to the south, basically saying, go ahead, we are not going to be on you if you resist. it was not until not only the passage of the civil rights act, but the guidelines in the department of health and education and welfare just a few years later that threatened to withhold federal funding to schools that did not desegregate, only then did meaningful desegregation occur so it took more than one decade , after brown actually achieved its promise. the court seems to continue to struggle with affirmative action cases, another scheduled for this term. one what has been the societal legacy? tomiko: another big question. i was appointed to a case about k-12 education and whether school districts could voluntarily desegregate.

the court struck down the policy at issue, which, in louisville, had been adopted, a policy, adopted after the school system was no longer officially under court order, by consensus, large consensus of the community, it wanted to continue with its integration program in schools . it was considered a model community for integration. the court said that the principles established in the affirmative action cases regarding diversity really don't apply in the k-12 context and -- context. and then, as you mentioned, there is the continuing controversy over affirmative action. the court is going to hear the fisher case again. tomiko: it will rule on the merits and it doesn't look good

to proponents of affirmative action. and it may not be a sleeping -- a sweeping holding but the nature of the conversation at the court is having is really goes back to that word of judicial supremacy. the court, in the affirmative action context, is saying that it is to be satisfied that there aren't alternatives to these race conscious policies and , there are university officials, educational officials who would argue that they need to be in that position of exercising discretion about composing their student bodies. susan: here is a little bit of chief justice john roberts and the parents involved decision, in 2007. what he wrote is this --

jeffrey: there is a huge debate right now that the meaning of brown. is it a ban on racial classifications? -- classifications, as chief justice roberts seems to suggest? or is it a ban on racial subordination? does it demand blindness or colorblindness? the court is divided on this question. the division can be found in the brown opinion and in brown to two, which did not resolve whether it was demanding equality of opportunity, the end to formal segregation, or equality of results actual integration. this continues to this day. all i can say is, with c-span, we will be hosting a series of debates on all of these questions, including a great one on the fisher case next week. the fact that even years after

brown, 60 years after brown, we still haven't resolved its essential meaning suggests that the meaning of the reconstruction amendments continues to be debated. susan: my last piece of video is thurgood marshall. marshall was the architect of the naacp legal defense and -- legal defense strategy which attacked the segregation of schools as a process to change in society. thurgood marshall was appointed to the supreme court as the first african-american justice, serving from 1967-1991. here is justice marshall in 1988 at the national bar association meeting. he talked a bit about the state of race relations. justice marshall: i don't care about the constitution alone or the declaration of independence or all of the books together. it is not that important.

what is important is the goal toward which you are moving, the goal that is the basis of true democracy, which is over and above the law, and is something that won't happen, but you must pray for it, and work for it. that goal is very simple. that goal is, that if a child, a negro child, is born to a black mother in a state like mississippi or any other state like that, born to the dumbest, poorest, sharecropper, by merely drawing is first breath in a -- breath in a

democracy, there and without any more, is born with the exact same rights as a similar child born to a white parent and the wealthiest person in the united states. no it is not true. , [applause] of course, it is not true. it never will be true. but i challenge anybody to take the position that that is not the goal that we should be shooting for and stop talking about how far we come -- how far we have come and start talking about how close we are. susan: with that thought, we have about minute left for your a -- we have about a minute left for your comments. tomiko: it is a decision that was important in constitutional law. it is generally considered the most important constitutional law case of the 20th century. that is rightly so.

it is a paradox though. brown was not considered to be a common-law case that was actually based in law. there are many questions about what uses to make its decision but over time, it is expected as , -- it is accepted as the right principle. the court did the right thing, that is important. it sets a high bar, high aspirations for us. as justice marshall said, so many times, we are still climbing toward its goal. jeffrey: jefferson and the declaration of independence promised that all men are created equal, yet he owned slaves. it took lincoln's new birth of freedom at gettysburg to make the promise of declaration something closer to a reality. the civil war amendments tried to enshrine that in the constitution but it took one century after that for brown to begin to make the promise of the declaration and the

reconstruction amendments a reality but we certainly have , not come close to achieving that promise for the reasons we have been discussing. susan: our thanks for being with us for this installment of landmark cases, looking at the decision of brown versus the 1954 board of education. thank you for being part of our audience. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> our series continues next week with mapp v. ohio. justices strengthened the rights for searches without seizures making it more difficult for evidence seized without a warning to be used in court. you can also learn more about c-span's landmark cases series online. go to www.c-span.org /landmarkcases. by veteran supreme court

journalist tony mauro and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press. landmark cases available for $8.95 plus shipping. >> john hinckley was the person who shot president reagan and president reagan was not wearing a bullet-proof vest. hinckley was john stocking jimmy carter before this. "q&a," various assassination attempts and physical threats made against presidents and presidential candidates throughout history. >> there have been 16 presidents who have faced assassination threats. i also cover three presidential candidates.

i talk about robert kennedy in 1968, and george wallace, who was shot and paralyzed for life. i covered candidates as well as presidents. it is a long list. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern day." -- "qan "qa &a." up next, u.k. prime minister david cameron on national security. later, a panel on international terrorism efforts. british prime minister david cameron spoke about the u.k.'s national security and defense review monday after meeting with french president francois hollande in paris. they met about increasing counterterrorism operations against isis.

>> order. statement, the prime minister. mr. cameron: with permission, i would like to make a statement on the strategic defense and security review. mr. speaker, our national security depends on our economic security and vice versa. think sayingp to is making sure our economy remains strong. 2010, we were ordering equipment for which there was literally no money. the black hole was bigger than the entire defense budget in that year. britain has become the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world or the last

two years. our renewed economic security needs that today, we can show how we can afford to invest further in our national security. when theital at a time threats to our country are growing. this morning, i was in paris discussing how we can work together to defeat the evil of isil. problemnot some remote thousands of miles away, it is a direct threat to our security at home and abroad. it has already taken the lives of hostages and taken out the worst terrorist attacks against on the people since 7/7 beaches of tunisia, not to mention plots here in britain have been foiled by our security services. the threats go beyond this evil death cold. ukraine toisis in

the risks of cyberattacks and pandemics, the world is more dangerous and uncertain today that even five years ago. while every government has to choose how to spend the -- we have to choose security.eguard our the united nations target of spending .7% of our gross national income on development. also, increasing investment in our security and intelligence and counterterrorism. in ensuring our national security, we also protect our national security -- we also protect our economic security. we depend on order and security in the world. prosperity -- it is

fundamental to the success of our nation when he the arteries of global commerce to remain free-flowing. at its heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defenses against state-based threats on the one hand or the need to counter threats. today, we face both types of threats and we must respond to both types of threats. our policies are to deter threats, tackle terrorism, remain a world leader in cyber security, and ensure we have the capability to respond rapidly to crises as they emerge. we will continue to harness all of the tools of national power available to us.

this includes support for our armed forces, counterterrorism. allies.with our first, the bottom line our national security strategy must always be the willingness and capability to use force when necessary. on friday evening, the un security council agreed to a resolution calling on member states to take all necessary -- all necessary measures against isis in syria and iraq. will make the case for britain to join our international allies in going isil i sold -- going after at their headquarters in syria and not just iraq. it will be part of a strategy to in parallel with an

international effort to bring an end to the world -- bring an end to the war in syria. we will invest more than 178 billion pounds in buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade, including doubling our investment in accordance support our special forces. we will also increase the size of our deployable forces. in 2010, we committed to an of 30,000.ry force by 2025, we are increase that number to 50,000. will create two new strike for grades -- strike brigades, fully equipped to deploy rapidly and does -- and sustain themselves. we will have an additional squadron of at 35 lightning aircraft to operate from our new aircraft carriers. our continuous at sea nuclear

deterrent. we will bind nine new maritime troll aircraft to be based. they will protect our nuclear deterrent. they will hunt down hostile submarines, and they will advance our maritime service and rescue. andill buy 13 new frigates two new offshore patrol vessels. these will include eight anti-submarine warfare frigates. we will design and build a new class of light frigates as well. ,hese will be more affordable so that by the 20 30's, we can increase the total number. these are an active clear eyes self-interest to ensure our future security and prosperity.

turning to counterterrorism. the resources they need to detect and foiled plots from whatever -- whatever they are in the world. we employ over 1900 additional staff. we will increase our investments and more than double our investments on aviation security around the world. we have put in place a significant new contingency plan to deal with new terrorist attacks. up to 10,000 military personnel will be available to support dealing with the kind of shocking terrorist attacks we have seen in paris. we will also make a major new investment in the new generation of surveillance drones. these british design, unmanned aircraft will fly in the atmosphere and allow us to observe our adversaries for weeks on end.

will also do more to make sure that powers we get to our security services give -- security services keep pace with modern technology. use oure will development budget on our -- and our expanding diplomatic service to tackle global poverty, project influence, and address the causes of the security threats we face, not just the consequences. i'm also putting forward our strategy for official development. refocus half of the budget on regionsng fragile state in every year of this parliament. to create alp golden thread of conditions that drive prosperity across the world, the rule of law, governance, and the growth of democracy.

the governance fund will grow to 1.3 billion per year by the end of this parliament and we will create a new 1.3 billion pound prosperity by -- prosperity fund. building on our success in tackling ebola, we will do more for crises, identify 500 million , andr as a crisis reserve investing in a global challenges research fund to pioneer new ways of tackling global problems like antimicrobial resistance. poundsvest one million to fight infectious diseases known as the ross fund, and 5.8 million -- 5.8 billion pounds in climate finance to help countries switch to cleaner energy. these interventions are not just write morley, they are firmly in our national interest.

they mean that britain not only meet its obligation to the poorest in the world, but cannot focus its resources on instability and conflict which impinges on our security at home. andonding rapidly decisively to emerging crises overseas. finally, britain's safety and on oury depends not just own efforts but hand in glove with our allies to face the comic -- to work on the common threats that face us all. we are stronger together. we will play our full part. will -- we will work with our allies in europe and around the world. stephen, history teaches us that no government can predict the future. we have no way of predicting precisely what course of events

will take over the next five years. but we can make sure that we have the versatility and the means to respond to new risks and threats to our security as they arise. our armed forces, police, security, and intelligence sources are the -- intelligence forces are the pride in our country. using renewed economic strength, we will help them to keep us safe for generations to calm. >> jeremy corbyn. corbyn: as i-- mr. said last week in the house, the first duty of a state is to protect its own citizens. at the moment, this country's overwhelming focus is the threat we face from terrorism. labor supports the increased expenditure to increase our security services. however, placed with the current

threat, the public will not understand or accept any cuts to frontline policing. everyone will be concerned about the warnings. -- the warnings we have had from security officials and the police that the cuts will hurt the ability to respond to a paris style of attack. the cut on policing will damage the flow of intelligence that help prevent such attacks. will he give an undertaking now that police budgets will be sufficient to guarantee no reductions in police or police-community support numbers and protect areas? will he also confirmed that the government will meet in full the request from the metropolitan police commissioner and his advisers for the further -- for the further resources they still require to

counter attacks such as those in paris. the public quite rightly expects that. it is disappointing that there was insufficient analysis in the national security strategy of the global threats facing our country and around the world. diseasety, poverty, human rights abuses, climate change, water and food security. i have no idea why members opposite find food security such a funny subject. or indeed, the flow of arms and illicit funds to allow groups like isil to grow. let me pay tribute to the men and women who work in the services. we must pay particular attention to their wealth there -- to their welfare while serving and when they retire. is the prime minister concerned

that the latest military defense or may shows that 25% plan to leave as soon as they can or have already putting their notice, and the number dissatisfied with service life has risen 32%? does he think this is a coincidence that those results, the same time that the government has capped armed forces pay and chains pension arrangements. the facts are, under his government, it has fallen in real terms by 14%, and we saw many soldiers putting their lives on the line, being sacked days before becoming eligible for full pensions. does he agree that changes brought forth by the chancellor for tax credits -- willie now confirm that the plan will be to cut the annual income by, for example, 2300 pounds a year, will that be reserved?

not be madey will worse off by any other welfare cuts the chancellor may be planning? what damage does he think will be redone by the cuts to the armed services? the country is united in respect for those who serve, whether it is widespread concern about lessons learned from recent military interventions. will he confirmed that he will update and revise this review in the light of the fourth coming chilcote inquiry into the iraq war. all sides in the continuing conflicts in libya are committing breaches international law including abductions, torture, and the killing of civilians, and that isil forces have gained control over central libya carrying out

executions. last week, his former deputy prime minister wrote, "britain failed to provide meaningful backing in libya and we must learn from our mistakes." what lessons has he learned from the intervention in libya in 2011, which regrettably, has been followed by persistent violence and the strengthening of isil? does he believe in the prospects of afghanistan maintaining its own security in the near future? how does he see britain's role in helping and sure this, given the huge commitment made on the past 14 years, and the ultimate sacrifice paid by 456 members of the british armed forces? britain's role in the escalating war in iraq and syria, ensuring that further disastrous mistakes are avoided.

does need strong military and security forces to keep it safe and to take a lead and humanitarian and , workinging missions with an strengthening the united nations. i recognize the increased commitment made in his statement to the u.n. there is no contradiction between working for peace across the world and doing what is necessary to keep us safe at home. in fact, the opposite. will beable friend leading a review about how we provide that protection. our view will learn lessons from .raq, afghanistan, and libya we always to the members of our armed forces and to the country as a whole to engage in the kind of review which is sadly lacking today. it will consider on a basis of it is right for

the u.k. to commit so much of the defense and will focus on thf the last government to replace -- nimrod, why has the government now chose the replacement, virtually no u.k. defense content when it will be in service? and a from minister confirmed as he was talking just now, that the reduction in the number of impactigates will not the navy's ability to protect the carriers? in the prime minister give some theyurance -- last year

were told 13 ships would be built, now it is eight. candy confirm these facts -- can he referring -- can he confirm these facts? -- links to the funding of terrorism and firmly founded on the importance of human rights across the world. people recognize the security is about much more than defense. fill the huge potential this country has to lead the way in peace evening, complex resolution and peace building. we have a highly professional and experienced diplomatic corps. some of the best in the world, as well as world-class academics. severe not agree that a cut and the budget is clear evidence of the government's determination to sacrifice our place in the world on the altar of misplaced prosperity? -- i return mr.

speaker. >> order. of the leader of the opposition is approaching his last question. >> indeed. haveaying that we have to the recent security services to be rebuilt able to do what is necessary to protect the public. i asked if i asked the prime minister to think very hard about the remarks made to him by police officers and the commissioner of metropolitan police and ensure the house today that services will not go ahead. and think the best they can be said about that is the locker room and on, the less he had to say -- is that the longer he went on, the less he had to say. talking about the importance of having troops within the u.n.,

the importance of shipbuilding on the fly, the importance of investing in defense and having high morale amongst our armed forces. why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? why? give all these uses for our armed forces which is a few months ago, he had none. we are safeguarding investment in our counterterrorism police and increasing the capability they have. there will be a full statement tomorrow on quality -- on all of the spending decisions, but he might want to have a word -- who very recently signed up to a proposal at a time when we face this kind of security threats, to disband mi5 and special police forces and disarm the police. [inaudible] -- leader of the opposition

think the police should not use their weapons and the shadow think they should not have them at all. he asked a series of questions, let me answer them all. he asked about the threats and how we set them out. riskw published a assessment and the whole point of a national security strategy is to bring together all the threats we -- all the threats we face as he nation. -- as a nation. and respondate them to them, that is something that never previously happened. he asked about morale and armed forces. there are no proposals here to reduce the proposals we have for pay and increments in our armed services want to change the very generous pension arrangement that they have. one of the best things for morale of the armed services is that those serving in our army,

navy or air force or planning to join can now see it is going to be a bigger navy with more ships. vacancy is going to be a bigger air force with more planes and more people. they can see that the armed services are going to be better equipped to better suit -- and that are supplied than they have ever seen before -- and better supplied than they ever have seen before. -- that is the role of an ambassador to advise in human rights. he asked us about learning lessons from previous conflicts. we are determined to do that and that is part of what the inquiry into the iraq war is all about. we have not waited for that, which is why it is important militaryring together strategy with the dramatic strategy, political strategy and gilman strategy -- development strategy. he asked what lessons were learned from the libyan conflict.

clearly we need to make sure in the situations that there are government and state -- i do not apologize for one minute for stepping in with france and preventing gaddafi from murdering his own people. he asked about the maritime patrol aircraft. i think is right that we ordered these new maritime patrol aircraft, not only is it to protect from terrorist, but also to make sure that we have greater safety and security and search and rescue functions. he asked about the rickets -- s.rgets -- frigate we are also going to look at developing a new ship that will be a multipurpose one, not only what we can create for ourselves, but hopefully one we will be able to sell more overseas as well. it is open to the possibility of seeing the number of capital ships in our navy going up, rather than down.

he asked about ship workers on the klein -- on decline. we've seen a great posting in naval shipbuilding because of the carriers. we want to keep that going, and that is why they will be two maritime patrol vessels built even before the others start being built. finally, he told us a bit about his review. we look forward to this review being carried out as it is by ken livingstone, someone who has no idea about defense, but every idea of attacking hard-working front renters -- ventures who try to do their job -- front enchers you are trying to do their job. i don't think we'll we are discussing a bigger army, bigger navy, that are equipped air force, -- wouldn't it be wonderful if every politician around the world, and that of taking pride in the slaves of their armed forces, it would others had done and abolished

their armed forces and took pride in the fact that they did not have an army? that's the view of the leader of the opposition. dr. liam fox. >> thank you. in 2010 defense review took some very difficult decisions. forcesr -- our armed were able to grow the second half of the decade. and i will come the purchase of a new maritime patrol aircraft -- it was a gap we had -- catastrophic management. i also welcome the fact that -- can i ask him what impact the -- will have on naval personnel numbers and can i ask him of the decision on -- will have on the future of tornado? let me say that because of one and operate both

carriers and wanting -- this inense increase in personnel the royal navy of 400 people, i think you're absolutely right about the maritime will aircraft. we had to take difficult decisions in 2010 to get rid of the black hole in the defense budget and the nimrod project was over time and over budget. we have had a gap in this usability, but this announcement today shows how we will fill it. -- allows some 10,000 armed forces polices in case of terrorism. for the minister tell us how ?ong that will take to train will that also mean he will revise his plan -- here ison: the thinking that just as in france, it was necessary to search the number

