♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] x in about an hour and a half, president obama will hold a news conference with francois hollande. you can watch it live at 11:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span and we will take your phone calls afterwards, as well as your comments and tweets. also, today's wrote to the white house coverage continues with chris christie. he will be speaking about national security issues and plans to outline steps he things will strengthen u.s. intelligence capabilities. live at 12:30that p.m. eastern on c-span two. later today, we will head back to the white house where president obama will hand over .he award for freedom

some of this year's recipients including baseball player yogi berra. filmmaker steven spielberg, and u.s. senator barbara mikulski. at 5:00watch this live p.m. eastern right here on c-span. >> c-span has the best access to congress with live coverage of the house. over thanksgiving, watch our conversations with six freshmen senators at congress. thursday, a republican from georgia and the only pharmacist serving in congress. at 10:30, a new jersey democrat and longtime unit death union electrician. friday, a california democrat and former restaurant owner appeared at 10:30, congressman baptistyou look in an miniter -- minister when first elected in office.

california who interned as a college student. and a massachusetts democrat, harvard graduate, and rain who served four tours in iraq. your best access to congress is on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> foreign-policy experts took a look at what is next for france and europe after the recent terrorist attacks and why france seems to be a prime target and how the international community should respond. by the brookings institution. it is about an hour and a half. >> i would like to welcome you to brookings and thanks for coming to this event. we will be talking about france and europe after the terrorist attacks.

probably don't need to tell anyone in this town, when there is a terrorist outrage like this, the reaction is often fast, often furious, rarely well considered. and at times we have come to regret that. i think that we understand that the politics of the moment, the body politic demands a response to outrages like this. so a response it will have. i think that what we would like to do here, because we don't have to be elected to any office, is to think about how that response can be certainly consistent with public desires, but also smart and considered, as we can make it.

we have an excellent opportunity to have that somewhat calmer conversation here today. we have a really excellent panel and group of people to discuss it. we will try to do it from a few different angles. our first speaker, philippe, will discuss the french reaction to the re--- to the attacks. the second speaker on my left is joseph, next door at an dilatation -- institution we don't like to talk about called carnegie and he will talk about the links between french policy in the middle east. the third speaker will be laure mandeville, who is the speaker correspondent here in correspond -- here in washington. she is going to talk about

president hollande's visit and how that relates to the french reaction to the attack. come all -- kamal is going to talk about the effects of the french reaction and the attack on the broader european migration and refugee debate. with that, let's get started. we will start with you, philippe. kamal: thanks, jeremy. to give you a quick summary of what happened -- i'm sure that you have all been following the news, but as you know france has been hit by terrorists for the second time in this time it was not satirical magazine columnists. it hit pretty much every level of the society. music lovers, soccer fans, young professionals having dinner.

that helps to perhaps explain some of the reaction that jeremy was describing. in a nutshell, several attacks took place around paris. and at the theater where 80 9 p.m. -- 89 people were killed. altogether 130 people were killed and almost 400 were wounded. that makes it the worst terrorist attack in france since world war ii and the bloodiest in europe since madrid in 2004. the french society is in a state of shock, of course. i guess not just the french society, but i think the main reason is that these attacks have been random. it could have in any city. it could have been you. it is also brussels, which has been pretty much a ghost city for -- for the past few days. 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. 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. mobilize these people if you don't address 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. to 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. battle them to

together will remain probably in the deep software. however, what has changed for a time is probably a different priority. moreobably will focus much 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 inesident's visits

moscow? mr. lecorre: -- [no audio] >> why don't we had over two -- to 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 and 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. there is still this question. 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 crossed the famous red line 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, a 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 andn the current context ultra righthe

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 -- despite the reluctance 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 y,

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. islam, what's going on. it's not about all of islam, but it is about a branch of islam which is radical 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,

anti-muslim 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 at the same time, 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 -- assad 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 here 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 fact that 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 without a sod. -- assad. 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 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.

aiming to create -- they need to create an indigenous force on the ground they can be the ground force. why not drop mono from heaven? -- mana from heaven? this seems to be a harsh 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 -- living. 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 naave 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 pozner 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. >> meta-mandeville -- 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 friends, 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 who want -- 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 [indiscernible]

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, and you will have a fragmented syria that at one point will be legitimized and legalized by the international process. people sit around the tables and say these are the borders, let's accept that. i don't have anything against it. nations are born and die. maybe one day, lebanon will disappear. iraq has already more or less. there's a process called geneva-vienna where we say we want a democratized, secularized syria. if these words mean something, let's do it.

let sit at the table with the syrians and say you cannot live together anymore. let's see where the boundary is. it can be federalization. it can be a federal state. i don't know. i am one of the people who think order in the levont is not there. i don't think it will be replaced soon by something. my worry is how to shorten the limbo between something dead and something to be born and how to do it the least cores and etc. as a political scientist and citizen of that region and of the world, this is what worries me.

nothing is sacred in these issues. i know some syrian friends would probably jump up. today, syria is comatose. you can still save it. you don't want to save it? let's try to transform it into something else at the least cost possible. that is what i am saying. this needs a little bit of leadership. >> i know, jeremy, you're going to ask me what i think about all of this. coming on joseph's heels, there are refugees out there. it happens that the west and the e.u. and the united states and a number of other countries are signatories of legal documents that promise refugees are going to be treated differently than migrants and this is an

international responsibility. this is what i would like to remind us all. i would not want you to walk away having listened to laure, that somehow i am in advocate of [indiscernible] all i said was -- just a second, let me finish. all i said was to respond to your remark. brookings keeps transcripts of these debates. you can always go and look it up. that a branch of islam is at war with the western world. i said that branch of islam is not at war just with the west, but it is at war with the muslim world and syrian people, etc. that is the only point i made. you did not need to cite the big literature that argues to the

contrary. we have run out of time. jeremy: i apologize for my bad time management, but we are out of time. i think we have covered a frightening array of subjects. i think we have plunged into the ways to maintain our values, the ways to fight isis, and the struggles over leadership and structure. i'm not sure we have resolved anything. but i hope we have given you a lot of food for thought. i appreciate you coming. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] their talks on russia was

complicated by a turkish -- turkey shooting down a russian airplane. we will hear from them very shortly at the white house. we will look at an earlier conversation. this is from "washington journal." >> we are back to the fight against isis. george professor at mason university law school. i want to begin with turkey shooting down this russian jet. nato is calling an emergent meeting. what does this mean for the united states and the rest of nato? >> it's hard to say.

the other allies are required to consider that an attack against themselves and it seems possible this was not an attack by russia, but an accidental shoot down. perhaps they accidentally thought it was not. i have far from complete information about this. >> what does it all mean. we warned themg 10 times and they continue to violate airspace. what does that all mean? not sure it means very much. could we have further incidents.

let's back up. not legal. it's tell us why. guest: it's not legal under the u.s. constitution. it's clear this is a conflict large enough to be considered a war by any regional measure. the president can't initiate war on his own. he needs congressional authorization. he did not get it, even though he could have. in addition, he is in violation of the war powers act of 1973 that requires congressional authorization each time troops enter armed hostilities abroad and are therefore 60 days or more. host: his supporters say he has legal authorization. why do you disagree?

guest: he has different rationales. the problem with using the 2001 authorization is that one is aimed at 9/11. isis is a different group. they have been at odds with al qaeda and fought them on the battlefield isis is a terrible group. it's not the same group as al qaeda. the 2001 agreement does not apply to it. host: what does this mean now that the french president is coming to washington today. what does that mean, france once a new coalition. what does that mean? guest: it may not change the

legal situation. we could potentially change it in the attack on france that happened a few days ago. this may trigger article five of the north atlantic treaty. that article says when one nato outline is attacked in europe or north america, the others are required to consider that an attack against themselves. that could be an alternative legal justification for a war against isis going forward. it would not legitimize everything in the past year. host: if france were to invoke article five, the present would not need authorization from congress? guest: the tree legalized -- treaty legalized. pretty standard constitutional law. the president does not need additional crew national authorization for war if it was

started by the enemy. the attack against france is one we are legally required to treat as an attack against ourselves. it would create the same presidential powers. we are nearing almost two weeks. host: france is not invoke this yet. why not? guest: that's a good question. i'm not sure i know the answer. there is a dilemma for the obama administration in that it might be admitting they did not have authorization before. host: does this mean that france wants russia and they are not a nato member. guest: there is nothing to prevent nato from working with other powers. it has done it in afghanistan. host: because of what happened

in paris, members of congress are again pushing for renewal of the new authorization for military force. they are saying now more than ever, this is needed because of what happened in paris. the administration sent up language in february. does that say? -- what does that language say? guest: it met a very cold reception from both immigrants and republicans for various reasons. -- democrats reasons. there were many objections. one is it does not actually say that's the exclusive authorization for the is of force against isis. the second problem is the language stated that there is a ban on enduring offensive ground operations and no one can tell how we distinguish an enduring offensive from some other operations.

host: that's what this is called right now? guest: it's something the administration's language with and for britain. -- forbidden. nobody really knows what it means. host: i want to have our viewers look at the debate that took place last tuesday between senators. the two of them are pushing for a new authorization of ella -- military force. take a look at the arguments

they made. >> i am not debating the arguments. that's not what is it issue right here. what is at issue is the ease with which congress defers to old statutes and advocates its authority. this conflict is been going on for more than a year with very mixed results. the consequences will change the geopolitical landscape in that region for decades. 10 service members have died. one was recently killed in action. five others have been wounded. attacks are happening all over the world. the notion that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. >> it's not enough for this body who has the constitutional authority. we have set on the sidelines and

criticize. we have not been willing to authorize what's been going on, vote to stop what's going on, or to revise what's going on. it's easy to be a critic. it's easy to sit in the stands and say why didn't the coach call a different play? we are the article one ranch. we are not supposed to be a war without a vote from congress. guest: it's rare that politicians say things that i agree with. what they said is absolutely right. the president was wrong to start towards without congressional authorization and congress was wrong not to assert its powers more fully. host: let's get calls. we are talking about the legality of u.s. military action against isis. caller: there is something that

is very relevant to this. it's about a little girl. many years ago in lebanon, they wanted to let muslims come into work. they did. because they had wives, they outnumbered. then they out voted them. hello, america. they came to their christian neighborhood and blew up their home. she said i am 10 years old. i am in the hospital. i said, why did they do this? she said, because you are christian. once they come in, it is not the number you are hearing. i have talked to people high up in washington. they say it is a half a million. a lot of people know this but

more don't. once they come in, you cannot reverses. rape is rampant. young girls can't go to school. they don't think their arm is going to cause you to be raped. host: you are talking about syrian refugees? >> yes. they are not always who they say they are. many of them are very strong young men. we were told they were going to do this. they were going to hide who they were. thoughts?have any syrians being displaced in the united states and wanting to

bring in more refugees? >> there are many factual errors in what the caller said it. when the current refugee legislation was about, we have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees. not one has carried out a terrorist attack against the united states. that does not mean the risk is zero, and it's very small. has repeatedly said they are against refugees fleeing to the west area they oppose that strongly. it reduces the people living under their control and if they come to the west, they will be given western values. by keeping out syrian refugees, the are harming innocent people but aiding the enemy in the conflict. fromcar lopez is reporting macedonia.

