executed,way it was with rumsfeld and the military, tommy franks. if you are going to go, have a good reason. we did not, in my opinion. the whole slamdunk. wmd.resident, saddam has a --other thing is we executed donald rumsfeld wanted to go in with about 30 -- 30,000 to 35,000 soldiers, to invade a country the size of the eastern seaboard of the united states. we had nowhere near enough to execute the most -- execute the mission and get the job done. andisarming the iraqi army

national police, we fueled the fire of the insurgency. all of these guys were out of a job. host: you are especially critical in the rebuilding part of the book about the contractors the u.s. used. you were a contractor? guest: i was. and of course when people hear the word contractor and iraq in the same sentence, they think of mercenaries. security contractors. i call them mercenaries because if it walks the conduct, quacking duck, it is probably a duck. we had contractors doing the job of soldiers. that is a mercenary. but i was a contractor over there. i am a real estate guy. help ther there to rebuilding and debris creation of the new iraqi army. you have to recruit soldiers. you have to arm soldiers. you have to equip them. you have to house them. i was involved in the group -- in the construction of barracks and facilities. but the contractors over in iraq

were making a windfall. the money that was being made -- the money that was being lost, the total lack of accountability on the part of contractors. there are 200 photographs in my book, photographs of the base ,, where $118 million was spent to build literally notwere fit for an animal to live in. the stuff you're looking at, if the audience can see these photographs, those facilities were not even 18 months old. they were not quite 18 months old when his photos were taken. and the four american construction companies over there making that money, they were pay one -- they were paid $118 million to build the product.

i zero in on that because i am a real estate guy. that is my profession, the one that pays the bills. i am not a career author or a career policy guide. this is just the tip of the iceberg. this is just one tiny example of the slipshod accountability of sincebeing spent in iraq 2003. -- page 253 of your books, it suddenly started to sink in what being a contractor in iraq was about. i was just a warm body for my company to collect fees from the government. we are talking with michael o'brien, author of the book "america's destruction of iraq." lesko go to teresa, life for independents. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say the whole reason the u.s. went into iraq in the first place was not

because of nuclear weapons. it was the same thing with libya. it was because of currency. the united states has been invading country for their own purpose, not to make the country better. but for their own selfie cup -- selfish, greedy reasons. look at every country they had invaded. what country has really benefited from what the united states has done? not one country. the u.s. invaded libya. you have all of these refugees dying at sea, trying to get to europe, and now europe does not want them but they participated in destroying their countries. the united states is the reason why isis exists today. they don't talk about the part that saudi arabia is playing and it, and that is their ally. they brag about saudi arabia, israel. guest: you are bringing up a really good point. the whole point is, why are we

atading countries, as look what happens after we invade them. i say this in my book. a one country, if country invade country b, it could be because country b is an ally being invaded by a neighbor, b is not aor country friend of ours and is invading a neighbor. that happened in 1991. that was not happening in 2003. let's face it. even if you get the weapons of mass destruction thing, even if you get down to the currency versus oil, whatever. we invaded a sovereign country -- again, i love the united states of america, but we invaded a sovereign country led by a bad guy. there are a lot of countries led by bad guys today. we invaded a sovereign country led by a bad guy, and they were

notsatisfying -- saddam was invading a neighbor and was not being invaded by anybody. why did we do this? you bring up a good point. ast: we have a good look -- special line this morning for iraq war veterans. curtis is on the line from georgia. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a few comments. your iraq, it's about invading a sovereign nation. five twoto thousand 2006-- i went in 2005 to when the insurgency was out of control. you have to realize how these people were living under saddam hussein. death was an everyday thing for the iraqi people. still is today. createdon isis has been is because our president hold american soldiers out of iraq

, afterinning the victory calling the situation down. these people are going to be fighting each other forever. refugeesave all these going to europe, and it is because we were through our troops from iraq. and, just to make my last point, it will happen in afghanistan. what has happened, these people know that we are going to leave. we have soldiers in japan. we have soldiers still in europe. we have them all over the world. but the president decided to , andthem out of iraq afghanistan would be twice as worse. is,t: the thing about it the point you're making are very valid. but here's the thing.

they can about it this way. i am not trying to belittle anything that you have said. you're making really good points. the whole thing about pulling out -- should obama have pulled out of iraq, and so on and so forth. but we were there because we invaded in 2003. he would not have been pulling anybody out of iraq in 2011 if we had not invaded in 2003. you can't look at anything related to iraq, right now, 2011, whatever, without going, why are we there in the first lace? my point, weck to disbanded the iraqi army and the national police, so then we had to take the job over ourselves and we did not have enough manpower to do it. host: to that point, as you know, or vice president dick

cheney and his wife are out with whyw book, "exceptional: the world needs a powerful america." a review of a book is coming out this weekend, and the former vice president talking about the invasion of iraq in 2003, writing -- those who say the invasion of iraq in 2003 are essentially saying we would be better off if saddam hussein was still in power. the closest thing the book comes contrition, is acknowledging the difficulty of the x -- execution. the war to liberate iraq was indisputably difficult, but the difficult he did not detract from our cause. guest: ok. i would say that the former vice president is suffering from a really serious case of denial. ok,ay that the rationale --

let's look at the rationale for going into the war. second to last chapter from my book, "a desire for war. ." i-8 site a former cia to -- i agent- cite a former cia talking about what was going on in langley leading up to the invasion. george w. bush had a handful of advisors who wanted to invade iraq. what was saddam doing? sanctions and all that. the caller talking about the life of the iraqis under saddam. i never said it was great. no way. , to ourould say to that caller who is a veteran, i would say this. how many iraqis are dead because of our invasion in 2003? how many are done?