-- surge the number. some kind -- sometimes providing a security courrdon. she has when these people will be trade, the first 5000 are already could fill that function, should it be necessary. we will get to that figure of 10,000 as i announced. in terms of the role they play, this is not about some ranting or taking over from the police, it is being at the disposal of the police to provide security cordon or a particular amount of safety. in the past we have had a divide between these two functions and i believe it is time to get rid of it. [inaudible] >> i'm sure most members will find at least some relief in the flooding of gaps such as naval

aviation and maritime patrol aircraft and especially the emphasis on flexible and versatile armed forces and the inability to predict crises before they are upon us. and the prime minister say a little bit about some reports in the threats concerning the pay of armed forces and candy also give us an indication of when the main gate contract for the submarines weent brought before the house for debate and decision? pm cameron: i'm sure that the defense committee will have a checklist to more scrutinize this document thoroughly and look forward to their conclusions. what i can tell him about pay is that we are keeping the annual pay upgrade and the increments that armed forces have. there is a package set up for new joiners that the defense

will want to look at carefully. the other point he mentioned where the maritime patrol aircraft which he welcomed, and the main gate decision, it will be moving ahead with the four submarines at the appropriate moment. [inaudible] >> i began my thanking the prime thanking-- i begin by the front minister. can we begin by reiterating our support for measures in the -- with preannounced following recent terrorist incidents, including support for the intelligence agencies and other counterterrorism activities including several security. the prime minister has announced a 2025 target or two liable strike brigades -- for two deployable strike brigades.

and provides a context and allows analysis of policy and decisions. it is worth noting that in the 2010 -- there was no mention of a northern clement from -- the arctic. the single mention would bring the risks, the opportunities are necessary for response. five years ago, the prime minister made the disastrous decision to scrap and waste the entire fleet of nimrod every wasting $4 aircraft, billion of tax -- 4 billion pounds of taxpayer investment. we have had to muddle through. the mod has, amongst other things, several fishing vessels to report on russian vessels. the previous defense sector confirm that social media was a helpful source of information on russian naval forces and destroy currently the case, the uk's relying on wrench and canadian and american assets to patrol and screen -- relying on french

and canadian and american assets to patrol and screen. the ministry of defense is not been taking the northern -- seriously at all. to the ease, you would've thought it was a basic requirement. the u.k. has never, ever provided a single jet for nato northern air policing from iceland. the royal navy has not provided any assets, not once angle vessel for nato northern maritime patrol groups. these are facts. just -- today we learned that there is good news and we can rectify this gap. it is walking that there will be maritime patrol aircraft -- it is welcome that they will be maritime patrol aircraft. the u.k. does not station a single oceangoing conventional vessel anywhere except the south. we have been told over a number of years that in scotland, we

should be delighted that there will be 20 frigates built. voters in scotland where promised -- were promised. -- just over one year since the referendum and no shipyard workers are being trained within -- with a 40% cut. [inaudible] under this prime minister, we have seen a defamation of the ends in scotland, two out of three airbases have ceased flying operations. there is a disproportionate cut to units and manpower. we were promised a army super base in west and -- instead, that was dropped. army headquarters in scotland was downgraded and service personnel are down considerably.

numbers are at a record low in scotland. forn expanded lifespan chess jets, the front minister -- this is to be welcomed, but can i raise issues of traffic collision avoidance systems, which is still not being installed. will the promised her in front of a worker's recommended in 1990 and if still not been installed in all tornado and typhoon aircraft? moving on from issues of necessary sensible defense spending, to the element -- to the elephant in the room, which is trident maintenance. as we learn, its replacement is ballooning and will be sweeping out the fence -- defense alternatives. how expensive the trident need to be for this government to realize that it is a super expensive vanity project. it has not deterred. against terrorism or cyberattacks or conventional

tanks -- attacks on the u.k. and its allies and, even at this late stage. may i appeal to the government and the labour party that it is a huge mistake to renew trident? may i remind them both that in scotland, an overwhelming majority of our hearings and organizations, from our national churches and stake groups to the scottish trade reading -- trade union are all opposed. what kind of family of nations, with the respect to the speaker, imposes something a one of its members against its will? [inaudible] you wouldn't think that scotland was getting more is, the u.k. truth punches above its weight in the world and scotland punches above its weight because it is in the u.k. it is a proud partner in our defense. let me answer his questions

clearly about the maritime control aircraft. in 2010, we had to take difficult decisions, this was an aircraft that was not properly insert -- was not utterly in-service. -- was not properly in-service. was guarding at deterrent that he did not want in the first place. he should welcome its replacement, he should welcome the fact that it's going to be based at mossy mount. he asked in terms of the service -- at least three aircraft will be in place by the end of the parliament. he asked about the role we play in defending northern europe and we are very carefully at some of these patrolling missions. we already have u.k. typhoons providing baltic air policing which are welcome. -- and to the question about the naval issues and trident. in terms of the shipbuilding

program, we'll be publishing a paper in 2016 with our shipbuilding strategy. the fact is, scotland now have the opportunity the to build because of3 frigates the changes we are making. they can be built in scotland if the conditions are right. the only way these ships would not be billed in scotland and that is scotland was independent and did not have the resources of the royal navy. that's what he should be saying to ship workers in scotland. it is the u.k. and our defense budget that helps to keep those jobs safe. trident is clearly not squeezing out other defense requirements as this document says today. here is the rub. they just -- describe themselves

as the effective opposition, ,hey are opposed to the trident therefore unsuited to government. [inaudible] >> i greatly welcome friends statements in particular, his comments on the counterterrorism and reiteration of the money that will go to the intelligence and security agents. in that context, can he help the house a little in identifying how the government is going to carry out the necessary -- massive expansion -- other expansions and expenditure to ensure we have -- we are going to establish a new subcommittee of the chairman -- under the chairmanship of the -- to make sure that all of these commitments are properly delivered in a way that they should be.

along with the other organizations in the government that do this, to make sure that there is good value for money. [inaudible] we have the best counterterrorism in the world and this is the best time to increase the budget. last week, the global terrorism 32,000how the last year, people were killed in terrorism attacks in 67 countries. in his statement today, the prime minister never really what is happening in this country and integrating it with what's happening in our strategy abroad. if we take one country for example, how would the government be assisted by a national security increase in our country, bearing in mind what happens on the streets of yemen? countries as diverse as to ms. zia or yemen or night -- as to media tunisia -- as

tunisia or yemen or nigeria -- we want to help with things like aviation security, we also want to help in building the capability of the armed services, policing and counterterrorism abilities -- counterterrorism capabilities. this is also going to be an important part of our intelligence services, inc. reaching the cave ability -- the -- increasing the capability and -- [inaudible] >> the commitment to naval platforms and manned and uncaring -- manned and unmanned theraft accentuates the -- threat to the likelihood that uavs will render the technology barrier obsolete by the end of

service day. have,eron: what we particularly with our is aership with the french plan for the next generation of fighter aircraft being unmanned combat systems. the research is there, the work is being done with the french and americans and choices will have to be made in the future. early to say too whether the next generation of fighter aircraft will be manned or unmanned, that's why it is right we have things like the f-35 with the americans and we should do some serious thinking about whether to move to fully unmanned platforms in the future. personally, as an amateur, i would have my doubts. >> the prime minister has said that he will come back to the house on thursday to respond to the select committee. pretty also ensure there was a full day's debate in government

on this issue, well before the government puts down any motion on military intervention so we can have a full debate, not on the day of a vote, but in advance so that the house can give proper consideration? pm cameron: i will consider what the honorable lady says, will we have is a statement on the day -- depending on the reaction of senseuse and -- in the that honorable and write members have about whether we should move ahead with this, my envision would be to have a full days debate and a vote subsequent to that in the coming days and weeks. i think there is also debate on monday for people who want to make further points about the issue. i don't think we are going to be under spoken or under -- before we take the stand. clear the statement last week, the statement today, the statement on thursday, then a debate in government time with

plenty of time for people to have their views and have a vote. [inaudible] >> can i be among the first to -- [inaudible] will the commit that both should not be unchangeable but should be reviewed regularly? i think my and honorable friend for his warm support for this approach? we get had to take difficult decisions and the last parliament. increase, but an

making.a choice we are we have to make this choice, it is an active choice we are making in order to deliver greater security. is right that these documents are not set in stone, they are living and breathing documents. it is sensible every five years to hold a defense review. if we endlessly re-examine and read cook it, we will find we have lots of people doing analysis and not enough people actually delivering the strategy which is what this is about. the leader of her majesty's will opposition should be to [inaudible] -- on behalf of our benches, can i warmly welcome the prime minister who is least -- at least living up to that requirement? and i welcome his decision to commit the company on dispense

-- defense. [inaudible] in relation to maritime surveillance, can i welcome the nine new aircraft being deployed , plugging the gap that has existed for too long. can i ask him to give a commitment that the two new carriers will both be deployed going forward?? pm cameron:. years of brought into services and crude -- both carriers will be brought into service and crewed. they will be a big addition to british power, the largest ships of the royal navy has ever had under its command. >> will the government strengthen control on our borders and integrate properly with the new intelligence which i must welcome, which you -- you are going to get. there is a clear danger that activity in the middle east could displace terrorists which

may seek legal or illegal entry into our country? pm cameron: having border arerol only helps if you also sharing intelligence with others about the people trying to cross those borders. there are weaknesses in the european union system, that which we need to strengthen. i would stress again and be clear, we have borders where we are able to stop and attain people and not let them in our country, even if they are eu citizens, if we think they are a threat to national security. that exists now. some other countries in europe are introducing borders like that on a temporary business. hours are a permanent bases. permanent basis. [inaudible]

>> will he accept that before the public can be convinced into taking further action, particularly in syria, the case needs to be processed of what the scale of it would be. pm cameron: i think he is absolutely right. is aact that isis so-called state committing these appalling acts both locally in syria and around the globe is one of the most important dangers we face. is also right that we will not degrade and destroy isis as we need to do for national security, simply through the exercise of military force. with theo combine that proper diplomatic and political activities of backing a proper government and backing a transitional government in syria. both of those things need to

happen. the point i will make on thursday is i don't think we can make it -- we can wait the political process to be completed in syria before we start taking the action to degrade and destroyed this organization, which poses such a destroy- the great and this organization, which poses such a threat. to -- does the prime ministers seek to reform what more can the -- to ensure we have a continental free trade area in order to reduce migration, increase prosperity, and increase security? pm cameron: my friend is right

to focus on this issue. the fact is, we do need to see more development and growth and and europe can have an influence on that, not only through a programs -- aid programs, but also between african countries themselves. we do a lot of work to promote african trade because creating a hugearkets will make difference in the lives of people on that continent. >> can i welcome their prime minister funding commitment on defense and overseas development and ask him to ensure that in his statement on thursday, he specked out how -- immediate action against isis and lands for the long-term restructuring we just -- we so desperately need? pm cameron: arguing for

increases in defense spending earlier on this year, she was right about that. she is also right that we need to combine our a budget with our -- aid budget with our defense against. -- defense budget. we won't solve the problem in syria through missiles and bombs, alone. and has to be solved by helping the syrian people have a government and country in which they can put their trust. as we have remembered this year, the 75th anniversary of the battle of britain, can we confirm that the investment and increased number of type wounds will ensure that we retain world-class capability?

pm cameron: i can certainly get that assurance. provingthe typhoon is itself, not just in britain but elsewhere in the world as a leader in terms of capabilities. what the review will deliver is to further upgrade the typhoon aircraft with the final scan radar and more modern weapon systems it needs -- with the vital scan radar and more modern weapon systems it means. .- it needs >> as we know, the u.k. is bombing isil in iraq. is the government currently not -- i think the point i made to the gentleman is that the border between iraq and

syria is not recognized by isil. it is literally a line in the sand, so it makes no sense. if we want to degrade and destroy isil, to restrict our with some of the most dedicated pilots and sophisticated technology in the world. [inaudible] >> is my friend is already recalled, the dire economic straits in which our country found itself thanks to the party opposition -- the review is a pretty lovely and painful exercise. can i say, i warmly welcome the statement today that has been delivered by the defense secretary. can i ask some questions about the striker grades -- strike

brigades? delivered within the constraint of 82,000 regular army personnel and why is it going to take 10 years to deliver them? can we expedite the creation? pm cameron: and defense of the 2010 review, we did have to take difficult decisions, but i would ,rgue that the moves we made reducing the number of battle tanks and focusing on possible things,rces and those they were also -- they were actually the right judgments. what we are doing in terms of these strike brigades is that we currently have the ability -- have the capability to deploy one anywhere and have been sustained indefinitely. while we have our new armored

vehicles and have them in a new way we are going to rotate armed forces personnel and have the ability, instead of being able to deploy one, to deploy two with greater mobility. the time this takes will depend on how soon some of this new look women comes on board. my commitment of the house is to make sure these brigades are ready as soon as they can be. the prime minister's statement on thursday, can i toe him to listen carefully those on the side of the house to have an open mind on this question and want reassurance on specific things, chiefly, the issue of humanitarian and protection and making sure that we prevent further displacement and suffering, but also a commitment to long-term reconstruction and stabilization once conflict has ceased? pm cameron: i can certainly give

the gilman that assurance -- the gentleman that assurance. my aim is to bring together the biggest majority across this house to taking the action i think is necessary. i'm not saying we will solve this problem simply by crossing a line iraq into syria. -- from a rock into syria. syria. iraq into -- to raise funds necessary to help the syrian people wherever they are. the more of them we could in syria, the better. >> and the promise or confirm that today's statement is good news for the home of the tornado force and the future home of lightning? tornadoes are playing a vital role in the campaign against daesh. annot agree it is

overwhelming case into attending these strikes into syria itself? pm cameron: i do believe today's statement is good because it means more lightning aircraft, or quickly and i believe that will be very good for that airbase and that is what he says about iraq and syria. the review, much of which is common sense. that limitede defense budget is spent to the interest of our armed forces to give them the equipment they need, not to enrich -- pm cameron: i would do everything i can on that basis, it is always difficult, this issue, because in the one hand, you want to procure as swiftly as possible. on the other hand, you want to have a care to britain's final defense industry and the opportunity to help our allies with their capabilities.

overall, making sure procurement is expedient would be a good thing. think my right honorable friend for stating unequivocally that the british army might be placed on the streets of the u.k., but i remind the house, it has actually been operating on the streets of the u.k. for over 40 years. public very much the will the very sympathetic to that idea and will take great comfort in times of peril when they see our wonderful soldiers on the street protecting them. pm cameron: my friend is right. during the flooding problems, to regular fix, we saw a number of british troops on our the point i am making is that up been rathere have arcane and old-fashioned various to stop this from happening, but all sorts of very good historical reasons that i think

we are rather over that now and if there were a terrorist attack and we have a need to surge to keep us safe, i think people would be very happy to see the military perform that role. the army,spect to what is given about wales, based in england? happy toon: i am very look carefully at that we are bringing a number of people home from germany so there are opportunities for more in the united kingdom. >> speaker, can i think prime minister today for the hard work today as the has ever been. i have four thomas government -- worked for this government -- our most critical asset remains our men and women who serve. in the framework, looking after our men and women during and

after this service will be a priority. i think my friend is right to say this. you can talk about all the equipment in the world but at the heart of it is men and women who are prepared to serve and put their lives on the line for us. they should be looked after. , youyou look through this will see we are committed to doing that. ita legal footing, passing into law, we know that is helping people for the rest of their lives. obviously right with armed forces, taking our country and can i press you on the decision to bring before the house about military action in

syria? just aensure this is not decision by the house to say yes or no, but that it is also a decision to do every diplomatic decision we have two forge a sustainable future for syria after question mark -- after? mr. cameron: there is the diplomatic things being done, political change in that country, there is the humanitarian side where britain is the second largest donor in the world on a bilateral basis to help syrian refugees and we will continue with that work and i very much see all of these things as part of an overall strategy. there is not simply a plan to extend military action. there is a plan to step up in all these areas. richard: i warmly welcome the

statement by my friend today and congratulate him for increasing resources for armed forces. a tiny cautionary note. in my day, we were talking about provisions. the armyassure me that will not be reduced below 82,000 so we can do the job around the world? mr. cameron: i can absolutely give my honorable friend that assurance. i found by reducing the size of our army to 82,000, the most painful part of the review in the last parliament, that is why it did not go ahead to begin with. i want to find every way to try to avoid it. i can give the assurances than what is interesting about this report is because of the way we are changing the way the army work, we would have the ability hope it will not be necessary, division of entire armed services in one go, a higher number, 50,000.

dennis: like many prime minister's before him, he is already talking about a decision that will cause the house to wage war in syria. nobody else has ever had one. exit strategy. mr. cameron: the exit strategy is a government in syria that represents all of its people. in terms of exit tragedies, i would make the point that when i became prime minister, we were nine years into afghanistan deployment. i delivered the exit strategy by setting a time and a date by which we should be leaving the country in terms of combat and training up the afghans.

french president francois hollande is an washington, d.c., for a president with president obama. you can see it live at 11: already a.m. here on c-span. c-span, a look at europe after the recent terrorist attacks. then, a panel on international anti-terrorism efforts. later, british prime minister david cameron on british security. andew jersey governor presidential candidate chris christie talks about foreign policy on tuesday at the council on foreign relations. see it live tuesday at 12:30 p.m. on c-span two. >> live coverage of the house c-span two.n

over thanksgiving, watch our conversations with freshman. congressman buddy carter from georgia, the only pharmacist congress. then, a longtime at union electrician. and, a california democrat and former restaurant owner. minister:30, a baptist when he was first elected office. fromhen, a republican california who interned in washington, d.c., as a student. then, massachusetts democrat and a marine who served for tourers in iraq. access to government andn c-span, c-span2,

c-span.org. >> now, combating terrorism. from the brookings institution, this is 90 minutes. >> i don't need to tell anybody in this town, when there is a terrorist outrage like this, the reaction is often fast and furious and rarely well considered. times, we have come to regret that. i think that we understand that the politics of the moment that

the body politics demands a response to outrages like this and so, a response it will have. what good would like to do here because we don't have to be is tod to any office think about how that response can be consistent with the public desires but also as smart and considered as we can make it and i think that we have an acellent opportunity to have somewhat calm her conversation we have a because really excellent panel and an excellent group of people to discuss it and we are going to try to do it from a few different angles.

the second speaker is from carnegie. he will talk about the links between french policy in the middle east. be lordd speaker will is the figural correspondent here in washington and he will talk about president don't want -- president francois hollande on's visit to washington and moscow. and finally, my colleague kim l curry she -- effectstalk about the of the french reaction and the attacks on the broader european migration and refugee debate. started with felipe.