the balkans are blocking the passage of all war refugees. they are turning away migrants who are unable to prove they are fleeing. thousands of people are's traded at the border. we are not terrorists. they held signs begging for help. security concerns of spread through europe. there are similar restrictions announced last week during the flow of people has shown no sign of slowing down. afghans this about wanting to lead -- leave the country. please ring hollow.

they try to halt this exit -- exodus. a majority of migrants are headed. they are trying to stabilize afghanistan. to callers. good morning to you. we are talking about the legality of this fight against isis. >> if the professor remembers the manhattan project, that was back in the 1940's. the president was given all of to dower that he needed whatever he wanted to do. korea, then vietnam.

the united states has been in perpetual war. drugs, isis is basically a bunch of criminals running from one country to another. they are based in iraq. themselves a country. themselvesade eligible for the world to go against them. there are terror groups all of the world. once you say we are real group that is fighting for freedom. ok. you are going to get war. forgotten isave they would rather fight the russians.

history will tell us whether it's right or wrong. that, we set a precedent. it was legal. there was award going on. you got a war. isis wouldthis did rather fight the russians first. then they would have opportunity to jump on the christian countries. >> i've got to get some other calls in. to try to going unpack that. concessionalproper -- congressional authorization. that isis has created a

state like entity. that does not mean there be a state of war between them and the u.s. this conflict was initiated by the decision last year to begin bombing operations. he needed congressional authorization. vladimir putin is saying the downing of that russian plane is a flow in the back from turkey. out.is tweeted this is based in london. he says this will have serious consequences for russian/turkish relations. >> this is the standard rhetoric and i like this area it could mean almost anything.

it does not seem likely that putin intends to go to war with turkey over this. the consequences seem to be limited largely to rhetoric. the turkish government shot down a turkish -- russian jet. they gave the pilots and mornings. there is now a nato emergency meeting that will be happening today. ey is an ally of nato. they could say this is an act of war by russia. how do you go about in looking article five? >> some people argue that the way you have to do it is use article four of the nato treaty which requires consulting together when they think one has been attacked or a security has been threatened. you cansible to argue

do it without article for paste meetings. based meetings. it's unlikely it would be invoked unless one of the parties try to do so. so far, turkey has not tried to do so. tried withnot respect to the attack in paris. the united nations on friday approved a resolution urging action against the islamic state. what does that mean western mark --? the united that nations has urged action does not in and of itself trigger nato obligations under article five. the u.n. says something is legal

or desirable, that doesn't make it constitutional in the united states. >> john is in nebraska. out, i trying to figure am confused. you saying you wanted congressional authorization for military action against isis? >> yes. that's exactly what i have insane. he was clearly -- it was a large enough scale to constitute a war. it requires congressional authorization. it violates the war powers act of 1973. it requires congressional authorization anytime american war's is are involved in armed hostilities abroad. >> joe is in north carolina.

i think it is not truly a state. i think the president was wrong going after them. there is not much in the history of the united states that compares to this. if congress what's to use this as a political all -- football. >> it doesn't necessarily matter that much. it doesn't matter if they are a true state or not.

the u.s. can be involved with nonstate groups. the war against al qaeda in afghanistan is a good example of this. they have taken the view that this is a war even though al qaeda is not a state. isis is not a wrecking dies government. they do control a lot of territory. arguek it's reasonable to this is a war against them even if you contend wars can only happen against rates or groups that controlled territory in the same way that states do. >> what is considered by an act of war? speaking, if would not. it's a violation of international law. this might be an accident. there might not be a war in an

of itself. there is always some gray area about bad behavior. theink something like terrorist attack in paris where over 100 people were killed, there is a lot of ambiguity there. >> the administration using the word war? what does that mean legally? >> they have not used the word war to my knowledge. they can avoid getting congressional authorization. whether they used the word are it's clear. this does not change what's going on. think any reasonable point of

view, it's clear that there is a war going on. >> you are next. professor.u to the i have a couple of points. i wonder what the professors thoughts were on hillary clinton's assertion in the second debate where she said that the 2001 should be advised. she thought it covered what we are doing interact in syria. the second point, you touched on this, what is the legal justification for u.s. forces generally? they are attacking targets in syria. understand, that's contrary to u.n. charter. russians are there at

the invitation of the bashar al-assad government. what is legal justification? >> those are two good questions. agree with hillary clinton that there may be reason to revise the 2001. i disagree that it covers the action against isis for the reasons i mentioned earlier. it was aimed at a different group from isis. on the second question, regarding the issue of the legal authorization. i think if the war is otherwise legal, the simple fact that enemy forces are operating in syrian territory, isis provides authorization. if during world war ii german forces have been operating from a neutral country, we would've had the right to bomb or attack

them there. the same point applies there here. large parts of syria are controlled isis. forcesattack their wherever they may be located. >> we will go to texas. good morning. >> good morning. >> you were on the air. we went into iraq and killed over one million people. and we never hear anyone accountable for that. we should be going against the high court for these war crimes. was the said america biggest purveyor of violence in the world. we are attacking syria. these guys were from belgium.

why are we not attacking belgium? those guys were from saudi arabia that we attacked afghanistan. had held accountable for the people we killed in iraq, isis would not either. we killed more people than isis ever would've killed. we created terrorism. stop acting like terrorists. hold these people accountable. the same thing in yemen. we are dividing that country up by bomb in them. we are dividing and conquering. we're doing this with drones. we can hold ourselves for crimes against humanity and repent for that. people will look at america in a different way.

guest: the figures in iraq are highly disputable and what he gave his higher than estimates. --hink it is true >> please be seated. president hollande, it has been honored to welcome to the white house before in happier times than this but as americans, we stand by our friends in good times and in bad no matter what. on behalf of the american people, i want to once again express our deepest condolences to you and all of the people of france for the heinous attacks that took place in paris.

we are here today to declare that the united states and france stand united in total solidarity to deliver justice to these terrorists and those who sent them and to defend our nation's. spirit, with heavy but strong hearts, i welcome you here today. francois, with your understanding, my statement will be longer than usual. i have been traveling and this is an important moment for our nations and for the world. group,rbaric terrorist daesh, and his murderous ideology poses a serious threat to all of us. it cannot be tolerated. it must be destroyed. and we must do it together. this is the unity of purpose that brings us here today. on your visit here last year,

you said the french love america. we love the french. are twos, we americans shy to say so but we don't feel shy today. becausecans love france we dedicate ourselves to the same ideals, that all people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. france is our oldest ally. you helped us win our independence. we helped liberate france from fascism. we oh our freedom to each other. we love france for your spirit and your culture j and youroie de vivre. since the attacks, americans have recalled their own visits to paris at the eiffel tower walking along the sei and we know these placesne, these are part of our memories woven into the fabric of our lives and our culture. i am very grateful to the french

people for the hospitality they have always shown me. with michelleed at my daughters to the first visit of the city of lights. from my bed in the residence is a picture of me and michelle in luxembourg gardens kissing. [laughter] those are the memories we have a paris as early on i had no gray hair. when tragedy struck that evening, our hearts broke, too. in that stadium, in the concert hall, in those restaurants and cafes we see our own. in the face of the french people, we see ourselves that's why so many americans have embraced the blue, white, and red and that's why americans held candlelight vigils and have come together to sing la marse

illaise how the french people still with us after 9/11 and today we stand with you. noted that the terrorists did not direct their attacks against the french government or military, rather they focused their violence on the very spirit of france. by extension, and all liberal democracies. this was an attack on our free and open societies. where people come together to celebrate and sing and compete and targeting venues where people come together from around the world, killing citizens of nearly 20 countries including america, this was an attack on the very idea that people of different races and religions and backgrounds can live together in peace. short, this was not only a strike against one of the

world's greatest cities. it was an attack against the world itself, the same madness that has slaughtered the innocent from nigeria to the sinai, from lebanon to iraq. that threatens all of us and that's why, for more than a year, united states, ofnce, and our coalition some 65 nations have been united in one mission -- to destroy these terrorists and defeat their vile ideology. hollandee and t i reviewed our progress. we have airstrikes combined with local partners on the ground have pushed isl back from territory in iraq and syria. hollande and it agree we must do more together. u.s. assistance has supported recent french strikes in syria

and we will keep stepping up that coordination. as we saw with the attack in mali, the terrorist threat goes beyond is il will sign legislation this week to sustain our. support including airlift and intelligence to allies like france as we work together to root out terrorists networks in africa. we will do even more to prevent attacks at home. we will build in a recent intelligence agreement come of the unite states will quickly share threat information with france and in the wake of harris and with the threats in belgium, there is a growing recognition among european nations that they need to ramp up additional efforts to prevent the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. as part of that, i am calling on the european union to finally implement the agreement that has been long in the works that would require airlines to share passenger information so we can do more to stop foreign terrorist fires -- fighters from

entering our country's undetected. i'm prepared to send teams of our experts to work on this with our european partners to make sure we redouble our efforts together. regarding the broader crisis in syria -- president holland and i agree that the russian strikes against the moderate opposition only bolsters the brutality that has fueled the rise of isi we agree that russia could play more constructive roles. if it were to shift the focus of its strikes to defeating isl. andwise, president hollande i agree the best way to bring peace to syria's through the principles reaffirmed in vienna which require active russian support for a cease-fire and a political transition away from ass to aa democratically elected governmentd that can unite the syrian people against terrorists. fran and i understand