.ay half a million let's just throw out a number. i feel very comfortable saying half a million. how many have left their country since our invasion? three and a half million. how many u.s. soldiers are dead and maimed for life? 4500 dead. the point is, what is worse? life under saddam -- and i work with iraqis. i was with iraqis everyday. , but ifd it was not fun you stayed out of trouble and did not stand on a street corner and go, down with saddam, if you do that you disappeared. but if you did not do that you just live your life. that changed when we invaded in 2003. host: let's bring in another iraq war vet. mike is calling in from bethesda, maryland. caller: yes.

i take exception to mr. o' brien's comments about weapons of mass destruction. even though they did not find any, all the intelligence agencies said there were weapons of mass destruction that saddam had, and that was one of the .asis of entering the iraq war even though they did not find any, how could all these intelligence agencies bungle that type of information? i truly feelrst -- there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq at that time, however he moved to them out to syria, or wherever, because he has used them before host: if i may, the whole weapons of mass distraction

thing, in that argument, and you are talking about syria and all that -- it is a stretch. let's they said. weapons of mass destruction program, you know, you have to the facilities. you have to have the infrastructure. you have to have an infrastructure to build it. said, mr. president, it is a slamdunk that saddam has the weapons of mass destruction program -- for the director of central intelligence to have said that -- he would have had to have had absolute, irrefutable evidence. irrefutable. people on the ground, human intelligence which bill clinton drastically watered down, people who have physically gone and touched the stuff, we invaded. where was it?

we still have not found it. we found a whole bunch of used artillery rounds. the other thing i want to address the caller on, a defector, the iraqi that the president referred to in his speech and then one week later, colin powell at midnight, 1:00 in the morning at the cia, trying to find something credible to say to the u.n. the next day. why is he doing that? one week before, the president had said this was the deal, so it turns out curveball made it all up. made it all up. a guy named allergan obligor. that was our main source of intelligence. he was in german custody and george tenet never even said his own guys over to interrogate the guy and asking questions before the invasion. why would he not do that? because he did not want to. host: bill is waiting on the

line for democrat. you are on with michael o'brien, author of "america's destruction of iraq." caller: i just wanted to remind everybody that george tenet, i believe the cia director under clinton for about four years before he made those announcements, and george bush was in office for eight months when they knocked down the buildings in new york city and clinton was in office for eight years before that, so anything that happened up to 9/11 was planned under blank clinton's clinton'snder bill watch, knox george w. bush's watch. george tenet, the cia, and everybody else, everybody in europe kept saying, saddam still s, and i just heard colin powell about eight months stick by interview

what he said. he said yes, we thought they had , so that is one reason i think it made up the president's mind, i believe. guest: good point. bill clinton -- though clinton was handed osama bin laden on a platter. he was handed osama bin laden on a silver platter after the .ttack on the uss cole now to let -- madeline albright said we should not go after him, what with the muslim world think? nobody wanted to go after them except for richard clarke and my west point classmate who was, at the time, clinton's ambassador at large for counterterrorism mike shane. he was there. dick clark, richard clarke was the only one who said, mr. president, i've got a plan.

let's take this guy out, let's take after this guy -- let's go after the factory and albright said no, we don't want to do that and the rest is history. my classmate, like sheen, apparently after the meeting was over, what do we have to do? wait until they bombed the pentagon? . totally agree with the caller when 9/11 have happened if bill clinton had taken out osama bin laden? i will state the critical that it would not have. let's put it this way -- ahead with have been cut off of the organization. it mighthave happen, have, but somebody else would have been running the show. are, it never would have happened and as we all know, it has changed our lives. george w. bush, yes, only in office for about eight months when that occurred and he was handed a ok, he was pig in a poke because bill clinton dropped the ball. host: part of the recount effort in florida that ended up andy

that election. guest: i was part of the recount election in florida. i was there in miami in the miami day county office building in downtown miami. i can tell you i was there. i was in the room where they chad'sunting the because al gore was 1000 votes shy of george w. bush. the democrats, this will raise their hair, but it was al gore who tried to steal the election. not the other way around. because what happened was the county election staff, any ballot that could not be determined, they made their own determination of who the vote was for. how do you do that in america? if the card was mangled or marked up, they determined that the vote was for. trust me, because gore only selected the most heavily democrat counties in the state.

it was going way into gore's favor. did notitnessed -- we count them. we observed counting employees doing it where they would go gore, gore, gore and all of a sudden gore. and it was not for poor. they were just so used to going gore because it was the most heavily democrat county in the state, so it was all leaving his way. it was orchestrated al gore to get those thousands of votes and it did not work. host: the first one or two chapters of the book, "america's " monti who of iraq, is been on twitter christ that the destruction of that iraq infrastructure of social and political topics are the main reasons underlying the current mideast problems. let's go to albert do is been waiting in delaware. on the line for independent. caller: i appreciate you writing a book and all and i apologize for those veterans who are still

in denial. they just want the past the buck onto something and they were fighting for something that was honest and just, and it was really a situation that just got out of control. i wanted to ask my question is the destruction of iraq to the neocons -- the neoconservatives who advised president bush at the time, thank you? guest: absolutely. the question about it. neocon, neoconservative, whatever. george w. bush, i have met the man, i have shaken his hand, a couple of photographs of me in the president in the book. he is a nice guy. so was jimmy carter. the fact of the matter is he had people in his close inner circle , dick cheney, who by the way had better things to do in the

1960's and the military service when he was being nominated for secretary of defense, and donald , andeld, condoleezza rice they hid it -- they had agendas. the day after 9/11 when the president had his powwow with his 56 -- five or six principal advisories at camp david, paul wolfowitz sneaks in and the president said, what are you doing here? oh, mr. president, i need to be here. and the president said, ok, instead of saying -- you are not a cabinet secretary, are you? call for this was one of the key paul wolfowitz-- was one of the key people pushing for the invasion of iraq the day after, the weeks after 9/11 and nobody said -- what are you talking about iraq for? you will read in my book, afghanistan after 9/11, no problem. not for me, but then leaving and going to iraq -- pardon me, and

afghanistan, what happens when you do not maintain it, it turns out where it is right now. so the neocons were calling the shots in the bush administration and it is a real shame and i agree with the caller completely. again, lack of accountability and lack of the president to be able to say we are not going to do that. why would we do that? why would go to iraq? they were most likely playing on a threat to his father and saddam's supposed effect to his father and this that in the next thing, but saddam was not invading anybody and he was not being invaded and it was a sovereign country. we invaded a sovereign country and where not supposed to do that. the nazis did that when they went into poland. why did we do that? we're supposed to be the good guys. host: tracy has been waiting on the line from republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.