>> perhaps just to give you a quick summary of what happened. i'm sure you have been following the news. heard at itsen heart by terrorists for the second time in one year. , it wasn't charlie supermarkets but in every level of society, music lovers, soccer fans, young professionals having dinner. that perhaps explains some of the reaction that jeremy was describing. on the night of november 13, several attacks took place around paris at the stade de france, on the streets and at the bataclan theater where 89 people were feared -- were

killed. 130 people were killed and 400 wounded. that makes it the worst terrorist attack in france since world war ii in the bloodiest in europe since the, 2004. french society is in a state of shock. just french society but i the main reason is because these attacks have been random. it could have been any city. it is not just friends. been arussels which has ghost city. it has been beirut. it has been shut marshak, where the civilians were shut down. it has even been in mali. a different organization. it is a wave of terrorism i will

ask three questions to get the conversation started. the first question, perhaps the most difficult to answer -- a lot of my friends have been asking me -- why has france been targeted? why not others? first of all, other countries have been targeted later or before, but at this level is is an unprecedented. a lot of these themes have led to a number of issues, like integration.

generally from the french society it has led to some people joining the jihadist movement. thursday perhaps the fact that france has a fifth-largest defense budget, they have been using it against the islamic state. as well as africa and the middle east. as you know, president along giving special power to the police. that is an immediate response. that has been supported by

french political parties, all of them. that is the local response, as well as the arrest and killing of some of the terrorists involved. not all of them, i must say. the second response has been to send the charge the -- charles de gaulle aircraft carrier to the east mediterranean. the last response is the depth -- diplomatic response. prime minister cameron, meeting on wednesday, with a visit to moscow on thursday. i would say that these meetings are critical, they are helping to define the strategy. i have to say, the end of that

process will be monday, when 100 world leaders gather in paris for the prop 21 climate conference. this will be away also to attract attention. in addition to a number of measures, such as france invoking the mutual defense and the u.n. unanimously voting for resolution against the islamic state. my worries, first they will talk about that. the european corporation and security, the fact that the french president is meeting his counterparts in the u.k. in

germany are important gestures, increasing the defense budget of these nations are important, but that's not necessarily the case for germany. you know, europe is in deep trouble. not just because of this terrorist attack, but also the energy crisis. i think that france has to show certain leadership. that is what president, -- president hollande, who is not seen as internationally minded, but who has become not just a world leader but a warmonger, a bit unexpected, perhaps. i think he has used a sort of adequate response so far. i think that the strategy has to be international cooperation at all levels.

>> ok, first the response, then a strategy. sounds a good plan. france needs to take a leadership vision. how do people in the middle east feel about that, joseph? joseph: thank you very much for giving me the occasion to cross the demarcation line between our institutions. >> you have a 90 minute visa. [laughter] joseph: i will probably prolong what philip just said. what's the strategy, what to do in the middle east? what are the words on the arab component in france? a few words to diffuse some cliches about that. first of all, there is a debate in france now about some thinkers and pundits saying that

this is after all a legitimate answer of isis to the anti-muslim policies, etc.. just a reminder to square off these issues. the french active involvement in the anti-isis campaign has really started or upgraded as of september 27, with the strikes. i'm not sure that operationally a terrorist attack like the one that happened doesn't need much more time than that. i think it was probably boot prior to that. the second argument to that, and philippe alluded to those charlie attacks, those happened before france got into the airstrike operation in syria or iraq. this is something that we also have to keep in mind. isis does not really need a pretext or an excuse to hit tomorrow the u.s.?

it could hit in sweden or somewhere else. this is something that we have to keep in mind. the second thing of importance, yes, is an element that distinguishes isis and a muslim arab european phenomenon that is growing. europeans -- belgians and friend , born in belgium, all of them by national, they are european. it's not a question of foreign cohort crossing the mediterranean. it is inside of us that it is happening. this fends off something important for the future and for our strategy. on that level, the first important remark on that point is that if you look at the statement that isis published

after the attack, it's very important to notice the wording. the statement uses a term, strike. in the islamic philosophy of the theory of four, it is something applied in the islamic cosmology. something that is part. meaning that isis considers now that europe or the united states, due to the muslim nation. it is not for the remote enemy, it is the kind of attempt. these are some points i just want to remind you of. they will weigh on the debate. what will france do? what can we expect out of that? first of all of course, you have seen it. france will upgrade strikes over

most of, today, for the first time in a long time french aircraft have taken off from the charles de gaulle this morning to hit iraq. of course, france will be much more active in the airstrike campaign. this is probably based on the output of the meeting, and if they agree on that they will accompany. this is a departure of the former french reluctance to do that. i will explain this in a second. the second important dynamic at play in france, something i would like to really have in

mind to understand what is happening in france, this is strong and probably this will increase. there is a strong pressure that is going to be exerted on the french leadership personally, politically, to change the course over here. even inside the socialist party, from the intel and military communities, what are we doing with these ambiguous forces? let us talk to a sod, pollutant, the iranians. it is already coming in the large parts in france. it is in order to stop the rise. will that lead to a change?

this is a huge political loss for francois hollande. usually politicians don't like to admit that. this is also my personal opinion , on syria in iraq. the software of the flat -- french diplomacy on syria, yes, isis is a monster that grew for a reason. this reason has to do with the rotten situation in syria and europe. unless we tackle this issue, we will not be able to tackle the isis issue. this leads me to my last point. i think that in this diplomatic

tour that has been described, this is exactly what francois hollande would be saying. this morning and tomorrow, the message to the u.k. at u.s., partners and allies in france, is that we would have to exchange more, have better intelligence cooperation. however, politically -- and i think that this will be said to obama tomorrow -- we also have to focus much more on syria. this american approach to isis, with the different shading a little bit, having a strong strategy against isis in iraq, a losing strategy over syria, probably have to change. this is probably what hollande would say. let us do together the things on syria. we have the program to do it. this will be the message to our -- to the french western

partners. with russia -- i think that this is probably the most important part of his tour, the first day in russia, the message will be more difficult to convey. you are fighting isis since the first of september. so far we all know that your strikes have had very little to do with isis. you have hit 85% of non-isis targets. if you really want us to build a large coalition that you want us to build, let us focus on isis and not on other things also. focus on isis and call the mutual bluff, in a way. also, the second point, which will be much more difficult, is to focus on the political component. by saying that we all know that handling isis, vanquishing isis, eliminating isis, it will never work if we still put aside the

question of the rebuilding of political hysteria. that has to do with the question of the regime. by the way, this is what hollande will probably add, two weeks ago in vienna we agreed that this is what needed to be done. this morning vladimir putin saw how many and a statement was issued, a very strong re-insistence on the fact that the question is something that is not to be discussed. that it is none of the business of the foreign powers. and that the west -- this was very worrying for me, coming from russia and iran together, the rest -- the west is hypocritical, alluding that the west has created isis. i don't know if you can partner in a battle against isis if one of your partners still believes that you are the root cause of creating the enemy you are

fighting. these are the things that i think will weigh on the climate of thursday. of course, if i have to answer jeremy's question about -- what do people in the middle east expect? i think that this time the analysis comes from across the board. probably we would say much more, but this is exactly the way that things are seen. things are seen as the following. you cannot build a proper ground force in order to take on isis. moreover, you westerners don't want to put boots on the ground, which is i think a wise and clever decision. if you don't want to do it, probably it is the best thing not to do, you will have to rely him the people on the ground. kurds, arabs, tribes, etc.. to do that, you cannot in battle.

addressing the question of the change in syria at some point. in the community we have the platform for that, altogether let's put a roadmap and calendar up for that. too close, i would say that the pressure to change course and abandon the discourse that so far exist are the two sides of the same coin. the battle together will remain probably in the deep software. however, what has changed for a time is probably a different priority. he will likely much more focused on militarily isis. and then the question of the regime and the political solution will likely be put on the longer. in the process of vienna he will likely be more instrumental.

i don't think that we have to expect a change of strategy, but we can expect a change in focus in the short term. thank you. >> laure, is that how you see the visits the present is making to washington and moscow? mr. lecorre: -- [no audio]

>> why don't we had over two kamal and get the technical working. ms. mandeville: now it seems to work. sorry, i'm taking the word back. so, yes, tomorrow we have the meeting. we have a lot of questions in very few answers about the things that are happening. we have a president coming, francois hollande, who is telling us that this is a game changer. that these brutal attacks on our nation are changing the whole political game. i think that when president obama meets francois hollande, he is going to wait for hollande to tell him what he wants to do. what strikes me is that in a way the contrast in the situation

between these two men, they worked very much on the same line for quite a while. they were absolutely in line concerning syrian policy. the french more in 2013, obama decided not to do anything when he crossed the fame's redline on chemical weapons, the french wanted to go for a much more muscular approach. after that the same line was in france, paris, and washington. neither bishara nor the islamic states, neither strategy. there was an article by the person in charge of the president. she was saying that there was some kind of quoting of a diplomat, at close member weather was some kind of marginalization of use with the minister in favor of a new approach. the quintessential symbol of

this very deliberately, you know, neither neither approach. sort of a very strong criticism of assad. in the context that we have today, does that mean that there is going to be some kind of shift? i must say i'm quite worried about the french context, actually. there is this huge emotional situation in france. the political class, especially on the right, as joseph underlined, is in line on this change of policy. a very strong anti-american feeling is growing in france. look at president obama. look at america. it certainly is feckless. they are not helping us. they actually created the situation with iraq. now they are not handling it. they are neither engaged nor committed. why not turn to the russians? at the same time you have a huge propaganda operation that has been going on for actually quite a few years in france from the russians.

the russians actually using a lot of different weak points to underline that america is this decadent place and that europe should go back to its roots, to its christian roots, the vladimir putin may be the defender and chief of these christian european roots. i see that it makes you laugh but it is pretty effective the altra right parties throughout europe are becoming somehow the new common hand on which some people say the putin hand in which russia, moscow is relying to spread this idea that you need strong leaders and have to have a change in europe. this is coming in strongly.

at the moment you have nicolas sarkozy, who used to be the best friend of america, the most pro-atlantic person in france and political figure when he became president for the first time, he went to moscow a few weeks before the attack and actually spoke in favor of a much more -- much closer partnership with russia. he criticized very harshly the fact that president hollande had not sold the mistrial to russia in the middle of the ukrainian crisis, calling it despicable and horrible that he had done that. you have the former prime minister and presidential candidate, misaligned with someone staying away from that. this is quite a strong pressure on the president.

so, really, the situation is fascinating. a bit like in the 30's, france, europe was between two geopolitical strategic threats. on the one hand you have nazi germany. on the other hand you have the italians, then you have the soviet union and soviet threat. of course, you cannot compare, it's up the same kind of threat we have now, but these are clearly too geostrategic threats weighing upon europe. one, and aggressive russia that has destroyed the international law and order that existed in europe by annexing crimea, which stabilized in ukraine and has been extremely pushy and aggressive, intimidating the countries like the baltic states , being extremely pushy and their relationships with many countries in eastern europe,

trying to have a much better relationship with the germans, having the vice president of germany pleading for a big alliance with the russians, decidedly reluctant to do so because of angela merkel. so, this is the context of francois hollande. next to him tomorrow you will have president obama welcoming him to the white house. president obama, i must say, when i arrived in washington in 2009 i was really struck that the spirit in washington was that europe was this postmodern, even post historical place, where nothing would ever even happen. there were only these 20 -- how many? 27 countries? trying to settle some kind of bureaucratic issue? it's not important anymore. europe is some kind of slowly

rotting -- maybe we should give it to asia. there was very little interest in europe and very little awareness of the dangers that were growing. i have been covering russian issues for 20 years. i just went back from the georgia war when i arrived in washington. i arrived in december to washington. the people did not seem to see that russia was becoming a serious an obvious threat to european security. there was not this awareness, which was strange. there was also a total underestimation of the islam question in europe. i know that it's kind of politically incorrect to talk about a muslim question in europe, but you know, despite the fact that the president and many people here think that

there is -- it's not about this plan, what's going on. it's not about all of islam, but it is about a branch of islam that is at war with western civilization. it wants to destroy it. this lack of awareness created the situation in which the elite in the united states decided to blame the supposedly racist institutional system in france, supposedly and timelessly not giving any space in france instead of seeing that there was a defined and brutal ideology threatening europe and, also, huge part of the muslim world. i think that this is the context. now you have this situation. i was pretty critical of the

lack of the awareness from the administration in the past, but i have seen -- i understand the caution of president obama why. the french are coming with a plan that is not a plan, actually. i think it you said we need a strategy now. what is the strategy? i understand why president obama is asking -- what is the strategy? is it just to embrace russia and go for some kind of declaration? we have to understand what it means. does it mean for the french to give up on the idea that we are going to push for a sod being away? we have to state that quite clearly, right? second, are the french -- do they want to go for a military option? are they ready for a serious option?

not just a few strikes, but i don't know, some kind of safe haven that would actually have some kind of consequence for securing the situation of refugees and preventing them from coming to europe? a secure haven potentially for a military position that could be reinforced? are the french ready to put some ground forces on the ground? french decisions that were made in europe to ally with europeans and tell them -- you don't want refugees, so why don't you also put some troops on the ground and some peacekeeping operations? we have to really clarify all of that before we indeed ask for some kind of grand coalition. these are very serious questions and they have to be asked in pretty blunt ways. thank you. >> thanks. kamal, france has a problem with islam. maybe europe does too. how do you see this affecting europe?

kamal: i knew that the issue of islam would turn around and come to me. >> let me take on the earlier remark that this branch of islam is at war with the west. frankly, i disagree with that. i think it is at war with the whole of the world. so far it is other muslims, islamists, who have suffered the most from what isis represents. if today there are 4.2 million refugees in neighboring countries, a good proportion of it may still be less than half.

we could work on the mathematics of it, have been displaced into neighboring countries because of isis. one could make similar remarks about the internally displaced as well. today in "the washington post" there is a great piece on this turkish town on the border in syria. the destruction speaks for itself. a lot of construction was brought on because of isis. i think that we need to be clear about that. what i would like to do to tie this up is a piece that a very good friend and colleague of ours islamabad extremism, it's a piece today and the turkish

daily newspaper. he says -- don't give isil the islamic phobia it seeks. he will be critical when responding or developing a strategy that france, the united states and others will need to develop. also, to address this issue of islamic phobia, it has been part and parcel of the presence in europe and elsewhere. very critical not to drift into essentialism, which i think has happened on many occasions in

the past. there was a brief remark about the late 30's and recently in the media in bc there has been a number of pieces in a lot of these in the way that jewish refugees were treated in the late early's with some of the reaction to the syrian refugees coming out of the united states. itself. i would like to make a second remark that in some ways lines up with the question that jeremy raised. one of the greatest successes of the european integration project is the removal of borders. for someone like myself, who might be amongst one of their a few people in this audience who might remember the late europe of the 50's and 60's, who when crossing every frontier, europe, yugoslavia, italy, france, they could take anything from up to

two or three hours and you could sense, as a young lad sitting in the back of my dad's car, i could sense that at each border there were huge walls. those walls were not necessarily just physical walls. they were walls of prejudice. walls of attitudes toward the other when you cross from france into italy or from that matter from britain into france. to me that great success of removing borders is what also needs to be reflected on when addressing this issue of what strategy to develop in the coming days and weeks. last point, jeremy, references were made earlier on to refugees and it has come up on a number of occasions and in that respect

in the context of what has happened in paris, as horrible as it is, the bill should not be paid by these people. a good chunk of them are middle-class people. teachers, doctors, shopkeepers with their kids. what is striking for the connoisseur when you look at the pictures is that these are usually families with children. the reason they are moving on is precisely because of what's happening in syria. an inability to address those challenges. that's one point that must not be forgotten. the second is that today in the huffington post there was a brilliant piece saying more for europe. the euro crisis, when first

corrupting, there were doomsday scenarios of how this was it, the end of european integration. somehow europe, as it has done in the past, has succeeded in addressing the challenge of the eurozone crisis as far as we can see. a similar attitude needs to be done, because the stakes are high. the 30's, 50's, 60's, it was a different europe and you cannot right away at the borders with the achievements in europe, maybe the answer again lies not more in france, croatia or hungary for that matter, but more of europe. i think i had better shut up year to allow someone else to speak.

jeremy: thanks for shutting up. [laughter] before we go out to the audience i will ask a question or so to each of the participants. i have to say, in listening to these rich presentations i started to learn a lot, then i unlearned it, that i learned it again, so i'm a bit confused and i would like to try to bring it all home. the thing that most confuses me is -- something that laura got at, what is the plan? we have been talking a lot about reactions. obviously we don't really know what each, the french, russians, and americans want to do, but for me it's difficult to connect these actions to the strategies that were discussed. maybe we will start with felipe and ask you -- there have been these military attacks.

they have a certain satisfying quality to them. isis attacks paris, we attack. that's quite biblical, if we are talking about a return to christian france. how does that fit into a plan to prevent terrorism attacks in paris france? joseph was talking about the fact that i sipped dust isis is the result of socioeconomic governance problems. among others. in the region. it doesn't seem like bombing a city from the air can really affect that in any great group -- great way. just makes more victims. what are those military attacks actually for? a sense of revenge? or do they actually have a more strategic purpose?

mr. lecorre: as you know, the history of france in the arab world is a bold and complex one. obviously there are different elements there. one element, the fact that france is a military, diplomatic power that does have alliances with a number of entries in africa. and in the middle east it has decided, as was said before, to go for regime change. at least it will medically. as far as the military actions are concerned, there is obviously a similarity with what happened on 9/11.

jeremy: does that make you nervous? mr. lecorre: yes, it does, actually. except it's much smaller scale and, i believe, the post-9/11 in iraq invasion, ordered by the bush administration, was about regime change. i don't think we are going for that at this point. on the other hand you have a french president who has another 15 months to go in his term. the original election is coming up in two weeks. we haven't spoken much about the rise in things like that, but the french people have been shocked. there is a sense that something needs to be done. so to speak, the headquarters of isis are in syria.

those who have committed the crimes were in europe. most of them either blew themselves up or were killed by the police. so, the dual approach of using counterterrorism and police actions and military actions is some kind of political response to what the french public is asking. arguably, it's not a strategy because something just happened on november 13. the strategy would be the plan. what are we going to do in syria? what are we going to do in the middle east? maybe jozef has the answer, so i will let him speak now. i think that on the political level, something had to be done. it's actually quite painful for francois hollande, who is a socialist. i do believe that he has much

military knowledge or background to become a war leader. you could say that about a lot of elected politicians. but he has a very strong, very efficient defense minister. but that doesn't make them more powerful than they are. the french military is overstretched. the fact that they had to conduct operations in france and overseas to make their lives complicated. obviously if you compare the french military to the u.s. military, we are not talking about the same levels. there are troops everywhere. because there is this need for political action, i think that striking isis was right. jeremy: i don't envy the position of francois hollande,

but i think that something had to be done, so he bombed the city -- that's not a very encouraging concept for a strategy. joseph, i would love to have you respond to that, if you want to. i wanted to ask you a somewhat separate question. you really got at this critical divide between the u.s. and russians. there was some disagreement as to which side the french were on on it, but over this question of assad. you made the case very strongly that you cannot really deal with isis until you have dealt with or without dealing with assad. the russian view is that you essentially can deal with isis that he is a critical part of the anti-isis coalition in part

because it's the only thing holding the rest of syria together. in part because he has a lot of forces on the ground in there are no other groups in that coalition. to listen to laura, i think that the french, even some of the americans have been a little attracted to this concept. can you tell us quite directly, what is wrong with this? mr. bahout: first of all, very quickly, your three-point arguments are factually wrong, the three of them. assad is holding 20% of the territory, not syria. the syrian armory -- army has become a shadowy corpse. it is perhaps at 25% of its

original capacity. three, so far assad has not shown a lot of willingness to fight isis either. we can multiply that. i think the russian view is -- this is where i also said before so far according to all the reports that we read that are probably serious, russia has 20 percent of the strikes over isis and the rest over something else . i will come back to that by answering or reacting to philip. first of all, i don't want to enter into a franco french argument, the french socialism has sometimes been good at wars. it's not a very fortunate example, but they made some good military operations. some are well respected as antiterrorist operations. france did not have to do that. the question is not air support.