one of our greatest weapons in the fight againstcois is is the strength and resilience of our peoplel. . want to speak directly to the american people. is trulyened in paris horrific. that people worry that something similar could happen here. i want you to know that we will continue to do everything in our power to defend our nation. we have taken extraordinary measures to strengthen our homeland security. , homelandrterrorism security, and law enforcement professionals, federal, state, and local our tireless. they have prevented attacks and they have saved lives. they are working every hour, every day for our security. they did so before paris. they do so now and they will not

stop. they are the best in the world. it's not just our security professionals who will defeat is and other terrorist groups. las americans, we all have a role to play in how we respond to threats. isl cannot defeat us on the battlefield, they try to terrorize us at home against soft targets come against civilians, innocent people. even as we are vigilant, we cannot and we will not succumb to fear. allow fear to divide us. that's how terrorists win. we cannot give them the victory of changing how we go about living our lives. the good news is americans are resilient. lost ined the lives

fort hood, the boston marathon, in chattanooga but we did not waver. comer communities have together and we have gone to ball games and going to concerts and gone shopping and men and women who want to serve our country continue to go to military recruiting offices. vigilant, we take precautions, but we go about our business. for those who want to harm us, or actions have shown that we have too much resolve and too much character. not bens will terrorized. i say all this because another part of being vigilant, another part of defeating terrorists is upholding the rights and freedoms that define our two great republics. that includes freedom of

religion. that includes equality before the law. there have been times in our fear,y, in moments of when we have failed to uphold our highest ideals. and it has been to our lasting regret. uphold our ideals now. showof us, all of us, must that america is strengthened by people of every faith and every background. related to this, i want to note that oz debts that under francent hollande, intends to welcome 30,000 more syrian refugees over the next two years. in the united states, refugees coming to america go through up to two years of intense security checks including biometric screening. nobody who sets foot in america goes for more screening than

refugees. share thesered to tools with france and our european partners. said, ouris humanitarian duty to help refugees in her duty to security, those duties go hand-in-hand. , a gifttatue of liberty from the people of france, there are words we know so well. poor, me your tired, your your huddled masses, yearning to be free." that's the spirit that makes us americans. that's the spirit that binds us to france. that's the spirit we need today. in closing, i want to salute the people of paris for showing the world how to stay strong in the face of terrorism. grieve, people have

begun returning to their cafes and riding the metro and going to stadiums to cheer for their teams. tattered -- have gathered including a mother who brought her children. she said, to let them see we should not be afraid. as one parisian said, paris will always be paris. next week, i will be joining president hollande and world leaders in paris for the global climate conference. rebuke to thel terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children. forpresident hollande, my fellow americans, let's remember we face greater threats to where

we have like before. fascism, communism, a first world war, a second, a long cold war. each and every time, we prevailed. we have prevailed because our way of life is stronger. because we stay united. even as we are relentless in the face of evil, we draw on what's best in ourselves and in the character of our countries. it will be no different this time. win no mistake -- we will and groups like is will lose. lstanding with allies like france, we will continue to show the world the best of american leadership. france and god bless the united states of america. mr. president --

>> translator: ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to thank the president of the united states, barack obama, for the solidarity he has shown immediately as we found out about the terror attacks. he was the first one to call me. france, 2:00ate in a.m., when he called. the president of the united states. he expresses solidarity toward france and his emotions and his compassion. night, he meant to tell me that united states stood by france. that the help that could be provided to france would have no limit on that we had a duty, a

joint duty, to pull our forces together and fight terrorism. either all oft -- who sent people messages over the last couple of days. the french colleges, the french banks, all of them in many gatherings, they let candles and places that represent france here in the united states. anthem was sung in official ceremonies. , we allue that 9/11 felt american. but after the 13th of november, americans felt french. our two peoples together emerged as one, sharing the same also the same

willingness to fight for freedom and defend their values. peoples,t too similar we have our own culture, our own background. , theare the same trust same faith and freedom. it is france that came under attack on the 13th of november. the country which we consider unique in the world because france [indiscernible] [inaudible] the world. france came under attack for what it represents, for what it stands for, its culture, our way of living as well as our values, our principles but by targeting , thee, the terrorists

murderers are targeting the world. in these cafes and restaurants as well as the concert venue, there were men and women, most of them young. who came from 20 countries at least. passion shared the same for life and is the reason why they were murdered. my thoughts are with the friends and family of the un-american student -- of the young american student who came as well to share a moment of culture. thehoughts also go to american band that was playing at the concert that night. all culture on that occasion were together to bring the same

enthusiasm and they were hit i terrorists. -- by terrorists. the terror group organized itself on the territory and they have substantial resources. they are thriving on smuggling, drugs, oil, human beings. year,the beginning of the they hit many countries, denmark q8, turkey,anon, egypt as well as russia. down the russian plane. obama,r with president today, we want on the occasion of that meeting first of all to , share our determination and present our determination to

fight terrorism everywhere and anywhere. we want to tell the world that we will not allow those who want to destroy what we have built, we will not allow them to do it, to destroy what generation after generation, we will not bow to them in the world. response, andt implacable response. france and the united states spend together that joint response. about not, it is where they are, it is about taking out their finances, hunting down their leaders, dismantling their network. and taking back the land they currently control. we therefore decided, president obama and myself, to scale up our efforts in syria and iraq to

broaden the scope, to strengthen our intelligence sharing regarding the targets we might aim at. the priority is to take back key locations in the hands of those in syria and it's a matter of urgency to close the borders between turkey and syria and prevent terrorists from crossing the border and coming to europe or other places and to commit terrible attacks. we will work together with our partners in iraq and support all of those who are fighting on the ground. the aim is to make sure these helped,an be supported, by countries that are willing to act militarily to destroy

daesh. the meeting of the security council met unanimously friday. after being introduced by france and supported by the united they provided a clear basis to act. this is what france is currently doing. our our crap carrier is currently in the east of the mediterranean -- our aircraft carrier is truly an east of the mediterranean. yesterday was the sixth time after the terror attacks [indiscernible] in addition, we have been provided assistance into iraq he fighters in the region of r amadi. president obama and myself have asengthened our cooperation early as the night after the attacks. i would like to commend

everything that is being done so that intelligence and information available can be used to tackle terrorists and follow their movements so that we prevent from them from doing what they want to do. somehow toant is spread fear everywhere so that we doubt, so that we make exactlys which are contrary to what we want in terms of freedom and rights. but we will not give in. that being said, we have to defend ourselves and use intelligence. workingically, we are on political transition in syria. we are in the process and i commend the work done by the ministers to agree to a timeline that will enable a cease-fire as

quickly as possible and to open up the process that will lead to assad's departure. gathering around the leader who is responsible for 300,000 deaths in a few years. a complement of unity is required but that must lead to assad's departure. the syrian crisis is directly relevant to europe. because there are millions of refugees fleeing the regime's bombs and atrocities. them, wee to bomb would betray what we are.

i rejectn why identifying migration and terror. the same time, we must enforce the borders. today, people are risking their when they travel between turkey and greece. turkey, therefore, plays an important role and it is together with turkey that we must find solidarity with stay close they can to their country of origin and we need to make sure that the required controls and checks are implemented at the borders. will be traveling to moscow to meet with vladimir putin and i will tell him that france can work together with russia if

russia concentrates its military action on daesh. commits to the political position in syria, this is what we want to do. we want to gather all countries, all those who are willing to find a political solution in syria. we don't want to exclude anyone but we want to make sure that the political solution can eradicate terrorism. lastly, next week, on monday, we will be hosting in paris the climate conference. imaginenly could not that the conference would be taking place against such a background. it cannot be ae,

better symbol for response but to hold a conference in paris where the attacks took place, where we took the right measures in terms of security, protections and defending our values. there is no greater symbol than holding this conference on climate in paris with some 150 heads of state and government. before did france host so many leaders of the international community. they are coming to sort out the climate challenge and to work and find the right agreements so we can limit greenhouse gas emissions and make sure our children and our grandchildren live better or simply can live.

but they are also coming to express their support to freedom, to the fight against extremism. radical islam is becoming dangerous. no, all of them are coming matter their background, no matter their religion, their convictions to express the same values and principles with the same words, life. yes, simply life. why -- and that's the reason why president obama will allow us to succeed. statementsis recent for the past few weeks and moments but i also commend the commitment he's made in the night -- and the name of the united states and in the name of the world.

it was very important that one of the most powerful countries if not the most powerful and therefore with the highest level of emissions could also be there. e to face the future like we have been facing history. doing early next week in paris means that we can continue to live as well as protect our lives and that of all children. france and the united states, given their history, and their founding values of both our dutyns, we both have that to act as a matter of urgency. urgency against terrorism and at the same time, to prepare for

the future. against that background, even though it is a very dire one, i am pleased to be with barack obama to send that message to the entire world. thank you. this is a question for both of you. what is your reaction to turkey shooting down a russian plane today? and as the strong nato into a confrontation with russia? how do you keep this from spiraling out of control? does thisobama, what mean for the prospect of more military coordination with russia? llande, what are the prospects for closer military coordination with russia, given what happened today?