think, in our, i country right now is the state cannot -- the council foreign relations, the project for new american century, they are ofside any scrutiny unelected officials and they hold so much power i think they went both sides of the political parties in these key positions. they intimidate or whatever for they threatened that they cannot get reelected, but when they make decisions, they all caps gather and they have financial issues. we are left ear to deal with this, scratching our heads, and nobody is held accountable and we don't do after action. just everything is outside. everything of the typical american scrutiny. we are unable to hold anybody accountable. guest: you know, i will tell you -- no offense to my over -- no offense to my other callers, but

that was a great question. i know conspiracy theorists, no way at all, but you are right. they are all organizations and these are people who are either or way too much political power than they deserve. and you go -- who is running the show? the thing about it is, why are we here right now? why did i read my book? -- why did i write my book? why was i fortunate enough to be invited by c-span and john onto show? it is to educate the american people. people need to be educated. hey, this is what happening here. i book is not the only one, of course, highly recommended, but i took information from a lot of different sources plus my own first-hand information. you are right. the military-industrial complex. well, during the second world

war, a gets to your point. companies were starting to build boats, planes, bullets, rifles. great, we needed that stuff. the united states government did not have the ability to do it all. the war ends and the companies are going -- especially if they were owned by shareholders -- where is my return? what are you going to make and sell for me today? and then you go, is the tail walking the dog? what is the real need for a lot of this stuff? host: because you do not believe in conspiracies, why did you feel the need to reargue whether president obama was born in the united states or not in your book? guest: you know, the reason i brought that up is because, again, accountability. we are debating -- and for the readers, i talk about a lot of things in my book. this is one of them. you might say what does that have to do with iraq war? starts at theng top. as i said earlier in my

interview. who are reelecting as presidents? just because somebody gets elected president doesn't mean he is right for the job. i'm not saying that just about barack obama, i'm saying that about george w. bush, i'm saying about a lot of people. we need to elect by the presidents. and now they are saying the whole debate about the 14th amendment, well, it is open for interpretation. when i -- when obama was elected, the fact to me was that he was not able to prove that he was born in the united states. there is no question on whether he was american. now they are saying they do not need that proof. all you need is an american parent. at the time i wrote that, the the guy evenwas for here in the united states? that would be a topic of discussion between -- you could call me whatever you want -- i

have not been, me, personally, i have not been convinced that he was. host: and you're not convinced by the birth certificate that the administration has put on whitehouse.gov? guest: no, that only makes it more doubtful because his birth on thecate -- a hospital birth certificate -- first of all, it is a facsimile of a birth certificate. it is not, and no one has ever said this and i will -- it is not a copy of the actual birth certificate. if i were to go diamond falls new york cash to highland falls, new york -- i was born at west point, my dad was a professor, i would have done it because highland falls has the records of everyone born at the hospital at west point. papera copy of this obviously, that is

not it. i had to go to the secretary of york of the state of new who sent me an actual copy of the birth certificate with the signature of the doctor who delivered me. i have never seen that. also, the hospital on his birth certificate didn't exist. it was a different name when he was born. that is its current name today. i don't know how you do that. host: michael o'brien is author of "america's destruction of iraq." you exit this labor day, we look at the rate to work across the united states. on issuescussion facing the self-employee did

with the national association for the self-employed. a discussion about minority-owned businesses in the united states and the challenges they face. we will look for your comments on washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. monday night on c-span, an event mark cubanreneur or and former presidents bill clinton and george w. bush. this was part of a program created by the clinton, lbj, george bush, and george h.w. bush foundations. try to be very self-aware. i try to know what i am good at and bad out. i try to have smart people around me all the time and i cross my fingers.

in preparation, it is everything. you are such say, a large risk taker. i never take risks. in any business i have done, i do the homework and preparation. a risk.not i have never been in the same situation as these two presidents, i cannot even imagine the stress. but in my little world, i try to have great people around me and be prepared to make the best decision. bill clinton: i think knowing when it is time to decide is a big deal. you have to know, to answer that question, what all is going on and what kind of decision you are making. that is, if you make a mistake, is it irrevocable? a so, you may be able to take little more time.

but there are a lot of decisions thee on a scale of one-100, decision that you make today is better than the decision that is 100% right to you make it after the train has left the station. i ask myself, are the consequences revocable? i will give you an example. whenever we are getting ready to bomb somebody, if you do not do this today you will look weak. you will look so weak. and, i only said, can't i kill them tomorrow? [laughter] you are laughing, but think about this. back to lifeg them tomorrow. but i can kill them tomorrow. so let's think about this. on the other hand, there are some decisions that you will paralyze yourself if you do not

make. it 100%until you get right is full of. narrator: you can see that and tire debate tomorrow night at 8:00 here on c-span. our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals across the country on book tv. no the end of september, in new york for the brooklyn book festivals celebrating its 10th year. early october, the southern festival of books in nashville. then, austin for the texas book festival. to to the end of the month, book festivals. wisconsin in madison, and on the east coast the boston book testable. and in november, we will be in bookstock.r

that is just a portion of the book fairs. and now, the new iraqi ambassador to the united states was in the country for a talk and itse future politics. this is about one hour and 20 minutes.

>> good afternoon, welcome. when i was talking to the ambassador a few weeks ago i said -- it is before labor day i don't know if we can get an audience but we will try. i'm glad that you are all here. i am led to welcome look month faily -- lukman faily. prior to that he was the iraq's ambassador to japan. he spent many years in the u.k. as a technology consultant he has a bachelor of science and math and computer science from the metropolitan university. an mba and also a postgraduate degree in technology. he will speak and then we will have our distinguished panel have a discussion among ourselves and then we will turn the discussion over to you. ambassador luyou kman faily.

faily: thank you for the kind introduction and allowing an opportunity at such an important time to talk a lot the country and to have an honest and fruitful discussion. you have also asked me to talk about where iraq is headed. i will discuss where it is headed on the political front, military front and regional and international damage. -- international dimension front. refute a few false

ideas that are distorting america's understanding of iraq. importantmake one point. surely and steadily, iraq is moving toward democracy and toward one country. in fact, the only way we can dash, isil, isis, ice, whatever you want to call it, is to strengthen ties within our country and along the federal arrangements in line with our constitution which all communities in iraq voted for. other courses of action lead to division, distort, and defeat. that is the future, that this divide and conquer strategy was for iraq.

our neighbors and community must never, ever except that the vision for iraq. should never, ever except division of the three-state solution for iraq. recent events have demonstrated that iraq is not revocable he divided along ethnic or sectarian lines. this is the first myth that i will refute this afternoon. make no mistake, for all of the discontent and differences, iraqis want to succeed. this was apparent during what could have been polarizing the summer.

look at the images from these events. you will see a sea of iraqi flags. no other flags. iraqis do not want a revolution. they want reform, the unity of iraq, the inclusiveness of our democracy, and the effectiveness of our government that is not hamstrung by corruption or sectarianism. the shared understanding that is all too rare in the middle east, the protesters and our government both want to unite our country and uphold the rule of law.