if i take the risk to answer your question, what would be the strategy? maybe it will help me to bridge or connect the dots with what was said before. what would be the strategy? first off, i would be a bad ogre. we will have attacks again. attacks are to be expected. france, belgium, england, i hope not in the u.s., but we have to expect them. it's not something from the coming months. yes, also, a military answer is required. of course you have to hit. not because you have to take revenge, but because you have really hammered the operational capacities of these people to organize, network, expose the device to europe, train people and etc.. if you only do that, you will

not do anything. first of all, fine-tuning them, this will be partially discussed. probably better special operations. however, in coordination. if you don't do that, here i transitioned to my political power, if you don't do that with local partners on the ground, you can do the targeted killings that you want, as much as you want, you can kill the finance minister and oil minister of isis, he will be replaced in the days after. you will have to have a local partner on the ground. this is where the second part of the strategy is. it is perhaps a much more integrated political strategy that we need today. isis is in syria and iraq. you really have to approach it

in one way, more or less, which is not to further the american posture. second, why are you approaching it? in a rack why would you say that we have to find a political transition and we found it by working with local tribesmen -- why don't we apply exactly the same argument in syria, where the case is more compelling? you will have to tackle this issue at some point. but what are the obstacles? indigenous, you say in english? it fills the gap. i think the cup -- the problems are threefold. the first problems are russia. we are not sure that they are on that part of the agenda. this is where i agree with you,

i think that the possibility of holding a grand coalition with russia is fragile because of that. so, we have to call the bluff of russia, which is not a strong challenge to russia. saying to them -- we have not only signed together, but coproduced and cosponsored the geneva to platform and began a prop -- platform two weeks ago, in which we said we had to find a proper way to transition the power in syria. i don't want to get into ideological words that could lead to intellectual blackmail. yes, this is the regime change. transition is regime change, but it is a device that would take 18 months according to vienna that would lead to the ousting of bashar from the picture. yes, it is regime change. you must agree that this is the only way to dry up the swamp within which isis is swimming. if you don't do that, you will have more. the second obstacle is an american obstacle. you have a president that still

has 12 months in office. he also still has to digest and finish digesting the iran deal. anything he will do or not do in syria and iraq is suddenly to do that. i understand that from a political place, however this is the catch-22. we need a more proactive president here with a more proactive american strategy that needs to say bluntly to the americans and iranians -- look, this is what we have to do to slow the issue. however, probably he doesn't want to do it. first, enough is enough and second, we don't really want to antagonize the iranians, which i also firmly understand. the third obstacle is an arab sunni obstacle. of course, you are not today finding arab sunni partners in syria. you don't have the assad component in your strategy. we talked about this. however, what's lacking, and to however, what's lacking, and to

be fair in the blame on everybody, you don't have a proper arab sunni geopolitical component. your partners are not fully on board with that. first of all, of course there is the assad component that is lacking. second we can say, probably they don't really want to fight isis because of some reason. i don't really want to get into that. brookings had a paper on that today by your excellent colleague, saying that the links between saudi arabia and isis could be murky. of course there is that. operationally there is a problem , the gulf states are today sunk in another theater that is much more vital for them, yemen. of course, when it goes too much, you have no strategy because you have a lot of things to integrate. but if you want to have a strategy, better to take all the pieces of the puzzle and try to put them somewhere.

without a proper military answer, it is not only a kind of revenge, but the first weeks, the french population, you have to show that they are taking revenge, but then you have to do something more. second, politics is about syria, with a proper, frank, and resident dialogue. look, isis is partly something that comes from view, from your habitat. please, help us in doing that. for that journey, this is something you are very much concerned about, we had this dialogue. for that you have to have a western leadership and part of it is an american leadership and

part of it, so far at least from the point of view of france and the arabs. jeremy: you are saying that they need to confront the iranians. they need to round up the sunni powers who don't have an interest in this. they need an additional -- an indigenous force on the ground they can be the ground force. why not drop mana from heaven? this seems to be a harsh requirement that they failed to do in iraq. mr. bahout: just one word, two weeks from now we were sitting where john kerry was active.

we produced a paper that said exactly this. either we produce papers that we don't believe in -- so stop producing them, or we produce papers and we are spending our words. when john kerry said last week -- solving syria is a matter of weeks, not months, frankly i am asking myself -- where is he living? not where i am living area jeremy: on that i guess we could agree. laure, i would love for you to react to that. you mentioned marine le pen. i'm wondering how this sort of french right-wing politics are affecting this response were going to affect the response. what is she and the front nationale going to do to take

advantage of this? ms. mandeville: it just said something very interesting, this outline of potential strategy, saying that is what obama should do. what is interesting is i think over the summer, as far as i know from good sources, the americans have been precisely trying to do that. that is exactly what john kerry has been trying to do going to sochi to meet with clinton -- pu tin, getting the saudis to talk to the russians. >> and the iranians. ms. mandeville: there was this discrete game going on over the summer. the americans telling some sources it was going to work, it was not so bad, we are getting there. now, john kerry is saying we will be there in a matter of weeks.

the question is that we are not sure it is going to work. you have to push the russians. but why would the russians give up? this is the question i have. why would they? what would push the russians to give up on a side -- assad when they've been using assad to keep their big influence in syria and at the same time divide europe along lines. it is a much bigger geopolitical game for the russians and syria is the way to get to the central point of strategy for russia, which is the relationship with europe and antagonism and confrontation of the united states, which i think is at the core of putin's policy. this is the question i have. i have another question, can syria still exist as a country? i remember over the summer, i

had an interview with the former c.i.a. and n.s.a. boss. his view, which is probably more informed than mine, is that syria was gone. all these discussions and negotiations taking place in vienna were useless because the west was obsessed with the idea of getting rid of bush are -- bashar but mute on what to put in place. is it possible to reconcile all of this? because of that, i'm going to suggest a scenario that has been pushed by a few people for syria. some people say there are two real scenarios.

there is the russian scenario, which is the scenario putin has applied in chechnya, which is quelling the adversary, just destroying it to the ground. i think that is probably the dream of the russian game. that is not what they rationally hope for but, but with the dream of doing in syria, what they did in chechnya. they managed to quell huge uprisings which was not radical muslims at first. it was sort of a nationalist quest for independence. they just destroyed it. they imposed a guy who has become the policeman of the caucasus this man has an army that has become sort of the guard, terrible, had an army of its own he would use to quell

rebellion. i think putin is using that and they are kicking -- keeping the caucacus in order. it is in check for now, putting the lid on it. that would be the scenario. the russian-sunni uprising islamic state, you are just keeping the lid on by force. that is one scenario. the other is fine-tuning what is happening now, making it more effective, sort of the attrition model of obama. you keep striking islamic state. at the same time, you have special opt -- special ops and try to do something with the sunni army. the other scenario in between would be what some people have

hinted that -- at different ways. kagen has written a piece yesterday saying why don't we create a no-fly zone in syria and put troops on the ground to protect refugees because we cannot get to an agreement with the russians, we put pressure on them. maybe at some point we get some kind of solutions. then we get this federalization of syria? i don't know. if these people cannot live together, do we get a country

where maybe assad is in place for a while and another country that is sunni. i don't know. i am just asking that. would that be a temporary, tactical move which would show everyone the west is willing to act and at the same time push the russians. you were talking about europe. i think you have a very naïve and idealistic view of the european union at the moment. you say we need more -- >> [indiscernible] ms. mandeville: we need more europe. but at the same time, europe is not showing it exists. you don't give up the prey for the shadow, as we say in french. we have nation-states still. they exist.

more or less, they are weak. but they exist. europe does not show it is existing. in september before the general assembly of the u.n., i was amazed the europeans did not together some kind of plan for syria. that was an existential question, the migrant crisis for europe is existential. and they want no initiative on european unified. there were discussions between putin and obama. there were no initiatives from europe. my question is, does europe exist? because it does not exist, maybe the solution is transforming the borders of nation-states and europe. when your house is attacked, you

don't open the windows and doors. you close the windows and doors until you are sure it is safe outside and you are not going to have someone getting in. i think for now, i know it is beautiful, the europe without borders. i remember my youth. it was not so terrible to go to spain for vacation and spend even half an hour at the border of spain or even moving to another country in a couple of hours. if the future of europe is at stake, i think we should put the button on pause now. >> i would have loved to have more time. on that last point, it is not about only movement of you and i. it is also the movement of goods. that is what is maintaining

economic growth or prosperity in europe. the moment you put up the walls, the economy is going to slow down. then you are going to place right into the hands of those nationalists and xenophobic circles in europe. ms. mandeville: i think it is the opposite. if you are not tough enough, he will play the game. they will vote for the ultra-right next time. >> i think i should stop here. jeremy: why don't you give a quick answer and then we will go to the audience. >> i think the answer would be to elaborate, let me just say i disagree and leave it at that. jeremy: let's go to the audience and see if you can offer better solutions. we will take three at the beginning.

when i call on you, please identify who you are. please ask an actual question. and donations are accepted. [laughter] jeremy: why don't we start with gary. >> i write the mitchell report. since you have solved the problem, there's not much left to deal with. i will pose the question this way. i would argue that discussion about strategy is interesting but not particularly relevant. we have got more strategies floating around, each of which has its various weak points. the issue we are dealing with is execution. it seems to me the problem with execution has to do with the fact that each of the parties in

any of the strategies has different objectives in the outcome. having said that, are we focusing on the wrong problem or wrong question? and should we be focusing on the more practical one, which is how do we do this rubik's cube? jeremy: good question. i think it invalidates my entire existence. [laughter] jeremy: let's go to the third row in the center. right there. >> madame mandeville, i speak on my own behalf as a frenchman. i don't speak on behalf of my clients. the italians and germans had proposed a plan which france refused because we see there was no united front in europe to respond to what was happening in

syria. but once again on record, the italians and germans, there was a plan refused by france and other countries. we played a role in pushing back. >> what is the plan? >> it was on how to move and assist refugees who are already on european soil. it was not addressing the entire affair. it was some discussion of how to have a group arrangement from the start.

the first question is -- three prime ministers of france said you have to speak to monsters. perhaps they were right. we did not. bashar al-assad and vladimir putin have to be part of the equation. is it true the americans are the ones claiming economic mobility is the reason? i would like to say maybe not. there was a piece published on brookings on the 17th. i focus on one paragraph that there could be a reason. two french have touched on one issue, which is we have to look at the socioeconomic mobility to understand where there is some identification from. perhaps we can wrap our arms around the affair.

jeremy: we will take one more. let's go here on the second row. >> thank you. i am a phd candidate at the institute in geneva. i am surprised by the responses you have prescribed. i was surprised when of the first resolutions was to limit freedom. i was wondering whether it might make sense to also look inwards and see how we can, within europe, germany, the u.k., and france, do it without military attack. jeremy: some of the questions were directed to you. why don't you start? ms. mandeville: i don't understand which plans you're

talking about germany and italy. you said we have to talk to monsters. i have debated it with him on russia and other issues, saying we have to talk to monsters. yes, of course. talk to them, yes. but believe them, i don't know. bashar, frankly, he explained why keeping bashar is not realistic. i am not an expert on syria. it is a big weakness of mine. it is difficult for me to talk about it. does he represent something? yes. journalists like me have no access to what is going on in syria. that is one of the big reasons why we are so deprived of answers on the syrian questions. socioeconomic issues, i am not

saying there are not issues in the minority in france. not at all. i know there is disenfranchisement. it is not because you are poor you start killing people in the streets. what i want to say is there was this tendency to think because they are disenfranchised and because the french system has institutional racism, i heard that after the attacks on "charlie hebdo." i have heard some debate and was amazed professors with tenure were telling me the reason was france was institutionally racist that we had these terrible attacks on "charlie hebdo." i don't agree with that. it is not a question of political models.

it is not a question of how you integrate muslims. why do i say that? because when you take absolutely different models of integration, the french republican model or the dutch model in the netherlands that have studied carefully, which is very similar to the americans, which is each community is a different color -- pillar. it is a community-based model, like the americans, the dutch. we are coming from absolutely -- the british model very similar to the american model in terms of organization of the minorities. exactly the same results as in france. you had attacks, murders by extremists, muslim extremists. it is not a question of model.

it is a question of disenfranchisement and an ideology colored -- coming from the outside and coming from with islam -- from within islam which wants to destroy the west. by the way when you said i don't agree, i think it is not contradictory what you are saying and what i am saying because i said precisely there is a battle in islam. this battle has to be waged. i'm not the only one that says that. you have prominent muslim thinkers saying we have to wage this battle in islam. we have to have reformation in islam if we want to get rid of this terrorism, islamist terrorism. they say that.

it does not mean radical islamists do not want to take on the west. i remember a prominent expert on isis, islamic state, and terrorism who wrote that in 2013, he underlined the journal of the islamic state allowed that one day we will get to rome as crusaders and the flag of the islamic state will be floating. if it is not an attack on the west, i don't know what it is frankly. jeremy: do you see a relationship between the integration problems in france and these issues? mr. le corre: you were saying you cannot see yourself as president hollande because it is difficult to deal with syria. it will be more difficult to deal with the integration issue. when you talk about xenophobia, obviously -- i think what we

have to do is get rid of the "i" of isis. it is a terrorist organization. the reactions from the muslim community in france has been striking in saying this is not islam, and this has nothing to do with us. we have to make sure in the upcoming elections, and there is one in two weeks, touch wood, some of us are worried about the outcome. but we have to make sure learning how to live together becomes the critical goal and making sure this group is not identified with islam. as laure says, the system is what it is. i spent time in london, five

years in the late 1990's, and i saw the birth of a rather radical movement at a mosque in london. the two systems did not prevent either way for radical groups to getting support. we know they are getting support from others as well. i don't think european countries should change their constitutions or religions. certainly, there are muslim schools in france. there are even imams in the military. i'm not saying it is perfect including the refugees in europe. they will join a certain

societal system. let's make sure we lost her size -- ostracize the terrorists. jeremy: for those interested, there is a debate on the relationship between islam and isis on brookings website which is very good, although you probably will not find the answers. joseph, i would love for you to address the execution point and the integration question. mr. bahout: what is strategy without implementation? all of it is one part. on this issue of isis, syria,

iraq, much more than ever before within the same coalition, interest are very divergent. i don't want to plunge into that but very quickly. for turkey, of course. if you have to say either or, it is the kurds are more a danger for isis. isis is worrying. but having iran in the lavonne and yemen is more worrying. within europe, the divergences are enormous. before that, on the arab-israeli process, in 1990 one when saddam invaded kuwait, in 2001 when we went to afghanistan after 9/11, it did not produce discord between france and the united states. people have differences in priorities and strategy. it took someone to put it together.

this is part of strategy and political leadership. today, someone has to put some order in chaos, to quote the bookings -- brookings blog. it is difficult to do. i'm not calling for american preeminence or leadership. someone has to do it. it won't be solved by itself. i think this is a way of extricating ourselves. without a roadmap, an excellent strategy, it remains a good paper and not something that is incremented. the second point is interesting although it is not our subject, is syria livable again? like everybody, i have an opinion.

i think it is beyond debate. the head of the french intelligence two or three weeks ago said syria is broken beyond repair. i believe that. i'm very convinced about that. i think syria is today broken. this is why assad is no more a problem. his ruling something that has disappeared. he is the head of a militia among other militias. before becoming french, i was lebanese. i lived in a country where for 15 years, it was broken. we felt at times it would never be patched up again. analytically saying something is broken is true, but politically it does not mean you have to accept it. you can let go of the syria process.

at one point you will be legitimized. people who sit around the table and say these are the borders, let's accept them. i do not have anything against it. nations are born and die, maybe one day lebanon will disappeared. iraq has more or less disappeared. where all of us today bound to a process which is called geneva. we are -- want a democratic syria. if these words mean something i say let's do it. let's sit on the table with the syrians if they accept this part and say ok, you cannot live together, let us see where are the boundaries of your, it could state, aederate confederate state with parts of iraq. people who think that all state

order in the labonte is dead. it will be replaced by something. my worry is how to shorten this limbo between something which is dead and something to be born and how to do it at the list -- least cost possible. --a political science scientist and a citizen that is what worries me. nothing is sacred in these issues. i know some syrian friends would jump from their chair. syria is comatose. you can say this but with a lot of effort. you do not have to say this, let's try to transform it into something else at the least cost possible. but this again leads a little

bit -- needs a little bit of leadership. you are going to ask me. there andrefugees out and thens that the west eu and the united states and a areer of other countries signatories of legal documents. that promise that refugees are going to be treated differently than migrants or irregular migrants and this is an international responsibility. i would like to remind us all. i would also not want to walk thathaving listened somehow i am an advocate. >> i never said that.

>> just a second. let me finish. all i said was to respond to keepsemark and brookings transcripts of these debates. you can always go in look. a branch of islam is at war with the western world. i said that branch is not in your just with the west but with the muslim world and with syrian people. that is the only point i made. you did not need to cite big literature that argues to the contrary. we have run out of time. >> we're basically out of time. a frightening of subjects. the wasteunged into to maintain our values, the ways

to fight isis and the struggles over leadership and structure. sure we resolved anything but i hope we have given you a lot of food for thought. i appreciate you coming and please join me in thankin

the future of international counterterrorism efforts. his is 90 minutes.