all,dent obama: first of we are still getting the details of what happened. i expect to be in communications , potentially directly, with the in the next several days. turkey, like every country, has a right to defend is territory and its airspace. i think it is very important right now for us to make sure both the russians and the turks are talking to each other. find out exactly what happened, and take measures to discourage any type of escalation. that this points to an ongoing problem with the russian operations. in the sense that they are operating very closely to a turkish border and they are moderate opposition

that are supported by not only turkey but a wide range of countries. if russia is directing his isil, some ofd those conflicts or potentials for mistakes and escalation are less likely to occur. and because underscores the point of us making sure that we move this political track forward as quickly as possible. hollandeident francois , our view from the start has been that russia is welcome to be part of this broad-based coalition that we have set up. there has never been a point in time in which we sat that we do not want russia or other countries that may have differences with us on a host of other things to avoid working with us against isil. been russia'shas

focus on propping up for cheryl assad rather than focusing on isil. i had a conversation with president putin in turkey as i ,ndicated to him at the time that to the extent they make that strategic shift, focus on the vienna process where they had been instructed to bring the parties together, to try to execute a political transition, that all parties would agree to, -- andirement this refocus attention on going after isil, then there is enormous capacity for us to cooperate. until that happens, it is very difficult. it is difficult because it is their priority to attack the moderate opposition that might of anure members .nclusive syrian government russia is not going to get the a range ofm us or

other members of the coalition. i do think that there is the possibility for operations. the sooner we agree to this political process, the less likely you have the kinds of events that took place, apparently, today. president hollande: the event that took place is a serious one and we can only regretted. turkey is currently providing all of the information to nato so that we can find out what truly happened, and whether turkey's airspace indeed was entered into. we must prevent an escalation in that would be extremely

damaging. the only purpose is to fight against terrorism. this is what we must do, all of us. russia, and what , means thatike that we must find solutions to the syrian conflict because we can see what the risks are other way. escalation. i therefore will be traveling to russia this week because we have this resolution of the security council. it does show that we must take action against terrorism. unanimously. voted and the broadest possible coalition. then i will ask president

putin, whatladimir i have told them a number of times already. to stand strong against isis, against terrorism. are threatening us, they are threatening the russians. like france that was targeted over the last few days, we must coordinate ourselves, cooperate. against isising and we are part of the political tocess, one that must lead this. and we all know what the outcomes of the solution art moore or not.

the charles de gaulle aircraft carrier is in the southern mediterranean. there are also some russian that weand are agreed must share our intelligence, so we can act in coordination. we must not keep it to ourselves. it is already the case and we will continue to do so. mr. president, the americans have some special forces in syria, beyond the words of what is happening. are you going to send some special forces to syria? you going to do some ground intervention there? beyond the emotion that we can feel here, beyond these beautiful statements, for more than a year we have heard all of this isng that

necessary in syria. can you in here, in front of us, tell us a specific date for a time to go? president hollande: i will not provide you with a date. y be as soon as possible. that is one of the requirements. but at the same time let me allow -- on a to underline something. there is a new mindset now. has beens in syria

ongoing for four years. four years. there are probably more than 300,000 deaths. just relevant to the countries of the region who are hosting the refugees, it is the rest of the world now. and those who believe that we could wait some more, and that in any case it is far away, these are lies. refugeesn influx of that the terrorists, the risk is everywhere. act.st therefore me what we were going to do, what more we were going to do. we will intensify the strikes. we will have more specific

targets to make sure that the supplies are cut off. including command centers, the trucks carrying oil, their planng centers where they terror attacks. we will continue and we will put our strikes at the heart of the cities where they are. france will not intervene militarily on the ground. it is for the local forces to do so. we have been supporting them for a number of months. we will continue to do so. ground do the job on the after our strikes that will enable to do so. take our responsibilities regarding that support absolutely necessary. president obama: i have a couple

of broader comments against isil. the indicated, we have taken thousands of strikes, thousands of high school writers, including top commanders and leaders off the battlefield. have squeezed their supply lines. we have empowered and armed local groups that are pushing against them including most recently providing training and assistance to the iraqi government. as they prepare to retake places like ramadi that have been overrun. , butve seen some success the question now is how can we accelerate it? parisefore the tragedy in i had gathered together my national security forces raided whateen a year, to review

had worked, what had not. and had put together a plan to accelerate and advance the pressure that we can place on isil. we intend to execute on those plans but we also think as françois said that there may be new openness on the part of other coalition members to help resource and provide additional assistance both to the coalition as a whole and to local forces on the ground. with respect to mr. assad, we have to let the process play itself out. it is our best opportunity. be notion that there would an immediate date in advance of us getting a broad agreement on the political process and the details, i think does not make sense. framework we have a

,or political transition potentially a new constitution, elections, i think it is in the context that we can start looking at mr. assad choosing not to run and potentially seeing a new syria emerge. but it will be hard. we should not be under any illusions. syria has broken down. it began to break down the moment that mr. assad started killing indiscriminately his own people. in in partle to move because of a thorough rejection on the part of many syrians of the assad regime. a power vacuum emerged.

be a difficult, long, methodical process to bring back together various totions within syria maintain a syrian state and institutions, and to create the kind of stability that allows people to start coming together and rebuilding their lives. but it is possible. and the urgency that we have seen, even before paris out of countries like russia shows that they recognize they cannot be there too long and ultimately win a military battle successfully. olivia knox. >> thank you. you tell ust, can if the russian plane did reach turkish airspace?

and how concerned are you that there would be expanded coalition interest action? when it comes to threatening the corporation, having taken months or weeks ago that they would have prevented the attacks? we do not have: all the information yet. i do not want to comment on the specifics and we will be governed all that information. we expect the turks to provide information. i'm sure the russians will have some information. we will be able to confirm what happened in part through our own intelligence and our own tracking of that area. indicated, my top priority is going to be to ensure that this does not escalate.

and hopefully this is a moment in which all parties can step back and make a determination as to how their interests are best served. severalians had hundred people of their own killed by isil. of the flow of foreign fighters out of russian areas into syria poses an enormous long-term threat to russian territory. there is a potential convergence between the various parties. working with him to make the kind of strategic , att that is necessary franklin that i talked about for five years now. recognition that the existing structure cannot gain .egitimacy to stop the war

and until you stop the war you will have a vacuum in which these kinds of terrorist organizations can operate more frequently. me say one last name, because i tracked the question you posed to president ollanta about what could or could not have been prevented. all of our intelligence personnel, across the united states, across the atlantic worked tirelessly to disrupt plots and prevent terrorist attacks. the vast majority of their successes in disrupting plots are not advertised. you never hear about them. if it were not for the dedication of those intelligen ce and law enforcement professionals this would be a much more dangerous world.

you have to be careful about could have what if and would have in a situation like this. it is hard. you have eight individuals with light weapons. that is a hard thing to track. what is true is that we can do a better job coordinating between countries. ourve been talking to european partners for quite some time now about the need for better intelligence sharing, passenger name records, working when people enter into europe, particularly now, that the information across various borders is shared on a timely basis and you have biometric information and other technologies.

it more accurate. it does not mean it will be 100% full print -- foolproof but will be better on the fronts. one of the challenges has been, frankly, in the past several legal concerns about privacy and civil liberties, which are entirely legitimate, i do not think that those can be ignored. values that of the make us who we are, and that we have to adhere to. but i think that this is a reminder that this is a dangerous world. and rooting out small bands of terrorist groups who maintain good operational security and are using modern technologies in ways that are hard to track

about that is a tough job. we are all going to the pool our resources more effectively together than we have in the past. goesnk when the president back to europe his leadership and the leadership of other presidents and prime ministers going tois issue is be as important as anything we do. president hollande: allowing to go back to what the issue truly is. organization, a terrorist group and a territory , andaq in syria, killing they want to enforce rules that dishonor humanity.

this is what they are doing there. this is what they are trying to do in other countries everywhere . and then we have to deal with individuals who are being used in terror attacks. the dreadful plan was thenred in syria, and organized in another country. and there were some a couple's list -- some accomplices in france. those who committed the act of

war. if we want to tackle terrorism, this not onlyt on to destroy where they are in syria and iraq, but we must also dismantle and destroyed the networks. how can we proceed? first of all, militarily come up our strikes, by taking back to territories, supporting the troops on the ground. making sure that the to territorial integrity is approved. this is what we can do. and then a when it comes to protective measures to protect our territory and our people, this is what i announced in france, and this is what we have to do to and eradicate these networks and all of these

accomplices. some of them just arrived. others have been there for a long time. they are not necessarily identified at this time. it is therefore necessary that we strengthen cooperation in terms of intelligence. generated atacks lot of emotion, but that is not enough. solidarity, i take note of it. , and for a act beener of days now i have trying to events all the countries who can act to do so. i met with david cameron yesterday. he announced that he would take a number of measures to his parliament. that is important.

today i am here with barack obama so that we can act with greater intensity and coherence as well. meeting i will be german chancellor angela merkel that european countries including germany can face up to the responsibility, in terms of military intelligence and political cooperation and maybe more. moscow, so travel to that russia can take action against isil. and then, i will receive the head of the italian government. i will also have the ability to talk to all the european leaders , as it will be held on sunday.

it is all of that, getting together, and enabling us to cooperation, and action so that we can act on isil, and the network. it is my strength which will enable us to succeed. data that strength which will enable us to succeed. >> wealth of you have talked about coordination cooperation. does it mean that a single coalition which you mentioned last week is gone? is it conceivable to help the russians and the americans to work together under a single command? and then you said you could not put a date on his departure. this funding that mean that his departure is not a preamble or prerequisite for the future of syria? wouldent hollande:

regarding the coalition of the international community, i believe that was approved by all of the security council. it enabled us to say that now the entire world is committed to fighting against that. what in, and this is will check when i travel to moscow, we need one single goal, terrorism andckle fight against isis militarily. i believe we can have some critical operation and coordination militarily. at the same time we have to be clear what it comes to the public to call solution -- political solution. we can repeat it.

and cnn are already working with all of the countries, even though they do not have the same sense that turkey -- the united states, france, all of those who to find this. we must work on this. where the sheer all aside plays no role, he has been the problem, so he cannot be the solution. president obama: we have a coalition. countries who have been active in pushing back against isil for quite some time. france has been a central part of the coalition. countries, arab , countries as

far-flung as australia and countries in southeast asia are part of that coalition. russia right now is a coalition of 2. supportingssia bashir al-assad. given russia's military capabilities, and given the influence they have on the assad regime, them cooperating would be enormously helpful in resolution of the civil war in syria, and allow us all to refocus our attention on isil. but i think it is important to remember that you have a global coalition organized. russia is the outlier.

we hope that they refocus their attention on what is the most substantial threat, and that they serve as a constructive or. , it willd when they do make it easier for us to go after isil. i think it is important to recognize the kind of airstrikes they are carrying out, just like the reference we are carrying out in the the cells are not sufficient to the work that we do to bolster local fighting .orces cutting off supply lines, financing, oil, reducing the flow of foreign partiers -- fighters, the intelligent workman is to be done, all of that is something that we are doing now. .hey can supplement but that is going to be a

hard,s that involves methodical work. it is not going to be something that happens just because suddenly we take a few more airstrikes. that's the kind of hard work that france is prepared to do, the united states is prepared to do, perhaps in the future, russia will be as well. ok? thank you very much, everybody. [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] >> president obama meeting with french president francois pudong and their -- and swat hollande -- francois hollande.