security forces were deployed to protect the protesters, rather than suppress them. on many occasions, police were seen distributing bottles of water to protesters, and even sometimes joining them in their chants. this dynamic represents a paradigm shift that is representative of the new iraq. those who still question whether life was better under saddam hussein, should think back to how this man would have responded to even suspicions of dissent. in that spirit, let me address the third issue. development on our democratic political front. after three elections and the

peaceful transition of power. with the support of protesters, the initial approval of parliament, and the backing of others. the prime minister has a democratic and popular mandate. the government is streamlining itself, eliminating costly positions and divisive sectarian quarters. we are centralizing decision-making to the provisional level so that local communities can determine their losses as they are most needed. it was worsened by the bureaucratic --

we are investing in all our agricultural, industrial and housing sectors. last week, the capital approved a capital injeion in the sectors worth $4.3 billion. i need to dispel another myth, that abolishing the sectarian quota systems will underline the rights of minorities. this is a coalition government. representing every major sector, and area in iraq. we do not yet have an opposition party within the parliament. all parties are represented in the capital. let me be clear. national unity requires an effective as well as inclusive government. whatever their religious beliefs, iraqis want an honest, effective and law-abiding government.

this aspiration we say is unifying and not divisive. in order to unify iraq, our government has stepped forward from a framework of national reconciliation. we seek a fair, comprehensive, and historic settlement between every segment of our society, to save our country from the prospect of civil war. our national reconciliation frameworis built upon three pillars. the constitution. political agreements through the major political blocs that support the prime minister, and the government program approved by parliament. these are the basic principles. every stakeholder in our society must be committed to national unity, and rule of law.

everyone must accept the results of democratic process. everyone must reject dictatorship, sectarianism and the use of bombs to extract political concession. everyone must respect each other and each other's basic human rights. iraqis also deserve security forces that can protect our own from the barbarism of dash. our security forces must be cleansed of corruption while respecting the populations they protect. we are working on improving our soldiers on the military payroll. the government seeks to create a national guard, mandated by

local citizens protecting their own communities. parliament is working on drafts of this as we speak. this has been tremulous, but we have to go through the democratic process if we are to stand the test of time. we are determined to train and equip more local people to protect themselves and their neighborhood. reforms will these make our society more democratic, more secure. and enhances stability. and, stability enhances security. yet there are those who say we must choose between democracy on one hand and stability and

security on the other. but that is a false choice that we must move way beyond. me to my second topic. development on the military and security front. they committed to taking back every inch on our territory, and liberating every segment of our society from dash. we are dependent not to coexist one extra second with dash. that is the determination of the people, not to cope or coexist. in coordination with airstrikes and all other support we have in getting from our coalition partners. we're working with our security forces and the kurdish on a number of fronts.

it is becoming increasingly difficult. this is why we continue to urge our coalition partners to increase their military when the highly contested towns are taken by forces. suicide trucks, and bombs are being used to break down our defenses. these suicide bombs are something like 12-14 times of explosives. are in short supply and at times our troops are overrun by urgency of the

attacks. we have a long, hard schedule ahead but we are encouraged that thousands are being liberated. many local residents feel safe enough to return to their homes. tikrit havefrom returned to their homes since we liberated it. over 300,000 individuals have been able to return to their homes after we were able to liberate them from dash. represents 10% of -- 3.1 million people that have been displaced. help will come from the iraqi ash andent as we defeat d

drive them once and for all from our country. iraq is on the forefront of the struggle in the fight against dash. but the united nations security rent -- resolutions recognize they are a global group with global recruitment and finances. terroristsnational threaten every country in the region and around the world, therefore all of the countries have a binding agreement under chapter seven of the united nations charter to do their part to defeat dasj/ -- dash.

we need to counter their murderous messages. disseminate the truth to the muslim brothers that spake the truth to their heart. support toe nation's communicate this message to the coalition. h finances it self by human trafficking and other methods, we also need to work resourceso stop these of support from financial transfers to sexual slavery. we look toward national reconciliation and

reconstruction, the united states and other countries can continue to help stabilize iraq. withcan provide us technical assistance in streamlining our government and and to out corruption increasing our public services and restoring our infrastructure. address thesen challenges on the homefront and the regional and international front. build a secure and stable iraq in the middle east. have been defeated once and for all and forever, together we can read deem the iraqis, americans, and others the pacts they have made. -- together we can read deem the packed the iraqis, americans, and others have made. [applause]

>> [whispering] mr. ambassador. >> thank you very much. >> we are now joined by two experts. the director for middle eastern north africa, the eurasia group. for several years now, he, to my mind, has been one of the shrewdest rising stars in the middle east. bosses say, you can have him. this is a teaser. you were just in iraq. is the political environment? the m bastogne or -- the thessador described

difficult relationship to of authority. a little green light needs to be on. the switch. >> i think we are still in an area where we are treating iraq as either a failed process or failed entity. iraq is still very much an experiment. the feeling that i got throughout the country is that there is still discussion about what this represents and what it an idea that we in washington sometimes see as a inided nation that should be three entities is not there, in many respects.

iraq is still trying to figure out, in itself, but the relationship should be, how it should treat its neighbors, how to redefine its identity both in ones of its relationship -- thing that i think we should be clearly the u.s. should be encouraging that process. iraqise we encourage the to discover a new process that -- i think the more iraq will be stable. isis requires that process moving forward. that is really my broad viewpoint. -- au just mentioned perfect segue to aaron, a fellow at the washington institute. if you are looking for some ring

in washington who really understands isis, and reads the propaganda that comes out in understands your organization, how it thinks about its government and articulates it, aaron is your guy. i'm delighted you could join us. where does this stand in the golds withinh of members seen-dash the project and the project? state, theyslamic don't really care what is going on in baghdad right now in terms of their discussions -- they are worried about what the kurds are doing. they are focused primarily on their own project, whether it is in terms of suppressing ongoing

tension or return industries back to working. this is what i am seeing in terms of what they are trying to do, to show the world right now. it is a lot more complicated, for example -- if you look at ,heir health administration they are trying to put out a message that they are able to provide services for people in medical facilities and hospitals but if you look at official propaganda they are looking for doctors to be able to work there and telling them that are leaving that if they leave we will seize your home. there is a different picture depending on whether you look at the official propaganda versus what they are giving to the local population, and while they definitely have control it is and notly through fear