>> good morning. bienvenue. welcome to the washington institute. good afternoon if you're in paris. i'm delighted to welcome you to the washington institute. i'm the director of the institute. tomorrow french president hollande will be visiting washington to discuss with president obama next steps in a reinvigorated strategy to address the great challenge of isis, the broader challenge of sunni jihadism in the syria/iraq rena and our common approach toward everything from the refugee flow to homegrown terrorism. this is an important moment, an important moment not just for america and france. t is an important moment for

all of us in the west, in the middle east, around the world. people who are committed to addressing the profound challenges that we face. we at the institute are delighted today to be able to host a special panel of french experts. french experts on the middle east. french experts on french foreign policy. french experts who can provide a unique insight into not just what is going on and what has happened in paris. turn off the volume on that. the top right there. the top. top row.

french experts who not only have a unique insight into what is going on, but the implications for what is going on for french society, french politics, french foreign policy and how that fits into broader -- broader european international efforts to address the challenges on this agenda. we have never quite done a program that featured only french experts. it is not a mark of rescience. we have the great benefit of having two french experts here n our staff this year. one a diplomat in residence and through partnership with the french foreign ministry and the second a french scholar of syria that we have been endeavoring to bring to washington for sometime. a scholar of syria, especially on the alawites. and we're delighted that we have such a scholar with us right

now. so let me introduce our panelists very briefly. from paris, speaking with us is one of europe's most imminent experts on islam, the middle east, and the relationship between europe and the west and the middle east. that is professor gilles kepel. he is extremely well known around the world. hes has spoken here before at he washington institute. he is a professor at the institute of political studies, paris. his numerous works have been translated into multiple languages. he is about to come out with his newest book. s this is the latest in a series that looks at political islam, jihad and the relationship of

muslims in the west and in the middle east. i'm delighted that gilles can join us from paris. speaking after gilles will be professor fabrice balanche. he is an associate professor and research director at the university of lyon ii. he a visiting fellow here at the washington institute. fabrice is one of the experts in the world on the alawite ommunity in syria. his thesis was the alawite region and syrian power. he will offer very important remarks about russian/syrian strategy in the context of the challenge of isis. and then i'm very pleased to introduce olivier decottignies. he is a diplomat-in-residence, as i mentioned earlier. he comes to us directly from tehran. he was the second secretary at the french ebbity in teheran. he brings a truly unique insight here in washington given that we have such little firsthand diplomatic experience in iran

over the last several decades. so the contribution he makes to our understanding of the iranian angle and of how all of this is occurring on the impact of french foreign policy is truly priceless. i should underscore that of course olivier is speaking today solely in his capacity as a very smart frenchman. not as a representative to have french government, the french foreign ministry. i'm sure president hollande can speak for himself when he is here in washington tomorrow. with that, i'll turn the floor over to my colleague, gilles kepel in paris. gilles. welcome.

gilles: hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we hear you just ine. yes, gilles, we hear you just fine. the floor is yours. gilles: hello. >> gilles, the floor is yours. gilles: sorry. i thought you wanted to ask me something. good morning to you. good afternoon to us. now more than a week after the events of friday 13 of november, and in a way things are being put into shape. that is to say what happened on friday is being put into perspective. you know this year, 2015 in france started with the attacks on charlie hebdo and the supermarkets and some french policeman -- and we hope nothing else is going to happen afterwards in december with the attacks of friday the 13th. both attacks belong exactly to he same pattern.

they are part of the same strategy, what i call in this forthcoming book, which you entioned, which is going to be out in three weeks now. they belong to the strategy that was designed in 2005 approximately by this arian born french and spanish national engineer in his lengthy book posted on the internets that called for global islamic resistance. where he considers that europe is the soft underbelly of the west, bin laden's hubris in attacking new york and ashington on the 11th of september was misplaced and that it -- the reaction by george w. bush which ultimately would

destroy al qaeda. europe in his view is much weaker and in europe there are millions of young people from muslim descent coming from the post colonial immigration tidal waves and who are not well integrated and disenfranchised and ready to go to radical islam as an ideology to fight against their home, what should have been their homeland but what he thinks they should depart from in order to become a real jihadist and did not have at the what was called the jihadist state. so in his view, what has to take place is some sort of civil war in europe.

a sort of enclave war between what it thinks are those muslims radicalized under -- on the one hand and this will lead to a -- wilderness, if you want or translated literally in europe and that would lead to the ultimate demise of europe and if i may say so jokingly, it looks like a -- in reverse. this is what they aim at doing. in order to do so, they need to divide european societies and also to mobilize all muslims except the ones who are dubbed -- and are supposed to be assassinated under their anner.

hat ayman al-zawahri called in his days -- this is a two-fold strategy. on one hand, terrorize the adversary, the enemy and on the other hand gather support. now, if we look at that and we compare what happened in january and what happened in november, even though strategy is the same, the tactics are quite different. in january, the groups that were targeted were enemies of allah.

the islamaphobes, cartoonists of charlie hebdo. policeman and the one who looked like a muslim and also jews without -- of course. this led as you remember to on the one hand a huge demonstration of january 11, which was the biggest demonstration ever to have taken place in -- on france soil since the -- era. but that led also to breaking in the ranks because you have the e suis -- people. which means well done in north african colloquial. that led to a heated debate in rance. which was posted on the social etworks.

whether society, in spites of unanimous die mention that the 11th of january shown, in spite of the fact that heads of state from all over the world came to paris. this one in november was quite different. the killings were absolutely indiscriminate. and they aimed at anyone who was at a dinner table or was attending a concert in the 11th and 10th arrondissement of paris. sort of the brooklyn area of paris, if i may try the transatlantic comparison.

. spnspn except except the core group of the jihaddists from syria. but not in my support in the range of sympathizers who sort of found excuses to the killings in january. so this is one difference. how can we explain it and provided it proves to be the case because we're now reacting sure as we say here in or

colloquial. the one thing we may think about is that one difference of what i call the second phase hadism, al qaeda, bin laden, 9/11 was planned from the top. it was a top-down operation. and al qaeda is opposed with the arabic language formula that what they're doing now is a system, not an organization. bin laden paid for plane tickets and paid for pilot lessons, what you call them. he sends people who would implement what they had to do to follow their roadmap. in the third generation system, you have a sort of broad view,

i.e., you're going to see civil war in intifada or france or europe. but you're not going to see every detail at the top level. you're going to leave a very wide margin of appreciation for the guys who are going to implement the thing and recruit whoever you have at hand or maybe some of them have decided hey were volunteers. there is competition so to prove they have guts and the foreign fighters were not considered, you know, very, very well by the locals, by the iraqis and the syrians and they had to prove that they were good at doing something else and blowing themselves up or altering prisoners.

and having this major onslaught against european country france and belgium is of course a the to have bigger say in system. those guys who implemented the terrorist attacks are not really high brow, they're petty criminals who serveed time in jail for assault, for drug dealing, for rape for some of them and who within the sort of prison intubator where you have a lot of the third generation jihadism come into action, into work from 2005 to now. they met and then they would have predicators or creatures who would tell them if you're in jail, it's not your fault, it's because the misbelievers society put you there and you

have to use your balance and your crime mythology for say-so, not for criminal issues but to implement radical jihad. and out of jail they would meet again and they would go to syria and train and we have a number of life stories like that. now, the problem that those guys are not real strategists like bin laden or the others, some of them are serving time in american jails now that belong to second generation jihad and just thought they'd kill as many people as possible in france and used the ways and methods of criminals and they have the rampant shooting, they took people hostages in the cinema, in the music hall, the bambings ataclan and killed

them like you'd play with your video game and kill them one after the other. but it was not really well organized. there were many victims, of course, and this is a saddening phenomenon and what they had in mind was very different. the first time in france they sent a number of people with swiss addresses which should have detonated themselves when there were 80,000 people in the stadium when holiday ande was attending together with the german foreign minister in a match between france and germany and for some reason could not get in the stadium and detonated their vests outside and they just killed themselves plus one passer-by. that's one thing. also, what i noticed is that for those guys who hate jews more than anything else, they have their attacks on a friday

night. so they did not really -- as opposed to what happened in january, they did not really succeed in targeting a number of jews as they would have wanted and as the book says. so this is also something that shows that this issue is not very well prepared strategically. and also the fact that the , geted everybody has led to you know, the feeling among must rims -- muslims in general in france that they are a bunch of criminals. so i wonder to what extent -- and this is where i all stop, if the 13th of november was not for this third generation of jihaddists, something that could be compared with what happened in the late 1990's or

the first generation. after afghanistan, there was a copycat in algeria and egypt and also a spillover from algeria into france. and in egypt and algeria in the fall of 1997, there was the sheer violence from the factions in egypt and the islamic group in algeria. which alienated society at large. and they were like fish outside of ponds. people on whom they counted to provide safe houses to help them, to turn a blind eye on what they were doing just turned their back on them and this was the failure of phase 1 which led to phase 2, i.e., bin laden and al qaeda. and then, you know, to what extent was 9/11 the big success, or was it ultimately the big failure?

it was the ac -- acting of the second phase jihad but by the same token engineered a process of reaction, as has been explained that would lead to the demise of the system. to what extent is november 13, a hat extent is it watershed thing, a turning point, is it going to lead to tremendous difficulties of recruitment in the nearby future? this is really a question mark. it's impossible for me to go further and as you know, i was attacked a lot when i said in this book which is over my head "jihad" in 2000 that there was an ascension and decline of islamism. at the time of course i had no background, it was in 2000 so i

could not know what would happen later on but i think i was right in saying what i do know is that the first phase was declining. i didn't foresee the second phase because it had not yet taken place and was taking place. and then to what extent is it now the beginning of the end r the third phase is the daish system now under duress, let me at least ask the question that i guess we'll discuss issues that have to do with the coalition which you mentioned earlier on and maybe we'll have more on that. i hope this was clear enough to look at two or three seconds so it looks like i'm a moron but i hope on the other side of the atlantic they heard that. >> gilles, it came through loud and clear and was fascinating, very useful and insightful.

i'll turn to fabrice now, the floor is yours. fabrice: after the -- >> we'll come back to you, gilles after the presentations. fabrice: after the attacks in paris, there was a strike on isis and not on the other rebel. i don't think mr. putin should agree and will just strike everybody more. according to the syrians on the middle east because vladimir is -- inaudible] fabrice: as for the syrian president, his agenda is clear, to win the war and to stay

until his death as his father. for both, vladimir putin and bashar al-assad, the attitude towards ice cities more strategic. it's a mastercard in their both hands. bashar al-assad is for russia, the last arab ally. russia needs to protect him and for his protection, they rebel on the coast. vladimir putin realized like this the old russian dream to have a foot in the mediterranean sea is like the czar wanted to open the gate to the mediterranean sea in the 19th century but didn't succeed and we see individual myrrh puten in syria succeed.

like this vladimir putin come back in the center of the international game, his presence is syria has a perfect leverage on europe because europeans, syria became a source of refugees, the two major problems for the european collision. europe cannot anymore support this confrontation. we will see next january the european commission renew the sanction on russia. the price of assad's head also became too expensive in europe and france. many people are looting about the anti-assad strategy especially as it has not fold. and they're afraid of syria but cannot officially support him so they let russia to do it. the anti--isis coalition in

fact is too shy. isis retreats but slowly and is still able to strike outside like in paris or beirut. so if russia could prevent the european countries should reconsider the sanctions, for instance. t least russia thinks that the secured mission is the major process in the middle east. he needs support and would be grateful to head them. the west cannot support only a certain limit coalition because of course it's against turkey, we can see on the map but you have 19 millions in turkey in the southeast and is principal

for turkey. but if the western countries nnot support the limits of kurds, in fact, russia doesn't have this problem and it can help the kurds to achieve their conquest of the north of syria, articularly the area between the sides because they are more interested to get this area than go to russia. it's again isis but it's also against turkey. assad doesn't agree but he has no choice and he can benefit, also, with the aliens with the kurds because the turkish border is closed, it will be more easy to destroy the other rebels. assad plays a strategy of the world in the beginning. in january 2000, he decide in

private, he killed 30,000 people in hamas and we have 30 years of peace so this strategy was very clear. the assad contingency doesn't want to win the hearts of the people but to crush any opposition, killing the people with the enting regime. to strike was radical at the beginning because of a strong moderate opposition could be an alternative to him for western countries but isis cannot be this alternative. but we have to recognize that bashar al-assad didn't create isis or other jihaddist group, as they say many opponent, it just takes the natural process of radicalization. western countries in their estimated strength of the assad

regime, it was not so weak as they decided, the opposition. as western countries and moreover, the united states didn't want to be involved in syria, turkey, so they use the proxy in the syrian conflict and isis as a beginning but why exactly assad wanted. so no, we are in front of a dilemma, assad and isis because the time is quick, and the other alternative solution, some of the raids is not working very well. on the ground, initial russian strike didn't target isis the first weeks but since few times and moreover, after the attacks against the russian plane, russia is striking isis but still less than the other rebel groups. the main objective is to

strengthen assad, the main military threat comes from the other groups because they are close to the assad territory as you can see on this map and in the green you have the other bel groups and also in more s suburbs and it's afraid than isis who is in the east of syria. in threatened aleppo and this area we have the concentration of the troops and the main offensive the syrian rmy, actually. russia strikes in this area.

is to protect aleppo and get the airport but the syrian army with the help of the russian strike succeed to get back a few weeks ago. and the syrian army is protected from isis on the east is free to launch a strong offensive on the west and the to the my is going to west and try to secure aleppo by the west. the border area north of aleppo is also very strategic and is the main door for ice its and other rebel groups because, for instance, the terrorists will have been to paris last week

used this door because the rkish border is not closed and there would like to be a no-fly zone in this area but it has been refused and don't think the united states wants to support also this project. but after the paris attack, it's an emergency because terrorists are using this gate to turkey and to europe. russia agrees to export isis from this area but only if its allies get back the area, assad's army are killed or both. assad in aleppo and the kurds at the border. in conclusion, i say isis will not be defeated quickly, also because assad in russia is needed. if isis retreats, it's not for russian ally's benefit or assad

but not for the other rebels. isis is pushing assad arm syrian people threatened by the jihaddists, as we can see on this map, the religious minorities in syria, otherwise jews and christian are in the syrian army area in the rebel zone in the isis zone there is , it is she add it is jihad but is the exception. and in the north, of course, the kurdish territories are under control. france is going to strike isis and russia the other rebels but the rebels will not do the

difference between french and russian bombs. nd probably we are going to be , as a ally enemy of assad and russia. but in fact the threat is to hide no in france and to destroy the isis organization quickly to preserve the social peace in europe to prevent future attacks. another massive attack in france will be disastrous for the co-al igs. -- coalition. and would probably be for the first time in history. and in 2017 we will have the presidential election and would

be in the second term and suspect she will not be the next president of france but for this we have to destroy isis organization, a problem that we are happy to work with russia and probably assad. thank you. >> ok. thank you. very provocative. thank you, fabrice. olivier. olivier: thank you very much. what i'll try to do for you is to outline the french foreign policy response to the attacks in paris. first of all, i should say that in large part of the response is actually a domestic response. most of president holland address to houses of parliaments a week ago were devoted to domestic issues, homeland security mainly and also the necessity to maintain

national unity. so setting this apart, i will focus more specifically on the foreign policy elements of the response which are key, given that the attacks, although they were mainly conducted by french citizens born and raised in france, were planed and prepared in syria and also in a network spanning over a number of european countries, especially belgium. president hollande visit is part of a massive foreign policy response to the attacks. the first i mention is to step up french military operations against isis. french air strikes have intensified a couple of days after the paris attacks. today the french aircraft character has arrived in the east mediterranean and is

starting its operation against the organization. this will triple available french airpower in the area. this airpower will primarily be directed at key isis infrastructure, command centers, oil infrastructure, moslary and the raka area but the strikes alone won't defeat isis. there is need for action on the ground that might not necessarily be french operations. to give you an idea of the thinking in paris right now, yesterday the french defense minister gave an interview on the french radio, and he pointed out an example to the liberation, the recent liberation of the sinja mountings which was a result of the combined coalition air strikes and ground offensive by

local forces on the ground, in that case. and in his address to parliament, president holland d. e stressed the need to provide help and more support to those fighting daish on the round. parallel to more military action, there are diplomatic efforts. the goal set by the french president after the attacks is to create a large united coalition against daish, a coalition that would include russia. that is the meaning of u.n. security council resolution 224 friday on sed last the first week after the attacks. that called upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take on the measures against daish and other internationally recognized groups. this also is the purpose of

president hollande this week was with the prime minister of the u.k. today to meet president obama tomorrow and then chancellor merkel and then vladimir putin, the president of russia in moscow. although the view of the french authorities right now is that daish is defeat of possible without a political solution to the crisis if syria. in fact, daish has been defeated once in iraq in of its previous inclinations and resurrected and then taking advantage of the conditions in syria. progress has about made in a couple of sessions in the past few weeks, the calendar has een agreed upon.

there still is wondering how they should proceed but the french view is that bashar al-assad cannot be the outcough the process. if i may add, syria the main focus but there needs also to be political process on reconciliation of iraq and also on the way out of the libyan current crisis. this is why engaging russia is important, france talks to all powers involved in the crisis, including iran is what the president said when he addressed the parliament. but russia's military weight makes it key to the solution and this we'll know probably more about that when president hollande meets with his russian counterparts and syria will be the core of the conversation then. another french priority is to

get europe on board and not to turn to nato but instead invoke an article on the treaty of the european union that is a collective defense introduced in the european institutions in define. -- in 2009. the rationale is daish is not only a threat to france but europe as a whole and today brussels is completely terrorized by anti-terror police operations. in the deeply sbeg grated lock, the homeland security is that between the neighbors and the french demand measures be taken to protect the borders of the e.u. and share passenger data partners e european

how understanding . as far as defense is concerned. european ministers agree on principle on that. the ministers are encouraging signs this morning. prime minister cameron said he would open one of the british sovereign basis in cyprus to french operations and provide refueling. last week the german newspaper talks about the possibility of 500 german troops joining french operations. threw there's still a lot to do. the prime minister is struggling to get parliamental

approval for strikes in syria and debate in the german press whether this is actually a war we're facing despite all evidence, and the terror attack on friday might have some european countries hesitate about the need to commit troops, the veverage view it's actually more needed now. it's not really an issue for the french or europeans but is a major importance for u.s. and nato because of what is at stake is the political will of the europeans to take care of heir own security. at the conclusion i'd say that the french policy reaction fits within the pattern of france's diplomatic -- traditional diplomatic options and traditional diplomatic strength and active diplomacy in the u.n. security council and key partners the lean but muscular military capability and will to

fight when needed, what is very encouraging is that young french people are enlisting now in higher numbers in the french military. this is a healthy reaction. some people there will be retaliation against the muslim community and would be played by daish playbook and on the ole not what's happening and is once again healthy and you see who is showing up and is the diversity of the french youth which is also a very good sign. another aspect is the traditional french commitment to european defense and the efense of the continent. and last but not least with the major ally the u.s. and ahead of hollande visit, president obama's strong words to defeat

isis over the weekend were encouraging and we'll see what the conversation will be like omorrow. jihadism, france also is fighting al qaeda networks in north africa and is perceived by the french authorities as a long term threat and is likely to probably shape french policy, although also keep the rest of the show going and is a strine of resolve and cold summit in a couple weeks in paris. one consequence of the paris attacks is the growing policy of french domestic politics, probably never before has foreign policy been discussed to that extent and of the ally, the goal

miterand's consensus will probably be more talks about that including some aspects of the fight against daish and the fights have political implications, fighting, weapon trafficking, radical ideology, defending of terrorism, etc. and to end up on a positive note, the reactions to the attacks all over the world are very welcomed rediscovery even for french people themselves of french in power, the fact that all over the world people allied around french symbols strategic bout a weapon being in the fight became viral in france and also is enforcing and very important in a situation where our

countries have their own values and way of life and when the war against ice sits a war of ideology and war of ideas as much as it is a war on the crown. rob: very good. thank you, gentlemen. a lot to discuss here. i'm going to come back to gilles now because there's a subtext of maybe analytical disagreement among the panel and i just want to play it out a little bit more. the conventional wisdom such as it can emerge in a matter of days, is that this was a very well planned, coordinated tack that took extreme precision, etc., etc. gilles, you offered a different view that the attackers were brilliant but i don't want to say they were bumblers but as

much problem and poor planning as there was brilliance if what the attackers were able to plan and implement. and you also added that this is -- i don't want to put too many words in your mouth but i heard the import of your remarks say that this is -- this may herald the downward slope. we've seen the -- this second phase of jihadism reach its apex and this is probably we're heading downhill here. this would suggest that may have implications, implications for the urgency on the global coalition to go attack isis, so i would be interested in your views on whether you share the the intense urgency

to go in now, partner with who you can, do deals with the devil if necessary, to go and destroy isis, or allively, is isis on its -- or alternatively, is isis on the way out and we'll have to deal with whatever is left of the decrepit remains but is isis on its way out? gilles? gilles: thank you. at first i don't know. i can't judge after a week or so. it's just a hypothesis as i was putting in front of you. but whether or not it's -- i should not say it's on its way out but what was implemented on november 13 was not, i believe, up to the expectations of the strategists if there is such a thing as a strategist in isis,

as we say here. cause they sort of will have difficulties in bringing about the recruitments of the movement in, say, middle to wide circle of would-be sympathizers. and this was one of the reasons why the first phase of jihadism failed and why ultimately the second phase failed. now, this does not mean you ve to sit idol and -- idle and see them disappear. this of course will not happen like that. i would make a difference, a departure between the two fronts, the domestic front and the outside front. on the outside front which was ust mentioned very elegantly by olivier and also by fabrice,

i believe that we have reached a new step. for happy reasons within the so-called wide coalition against isis, as the president now would have said way back, the second contradictions were more important than the primary contra addictions. while everybody was against ice i us but everyone was against -- against isis but everyone was against the other one than isis. the turks did not like isis but left the border open and even though they said they are now checking the border, like all the belgians and french who came back from syria came back to turkey without difficulties and needed isis to counterbalance the occurred, particularly the p.k.k. and their syrian branch.