we want to know where you stand on the u.s. policy so far. we will take your calls -- we will get right to your calls in a couple of people have been waiting on the line. seaside, oregon, democrat, go ahead. caller: i think we should join france and russia and and eliminate isys and start talking about who leads syria. i don't really care who leads syria. i am more it about my grandchildren and the french children. i am sick of listening to all this talk aboutassa forget about himd,. just get russia and france and the rest of the civilized world to destroy isis. host: what do you think about the u.s. coalition so far? caller: i don't think they are

doing anything. you go out and bomb a pickup truck here and there in: air campaign. and call it an air campaign. i have no idea was going on the ground. i voted for obama twice and i have been a democrat my whole life. he sounded like a petulant child the other day when he was talking from the philippines. he was talking about the refugee thing. i am just sick of it. host: mcdonough, georgia, republican line. caller: yes, ma'am, thank you. certainly in agreement with your previous caller that the united states most certainly needs to join france and russia against isis. the number of benefits of partnering with russia considering their geographical

ination -- i was involved the united states army serving in afghanistan and iraq. allowance of rush -- of russia to allow logistics and points of access that would have been more difficult is also going to be crucial in this situation. i think as long as we can find goals that are not necessarily state specific but that we can find common ground to fight this and recognize the threat and see that these threats are very real , in everyre pressing way we can find common ground, we need to do that and pursue that. host: french president francois he will meet with the president of russia,

vladimir putin, very soon. also ahead of the talks that will be happening in paris, the climate talks, as well, they mentioned some of the security and what will be going on around that. raleigh, north carolina, democrat, are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: what should the united states be doing? should they join france and russia? caller: the united states should and fight join france not only isis but all these terrorist groups and associations. however, russia is shaky toward the united states when it comes as well as thecy things they have done against the united states and especially against president obama and his administration. i don't trust them. they should definitely join france.

that needs to be taken into consideration -- there should be an investigation about who is funding these terrorist groups like al qaeda and isis and other copycat terrorist groups and who is funding them. or organizations and from what countries is giving them money? they are not doing all of this killing and mayhem without any funds. they get the funds from somewhere. that needs to be investigated. when you find the root of that, you might be surprised what aretries or organizations supporting these terrorist groups. host: a number of reports that they get a lot of money from kidnapping and ransom and some of the oil factories and oil refineries that they have been taking over as they take over

territory. that's one possible area where they get financing. democrat, should the u.s. be joining france and russia? caller: yes, of course. we need to put aside our differences and we need to combine together and defeat the scourge. zism wemost like nancy i have to have a good talk with turkey to leave the russian planes all. alone before we start world war iii. host: you would be in favor of having u.s. military fighting isis? caller: yes, i think we should. if we don't, it will get worse and worse and worse. thanks for the call. let's take a look at some comments from our facebook page where you can also join the conversation.

we are taking your phone calls to let us know what you think about this. edgar is on the line from california, republican. caller: hello. host: go ahead. believe the u.s. feels like it's not ready to go back to work because they just ended a war. though americans are in trouble because of isys, i feel like they should join france because the united states is still vulnerable. they might be attacked. york.ists attack new host: thank you for the call.

let's take a look at some of the tweets -- a few people are mentioning turkey. ramona is on the line from covington, georgia for independents and others. think we are doing

what we should be doing. i think we need to join france and russia and come together on this. as fighting isis, where do we fight them? where do we put our soldiers exactly? host: what are your thoughts nato,turkey, a member of has now shot down a russian plane? where should the united states come down on that? caller: i was just reading about that. there are discrepancies as to whether or not russia's plane was flying in syrian airspace. it is still not completely clear and they don't have all of that information. i do think that we need to be careful about that. the gentleman mentioned before that we can start world war iii if we are not careful about that .

sent -- i think not acting so hasty, making sure we have all -- information, working getting the threat information from all of the other countries, working together as a coalition against isis is exactly what we need to be doing. instead of just going hog wild and starting world war iii. the fact of the matter is, we live in a dangerous world and president obama said that exactly. that is the exact truth. we live in a different world than what we were living in 20 or 30 years ago. host: democrats line from new york, go ahead. hi, i'm a little bit confused by the question because the united states has been involved in fighting isis for much longer than the recent attacks in paris and everything

going on with russia. not only hasates almost a year long airstrike campaign and launched over 8000 strikes, more than any other country, we also have several hundred special forces on the ground and military advisers on the ground. should the united states find a way to participate with france and russia and take this fight further, to say that we would now be joining france and itsia is misrepresenting because we have been involved in this longer than either one of them has. host: thank you for the call. take a look at this map from the international business times. it says who is fighting isis? some of the different countries, several countries, pledging support for the us-led coalition fighting against isis in syria and iraq.

from al ina call jackson, minnesota, republican. the coalition he speaks of of the u.s. and safety five other nations, because we had been fighting ices for quite a while, are you telling me 65 countries cannot take out this group of terrorists? seems like a stretch to the

imagination. i don't think we are doing enough. i think we could get rid of rules of engagement. we took out moment are duffy and al qaeda moved in. afraidake outassad, i'm isys will take over syria. online or on facebook, is there a list of the 65 countries? host: sure, go back to that international business times article i just showed. it lists the different countries and goes into more depth. that's international business times and you can look at all of our coverage we have had at www.c-span.org. ofre are a number conferences and discussions about where france is headed and what it will do next and some of the consequences for both sides of the atlantic. thes take another call, last call, jackson, georgia, the line for independents and

others. caller: yes ma'am, i'm an american and i will stand by our president. the congress should make the decision on this which is what they are paid for and i have not heard much out of congress. our republican congress should step up and support our president in whatever he does. we should all stick together as americans. and trust our president and our congress to make the right decisions and do the right thing. they know more than we know. if they do what we say, we would be up there in congress. up andgress should step we should all support our president. that's all i have to say. host: thank you. senate democrats did call for preventing gun sales to terrorist suspects. you can read more about that.

they republican who is in moscow last month warned russian leaders of exactly what happened in turkey working with others for disaster might happen. we appreciate your phone calls and we will open the phone lines again tomorrow morning on "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern we will be back this afternoon at the white house. there will be a medal of freedom ceremony, 17 people being honored for the highest honor for civilians. we will take you there live on c-span at 5:00 p.m. eastern time and if you missed the president's news conference with the french president, we will show that again tonight in prime time at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. thelso heard from washington institute, a discussion about how the french policy could change going forward after the terror attacks in paris. we will take a look at that now.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the washington institute. i am the director of the institute. presidentfrench washingtonll visit to discuss with president obama the next steps in a reinvigorated strategy to address the great challenge of ofs, the broader challenge jihadist them in the syria-iraq towardnd aircon approach flowthing from the refugee to homegrown terrorism. moment notimportant just for america and france,

it's an important moment for all of us in the west, the middle east, around the world. people who are committed to addressing the profound challenges we face. we are delighted today to be able to host a special panel of the french experts on the middle policy, french foreign who can provide a unique insight into not just what is going on and what has happened in paris -- turn up the volume -- turn off the volume on that. they not only have unique insight of the implication of what is going on for french society and politics and foreign

policy. broaderthat fits into european and international efforts to a dress the challenges on this agenda. we have never quite done a program that featured only french experts. a mark but it is euro-france at the institute. an expert inh paris who i will introduce in a moment, we have the great benefit of having two french experts here on 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 -- most eminent 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. he has spoken here before at the 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. 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 community 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 embassy 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 of the 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 fine. 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 -- road dubbed apple states by the killers -- apple states apple apostates by

the killers and we hope nothing else is going to happen afterwards in december with the attacks of friday the 13th. both attacks belong exactly to the same pattern. they are part of the same strategy, what i call in this forthcoming book, which you mentioned, 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 -- syrian 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 washington on the 11th of september was misplaced and that it -- the reaction by george w.

it shows the reaction of 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 -- apostates and are supposed to be assassinated under their banner. what 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. the apostate policeman and the one who looked like a muslim and also jews without --

codes, of course. 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. neolithic era. but that led also to breaking in the ranks because you have the je suis -- people. which means well done in north african colloquial. that led to a heated debate in france. which was posted on the social networks. 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. the sample of people killed or wounded is an example which is representative of a young paris crowd today with people coming from all walks of life. a number of them being sons and daughters of the post colonial immigration from muslim dissent also. and therefore, even if they achieved what they believed was

their first aim, i.e., terrorize society, terrorize the enemy, it proves and it has proven since last week, far more difficult to galvanize sympathizers. we have seen very, very few expressions of solidarity with the killers except from within the core group of the jihadosphere. though franco phone jihadists from syria. there is not enough support among the range of sympathizers who found excuses to the killings in january. andcan we explain it provide this proves to be the case because we are reacting as

sure as we say here. the one thing that we may think about, the one difference between what i call the second qaeda --ad is an -- al 9/11 was something that was planned from the top. al qaeda was a top-down jihadist operation. here, the ideologue for the third-generation opposes al languageh the arabic -- that what they are doing is a system, it is not an organization. he paid for plaintiff tickets and pilot lessons and send people who were implements who would follow their roadmap. , youe third-generation

have a sort of rules of you, you intosee the civil war france or europe. to see are not going every detail of the top level. you will leave -- he left a wide margin of cooperation for those to implement it and you will recruit whoever you have at hand or maybe some of them have decided there are volunteers. in the francophone brigades of daesh, though -- there is competition. to prove that they have guts and the foreign fighters were not considered very well by the locals, by the iraqis and the syrians. they had to prove that they were good at doing something else other than blowing themselves up

or becoming prisoners. onslaughts major against a european country, france and belgium now, is of course a means to have a bigger say in the daesh system. it, theys who implement terrorist attacks, not really highbrow. they are petty criminals who assault,me in jail for for drug dealing, for rape and who, within the prison incubator, you had lots of third-generation jihad-ism come into action from 2005 until now. they met and then they would have predicated her's that would tell them if you are in jail come it's not your fault, it's because society has put you there.