in terms of the local people's will. then, thatur sense, the sunni population is significantly winnable, if there is an inclusive government begins to show itself? >> i definitely think there is a segment of the population that would be willing to go forward, but at the same time, i think they need to feel dislodged that they have high in in baghdad -- assuaged they have buy in. there was discussion about how these sunni would he brought into the government. once the u.s. last, a lot of these things did not actually occur and it left to grievances which led then to the protest movement in the summer 2012 which then eventually led to the islamic state piggybacking off of this issue in december 2013 when the protest camp in ramadi

was destroyed. there's a lot of chain reaction in the community. if they can get the assurances that they can be part of this broader project, i think they would be willing, but i think there is still some skepticism even if they do not really necessary like the islamist state. >> you referred to the u.s. and certainly one of the things we continue to hear about is the role of outside parties stirring the pot, iranian influence, what are the constructive things you think foreign parties can do to try to promote internal reconciliation? ambassador: there are two points to that question. you have the political process internally which is to do the project in the making.

that depends between the politics and the internal and you have to fight against isis. we certainly nature mende support in controlling the border, so our neighbors should have a real project in, for example, stopping the jihadists coming from north africa, going straight to syria and iraq. or coming from some of the gulf countries. they have to deal with that also. you have that issue, stabilizing from a security perspective and the fight against them. for the i reckon syrians say, this is some ring we ask everybody. this is a global problem. then you have the political stability and iraq. how do this order? specifically after the fall of mosul, they have more or less

supported each other in that discussion. we now have a much clearer understanding of what turkey can do for internal politics, what jordan has been able to do and others as well. to that effect, i think we are doing much better understanding with less involvement of our neighbors and internal affairs and more toward stability of the country. that's a good sign. iraqis have also matured. your neighbors are there regardless of who can support you from outside. i thank we are developing in the right direction, but in the fight against isis, i still think we need a lot of some work.

>> are you finding that some parties think that isis can be useful pressure against iranian influence in iraq and can help pursue the kind of political the left her words? ambassador: when you say isis is similar to the taliban in afghanistan we can see what it has led to which is a lack of aggression against the taliban. we do not want to be a copycat of that situation. we want the fight against isis for their sake and our sake, the stability of their region and the globe. i think we are looking for a more responsive, mature reflection of what has taken place and we do not want our neighbors hands to be burned by the lack of engagement in the fight against isis.

>> when you hear in the middle east when you travel we don't want isis to win but we also don't want iranians to win iraq completely. is that something you hear? >> to a certain extent isis is viewed as a useful tool in checking iranian influence especially in this environment. iraq is still viewed as an extension of an iranian sphere of influence. that is definitely far from true, but it is still treated as such area that goes for the iraqi theater and the syrian one. unfortunate way, neither wants iraq to emerge as a strong state. iran still views iraq as a week meant to be attached to it or

aligned to it as favorable to a stronger iran. saudi arabia definitely does not want the iraqi democratic experience to fully prosper. i do not think the saudis have ever made a strategic decision to reach some form of a deal with a new iraq as an arab state with a new system. that has not been done before and i do not know if it will be done in the future. >> can i had a small point here? it's important to look at isis as a global problem. we may have contributed to their strengths, however when you have a problem in north africa or chechnyans, chinese, north americans joining isis that is nothing to do with internal politics but the global issues which needs a global solution like global warming. i think that's what's important

for our audience to appreciate also. iraqi politics internal you can help as much as you can regardless how much you help, you have a global phenomenon which you need to get control of area in that is something i think we are may be missing. >> when people report on foreign fighters, we hear a lot about foreign fighters in syria but we do not hear a lot about them in iraq. what we keep hearing is that the loyalists are growing beards and putting on different uniforms. not to diss your beard at all. [laughter] is there something different about the operation and iraq as it operates in syria? >> the vast majority of foreign

fighters are based in syria. we do see foreign fighters and iraq as well but they are not really involved in the administration of the areas they are controlling. the foreign fighters are primarily used as an aside bombers in the iraqi context. they are more used in terms of the administration. just yesterday there was a report of. and others involved in a suicide bombing in iraq. at least that's what it was about. there's a difference in that context. another thing to think about, also, is this organization while many people began to pay attention to it again after the fall of mosul, they have had a

presence nonstop since 2002 or 2003 when zarkawi came. they have a lot more history as well as connections. there's a lot of local ties in the iraqi context. in syria, the organization of self really did not start to get a foothold until april 2013 when out that daddy put out his statement saying they were going inside syria -- when al-baghdadi put out his s it is at larger challenge very of thosea are some oft the basice elements in terms of the differences. >> the most you constrained against everything the government of iraq is trying to do including being inclusive of groups who feel they do not have a share of the pie. if the highest ranking, it's hard to get about more shares of a shrinking pie. how does that affect all of the

things you are talking about including the problem of national unity as we have seen more and more the kurdish region of iraq is going it's more -- going more its own way? ambassador: we try to use money as an attachment of the politics. that also increases corruption and other types of mismanagement or bad governance of our institutions. in support of mosul, now we have said that this is not sustainable and we cannot proceed with such a strategy of only enticing people with financial ways. by the way, the majority of enticement is important for all of the communities.

from that effect, i think we have learned and now the prime minister has said he has a mandate to reform and also to start new areas of looking for revenue such as government ons, investments, and others. to that effect, iraq has done to mend this change in its policies in relation to funds and external financial support with the world bank and others as well. i take your point and i agree with it that we need to be very careful so as to not alienate people because we're saying to them we have not got the money to restructure schools and others. to that effect, the allies are working on what they call

post-destabilization projects. we have seat support from the gulf state countries. putting your money wherever you have been talking about marginalization. >> how's it going? ambassador: not exactly how we wanted. this is an area of frustration, by the way. who is supporting you at the moment you need them with the shotgun of isis next year head? those neighbors are saying that they are conditional and their support. what you have to do then, would you want conditional support or open-ended? that's the problem we have. >> what is the mood there? how is the situation on the ground far away from baghdad? how is that different from the

strategy in baghdad? >> on the isis front, things are going well. we have coherent operations by the peshmerga. we're seeing clearer signs of the kurdish entity about what to do and what relationship it has with turkey, iran, and officials in baghdad. that point in the extension of the term for the next two years, or potential extension, is really shows where it is. they have disagreements and there is a real political debate around how to function either within iraq or otherwise. i think that it this stage the u.s. can actually help in creating more unity between the kurdish parties and encouraging reform because it does need reform.