so now that iran has won the elections, he needs to, as we say in france, to recast his virginity in the west and he may well be interested in offensive e active policy against isis. look at the g.c.c. monarchies, though the governments always said they were against isis, nevertheless there was money flowing from the coffers of the different g.c.c. countries to boost isis because they were the real -- you know, the good sunni guys who were fighting against the shi'ia crescents, whether they be hezbollah, what happened in beirut very recently, also, bashar al-assad and so on and so forth and of course the shi'ias of iraq. so that was something that, you

know they would not maybe put all their strength in this issue. look at russia and fabrice mentioned its earlier run, russia thought that isis, the real bad guys, ok, that's for the propaganda. but as far as they're concerned, they were interested in nipping in the bud the so-called modern jihaddists some say on this side of the atlantic and that's not to say there are a few others where you would have bashar al-assad on the one side and daish on the other one and no one in the middle and then, you know, between bashar l-assad and daish, maybe bashar al-assad would be not the worst one and would side with him. now things have changed, i believe, after the downing of the russian plane over sinai by daish and even though there's no public opinion in russia

comparable to what we have in america and to some extent comparable to what we have in france, putin has to show some muscle. and also has an interest for the time being of striking isis. also what happened in paris is a sign that this can happen elsewhere. and even though state actors or governments even more are short-term people, nevertheless, the feeling that you may have such a thing in london, in germany and so on and so forth is of course very frightening. i was in moscow last year and had some talks at the russian minister of foreign affairs and also spent some time with now e late chief, the only arabist that became prime minister and we like russia for

this capacity and when you become prime minister or president of america, we'll reconsider all that. following and when i become anything in france but there's no hope and they said to me, you know, it's not that we like assad that much. it's that we don't want to be ousted from the region. so for the time being we have no other choice though it may not be ever, it's not a catholic marriage. and the problem with this irritant in syria is that we have thousands of czechen there who are being hyper trained and will come back just like abaauud and others have come back to france and they all remember what happened in the theater. nd to some extent the bataclan

is a reminder of the takeover by the czechen but on a smaller scale. so this is a big threat. and i believe this is my understanding but i believe olivier and you are better experts than i am on this matter, this is my understanding of the ones between hezbollah and putin the other day in turkey. so destroying the territorial base of isis is of course very important, even in order to deal with what is happening in europe with the domestic threat in europe because isis in its territorial base provides the sort of, you know, romantic figures, the robin hoods of jihad. they are the ones, they are not very sematic but david against

goliath if you will allow me, that stands up to the empires of evils, zionism and imperialism and what have you. in this forthcoming book i looked a lot in depth to their ideology and what they have on the social networks and there's a tremendous, bizarre plan of pseudoimperialist language and extreme left and extreme right their nds into language, their parlors. so there is -- in a way, the time is ripe for striking from the west powers. and i believe that they have common interest in doing so. and if the territorial base is severely damaged, then, you know, it will be more difficult to go there. from what i hear on the open sources in france, the number of people actually going there

is lower, you know, that france is the first exporter of european jihaddists in absolute numbers and beaten by belgium and germany in relative less numbers but less people are going there because it is very dangerous going there and you'll be killed and life in rakka is not good all the time. there's not much of the mystique you would see in the earlier literature on the web on paradise in earth on syria. so this is one thing. now, what is taking place on the domestic front is different. and on that i'm not sure i entirely buy into our official language here that says france is at war with the islamic state or the so-called islamic state, that it's a jihaddist army fighting, and we're at war in syria and in iraq.

at home it's an issue of police and issue of security and the raid that was conducted on the of aba of an incendiary ood, it's a name from southern morocco, was killed, sure aso live yea said, france is no soft underbelly in its own, in its security forces and capacity to reject the self- militarily make it of course very strong elements in europe today and this is one of the reasons, not the only one but one of the reasons it is particularly targeted. but the issue here is not -- we are not at war on france. daish or isis wants to have civil war in france and civil war in europe but we're not buying into their desire. we're not looking at ourselves in the mere image that isis

shows, of course. it's an issue of police. it's an issue also of outlining what makes it in french society, that social privatization leads to the calgary of isis in some networks. why it works so well in our prison system, for instance. and on that we have to look deep into ourselves. and we have to look into the european model. and so as one of the three of you mentioned, unless i dreamt about it, that we're going to have elections in two weeks in extreme d the national right, saw all the posts, is going to have an outright. and because of that, because people here are frightened and there is an attraction to the ideas of refusal of anything foreign, that the extreme right

is carrying. so for that we'll have to be very careful and to under how to create european societies which are more inclusive. and in saying so, i do not mean that we have to negotiate with isis or accommodate whatever their claims are. there's no doubt that there's nothing but confrontation here. feeling in france is different. what is being done is military. what is being done in europe or has to be done in europe has to be with police and security on the other and with social engineering also. robert: ok. thank you. let me -- i just want to ask our other panelists about the debate which we have in america

and which implied in gilles last remark and that is the oots on the ground debate. on the one hand i'm hearing a sense of great urgency, both because the people want us to act and on the political level, if we don't take care of this isis problem by x date, the far right may inherit the political spoil. so there's both popular urgency and political urgency which is woman pelling a more forceful action. on the other hand, we're no calls for on the ground activity by french forces asking for partnership voices but hearing more of an

american style expand the existing approach, more air strikes, help our local partners do more but not a different approach. is there a collision here? is there a point at which the french debate, the european debate may change? or is there -- is it so deeply ingrained, perhaps a legacy of our rock experience, perhaps the reflection of america's recent sense itself to get more deeply involved on the ground that it's just not going to happen in the french context? gentlemen? fabrice: in france, mr. hollande is against sending troops in syria or iraq because they're afraid but we sent some french soldiers and wasn't expecting isis because it will be a nice idea to fight against

french people in society to send terrorists in france. i think if we don't send troops in syria, it's not enough with the strikes because we have to show that we also are on the ground, close to the secureds and close to the people fighting isis. olivier: i think there's no shinist on principle on the part of the french to send boots on the ground and basically what happened in mali three years ago and on a rather large scale. the consideration to the syrian errain, there is the idea that they are local boots can be an alternative to foreign boots on the ground. and there's also the necessity to take into account or allies in partners our own constraints and views of the issue. i think this is how things are evolving.

i mentioned to you this interview by the french minister of defense yesterday on french radio and gave an example of how things could get done on the ground, and i think that's the kind of scenario that is being explored right now. robert: ok. very good. so let's turn the floor over to your questions, if you could be kind enough to identify to whom you're posing a question, that would be very useful. so in front, first, muhammad? and then in the back? there's a mike, muhammad. muhammad, take the mike. muhammad: to talk about boots on the ground, we notice whenever there is an escalation against the west, the only response is bombing. and the problem is that isis has been able to protect itself

against the bombing while the civilians are not. and so the civilians are paying a heavy casualty and at the same time, they are being deprived of the food on their land from all this land being bombarded. and when they try to get out for refuge, they are being denied and countries have closed their doors. my question is this, is that a possibility -- since this idea of not putting boots on the ground is based on the fear for casualties, is there a chance of having a legion from the french army, volunteers, who are people, who are soldiers in he french army or others who look to go in the muslim army to syria and to fight isis. so it is not the french fighting the isis but rather the syrians or whatever but

rather muslim who are for peace and who are for democracy and who are for all the values that the people stand for against this destructive force which claims to be muslim. jewish talk about the legion in the second world war, something to give a chance for those muslims who are in the west who are against isis to take a stand. robert: organize a muslim foreign legion. olivier: the muslims have a gallant service in the french armed forces for more than a hundred years now. but within the framework of the french military, we don't differentiate between shoulders -- soldiers in terms of religious affiliation. so that wouldn't be legally

possible. and whoever is fighting in the french military unit is the french army from a legal point of view. it would be interesting, you see people are enlisting to get in the army, muslims among them and would be interesting to see the patterns of recruitment by the french foreign legion which recruits foreign nationals, too, but posing up of a muslim legion as you suggested seems to be, from a legal point of view and a french military addition which is not contemplated and i think forces already exist on the ground and supporting those forces is a more immediate prospect than such a legion. are in an, if muslims france and outside france joined the military and french muslims do join in the military

and some of the french soldiers were targeted by terrorist attacks in the course of the year were actually muslims, that's not a positive ellti. so i think -- are not a novelty. so i think they find the framework in the french army as it is. fabrice: based on the contrary, we have french people but will fight in syria with the kurds and there are those people of the christian militia in the northeast of syria, we have some french christians but feel they are like prisoners to fight against isis. at the moment it's a small sentiment but after the attacks, we could have more people, more volunteers. but gilles said we are afraid of war in france because people are willing to fight in syria against isis but the fight in

france against the jihaddist, french people. robert: please. in the back. reporter: hi, my name is matt, i work for the french news network. d my question is about francois hollande's visit to washington, d.c. tomorrow, what do hollande and obama can talk about that hasn't already been discussed and what can france expect from the united states in the fight against isis? robert: gentlemen? olivier: all that we mentioned today i think is going to be a part of the conversation, building a coalition, the , who is going

to play what role, etc. but this visit is a part of a larger series of meetings, so you have a meeting this morning with prime minister cameron, you have the meeting with president obama tomorrow, the meeting with chancellor merkel, interestingly, president putin will be back from tehran where he's spending three days and is the first visit there since 2007. one of the questions about the russians in the syrian crisis is whether they can deliver the aryans or not to a organization and i bet president putin will have interesting things to say when he's back from tehran and meets president hollande. but i think basically all the topics we touched upon today need to be a part of the discussion. robert: i'll add from a moderator's hat for a moment, this is a unique, rare moment in time. one might expect that unique

rare moments like this is an opportunity for what one could call the big ask. you know, the major request. if not now, when? it isn't clear to me that there ask.be such a big that has to do with how french leaders may have internalized the strategic patience here in washington. it may have as much to do with thelingering impact of syrian redline issue a couple of years ago when there was a bad taste left in the mouth of our french allies. get a veryyou will serious discussion of all these incremental measures that are being talked about, accelerating airstrikes, accelerating cooperation, accelerating

cooperation and assistance are partners on the ground in getting more sunni arabs into the field. reading the tea leaves, it sounds unlikely that it will be that big ask and major profound request to get engaged in a new and different way than you have gotten engaged in so far. i may be wrong. maybe we will have a huge announcement tomorrow afternoon. i would be surprised if there is big ask. invier: a political solution syria is key to all those meetings, including with president putin. >> i've a question following up on this iran-russia question. i've heard a lot from the french-american and british in recent weeks and they are detecting splits between moscow

and tehran on the ground. at the same time, i reading headlines from tehran where a ssad and the ayatollah khomeini are unified that assad should not have to go. arehere a sense why there so much splits when it doesn't seem like there are any? olivier: i don't think the russia completely overlap. he mentioned in the course of the conversation the issue of location and central asian foreign fighters in syria. that is a major threat for the russians. it is not something that iran shares with them are with us for instance. moreussians also have much diplomatic channels with players in the region. basically onlyve

at all ine saudi's the talks. the russians keep talking to those countries and to turkey and are much more regular in a manner. there are differences in the russian way. russia is not looking for the same type of strategic projection as iranians are. they are less concerned with hezbollah. the question is when and how those differences will materialize and more cooperation with russia and when and how and if the russians can deliver the iranians to a substantial meeting. >> would you want to address this? do you see any sign yet of what this idea of iranian-russian

disagreement the city syria? iranere is a unity with and with russia on syria. course, russia and iran are sharing syria. that is to the north and to the south. there's also damascus. fabriche: for the future of us -- assad, syria is important for putin. concessions, we could have the head of assad from putin. the iranians would not agree. future probably in the

of one years of two years that we could have disagreements on the future of syria between the russians and iranians. they stateent, unified because the goal is to win the war. when they win the war, probably they will have different issues to win peace. >> in the center. . thank you can i direct this at you? i wonder if france might show a tendency to keep away from controversial middle east issues. francois hollande said you are at war with the islamic state. he is reacting big against the islamic state. weather is about north africa were israeli and palestinian issues, any pressure on saudi arabia over yemen, etc., may be

the trend now and france should be that are keep our distance because it's too dangerous. gilles: i do not think that's an issue. the country is on the offensive. hollande is now and a political situation where he is under threat from the extreme right and the right. it is not going to look like it is coming out of that. what i believe has changed in france is the policy was syria. when the arab spring or so was called at the time took place, there was the strong feeling in circles close to the presidency that as one of their top ideologues the university, syria -- and that means

everything had to be done to oust assad. we had a verbal policy, but then there was no real plantation. there were some things being done, but they do not change on the ground. to that extent, it opened the way to a number of people who wanted to take that into their hands. jihadist want to syria and said it was humanitarian reasons. actually, it was something very different. this i believe has not been and there is a different policy toward syria from france. which you have to take into consideration the fact that there are also others who are actors in this issue. i believe this is the meaning in

the meetings of president alonso -- francois hollande with the americans and the russians and they have to find a common ground, which is feasible. originally, we were in ideology, nothinglogy that said that led to serious mistakes. that's even on domestic grounds. now, there is another life. this does not mean we have to step back us what you suggested. on the contrary, it means that -- and io find mean the french -- that we have policy withl common others in targeting isis because we have to destroy the base of the problem that we have domestically in france and europe. to the on that basis, we will try to help find out a solution

in the aftermath of the isisuction of i stress -- for stability in the middle east. this is not at all the same policy as the one pursued before. robert: yes, in the far back. name is haley. my question is for whoever of the experts can answer it. it is striking to see the reaction would be the opposite of what a lot of people expected knowing that isis is only d'sowered due to assa continued murdering of innocent syrian people feae. and now the reaction was completely the opposite. we thought we could contain it, but it backfired on the west and on france.