balance anduse your your crime not for criminal issues but for -- to implement radical jihad. out of jail, they would meet again and they would go to syria and train. you have a number of stories like that. the problem with those guys they are not strategists like bin laden or the others. some of them are serving time in american jails now. that belongs to the second-generation jihad. it was thought they would kill as many people in france as possible. they use the ways and methods of criminals. they had the kalashnikovs and rampant shooting. they took people hostage in the andma and the music hall

they killed them like you would play your video game and kill one after another. it was not really well organized. there were many victims, of course which is sad but what they had in mind is different. for the first time in france, people whonumber of could have detonated themselves when the french president was attending with the german prime minister. for some reason, they could not get into the stadium. and they onlyide killed one passerby. that is one thing. guys who hatee jews more than anything else,

they had their attacks on a friday night wishes shabbas. as opposed to what happened in january, they did not succeed in targeting a number of jews as they would have wanted, as the book they follow says. its is something that shows was not very well prepared strategically and the fact that they targeted everybody has led feeling among muslims in general in france that they were a bunch of criminals. extent, if thet 13th of november was not for this third-generation of jihadists, something that could be compared with what happened

in the late 1990's for the first generation. afghanistan, there was algeria and egypt and also a spillover from algeria into france. algeria in the fall of 1997, there was share thegamat inrom syria. it alienated society at large. like fish outside of ponds, people to provide safe houses and house them and turn a blind eye what they were doing just turned their back on them. this was the failure of phase one which led to phase two, i.e. bin laden and al qaeda. to what extent was 9/11 a big success or was it the big

failure? it was the acme of the second phase jihad but by the same token, it engineered a process of reaction. ofwould lead to the demise al qaeda. is the 13th of november, to what extent is it a watershed moment, a turning point? will it lead to tremendous difficulties of recruitment and the near future? this is really a? ? question mark. in 2000, there was a decline in islamism.

i could not know what would happen later. i think i was right in saying that the first phase was declining. i could not foresee the second phase which had not yet taken place. is it now the beginning of the end for the third phase? daesh system now under duress? let me at least ask the question that we will discuss and it will have to do with the coalition which you mentioned earlier i maybe we help well at more on that. i hope this was clear enough. i looks like -- it looks like i've gone long. >> that came through loud and clear, thank you very much.

very useful, very insightful. i will turn out to fabrice belange. >> thank you. gie will come back to after the presentations. lles >> after the attack on paris, francois hollande is going to germany. i don't think vladimir putin should agree. he will just frighten everyone more. vladimir putin is not only in syria for assad. thank you. as for the syrian president, his agenda is clear, to win the war

at any cost and to stay until his death as a power as his father. for both actors, vladimir putin are moreare al-assad strategic. bashar al-assad needs to be protected. vladimir putin realizes the old russian dream to have a foot in the mediterranean sea. like the czar, he wanted to open the gate to the mediterranean sea in the 19th century but does are did not succeed.

vladimir putin could succeed. center of the intelligence game, the presence in syria is a perfect leverage on europe. the two major problems for the usa in the coalition are the refugees in russia. hideconfrontation will something. the european commission will renew economic sanctions on russia. became toof assad expensive in europe and france. many people are talking about ssad.nti- a are afraiduntries about syria. they cannot officially support him so they let russia do it.

coalition is too shy. strike like ino paris or beirut. for the europeans, if russia could present european countries, they should consider sanctions.

a strong moderate opposition could be an incentive to him for western countries. isis cannot be the alternative. assade to recognize that did not create isis. . the natural process of radicalization within countries like this [indiscernible]

they said so weak as the opposition was. countries did not want to be involved in syria. qatar used a proxy in a syrian conflict. assadexactly what wanted. the other alternative solution is not working very well. ground, isis was not targeted the first week but and after weimes attacked against the russian plane, [indiscernible]

, the mainbjective military threat comes from other groups because they are close to sad territory. in damascus also. afraid east of syria. aleppo and it's in this area we have the concentration of troops in the main offensive of the syrian army actually. russia struck in syria. aleppo and tot

get back a strategic airport to the syrian army with the help of and itsian airstrikes succeeded to get back to them a few weeks ago. she is protected from isis in andaced -- in the east launched a strong offensive on the west. is going to the west and will try to go throughaleppo also. area is very strategic. it's the main door for isis and other groups. have been tos paris last week and they used

this door because the turkish border is not closed. they would like to have a no-fly zone on this area but assa refuses. d emergency., it's an thisrists are using gateway to turkey and europe. russia agrees to expel isis from this area but only if its allies can get back the area. assad in aleppo. in conclusion, isis will not be as andd quickly because russia needed. sad if isis retreats, it's more

forassad allies. isis is pushing the syrian people frightened by the jihadism. the religious minorities in are in the syrian army area. there are no more minorities in certain areas. the jihadists are in control. to the north, the territories are controlled by the jihadists as well. france will strike at this and russia at the rebels but the

rebels will not be the difference between the french and russian bonding. de will be considerate [indiscernible] it is a technical ally of assad and russia. the first mission is to destroy the ice is organization and preserve the social peace in europe to prevent future attacks. france massive attack in would be disastrous for the social coalition. the last poll in france shows the national consciousness is raising. in 2017, we will have the presidential election.

we have to destroy the ice is organization. -- the isis organization. we have to work with russia and probably assa thank you. d, >> ok, thank you, very good -- provocative and interesting. oliviwer? >> thank you very much. what i will 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 large parts of the response is domestic response. most of president hollande's addressed of of both houses of parliament were devoted to domestic issues, homeland security mainly and the

necessity to maintain national unity. setting this apart, i will focus more specifically on the foreign prophecy elements of the givense which are key that although the attacks were mainly conducted by french citizens born and raised in france, were planned and and alsoin syria within a network spanning a number of european countries, especially belgium. the president's visit to washington as part of a multi- faceted policy response to the attacks. the first thing is to step up french military operations against isis. french airstrikes have intensified a couple of days after the paris attacks. today, the french aircraft hasier charles de gaulle

arrived in these mediterranean and is starting its operations against the organization. this will triple available french airpower in the area of battle. this airpower will primarily be directed at key isis infrastructure et, oil etc.structure,c but the airstrikes alone will not defeat isis. there is a 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. as an example, he pointed to the thesinjaberation of which was the result of the

combined coalition airstrikes and a ground offensive by local forces on the ground. in his address to parliament a couple of weeks ago, the french president stressed to provide help and more support to those who are fighting daesh on the ground. prior to more military action, there are certain diplomatic efforts. the goal that was set by the french president to create a large united coalition against daesh and a coalition that would include russia, that is the the un security council resolution 2249 that was passed last friday on the first week after the attack. it calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take measures against daesh and other international groups. there is also the purpose

[indiscernible] he was also at the prime minister of the u.k. today and to meet president obama tomorrow and chancellor merkel and vladimir putin in moscow. although the view of the french that noy right now is defeat of daesh is possible without a political solution to , in facts in syria daesh, has already been defeated once in iraq and one of its previous incarnations. theook advantage of situation in syria. in the anna and a couple of sessions, the calendar has been agreed upon.

they don't know exactly how the transition should proceed but thatsharh view ba is al-assad cannot be the outcome of the process. syria's the main focus but there is political process on reconciliation in iraq and the way out of the current crisis. this is why engaging russia is important. talks to all powers involved in the crisis including iran. that's was the -- that's what the president said. the russian political and military weight in syria makes it key to the solution. we will know more about that when president hollande meets with his russian counterparts on thursday and syria will be at the core of the conversation then. another french priority is to get the europeans on board.

to turn toded not nato after the attacks but instead, to invoke an article of the treaty of the european union that is a collective introduced in 2009. the rationale is that daesh is not only a threat to france but europe as a whole. today, brussels is completely paralyzed today by anti-terror police operations. the homeland security is intertwined with that of the neighbors. france says measures should be taken to involve the eu and share passenger data and the european partner show understanding to the cost for the french public budget of the additional security measures. , support isterms expected and amended from

european partners for ongoing french missions in iraq and syria meaning additional striking capability, not just refueling but intelligence. etc. and sharing in africa. forwardas been the defense line for the eu for years. daesh may consider that eu is the soft underbelly of the west. it is not as for his offense is concerned. they are encouraging signs this morning. prime minister david cameron said he was open one of the sovereign bases to open for french operations for refueling. possibilitybout the of operations inmali but he

still wants to get parliamentary approvals for strikes and they are discussing whether this is a war despite all evidence. inmal mightttack have some your kindi -- european countries hesitate to send in troops. the french view is that it is more needed now. this is no longer an issue for the french. this is an issue of major importance for the u.s. and nato because the political will of europeans is at stake to take care of their own security. say conclusion, i would that the policy reaction fits within the pattern of the french diplomatic traditional options and traditional diplomatic trends. active diplomacy in the un security council and with key partners, muscular military

capabilities and a will to fight. what is encouraging is that young french people are enlisting now in higher numbers in the french military. this is a healthy reaction. some have feared there would be retaliation against the muslim community on that would be going by the daesh playbook. this is not as what's happening and this is if you look at who is showing up , a reflection of the diversity , which isnch youth was i also a good sign. last, but not least, strategic proximity with france's major , president.s. obama's strong words over the

weekend were encouraging. we will see what the conversation will be like tomorrow. france is also fighting al qaeda networks and north africa and mali. it is perceived as a long-term threat and is likely to shape french policy. of both results and -- the growing importance of french politics. never before has it been discussed to that extent. , they will discuss

the fund metals some aspect of have the against daesh mystic policy locations. i would like to end on a positive note. the reaction to the attacks all are welcomeld rediscovery for the french people of the fact that all of the world, people are rallying around french symbols. the message from john boliv olir became viral in france. this is comforting and very

important in the situation where our countries are targeted because of its own bally's -- our country is targeted because of its own values. much of this is about the war underground. >> thank you, gentlemen. lots to discuss here. -- there isback to a subtext of many analytical disagreement among the panel and i want to play it out a bit more. is thatentional wisdom this was an very well plann ed, coordinated attack that took extreme precision, etc. you offered a somewhat different view. that the attack was not -- the attackers were not brilliant,

but there was as much problem and poor planning as there was police. iu also added that this -- heard the import of your remarks say that this may herald the downward slope -- we have seen this second phase of jihadist reach its apex and we are heading downhill from here. that may have implications for the urgency of a global coalition to go attack isis. i would be interested in your views on whether you shared the

sense of 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, alternatively, is isis on its way out? and we will have to deal with whatever is left of the decrepit remains. his ice is on its way out -- is isis on its way out? >> at first, i don't know. i can't judge after a week or so. it was implemented on the 13th of november was not up to the expectations of the strategists,

if there is such a thing as a daesh.ist in they have difficulties in innging about recruitment the middle to white circle of would be supervisors -- wide circle of would be sympathizers. this is why the first wave of jihadism failed and why the second wave will ultimately fail. this is not going to happen like that. the departure between the domestic france and the outside front,-- on the outside

i believe we have reached a new step. within the wide coalition against isis, as the president would have said way back, the contradictions were more important than the primary contradictions. everybody was against isis, but everybody was against the other did not likerks isis but they left the border open. they are now checking the border. all the belgians and friendship came back from syria came through turkey without difficulties. french who came back from syria.