uniting the peshmerga and encouraging kurdish parties to have a broader dialogue internally and with officials in baghdad. the solution thus far as been to mostly blame the central government for problems they face. as we begin to have a broader discussion of what needs to be done, kurdistan will probably move forward as a democratic process moves forward there. >> given what we've seen opinion polls in the kurdish areas it suggests overwhelming support for independence from iraq. live this sort of reform democratic process make it

harder to keep iraq as a whole together? >> i think it's difficult for anyone to say they are against independence for but there are the opinions of when you get there, in what form, and what sort of relationship do you have with the rest of iraq? there are disagreements when it comes to that. some favor an incremental process that keeps baghdad closer. eventually these are their neighbors and you need to deal with them in this story. what needs to be done is i think encouraging that debate between angora, tehran, and kurdish officials. certainly reforming these institutions is key. reforming the government housing

a process that is much more representative is key to having a more stable kurdistan be that an entity formerly within iraq or independent. >> the peshmerga have been some of the most effective fighters that it seems principally focused on iranian influence. is there a change in the way they are talking about kurdish fighters, battling kurds as this battle unfolds? >> just like the iranians or any other entity, they view them as an enemy. they are using different types of derogatory terms for kurds as they do with other groups of people, but i think they realize that they are not going to be able to push any further north at least in the iraqi context where the kurds have been able to hold the line since the u.s. coalition started doing things one year ago. therefore, they are focused more on the broader sectarian issue as it is in more play as a result, you see more fighting in that regard instead of them trying to push back into northern iraq.

the same time, that does not mean there is not an opportunity . every once in a while there will be a suicide bombing that peeks through in kurdistan. for the islamic states, expand this, imperialists, nothing is out of town for them. >> you mentioned the reliable neighbor next door who was also thought to have a whole series of ties to the popular forces that is accused of being a sectarian militia attacking sunnis. what is the strategy for creating a genuine, capable iraq in national army that does not rely on foreign training, foreign funding, sectarian education, those kinds of things? how to get from where we are today to where you'd like to be?

ambassador: we talk about the restructuring. that includes after the fall of mosul, there has been and will continue to be significant restructuring. at this moment, the endgame is still not complete. we need to understand what we need to protect and therefore how should our army structuring be? we are looking at that whether it is order, internal, so on. we also have national legislation that are important project. it's very careful handling politically and structurally as to who they report to. we do not want to create and fund local politicians to have their own forces and national guard. at the same time, we know that the majority of those people who

have joined the cause are doing this just because of the call for the protection of their country. they are less ideological and more nationalistic. they are also not looking to be permanent members of these military setups about want to do it just for the sake of liberating their towns and then going back to their jobs are us to create opportunities. in that context, i think there is a fear in washington and overselling of this issue of ideologically attaching people. the numbers do not represent all of them. that is who we named, but at the same time they are iraqis who wanted when there country and they may have some ideological

differences. that does not take away from their protection. they have political blocs in a power that do represent them as well so we are talking about a democratic process taking shape there. >> when we talk about the making, i do not think anyone has an idea of what the endgame should be like. we talked about this and others but to that effect to the main objective is making sure that he is commander in chief. in tikrit, one of the military setups did not want to participate. the same in anbar and so on. the issues that we want to cement is that the prime minister has said to manage these components to the bitter

end whatever the opposing process pushes us to. that is the long answer because i don't think there's a short answer. >> that's interesting because in part it's about institutionalizing and in part about decentralizing and giving more local control. it seems to be pursuing both sides. ambassador: let's also be honest among friends. when they talk to us about national guard, they have the concept of national guard as the current u.s. set up. you have a revolutionary national guard process. we have had a crash course. we need time. we need to do it from the

shotgun to the era whether it is isis, militia, anybody else. that's what we're trying to work on. >> when the prime minister was here, i asked if there were any limits or redlines for decentralization and he said there were none. how do you see that process unfolding of the sunni devolving work control to different places? >> i think there are definitely constraints but it is at the very beginning. it's very difficult to ask the iraqis to do reform on every level and figure out the end state of their political system while they are fighting isis. especially for supporters of the government that this stage, it's not the sort of discussion that is neither popular or that they even one to have.

in many respects, efforts to push the iraqi is closer to the outcomes of decentralization could backfire. this needs time. you also need part of the current areas to be liberated, to actually gather more traction behind the government. one point though that i would mention here is a discussion over the national guard. that's a key part of the equation that unites iraq. to move forward with a series of reforms on different fronts, scrapping the rules, the prime minister rules, to do that and leave a key component of the reform process i think is part of the crisis of confidence in iraq communities. that is one part we can actually move forward with. >> do you see a sort of nascent

sunni leadership fighting against isis or isis fighting against as it looks to the future in the country? >> i have not seen anything similar to what we started to see in 2005 or 2006 in terms of the tribal awakening. part of this is a result of the islamists state learning from the lessons of what occurred in the mid to late to thousands in that when they started to go back in and start military campaigns in 2012-2013, they started to reach out to smaller clans within tribes to co-op whether it was with money, weapons. divide and conquer these tribes has been effective in many respects. on the other hand, if there has been a group of people who have tried to go against them, they

massacre them. we have seen that in syria and just a couple weeks ago, a try been libya when they were trying to do something. part of the issues that the islamic state has a monopoly in violence where they control so it's difficult for anybody to go against them unless there is some kind of outside the stints this juncture because they had been able to really institutionalize them locally in some respect. >> you say it's extraordinarily hard to have any model really work. >> at least in the areas that they control firmly. there are areas that are sort of in between that could potentially be peeled off, but in the core areas they are an especially in the western part of iraq where they are the strongest, i would argue, in part because they can have a court order into syria which allows them to strengthen that control, it's very difficult.