everybody right now feels threatened from isis and that they are only being empowered. maybe there should be something done about the source of extremism and the dictatorship in syria and do something more aggressive to end the conflict in syria rather than we see people now try to say that we should find a common ground and a solution where we can accommodate a sophomore. -- assad more. the other would be the backlash on syrian refugees even though there is no syrian refugee involved in that attack in pairs. the one passport that was found to a soldierssport that was fighting with assad and died a couple months ago. abert: to tear for is this

bit, why should we be rewarding this diabolical plan of assad to create an even worse enemy and feed the isis phenomenon by letting him off the hook at least for now and deal with him sometime down the future? would it not be wiser, so the argument goes, to deal with the root that fed isis, namely assad , at least at the same time as --deal with isis is doing what isis is doing? fabriche: it is a strong strategy to do this at the beginning. it was to defeat the moderate opposition and it seceded. -- succeeded. was not strong to do it. i remember people and fonts best in france said we do not have to do anything strong in syria. we do not have to risk troops on

syria because assad will fall quickly. and so, we are misunderstanding the situation in syria. that is why we are in this mess. syria protecting assad, it is very difficult to move in. afraid it would be like in libya if we remove assad. so we are very pragmatic and very realistic and very busy to solve the problem. the target is isis, no? assad we will deal with later. olivier: the french responses to

fight isis. even more, this is with more military means. if you want to see the equilibrium of french politics and the policy on that is rather unscented the enemy is isis and the solution should not have and the outcome. that is not exactly what you describe. the final word is yours on the refugee issue. if you could put this in the context of what now seems to be perhaps the most significant flow of muslims to europe in modern history? this is a major controversy in france because the passing of the campaign of the extreme right is to say that the refugee flow into france is

manifold. juste one hand, as you said, this is going to change the demographic talents of europe. europe.ce of there is a feeling in some circles that the european population -- and this is something that you could have an read in some books by bernard lewis and others in the past. europe was only to become sort africa and of north the century to come. populations is going to make the situation and possible. -- impossible. it will lead to new wars of religion in europe and so on and so forth. it's a tough phenomenon and this is not only in france. america who did well on

everything politically is now in germanyaits with because her policy to accept refugees in syria is challenged inside. i was in central europe a couple weeks ago. that they and private do not want a city in moravia to become like an algerian city in france. thatis clearly something will have some sort of political weight and electoral policies and all european countries starting with france in the early next two weeks. that is one thing. the other issue is whether or within there refugees people who are jihadists are would turn jihadists in france. the young lady who spoke --ntained that the passports

the syrian passport was found was not of the person. that's true. the name was a syrian soldier, but the passport was under the control of the opposition. from the fingerprints that were , thatby the greeks corresponded to the ones of the person who is dead and what remained of it. the guy was someone who came aros and was probably part of the refugees. this has raised a enormous a society and put a name on the fears, which are part and parcel of the campaign. challenge that a we shall have to face. that even forget

though the influx from syria is , what is most frightening in terms of numbers through thex coming failed state of libya from the southern parts of tunisia to italy. , for instance, the city thealais -- the entry to channel in britain. migrantsve a camp of that are trying to get to the tunnel to go to britain. this is trading problems of public order and teetering heavy debate. now,ite of all that, as of there is no violence in france. there's no feeling of anxiety,

but if we have a significant about of both for the extreme right. we now have 13 big regions in france. the have been reshuffled if you will. the pollsters show that they southin the north and the which is the french riviera area and maybe a third region, this problem andjor an earthquake and french policy. it is something which will probably be paralleled and a number of other countries. denmark has already a very right-wing coalition and power. so is the case with the netherlands. it is an ecco to what happened after the cartoonist there being assassinated. careful because

this is to an extent with the radical islamists wants. they would be rather pleased if we have an extreme right in some placeser because they are sure that this will bring what they call islamic phobia. everyone muslim under the banner of the radicals. we have to be very careful about that and not maybe to fan the embers. i do not believe that there's not support in europe nowadays for welcoming migrants from the region. this may be set in terms of human rights, but this is at least what will be translated in my belief in the forthcoming elections. robert: thank you. i think it is fair to say that to the extent that we have not

one of the implications of all this is that internal european politics will be on our agenda because of the lowback impact and the implications vis-a-vis the challenges in the middle east. just another issue on our research agenda. fabrice, olivier, thank you for joining us for this special discussion in advance of the special visit of president hollande president obama tomorrow. there you go. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: "washington journal" next "washington somin discusses

why he thinks u.s. military action against isis is illegal and what can be done to legalize the war. and then, billy sure looks of the problem of hungry children in the u.s. and why one in five families in america struggles to put food on the table. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. is live at journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. french president francois hollande is in washington, d.c.f the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. over thanksgiving, watch our conversations with six freshman member of congress. buddy carter, a republican from

georgia, and the only pharmacist serving in congress. donald norcross, a new jersey democrat and longtime union electrician. then representative mark desaulnier, a california democrat and former restaurant owner. mark walker, a republican from north carolina and a baptist saturday morning, it is congresswoman mimi walters, a republican from california and a former state senator and interned in d.c. as a college student. -- congress and set molten who is a marine who served for truth in iraq of the congress's to c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> john hinckley was the person who shot president reagan. president reagan was not wearing a bulletproof vest.

the thing is that john hinckley was stocking jimmy carter before this. >> author of the book " assassinations, threats, and the american presidency" talks about threats made to residents and presence of candidates throughout history. >> that in 16 presence that faced assassination threats, but alsoalk about huey long, who was assassinated. i talk about robert kennedy in 1968, who was assassinated. george was shot and paralyzed for life in 1972. i cover candidates as well as presidents. it is a long list. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> british prime minister david cameron spoke about the uk's national security and defense review monday after meeting with french president francois

hollande in paris. they met about increasing counterterrorism operations against isis. from the british house of commons, this is an hour. mr. speaker: order. statement, the prime minister. mr. cameron: with permission, i would like to make a statement on the national security strategy and the strategic defense and security review. mr. speaker, our national security depends on our economic security and vice versa. the first step to keeping our country safe is making sure our economy remains strong.overast t decision of freeing down our deficit and restoring our economy to streny no money. the total black hole in the defense budget alone was bigger than the entire defense budget in that year.

now it is back in balance by sticking to our long-term economic plan. britain has become the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world for the last two years. our renewed economic security means that today, we can show how we can afford to invest further in our national security. mr. speaker, this is vital at a time when the threats to our country are growing. this morning, i was in paris with president francois hollande discussing how we can work together to defeat the evil of isil. isil is not some remote problem thousands of miles away, it is a direct threat to our security at home and abroad. it has already taken the lives of british hostages and carried out the worst terrorist attacks on the beaches of tunisia, not/7 to say nothing of the terrorist plots right here in britain that have been foiled by our security

services in the past year. today gots we face beyond this evil death cold. from the crisis in ukraine to the risks of cyberattacks and pandemics, the world is more dangerous and uncertain today than even five years ago. while every government must choose how to spend the money it has available, every penny of which is hard earned by taxpayers, this government has taken a clear decision to invest in our security and safeguard our prosperity. as a result, the united kingdom is the only major country in the world today which is simultaneously going to meet the nato target of spending 2% of our gdp on defense and the united nations target of spending 4.7% of our gross national income on development. also, increasing investment in our security and intelligence agencies and counterterrorism. in ensuring our national security, we also protect our economic security.

as a training mission with the world's fifth biggest economy, we depend on order and stability in the world. with 5 million british nationals living overseas, our prosperity depends on trade around the world. engagement is not an optional extra. it is fundamental to the success of our nation. we need see lanes to stay open and arteries of global commerce to remain free-flowing. the strategy i am sending out today sets out a clear vision for a secure and prosperous united kingdom with global reach and global influence. at its heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defenses against state-based threats on the one hand or the need to counter threats that do not recognize national borders. today, we face both types of threats and we must respond to both types of threats. over the course of this parliament, our priorities are to deter state-based threats, tackle terrorism, remain a world leader in cyber security, and ensure we have the capability to respond rapidly to crises as they emerge.

to meet these priorities we will , continue to harness all of the tools of national power available to us. this is coordinated through the national security council to deliver a full spectrum approach. this includes support for our armed forces, counterterrorism. international aid ande force wh. to ariday evening, the un -- 2249on to 249 calling on member states to take all necessary measures against isis in syria and iraq. thursday, i will make the case in syria and not just iraq.

i will explain how such action will be one element of a conference of the long-term strategy to defeat isil in parallel with an international effort to bring an end to the war in syria. iday, i want to set out how assure our armed forces have the ability to carry out such a task in any other task that might be needed in the years ahead. we will invest more than 178 billion pounds in buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade, including doubling our investment in equipment to support our special forces. we will also increase the size of our deployable forces. in 2010, we committed to an expeditionary force of 30,000. today, i can tell the house that by 2025, we are increase that -- increasing the number to .0,000 to in part of this ki we will create two new strike brigades, fully equipped to deploy rapidly and sustain themselves. we will have an additional

squadron of f 35 lightning aircraft to operate from our new aircraft carriers. we will maintain our ultimate insurance policy as a nation. our continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. we will replace are for ballistic missile submarines. we will bind nine new maritime troll aircraft to be based. they will protect our nuclear deterrent. they will hunt down hostile submarines, and they will advance our maritime service and search and rescue. we will buy 13 new frigates and two new offshore patrol vessels. these will include eight tight 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates. we will design and build a new light, flexible frigates as well. these will be more affordable, which will allow us to buy more of them for the rodel navy -- royal navy, so that by the 2030's, we can increase the total number.

not one of these are an optional extra. they are an act of clear eyes self-interest to ensure our future security and prosperity. turn into counterterrorism, we will make an additional investment to our world-class counterterrorism agencies to make sure they have the resources they need to detect and foiled plots from whatever they are in the world. we will invest 2.5 billion pounds and employ over 1900 additional staff. we will increase our investments in counterterrorism police and more than double our investments on aviation security around the world. we have put in place a significant new contingency plan to deal with major terrorist attacks. under this new operation, up to 10,000 military personnel will be available to support dealing with the kind of shocking terrorist attacks we have seen in paris. we will also make a major new investment in the new generation of surveillance drones.

these british designed unmanned , aircraft will fly in the atmosphere and allow us to observe our adversaries for weeks on end, providing critical intelligence for forces could it will also do more to make sure that powers we get to our security services keep pace with modern technology. you will see through the draft bill that we publish that are counterterrorism police continue to have the powers they need. third, we will use our development budget and our expanding diplomatic service to tackle global poverty, project influence, and address the causes of the security threats we face, not just the consequences. alongside the strategic defense review, i'm also publishing our strategy for official development assistance. heart, there is a decision to refocus half of the budget on supporting fragile state regions in every year of this parliament. this will help to create a prevent conflict and crucially

help promote a golden thread of conditions that drive prosperity across the world, the rule of law, governance, and the growth of democracy. the call for and security fund will grow over to 1.3 billion pounds per year by the end of this parliament and we will create a new 1.3 billion pound also prosperity fund. it will aid in building good governance. building on our success in tackling ebola, we will do more crises, identify 500 million a year as a crisis reserve, and investing 1.5 billion pounds in a global challenges research fund to pioneer new ways of tackling global problems like antimicrobial resistance. we will also invest one million pounds for a new fund to fight infectious diseases known as the ross fund, and 5.8 billion pounds in climate finance to play our part in helping poorer

countries switch to greener forms of energy. mr. speaker, taken together, these interventions are not just right morally they are firmly in , our national interest. they mean that britain not only meet its obligation to the poorest in the world, but cannot can now focus its resources on instability and conflict which impinges on our security at home. it's investing at skill to create economic opportunities that lead to long-term stability across the world and responding rapidly and decisively to emerging crises overseas. acting all these fronts gives us greater influence in the world. finally, britain's safety and security depends not just on our own efforts but hand in glove with our allies to work on the common threats that face us all. that is from terrorism to climate change. when confronted by danger we are , stronger together. we will play our full part in alliances that undermine our security. we will work with our allies in europe and around the world.

we will seize opportunities to reach out to emerging powers. mr. speaker, history teaches us that no government can predict the future. we have no way of predicting precisely what course of events will take over the next five years. we must expect the unexpected. but we can make sure that we have the versatility and the means to respond to new risks and threats to our security as they arise. mr. speaker our armed forces, , police, security, and are theence services pride of our country. they are the finest in the world and his government will ensure they stay that way. using renewed economic strength, we will help them to keep us safe for generations to come. >> jeremy corbyn. mr. corbyn: as i said last week in the house, the first duty of a state is to protect its own citizens. at the moment, this country's overwhelming focus is the threat we face from terrorism. it's how we can best ensure the defeat of isil. labor supports the increased

expenditure to increase our security services. it is to protect against the threats of terrorism. however, placed with the current threat, the public will not understand or accept any cuts to frontline policing. everyone will be very concerned about the warnings. we know we have had from security officials and the police that the cuts will hurt the ability to respond to a paris style of attack. cuts affecting neighborhood policing will damage the flow of vital intelligence that help prevent such attacks. will he give an undertaking now that police budgets will be sufficient to guarantee no reductions in police or police-community support numbers and protect areas? will he also confirme that the government will meet in full the request from the metropolitan

police commissioner and his advisers for the further resources they still require to counter attacks such as those in paris? the public quite rightly expects that. we are naturally focused on the immediate threats today, but it is disappointing that there was insufficient analysis in the national security strategy of the global threats facing our country and around the world. inequality, poverty, disease , human rights abuses, climate change, water and food security. i have no idea why members opposite find food security such a funny subject. but indeed, mr. speaker, the flow of arms and illicit funds enable groups like isil to grow. let me pay tribute to the men and women who work in the services. we must look after their interest in the decisions we

make and pay particular attention to their welfare while serving and just as importantly when they retire. is the prime minister concerned that the latest military defense survey shows that 25% of those serving plan to leave as soon as they can or have already putting their notice, and the number dissatisfied with service life has risen to 32%? does he think this is a coincidence that those results, , the same time that the government has capped armed forces pay and changed pension arrangements? the facts are, under his government, it has fallen in real terms by 14%, and we saw many soldiers with many years of operational service putting their lives on the line, being sacked days before becoming eligible for full pensions. does he not agree that changes proposed by the chancellor to tax credit breach the spirit of

the armed forces covenants yucca will he now confirm that the plan will be to cut the annual income by, for example, 2300 pounds a year, will that be reserved? -- rivers? such a family will not be made worse off by any other welfare cuts the chancellor may be planning? what damage does he think will be redone by the cuts to the civilian support of armed services? the country is united in respect for those who serve, but there is widespread concern about lessons learned from recent military interventions. will he confirm that he will update and revise this review in the light of the fourth coming chilcote inquiry into the iraq war? what is his response to the u.n. report this month that all sides in the continuing conflicts in anarchy in libya are committing breaches international law including

abductions, torture, and the killing of civilians, and that isomaltose have consolidated control over central libya, carrying out executions, beheadings, and amputations? last week, his former deputy prime minister wrote, "britain failed to provide meaningful backing in libya and we must learn from our mistakes." what lessons has he learned from the intervention in libya in 2011, which regrettably, has been falling by a appalling chaos, persistent violence and the strengthening of isil? does he believe in the prospects of afghanistan maintaining its own security in the near future? how does he see britain's role in helping ensure this, given the huge commitment made on the past 14 years, and the ultimate sacrifice paid by 456 members of the british armed forces? how will he apply lessons

learned in libya, iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere to britain's role in the escalating war in iraq and syria, ensuring that further disastrous mistakes are avoided? britain does need strong military and security forces to keep it safe and to take a lead in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, working with an d strengthening the united nations. i recognize the increased commitment made in his statement to the u.n. there is no contradiction between working for peace across the world and doing what is necessary to keep us safe at home. in fact, the opposite. my honorable friend will be leading a review about how we deliver that strong protection to the people of britain. our view will learn lessons from iraq, afghanistan, and libya. we will look to our military capabilities, requirements and that life. we know it to the members of our

armed forces and to the country as a whole to engage in the kind of review which is sadly lacking today. it will consider on a basis of evidence whether it is right for the u.k. to commit so much of the defense budget continuous axis of control. investments other to our security and military capabilities are required to meet the threats that we face and ensure skills and jobs in our defense industries are fully protected? it will focus on the failure of leaving government britain to require on french plants for its airborne maritime capabilities. why has the government now chosen a replacement with virtually no u.k. defense content? has the prime minister confirmed as he was just talking now that the rejection and the number of

type 26 frigates that we have secured will not impact the navy's ability to protect the carriers? can the prime minister give some reassurance that the work is on the climb? last year, we were told 13 ships are being built. now it is a. 8. can we confirm 13 frigates still stand? our arms sales to oppressive regimes with blanks to the funding of terrorism defer my founded on the importance of human rights across the world. it will recognize its security is about much more than defense. it is not to fulfill the huge potential this country has to lead the way and peacekeeping, conflict resolution, and peace building. we have a highly professional and experienced diplomatic corps. ,ome of the best in the world including world-class people in research academics. does he not agree that the savior cut in the form office

budget is clear evidence of the government determination to sacrifice our place in the world on the altar of misplaced austerity? will he commit to a human rights advisor and every embassy? i return everything that is upmost in people's minds. i think the leader of the opposition is approaching his last question. >> indeed, mr. speaker. i saying that we have to have the place in and security to protect the public and i asked the prime minister to think very hard about the remarks that were made to him by senior police officers and the commissioner of mesh nepal to police-- metropolitan that the cuts to policing services will not go ahead. speaker, the longer he went

on, the less he had to say. [laughter] mr. cameron: most of his statement was talking about having troops in the u.n. and have a shipbuilding on decline in the importance of investing in defense and the importance of having high morale amongst armed forces. only two months ago he said, why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers, and everything else to get anywhere in the world? is it not the same opposition general thinking of all these uses for armed forces when a few months ago he thought government? investmentguarding in our counterterrorism policing and increasing the capabilities that they have give little be a full statement tomorrow on all the spending decisions that we made. he might want to have a word with his shadow chancellor who very recently signed up to proposal and i quote "at a time when we face this heightened

security threat to disband mi5 as daschle police force and disarm the police." the leader of the opposition shouldn't think that they shouldn't use their weapons. he thinks they shouldn't have any all. he asked a series of questions. let me answer them all. first of all, he asked about the threats and how we set them out. we do publish a risk assessment could the whole point of a national security strategy is to bring together all the threats that we face as a nation, state on state rights, terrorism, will bringand we together in one place how we respond to them. that is something that never previously happened. he asked about morale in our armed forces. there are no proposals here to reduce the proposals we have to

repay and increments in our armed services or indeed to change the very generous pension arrangements that they have. let me tell him -- one of the best things for morale in our armed services is that those serving in our army, navy, or air force, or planning to join the army, navy, or air force can see it will be a bigger navy with more ships. they can see it will be a bigger air force with more planes and more people. and they can see that our armed services are going to be better equipped and better supplied and then they ever happened before. -- have been before. he asked why we do not have human rights advisers and all the embassies good to me, that is part of the role of the ambassador to advise and human rights. he asked about learning lessons from previous conflicts. we are determined to do that and that is part of what the inquiry into the iraq war should be all about. we have not waited for that to learn the lessons. that is why it is so important that we bring together

military strategy with diplomatic strategy, political strategy, and development strategy. all these things should go together. he asked what lessons were learned from the libyan conflict. we clearly need to make sure that there are governments and states that can continue. i do not apologize for one minute for stepping in with france and preventing colonel ken daffy for murdering his own people in his own country. he asked about the maritime patrol aircraft. i think it is right that we ordered these new maritime aircraft. not only is it to protect from terrorism, but also it is to make sure that we have greater safety and security and greater search-and-rescue functions. he asked about the frigates. there is a real opportunity for britain here because we are ordering at least eight of the type 26 to have the full capabilities. we will also look at developing a new forget that will be a multipurpose frigate, not only one that we could read -- create

for ourselves but sell overseas as well. and up the possibility of seeing a number of capital ships in our navy going up rather than down. he asked about ship workers on the climb. booste seen a great in shipbuilding because of the carriers. we want to keep that going and that is why there will be two maritime patrol vessels built before the frigates start being built. finally, he told us a bit about his review. we look forward to this review being carried out as it is by ken livingstone, someone who has absolutely no idea about defense , but every idea of attacking hard-working people who do their job. finally, i do not think on a day when we are discussing a better army and navy and air force.