erdogan has won the -- he may he needs to be interested in having a more active policy against isis. look at the gcc. the governments always said they were against isis. there was a lot of money flowing from the coffers of the different gcc countries to boost isis because they were the real good sunni guys who were shia,ng against the whether they be has below -- look what happened in by root -- in beirut.

look at russia. isis were bad guys, but as far as they were concerned, nippinge interested in the blood of the so-called so that jihadists -- you would have assad on the one , daesh on the other. they would side with a side. now, things have changed. after the downing of the russian plane over the sinai, even

though there is no public comparable tosia what you have in america and france, they have shown some muscle. putin has some interest in striking isis. is a signned in paris that this can happen elsewhere. actors and state peopleents are full-term , you may have something in london and germany. that is very frightening. year andmoscow last had some talks at the russian ministry of foreign affairs and thet some time with premised appeared -- prime

minister. when you become prime minister -- it's not like we like a side that much. we don't want to be ousted from the region. ssad that much. we have thousands of chechnya's there being trained who will .ome back they all remember what happened in the theater.

bataclan is a reminder of the takeover of the theater by the chechnyans. it is my understanding of the train in turkey territory is the very important to deal with what is happening in europe. . isis in its towar territorial romantic figures, the robin hoods of jihadist

that stand out to the empires of evil. lothis book, i looked a into their ideology. ofre is a bizarre blend pseudo-imperialist language that language.o their the time is right for striking from the west powers. they have common interests in doing so. if the territorial days are severely damaged, it will be more difficult for them. from what i hear from some local sources in france, the number of

people actually going there is lower. we are beaten by belgium and germany. it is becoming very dangerous to go there. they know you will be killed. there is not much of the mystique that you would see in your literature on the web. what is taking place on the domestic front is different. on that, i'm not sure i am not sure i i'm entirely buy into our official english are that says francis at war with the islamic state. it is a jihadist army fighting we are at war in

syria and iraq. at home, it is an issue of security. the rate that was conducted on -- raid that was conducted on the hideout showed that france is no soft underbelly in terms of its security forces and capacity to project itself -- this is one of why it is targeted. france.ot at war in isis wants to have civil war in europe.

it is an issue of police, examining what makes it a french society. why it works so well in our prison system, for instance. for that, we are to look deep into ourselves and look into the european model. as one of you mentioned, we will have elections in two weeks in france. is going toright have a landslide. why is that? people here are frightened by what they see. there is no attraction to the the extreme right.

for that, we will have to be very careful and understand how to create european societies which are more conclusive -- inclusive. i don't mean we need to negotiate with isis or accommodate whatever their claims are. what is being done in the gulf thiis military. what has to be done in europe is policing and social engineering. >> thank you. i just want to ask our other about a debate which we have in america and is

implied in the last remark, the boots on the ground debate. hand, i'm hearing a sense of great urgency. both because of the people want us to act and on the political level, if you don't take care of this problem by x date, the far right may inherit the political spoils. there is popular urgency and political urgency compelling a more forceful action. no calls forg also on the ground activity by french forces asking for partnership forces. we are hearing of a more

american-style expand the existing approach, more airstrikes, 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 and european debate may change? ,r is it so deeply ingrained tolection of our reticence get more deeply involved on the ground, that it is just not going to happen in the french context? france come across hollande is against troops in iraq. hollande.s

if we don't send troops in syria , it is not enough with the strikes because we have to show close to the people fighting isis. shyness in no principle on the part of the french to send boots on the ground. that is what happened in mali a few years ago on a large-scale. today onconsideration the syrian terrain. there arehe idea that local boots on the ground. to take a necessity into account the lights of the partners -- lives of the

partners. i mentioned this interview by using sinjar as the example of things getting done on the ground. that is the scenario being explored right now. >> very good. let's turn the floor over to your questions. if you could be kind enough to identify to whom you are posing a question. , mohammed. and then in the back it mohammed, take the mic. whenevericed that there is less glacial terrorism against the west, the responses bombing.

-- we noticed that whenever ofre is an escalation terrorism against the west, the response is bombing. the are heavy casualties and they are being deprived of the food on the land from the land being bombarded. when they try to get out for refuge, they are being denied and companies have closed their doors. sense, 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 soldiers in the french army or others who would volunteer to go as a muslim army to syria to fight isis? so it is not the french fighting isis, but the syrians or

muslims for peace and democracy and all the values that the people stand for against this destructive force which claims to be muslim. there was the jewish 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. >> organize a muslim foreign legion. gathered in the french armed forces for more than 100 years now. within the framework of the french military come we don't differentiate soldiers.

that would not be legally possible. french fighting in the military is part of a french unit. it would be interesting to see the patterns of recruitment by the french foreign legion which .ecruits foreign nationals legiong up a muslim seems to be, from a legal point of view, that is not what is contemplated. forces already exist on the ground. supporting those forces is a more immediate prospect. then such a legion. muslims in france and outside , that joined the military

is not a novelty. they are assigned relevant framework within the french army as it is. peopleave some french who are going to fight in syria with the kurds. with the people christian militia in the northeast of syria. we have french christians fighting against isis. small moment, it is a group, but we could have for volunteers. we have a threat of civil war in people are going

to fight in syria against isis. >> i work for the french news network. my question is about francois hollande's visit to washington, d.c. tomorrow. what are they going to talk about that has not already been discussed? what can france expect from the and the fight against isis? >> a question for the french embassy here. everything we spoke about today is going to be part of the conversation. all in a coalition -- building a coalition, military specifics of military action.

you have the meeting this morning with james cameron and the meeting tomorrow with president obama. putin is spending three days in iran. one of the questions about the russians and the syrian crisis -- i bet president putin will have interesting things to say when he gets back ehran.ta all the topics we touched upon today needs to be part of the discussion. this is a unique, rare moment

in time. one might expect that unique moments like this are not the 24 the big ask -- are an opportunity for the big ask, the major request. if not now, when? it is unclear to me that there will be such a big ask. how has much to do with french leaders may have internalized the reticence, this teaching patients here in washington -- the strategic patience here in washington. there was a bad taste left in the mouth of our french allies. a very serious discussion of all these incremental measures that are being talked about. accelerating airstrikes, accelerating cooperation,

accelerating assistance to our partners on the ground, trying to hit more -- trying to get more sunni arabs into the field. it sounds unlikely there will be that big ask, that major profound request, get engaged in a new and different way. i may be wrong, maybe we will have a huge announcement tomorrow afternoon. i would be surprised if there is that big ask. politicalstion of solution in syria is key to all of this, including the meeting with president clinton. -- thepresident putin meeting with president putin. >> i have heard a lot from the .ussians they are detecting split between moscow and tehran.

i'm reading headlines from tehr an where assad and the ayatollah sound unified. do you have a sense why there is so much talk of splits when it doesn't really seem like there are any? think russia in syria completely overlap. you mentioned the issue of ration and centralization. that is a major threat for the russians. the russians also have much more diplomatic channels with players in the region. the iranians have basically only

meeting the saudi's at all in 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?

>> there is a unity with iran and with russia on syria. of course, russia and iran are sharing syria. russia is to the north and iran to the south. there's also damascus. syria is important for putin. if we are making concessions, we could have the head of assad from putin. will from putin. the iranians would not agree. i think probably in the future

in one year or two years that we could have disagreements on the future of syria between the russians and iranians. for the moment, they state 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. francois hollande is now and a political situation where he is under threat from the extreme right and the right. he is not going to look like it is coming out of that. on the contrary. 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 in the university,

syria is our spanish war. and that means everything had to be done to oust assad. we had a verbal policy, but then there was no real plantation. -- there wastation no real implementation. 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 defeated and there is a different policy toward syria from france. a policy 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, and ideology that said nothing 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 a common policy with 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

destruction of isis 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. >> hi, my 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 empowered due to assad's continued murdering of innocent syrian people. 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 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 was a fake passport to a soldier that was fighting with assad and died a couple months ago.

robert: 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 we 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 succeeded. even so, assad 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. as russia is in syria protecting assad, it is very difficult to move in. they are 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 assad as an outcome. that is not exactly what you describe. robert: 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? gilles: 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.

on the one hand, as you just said, this is going to change the demographic balance of europe. there is a feeling in some -- >> we take you like the pentagon for a briefing. -- live to the pentagon for a briefing. >> i want to touch on the downing of the russian military aircraft. u.s. officials have been in touch with their turkish counterparts about this incident. continue to gather more information. the nato secretary-general has had some comments in the last short while on this issue. while we are still gathering details, united states and nato support the rights of turkey to defend its sovereignty. we urge turkey and russia to

de-escalate the situation and resolve this matter through de-escalation matters. with regard to the secretary's meeting with his french counterpart, the secretary just concluded a very productive conversation with the french minister of defense. the two are participating in the other meeting at the white house today between president obama and president francois hollande. he expressed his deepest condolences to the french people for the horrific attacks in paris and by reiterating our commitment to strengthen shared efforts against isis secretary carter spoke within hours of the -- their conversations have resulted in several concrete steps. france and the u.s. are sharing information details about operational planning against isil. nations are contribute into a coalition air campaign.