the way they rule is very totalitarian. >> do you see bottom-up politics or look at different rings in different places in iraq? ambassador: that is part of why you actually need to move forward with a part military solution to allow the political process to reemerge. you cannot have it wow isis control these territories. that's a key part of the issue. within the rest of iraq, absolutely. the process is one example mentioned. this is very much a vibrant society and political system that is even pushing back against entrenched politicians of the same sectarian affiliation. we need to get the iraqis some credit that they're trying to

form something new even at the grassroots. the response i think in that respect has been very positive, the way forward to embrace the protesters rather than move against them. >> you would refer to this as a positive sign and not a warning's line of iraq unraveling? >> they have always had that issue for a number of years. the fact that there is organized opposition that is peaceful, construct do, and more coherent, that is part of the creative process of building the democracy. i don't necessarily see it as some thing dangerous. it's part of something much more positive. if they begin to see this as a signal that their legitimacy is at stake then reform efforts become more serious, more real. that's what we've seen in the last few weeks. >> we do not have the east europe situation where you have

local specific entities fighting against a central government. you have a cross country people who are from solidified movements protesting against their political leaders and saying we want to stop corruption. we want jobs opportunities and others. this is, in a way, what we want to focus on. it is in a sense of what you already talked about. if we do not react to it, it's destabilizing. if we do not appreciate and embrace it the sentiment will be destabilizing. we do not have what you might call a strong state. we realize that. the depth of reform is something to that effect. >> in terms of what you just said, what are the warning signs?

what would be the warning signs that the protest movement is no longer constructive and is actually threatening? >> we have at this moment if you ask me risk management issues -- >> the i.t. consultant? >> they do not have local leaders and therefore you have a representative of that. the demand for change requires decades. i mean that. you are talking about, for example, a democratic system that is based on the ottoman empire then on the british dental the republic systems of iraq. we are talking about 100 your democratic systems you have had

to reform. the new have police state history you have to reform. the new have destabilizing regions that are pro-democracy. then you have isis next year. it's multilayered. >> and then you have people talking about the iranian influence as well. ambassador: of course. as much as any other external force. to that effect, we need to be on our toes for who is being involved in what is the endgame? >> thank you. i would like to turn to you. i would ask three things. you identify yourself. second that he will only ask one question because i've already seen five hands. third, given the experience and

wisdom of our guest i ask that you ask a genuine question and not make a statement and ended with, what do you think of my statement? [laughter] first person i see is over here. please wait for the microphone. >> i am the command surgeon for the civil affairs unit out of marilyn. i served as a command sergeant for the officer security. my question to you, given the extent of all of these demonstrations -- and you are a friend of mine and i've known you. you have worked tirelessly so i cannot say enough about you but there's a limit to what you can say in public. given the degree of and the level of these demonstrations, does the prime minister understand the need for reform? if so, who does he have to in his administration rely to execute some of these reforms?

my experience, as many iraqi officials, are not confident. who will he rely on? especially in the service sector? ambassador: thank you, colonel. what the p.m. has discovered over the last year primarily as the change of reform requires a substantial change of culture, strategic shifts in government direction, and most importantly the ability of the people to cooperate with him on basic issues. secondly he has the political capital at this moment. to that effect, he has made clear, and he will continue doing that, to ask for support helping him in streamlining. he has reached out to others. he has highlighted the main

areas he would be instituting reforms on such as i.t. systems, paperless systems, to become more transparent and streamlined. at this moment, as you said, the scale of the reforms can only be managed due to the challenge ahead. what do you do about taxation systems. demonstrators need to understand that they has an act of role to play and the reform movement. it it not just demands and obligations on them as well. those are the challenges we have. who can help us? we will continue to reach out to others and we still don't have all the capabilities for reform.

we are working hard on that and we continue waiting on that. what we don't know, we will say we don't know. we're under no illusion as to the scale of the challenge. >> i do not think you can reform iraq and one or two years. it's a massive project, but at least you begin to start it. from now onwards given the current revenue, this is what we are going to do -- x, y, z. there is no other alternative. you cannot destroy the entire system and build some a new. we already have something difficult enough to manage the iraqi political process. it is a big challenge, as ambassador said, but we should encourage that reform talk. we don't necessarily need to move where each and every official is put in jail. the signal has been sent that enough is enough.

there needs to be some accountability, for sure, but the importance of starting this process, i think, is key. at least a body has initiated. >> you, sir, all the way in the back. >> thank you, social reform advisor from usaid. i am iraqi kurdish and came to the states as a refugee in 1996. one of the things that has been really bothering me over the past year or so is how we have neglected, as an international community, the real aspect and issues going into preventing the violent extremism and developing the human capacity in iraq. my question is in regards to

specifically the challenges you face in youth engagement in iraq and i mean that from both the states perspective as well as the economy. you mentioned how democracy is a foundation for stability and how it becomes a foundation for security, but another cornerstone is the economic growth of iraq which is taken a huge hit because of the instability and the lack of opportunities especially for youth becomes a driver of despair, migration, unrest, further instability. even joining propaganda and violent extremism. i know there are two other big elephants in the room in terms of the threat to stability and the humanitarian situation that iraq definitely needs to work with -- internally displaced populations and the other being the democratic process and making sure that people have the social services that they feel

the state is doing something for them and it becomes a specific engagement and responsibility rather than a question of taxation. i would love to hear your thoughts on what could be done, perhaps, to target and what the iraqi government is planning to do in creating the versioning private sector, targeting new opportunities, and targeting these stable opportunities with areas that are liberated but those that are already stable if the kurdish north and the self of iraq for bringing in multinational companies again or even creating a private sector from the iraqi community that could lead to further stability. thank you. ambassador: we do need to substantially reform our banking, insurance, up-to-date legislation with relation to investments. these are all steps that are supposed to be in the pipeline.

here we need a strong political will by parliament to streamline and to focus a blueprint for updating our legislations accordingly. another aspect of it is we'll sunny need to change the culture of overdependence on the state as the main and only breadwinner and focus on entrepreneurship and others. that is initially taking place. i do not think it's at an acceptable level. you talked about the elephants. you have a third that is dealing with by their nature iraq is one of the least -- i think 60% of the population is 35 with a median age of about 19 with a population growth of 3%. >> did you say more about the idp, internally displaced

persons? a lot of neighborhood used to be mixed that are now belonging to one sector or another. ambassador: we still have a lot of idp's in the kurdish region who are from anbar or others. we have a lot of terks who have got to najev, for example. we have a lot of sunnis who are being supported by the regional center there as well. at this point, the democracy is mixed. that has its own danger. idp, if you do not address them within a year or two, then they feel they have more demands as they come in. now i'm looking to you for health care, education, stability, and so on. a do not think of themselves as in transit all any longer --

transitional any longer. for the majority of people, for example, in tikrit they work with local authorities to help that out. we have also seen a decrease. i'm certainly seeking government support with the rule of law with that as well. it is still in the making to that effect. it is one of those challenges which the arab spring has manifested through the whole region. without managing the youth through growth, growth without job opportunities what they have

is awareness because of globalization. they have very good awareness and what's happening in other countries and they have frustration. how do you sort of use that frustration? it becomes a channel which we want to keep away from as much as we can. >> thank you, john. mr. ambassador -- al jazeera correspondent and i was a student of john's. back in july, he was the deputy chief and he gave a lengthy interview to a newspaper in lebanon making two statements. one asserting that hezbollah trainers were acting in iraq to provide training and within an advisory capacity to the globalization forces but working under what he called the command of the armed forces.