perhaps we should end with a quote from the gentleman who has recently in august said this, "would it be wonderful if every politician did what others have done and abolished the army and take pride in the fact that they do not have an army?" i knows the pressing for people sitting opposite, but that's the view of the leader of the opposition. dr. liam fox. reviewspeaker, the 2010 took some difficult decisions so that our armed forces would be able to grow in the second half of the decade. thei unequivocally welcomed practice of the new maritime the troll aircraft, which was a gap that we had to take because of catastrophic management? i also welcome the practice of more goo. what impact will the maritime carriers have on numbers and

what that will have on the that? of defense willthis see an increase in personnel and the royal navy of 400 people. i think he is absolutely right about the maritime patrol aircraft. we didn't have to take difficult decisions in 2010 to get rid of the black hole in the defense budget. time was overer budget. it was clear that we would not be able to get it back on track. this announcement today shows how we are going to sell it. from the prime minister's commitment to a contingency plan , which will allow for 10,000 members of the armed forces to forcibly and the case of terrorism. can the prime minister tell us how long it will train the military to allow interoperability and low that also mean that he will revise

his plan to cut police numbers? mr. cameron: the thinking here is that just as in france that it was necessary to search the number of uniformed personnel on provideet to sometimes a security court on to keep people safe that we should get rid of the divide of military personnel on the streets of britain. she asked when the people will be trained? the 5000 people are already fulfilled if necessary and we will get to that figure of 10,000 as i am nuts. and terms of the role they play, this is not about supplanting are taking over from the p lease -- police, but to be at the disposal of the police and provide a security court on. in the past, we had an artificial divide between the two functions and i think it is time we get rid of it. >> the defense committee will be

a list ofthis against threats of threats and vulnerable these published in our report at the week and. i think most members will find some relief in the plugging of gaps such as naval aviation and maritime control aircraft, especially the emphasis on flexible and versatile armed forces and our inability to predict crises before they are upon us. can the prime minister state a little bit about some reports in the press concerning the pay of armed forces? katie also give us an indication of when the main gate contract for the successor of the trident submarines will be brought before the house for debate and decision? cameron: i'm sure the defense committee will have a checklist to more scrutinized this document their goalie -- thoroughly and i look forward to their conclusions.

what i can tell about pay is that we are keeping the annual pay upgrade in increments that are armed forces have. there is a package that out for new joiners, which i'm sure the defense committee will want to look at carefully. the other points you mentioned where the maritime patrol aircraft, which he welcomed. decision will be moving ahead with before submarines. at the appropriate moment, we will want to have a vote in the house. >> i begin by thanking the prime minister in advance for in spite of the statements, thank you, mr. speaker, for allowing the opposition for minutes to respond. can we begin by reiterating our that werer measures preannounced following recent terrorist incidents, including support for the intelligence agencies and other counterterrorism capabilities, including special forces and on cyber security?

the prime minister has announced a 2025 target for two the play will strike brigades, which is welcomed with u.n. sanctions operations. exercise asrthwhile it provides a context allows an analysis of policies and decisions. in the 2010 sds are, there was no mention of the northern dimension and that a single mention of the risks and opportunities mentioned it not about our northern backyard. five years ago, the prime minister made the disastrous decision to scrap the entire fleet of maritime patrol aircraft, throwing away 4 billion pounds of taxpayer investment. this is met uniquely among armed forces of european neighbors. the u.k. has no mpa and us have to muddle through. we have amongst other things to use scottish fishing vessels to report on russian forces. the previous defense secretary

confirmed that social media was a helpful source of information on russian naval forces. that is currently the case of the u.k. is relying on french and canadian and american assets to patrol and screen around u.k. waters. not only has there been a deficit of mpa, but the minister of defense has not been taking the northern dimension seriously at all. with the atlantic to our west and iceland got to our north and the north sea to our east, you would've thought it was a basic requirement. however, the u.k. has never, ever provided a single fighter .et for nato policing the royal navy has not provided any asset and not one single vessel for northern maritime patrol groups. these are facts. today, we learned that there is good news and we can rectify this capability again. it is welcome that there will be maritime patrol aircraft and they will be based. will the prime minister state

more about their in-service date? thee is not a mention of vessel anywhere except the south course of england. we have been told that in scotland we should be divide -- delighted that there will be frigates built on the flight. voters in scotland were promised 13 t 26 vessels just as people voted no an independence referendum. it was a clear promise. it is just over one year since the referendum and no voters and shipyard workers are being portrayed in this with a 40% cut in t 26 vessels. under this prime minister, we have seen and decimation of defense in scotland. two out of three airbases have seized flying operations. there's been a disproportionate cut to units and manpower. baseministers promised a

and the doubling of army numbers in scotland with the return from germany. instead, that was drop. army headquarters in scotland was downgraded and service personnel are down considerably. total personnel numbers are at a record low in scotland. lifespan ford fighter jets, i must say to the prime minister that this is to be welcomed. and i raise safety issues of traffic collision avoidance systems, which have still not been installed. will the prime minister confirm that they were recommended in 1990 and still have not been installed in all tornado and typhoon aircraft? moving on from issues of necessary sensible spending to the elephant in the room, which is trident replacement. it is a weapon system of mass destruction which can never be used. as we learned, its replacement, mr. speaker, is ballooning and will be squeezing out defense alternatives. how expensive does trident need to be for this government to

realize that it is a super expensive vanity project? inhas not deterred conclusion against terrorism with cyber attacks on the u.k. and its allies. even at this late stage, may i appeal to the government and to the labour party to realize that is a huge mistake to resume trident? may i remind them both s will? [inaudible] you wouldn't think that scotland was getting more is, the u.k. truth

punches above its weight in the world and scotland punches above its weight because it is in the u.k. it is a proud partner in our defense. let me answer his questions clearly about the maritime control aircraft. in 2010, we had to take difficult decisions, this was an aircraft that was not properly insert -- was not utterly in-service. -- was not properly in-service. was guarding at deterrent that he did not want in the first place. he should welcome its replacement, he should welcome the fact that it's going to be based at mossy mount. he asked in terms of the service -- at least three aircraft will be in place by the end of the parliament. he asked about the role we play in defending northern europe and we are very carefully at some of these patrolling missions. we already have u.k. typhoons

providing baltic air policing which are welcome. -- and to the question about the naval issues and trident. in terms of the shipbuilding program, we'll be publishing a paper in 2016 with our shipbuilding strategy. the fact is, scotland now have the opportunity the to build because of3 frigates the changes we are making. they can be built in scotland if the conditions are right. the only way these ships would not be billed in scotland and that is scotland was independent and did not have the resources of the royal navy. that's what he should be saying to ship workers in scotland. it is the u.k. and our defense budget that helps to keep those jobs safe.

trident is clearly not squeezing out other defense requirements as this document says today. here is the rub. they just -- describe themselves as the effective opposition, ,hey are opposed to the trident therefore unsuited to government. [inaudible] >> i greatly welcome friends statements in particular, his comments on the counterterrorism and reiteration of the money that will go to the intelligence and security agents. in that context, can he help the house a little in identifying how the government is going to carry out the necessary -- massive expansion -- other expansions and expenditure to ensure we have -- we are going to

establish a new subcommittee of the chairman -- under the chairmanship of the -- to make sure that all of these commitments are properly delivered in a way that they should be. along with the other organizations in the government that do this, to make sure that there is good value for money. [inaudible] we have the best counterterrorism in the world and this is the best time to increase the budget. last week, the global terrorism 32,000how the last year, people were killed in terrorism attacks in 67 countries. in his statement today, the prime minister never really what is happening in this country and integrating it with what's happening in our strategy abroad. if we take one country for example, how would the government be assisted by a national security increase in our country, bearing in mind what happens on the streets of

yemen? countries as diverse as to ms. zia or yemen or night -- as to media tunisia -- as tunisia or yemen or nigeria -- we want to help with things like aviation security, we also want to help in building the capability of the armed services, policing and counterterrorism abilities -- counterterrorism capabilities. this is also going to be an important part of our intelligence services, inc. reaching the cave ability -- the -- increasing the capability and -- [inaudible] >> the commitment to naval platforms and manned and uncaring -- manned and unmanned theraft accentuates the --

threat to the likelihood that uavs will render the technology barrier obsolete by the end of service day. have,eron: what we particularly with our is aership with the french plan for the next generation of fighter aircraft being unmanned combat systems. the research is there, the work is being done with the french and americans and choices will have to be made in the future. early to say too whether the next generation of fighter aircraft will be manned or unmanned, that's why it is right we have things like the f-35 with the americans and we should do some serious thinking about whether to move to fully unmanned platforms in the future. personally, as an amateur, i would have my doubts.

>> the prime minister has said that he will come back to the house on thursday to respond to the select committee. pretty also ensure there was a full day's debate in government on this issue, well before the government puts down any motion on military intervention so we can have a full debate, not on the day of a vote, but in advance so that the house can give proper consideration? pm cameron: i will consider what the honorable lady says, will we have is a statement on the day -- depending on the reaction of senseuse and -- in the that honorable and write members have about whether we should move ahead with this, my envision would be to have a full days debate and a vote subsequent to that in the coming days and weeks. i think there is also debate on monday for people who want to make further points about the issue. i don't think we are going to be

under spoken or under -- before we take the stand. clear the statement last week, the statement today, the statement on thursday, then a debate in government time with plenty of time for people to have their views and have a vote. [inaudible] >> can i be among the first to -- [inaudible] will the commit that both should not be unchangeable but should be reviewed regularly? i think my and

honorable friend for his warm support for this approach? we get had to take difficult decisions and the last parliament. increase, but an making.a choice we are we have to make this choice, it is an active choice we are making in order to deliver greater security. is right that these documents are not set in stone, they are living and breathing documents. it is sensible every five years to hold a defense review. if we endlessly re-examine and read cook it, we will find we have lots of people doing analysis and not enough people actually delivering the strategy which is what this is about. the leader of her majesty's will opposition should be to [inaudible] -- on behalf of our benches, can i warmly welcome the prime

minister who is least -- at least living up to that requirement? and i welcome his decision to commit the company on dispense -- defense. [inaudible] in relation to maritime surveillance, can i welcome the nine new aircraft being deployed , plugging the gap that has existed for too long. can i ask him to give a commitment that the two new carriers will both be deployed going forward?? pm cameron:. years of brought into services and crude -- both carriers will be brought into service and crewed. they will be a big addition to british power, the largest ships of the royal navy has ever had under its command. >> will the government strengthen control on our

borders and integrate properly with the new intelligence which i must welcome, which you -- you are going to get. there is a clear danger that activity in the middle east could displace terrorists which may seek legal or illegal entry into our country? pm cameron: having border arerol only helps if you also sharing intelligence with others about the people trying to cross those borders. there are weaknesses in the european union system, that which we need to strengthen. i would stress again and be clear, we have borders where we are able to stop and attain people and not let them in our country, even if they are eu citizens, if we think they are a threat to national security. that exists now. some other countries in europe are introducing borders like that on a temporary business. hours are a permanent bases. permanent basis.

[inaudible] >> will he accept that before the public can be convinced into taking further action, particularly in syria, the case needs to be processed of what the scale of it would be. pm cameron: i think he is absolutely right. is aact that isis so-called state committing these appalling acts both locally in syria and around the globe is one of the most important dangers we face. is also right that we will not degrade and destroy isis as we need to do for national security, simply through the

exercise of military force. with theo combine that proper diplomatic and political activities of backing a proper government and backing a transitional government in syria. both of those things need to happen. the point i will make on thursday is i don't think we can make it -- we can wait the political process to be completed in syria before we start taking the action to degrade and destroyed this organization, which poses such a destroy- the great and this organization, which poses such a threat. to -- does the prime ministers seek to reform what more can the -- to ensure we have

a continental free trade area in order to reduce migration, increase prosperity, and increase security? pm cameron: my friend is right to focus on this issue. the fact is, we do need to see more development and growth and and europe can have an influence on that, not only through a programs -- aid programs, but also between african countries themselves. we do a lot of work to promote african trade because creating a hugearkets will make difference in the lives of people on that continent. >> can i welcome their prime minister funding commitment on defense and overseas development and ask him to ensure that in his statement on thursday, he specked out how -- immediate

action against isis and lands for the long-term restructuring we just -- we so desperately need? pm cameron: arguing for increases in defense spending earlier on this year, she was right about that. she is also right that we need to combine our a budget with our -- aid budget with our defense against. -- defense budget. we won't solve the problem in syria through missiles and bombs, alone. and has to be solved by helping the syrian people have a government and country in which they can put their trust. as we have remembered this year, the 75th anniversary of the battle of britain, can we

confirm that the investment and increased number of type wounds will ensure that we retain world-class capability? pm cameron: i can certainly get that assurance. provingthe typhoon is itself, not just in britain but elsewhere in the world as a leader in terms of capabilities. what the review will deliver is to further upgrade the typhoon aircraft with the final scan radar and more modern weapon systems it needs -- with the vital scan radar and more modern weapon systems it means. .- it needs >> as we know, the u.k. is bombing isil in iraq.

is the government currently not -- i think the point i made to the gentleman is that the border between iraq and syria is not recognized by isil. it is literally a line in the sand, so it makes no sense. if we want to degrade and destroy isil, to restrict our with some of the most dedicated pilots and sophisticated technology in the world. [inaudible] >> is my friend is already recalled, the dire economic straits in which our country found itself thanks to the party opposition -- the review is a pretty lovely and painful exercise. can i say, i warmly welcome the

statement today that has been delivered by the defense secretary. can i ask some questions about the striker grades -- strike brigades? delivered within the constraint of 82,000 regular army personnel and why is it going to take 10 years to deliver them? can we expedite the creation? pm cameron: and defense of the 2010 review, we did have to take difficult decisions, but i would ,rgue that the moves we made reducing the number of battle tanks and focusing on possible things,rces and those they were also -- they were actually the right judgments. what we are doing in terms of these strike brigades is that we

currently have the ability -- have the capability to deploy one anywhere and have been sustained indefinitely. while we have our new armored vehicles and have them in a new way we are going to rotate armed forces personnel and have the ability, instead of being able to deploy one, to deploy two with greater mobility. the time this takes will depend on how soon some of this new look women comes on board. my commitment of the house is to make sure these brigades are ready as soon as they can be. the prime minister's statement on thursday, can i toe him to listen carefully those on the side of the house to have an open mind on this question and want reassurance on specific things, chiefly, the issue of humanitarian and protection and making sure that we prevent further displacement

and suffering, but also a commitment to long-term reconstruction and stabilization once conflict has ceased? pm cameron: i can certainly give the gilman that assurance -- the gentleman that assurance. my aim is to bring together the biggest majority across this house to taking the action i think is necessary. i'm not saying we will solve this problem simply by crossing a line iraq into syria. -- from a rock into syria. syria. iraq into -- to raise funds necessary to help the syrian people wherever they are. the more of them we could in syria, the better. >> and the promise or confirm that today's statement is good news for the home of the tornado force and the future home of lightning?

tornadoes are playing a vital role in the campaign against daesh. annot agree it is overwhelming case into attending these strikes into syria itself? pm cameron: i do believe today's statement is good because it means more lightning aircraft, or quickly and i believe that will be very good for that airbase and that is what he says about iraq and syria. the review, much of which is common sense. that limitede defense budget is spent to the interest of our armed forces to give them the equipment they need, not to enrich -- pm cameron: i would do everything i can on that basis, it is always difficult, this issue, because in the one hand, you want to procure as swiftly as possible.

on the other hand, you want to have a care to britain's final defense industry and the opportunity to help our allies with their capabilities. overall, making sure procurement is expedient would be a good thing. think my right honorable friend for stating unequivocally that the british army might be placed on the streets of the u.k., but i remind the house, it has actually been operating on the streets of the u.k. for over 40 years. public very much the will the very sympathetic to that idea and will take great comfort in times of peril when they see our wonderful soldiers on the street protecting them. pm cameron: my friend is right. during the flooding problems, to regular fix, we saw a number of british troops on our the point i am making is that up

been rathere have arcane and old-fashioned various to stop this from happening, but all sorts of very good historical reasons that i think we are rather over that now and if there were a terrorist attack and we have a need to surge to keep us safe, i think people would be very happy to see the military perform that role. the army,spect to what is given about wales, based in england? happy toon: i am very look carefully at that we are bringing a number of people home from germany so there are opportunities for more in the united kingdom. >> speaker, can i think prime minister today for the hard work today as the has ever been. i have four thomas government --

worked for this government -- our most critical asset remains our men and women who serve. in the framework, looking after our men and women during and after this service will be a priority. i think my friend is right to say this. you can talk about all the equipment in the world but at the heart of it is men and women who are prepared to serve and put their lives on the line for us. they should be looked after. , youyou look through this will see we are committed to doing that. ita legal footing, passing into law, we know that is helping people for the rest of their lives. obviously right with armed forces, taking our country and

can i press you on the decision to bring before the house about military action in syria? just aensure this is not decision by the house to say yes or no, but that it is also a decision to do every diplomatic decision we have two forge a sustainable future for syria after question mark -- after? mr. cameron: there is the diplomatic things being done, political change in that country, there is the humanitarian side where britain is the second largest donor in the world on a bilateral basis to help syrian refugees and we will continue with that work and i very much see all of these things as part of an overall

strategy. there is not simply a plan to extend military action. there is a plan to step up in all these areas. richard: i warmly welcome the statement by my friend today and congratulate him for increasing resources for armed forces. a tiny cautionary note. in my day, we were talking about provisions. the armyassure me that will not be reduced below 82,000 so we can do the job around the world? mr. cameron: i can absolutely give my honorable friend that assurance. i found by reducing the size of our army to 82,000, the most painful part of the review in the last parliament, that is why it did not go ahead to begin with. i want to find every way to try to avoid it. i can give the assurances than what is interesting about this report is because of the way we are changing the way the army

work, we would have the ability hope it will not be necessary, division of entire armed services in one go, a higher number, 50,000. dennis: like many prime minister's before him, he is already talking about a decision that will cause the house to wage war in syria. nobody else has ever had one. exit strategy. mr. cameron: the exit strategy is a government in syria that represents all of its people. in terms of exit tragedies, i would make the point that when i became prime minister, we were nine years into afghanistan deployment. i delivered the exit strategy by setting a time and a date by which we should be leaving the country in terms of combat and training up the afghans.

>> the new jersey governor and presidential candidate chris at thee talks today council on foreign relations. you can see it live at 12:30 c-span two. >> c-span has the best coverage of the house. watch our conversation with six members of congress. congressman buddy carter, republican from georgia and the only pharmacist serving in congress. then, a new jersey democrat. then, a california democrat and former restaurant owner. then, mark walker, a

representative baptist minister in his first appointment to office. then, a former intern from washington, it d. c. interned there. your best access to congress is on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. was the persony who shot president reagan, and president reagan was not wearing that day.oof best it was a short trip to the white house. stocking jimmyas carter before this. >> he talks about various assassination attempts and physical threats made throughout american history. >> there have been 16 presidency faced ss the nation threats.

16 presidents. three covered presidential candidates. hughley long, who in 1975 was assassinated. robert kennedy, in 1968 who was assassinated. shoteorge wallace, who was and paralyzed for life in 19 72. so i cover candidates as well as presidents, and it is a long list. q1span's night on day. washington journal. and at 5 p.m. eastern, the white house awards the medal of freedom to 17 individuals. >> george mason university

professor ilya somin. founder billyngth shore on hunger in america. host: good morning. breaking overnight, a turkish airspace violation. moscow says it can prove the jet had not left syrian airspace. this was the first time a nato member has down the russian aircraft since the 1950's. it comes as president obama will meet with the french president at the white house this morning. we will begin there this morning with your thoughts on a