they are under the command of the prime minister. the second, he said that the forces were moving through after finishing the battle and they would support the syrian regime and fighting isis. first, could you maybe address these two issues? is hezbollah training under prime minister abadi? with the government support or

oppose any such move into syria by the mobilization noting that, i think, he was accused of taking part in orchestrating the attacks against the american embassy in french embassy in kuwait in 1983. thank you very much. ambassador: i'm not aware of that even. did hezbollah operate in iraq? no. the prime minister is the commander in chief and we said he had no aspiration, desire, well to be involved in the syrian theater in any way, shape, or form. in 2011 we kept out of it when everyone asked us to be engaged. we did not want to get involved in neighboring issues let alone in a volatile areas such as syria. to that effect am a i can assure you -- whatever reports those were talking about, i have not read so i cannot talk about specifics -- but as the government of iraq have no

intention to get involved in any military outside, the syrian side, whatsoever. maybe some isis aspects specifically, command operations , but i'm not aware of that even. we certainly have no aspirations to be involved in that theater. you would need to go back to his statements and challenge him. >> wait for the microphone. >> i have two very short questions. >> you are only allowed one. >> for the distinguished dollars, you will talked about the role that neighboring countries play with iraq and fighting isis but i have not heard about the role saudi arabia is playing. is saudi arabia a better u.s.

ally than turkey on the fight against isis? i think it's very relevant. thank you. >> we are lacking very effective than good allies in the region. neither have been very good in dealing with the isis situation for different reasons. turkey has prioritized containing the kurds and leveraging isis as a tool to weaken assad. saudi arabia has preferred to keep the isis problem in iraq and syria. obviously that comes with the risk that terrorism at some point comes back home. by the state has actually helped confront the isis problem effectively -- neither state has a. the turkish focus remains on

containing kurdish aspirations among the southern borders, not necessarily for controlling the isis problem. >> i fully agree. saudi arabia seems to be primarily august on what's been going on -- primarily focused on the southern rents, tourism, making sure that those rebel groups that are south do not radicalize or become as extreme as the theater in the northern parts of syria. beyond that, they really have not on to much. the turks are problematic and so many of the foreign writers to

get through their border without doing much border control in the beginning. while they talk about the so-called anti-isis zone in northern syria, the reality is that they just don't want to get linked up with the camps. if you actually look at what happened in's the turks have started to get involved in this anti-isis don't the islamist state has taken over parts of the territory since then. they are rejecting them. the competition of who did worse, neither of them have certainly been that great thus far. >> right here in the front row. >> good afternoon, kurdistan regional government representatives to the united states. ambassador, thank you for a very interesting and optimistic outlook on iraq which we all need. i want to go back to the humanitarian situation. this really affect to where iraq is heading. i know it has been touched on very briefly, but we really need

to understand the depth of the problem in the problem that will face us for generations unless it is we iraqis and our friends in the international community who do much more to help. i think all of us today are haunted by the picture of the little boy who washed up on the shore in turkey. he symbolizes every displaced person and iraq and syria and the harvard that we face with your acting like a fortress -- and what we face with acting as a fortress. taking in one million displaced people, europe has accepted about 600,000 asylum-seekers, 28 countries, 600,000 asylum seekers versus one point of iraq taking in 1.8 million people. 50% of the displaced, i'm afraid i don't know about much of the

rest of iraq, among the displaced community the children have not in the school. that is despite all of our efforts -- the u.n., usaid, other countries trying to help. that's a ticking time bomb for all of us in iraq. the u.n. is saying it cannot raise enough money to help the displaced in iraq. they launched an appeal for 500 million dollars in june to see the displaced and refugees through six months from june to december. they have raised less than half of that amount. this is a ticking time bomb. i invite the panel to give their view, but this is a disaster. i think everybody thinks the disaster happened in june. the disaster awaits us. there we destitution and

disease. i invite the panel truck about the humanitarian crisis. how does that affect another lost generation. how can we ask people to pay taxes we get even offer their children education. ambassador faily: i totally agree, and think the challenges we face are destabilizing our neighbors. it should be a crisis ringing across the whole globe. it is an area next to europe and it is people that have no alternatives.

the alternatives are always illegal. trying to find ways to get income and pay for clothing, i would agree with you that humanitarian issue alone. it needs to be in focus. you also have issues of enslavement and instructions of heritage. that has to do with -- the traction of human history. i think -- if you look at the region, with the politics of sectarianism people will be pushed off.

not enough is being done at this point. >> the physical spaces have been even worse. in terms of the question regarding the issue of recruitment and radicalization, the reality is children are very vulnerable to these messages. they are putting up this content online but also locally as well. the islamic state is putting out content on twitter, but if you look at cities, they are having these local kiosks where they provide pamphlets, cds, usbs, and the community that they focus on most our children and

youth. that is run the biggest dangers but the islamic state is that they are socially engineering society right now. it is a major problem, they're putting out content in kurdish languages as well. it is definitely an issue for everyone in the region. >> i think this is a perfect example of politics trumping humanitarian concerns. there has to be local ownership of the conflict. that the region, the participants are part of the conflict and have contributed towards that policy of destabilization.

yes, europe has not done enough. but also the arabs -- we mentions of numbers on that. we need to alleviate some of the humanitarian pain. >> time for one more question. this gentleman has been very patient right here. >> my question, you mentioned many times to the -- what the meme every consolation -- what do you mean by re-consolation?

ambassador faily: in iraq, the issues are generic. i don't think it is one community, i think, i can assure you we talk to them about how does he feel toward certain governments. i think it was a significant social contract that has to be redrawn among all the components. when they are talking about the sentiment also need to talk about good governance.

the stability of the government, you also have the issue of at what stage do you want authority to be disseminated to -- government levels, or so on. let's agree on how did we manage this country moving forward. how do we do it in a civilized way, away from the on, away from oppression. respect to the constitution, this is the key issue. when i talk about projects in the making i do mean that. i can tell you this is the picture we want to be in and we no single person can tell you this is what we need.