france was the first to join the unite states and striking against isis in iraq. they have shown a strong commitment to the campaign ever sense and the french are helping to build the capacity of local fighters entering peshmerga forces and have been at the forefront of stemming financial il.port to is while secretary carter focused on counter isil efforts, france and the net states share security interests know the parts of the world, in africa, for instance. states.e and the united theurope, france has joined united states in providing our purpose reassurance in response to russian aggression. the french have volunteered to force -- sector carter thanked france for

standing as a steadfast ally. that meeting wrapped up just a short time ago. i would be happy to take a few of your questions. bob? confirm that the enteredplane did f the airspace? does carter see this as a reason for there to be more discussion with russians about avoiding such conflicts in the future or any additional interaction with the russians? >> we are still gathering the details. to find out exactly what happened here. the secretary would make the same point that the president may today. areaan flights in this

carry risk. they would be much better off focused on going after isil. anything that could be done at this point to the escalate the situation would be good and productive. certainlyary would hope that is the case. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't have a conversation readout. i'm not aware of conversations taking place. tom? >> thank you. thatere any indication that was shot down by rebels? >> we've seen the media reports about the helicopter but there's nothing i can confirm. you mentioned france and the u.s. looking at ways to further their cooperation. you give some examples previously.

can you talk about what some of those additional steps might be? >> that is part of the conversation. it will be ongoing between the presidents and ministers of defense. what additional steps can be taken, whether it's expanded airstrikes, additional steps that might help the local ground forces. there are a range of things that can be under consideration. you have to consider the other efforts, and that includes financing, are there steps that can be taken on the part of our interagency partners that might be able to help with the financing question. a range of other issues that can handled -- >> does the secretary believe the turkish actions they were justified? we are still getting all the

details. as the secretary a set, turkey itself.ght to defend -- as the secretary said. as a nato ally, we have concerns as well. we are still waiting for the details. turkey has a right to defend its airspace. when former top generals have made the case that when russian bombers come close to the united states, the united states is not -- does not shoot them down. is that something the turks --uld have tooken o zone givena conflict the fight in syria.

different circumstances in the continental united states. this is a particular circumstance with particular aspects to it. this is an action that the turks chose to make, chose to take today. we are still looking at the details. as a nato ally, this is nato airspace. >> [indiscernible] i know that there was information we provided yesterday on that. i don't have an update at this time beyond what we provided previously. ongoing investigation. we have more information, we would be happy to pass along. >> [indiscernible] the secretary in the last week has set the pentagon would intensify the fight against isil

. he's looking to change the rules of engagement. can you give us an example beyond going after oil trucks of intensifying the campaign? >> what he said was the rules of engagement are under review and are always under review. as you would expect in this kind of conflict. the oil trucks is a perfect example of when there have been changes to those rules of engagement. process thatgoing will involve adjustment as we go along to every aspect of our campaign. how we are tweaking and adjusting the fight to make it more effective. what the secretary was pointing to there was a larger effort to constantly review how we are taking the fight to isis.

those tankers are a perfect example of an adjustment we made that is having an effect. what about these of special operations forces for direct action missions? what will be more of happened in may. is that part of intensifying the fight? direct action missions. here someretary spoke time ago, the unite states would continue to look for opportunities to deliver a blow to isil to further degrade and defeat isil.th if there are other opportunities in the future, we would take advantage of them. the primary role of the special syria is a support

role to further enable them and make them more effective. forhere are opportunities the unique capabilities of u.s. forces, if the moment was right, there would be -- the secretary would take advantage of that. is to enable these local forces because they are the ones who can hold this territory. that sense of focus has not changed. there are unique capabilities that american forces can bring to bear. >> are any of the 50 in syria at this point that not comment on the status of this forces at this time. >> at some point -- to that.t going or is details. vulge operational

details. >> do you have any update on the status of the two russian jet pilots? there were some reports that members of the u.s. supported rebel groups on the ground intercepted one or both of those pilots at some point today. >> i don't have details that i can pass along right now. >> does the secretary expect that any member of the us-led coalition would coordinate an effort like that? is -- the rebels that we train previously, when they cross the line into syria, we did not have control over those -- i do not know the circumstances of this particular situation. i don't know the forces at play. i can't even guess who is involved here.

we made clear that the training that have been previously, u.s. control of those forces ended when they walked into syria. it would be hard to consider how that would take place. tom? teams in the u.s. turkey had any encounters with russian aircraft? >> i can say with 100% certainty. my understanding is no. engagementseen some with russian aircraft prior to the memorandum. i cannot say if those aircraft originated from somewhere else. i'm not aware of anything since the mou that would amount to any engagement with u.s. warplanes. whati would like to ask

led to these missiles and what the nature of the investigation is. >> because the inspector general is looking into this, i cannot --ment on the dismissal beyond the statement put out previously. it is their responsibility to carry this out. we have to maintain that distance. there are questions about privacy here. refer you to the statement released previously. you've set a couple times that you are still looking at the facts of what happened. while these have turkey had a right to defend its airspace, you did not answer lucas's question about whether the secretary felt this attack was justified. very specifically, does the now whetheres k

this plane was shot at inside turkish airspace? >> we are still gathering the details to determine exactly what happened here. including those questions. even though you were tracking radar and tracking the radio come as we sit here, the united states does not know for turks shot at this airplane -- >> the united states as is nato and several others of our allies involved are trying to get as much information as we can. as to exactly what happened. we are not able to conclude definitively right now as to exactly where the aircraft was and the circumstances that played out here. we hope to have that for you -- we have gotten reports from turkey as to what transpired

here. this aircraft did violate their airspace. we are taking that information into account as is nato. on the attack against the hospital, the doctors without borders hospital, it is clear that you are beginning the process of concluding the review of that. can you tell us anything about what you have found in this human that has been the and technical areas that led to this mistake and attack? has the secretary or military been able to take any steps to ensure that this kind of incident does not happen again? what have you done to make sure this does not happen again somewhere in the world? all, theof

investigation you refer to is being conducted -- has been connected under general campbell's leadership and instruction and direction. in afghanistan, i will leave it to them and general campbell to release more information. he has an update that will be made available tomorrow. i believe that the general campbell. more largely, the secretary is maintained from the start that this needs to be a full and transparent investigation. and that we do need to learn whatever we can about this incident come about this mistake in which a protected medical facility was targeted so that it does not happen again. that will be part of what we learn from our findings. i will leave it to general campbell. the secretary is eager to hear what he has to say and eager to find out what has been learned

through the course of this investigation. >> the news media is getting an update tomorrow. the secretary has likely already been briefed on this. >> i cannot confirm that he has been briefed. we are waiting to hear from general campbell tomorrow in afghanistan. >> -- what you may have learned from this. >> it is clear that the secretary has made clear that the proper protocols need to be followed come and not just in afghanistan, but around the world, to prevent this kind of thing from happening. are the unique circumstances in this instance, that is what we are waiting to find out from general campbell. >> the turks said they warned the russian pilot. >> there were warnings. colonel warren refer to this this morning. thee were warnings that

coalition was able to hear as well. >> previously, russian incursions were described as nonaccidental. did this incident also seem to antagonistic?tal, or how could you characterize that? these are some of the details were trying to find out ourselves. exactly what transpired. the turks have described that they warned the aircraft in and that the aircraft did venture in the turkish airspace. incidents in two which the turks made clear their concerns. and so i am not going to characterize this particular

instance because we're trying to track down the details. there were two previous incursions. s, christina. >> were they aware of the possible russian incursion? >> they mention that the coalition or the warnings, previously. in terms of a flight plan, i'm not aware of any advance knowledge that this incident is going to take place. we wish it had not taken place and we hope that they can deescalate further. i want to highlight something the president referenced, aware that the russians were flying. an area along the border with

turkey. russia. if it was focused more on the fight, maybe this would not of happened at all. >> can you assess the results of the intensification? >> you saw what happened in cutting off the supply line. you have seen the movement of opposition forces. another indication of a step forward.

in many of those instances, coalition support made a difference. progress withhe targeting the oil infrastructure. bese are what we consider to steps forward. there is no silver bullet here. effort toider the try. forward.t is moving we are looking for ways to further accelerate it with the help of the french and others. >> given that the aircraft is helped for protection, do you consider the u.s. to be part of any escalation whatsoever to

come out in that area? >> those forces are there to assist the request of a nato ally. we don't consider that aeschylus torre. we consider it a step to aid in ally and partner. that is the purpose for those aircraft. >> it is deploying its cruisers and it has the equivalent on board. how much more dangerous is it getting for u.s. and coalition pilots to operate in syria airspace? >> our missions are continuing, even today.

we're not going to slow down our pace. our mission continues. we have the memorandum of understanding in place with the russians that has proven successful in keeping our aircraft safe. so we don't anticipate problems. anything the russians do that is bolstering the assad regime we can center -- we consider counterproductive. we do expect the russians to abide by the memorandum of understanding and do their part to make sure that the skies over syria remain safe for our troops. the memorandum of understanding was signed by the u.s. on behalf of all the coalition members. turkey would be covered under that. be a violation of

the mlu? >> the coalition covers only syrian airspace. that is the limit of the memorandum of understanding. >> will they be joining the call for airstrikes? >> my understanding is it is headed to the persian gulf. i don't know if there is particular operations right now. coursenot come up in the of the conversation today. let me check and see if there's anything further i can get you on that. >> if it only covers syrian airspace, the turkish jet shot

down the russian jet, it would be in violation of this? i'm not going to get in the hypotheticals bill. the memorandum of understanding deals with safe interaction of aircraft over syrian airspace. the professional airman ship required to create a series of protocols that aircrews and ground communication links can be employed to try to prevent something from happening. that was the purpose of it. what turkey has informed us that it did today is defend its own airspace. we take great concern. and whether or not something like this can be avoided going forward. would be theffort

prevent this from happening again. last one that i've got to run. >> two questions. there -- everything.ware of my understanding is that the warnings from the turks, we were made aware. centerlition operation could hear that there were warnings conveyed. i'm not aware of any. i can't say it didn't happen but it did aware that anything. things are like building up where you have tensions building. using tough

language. things start to spiral out of control and what are you trying to do to prevent that from happening? >> the calculation and misjudgment over syria and in the neighborhood. if the russians were focused on the fight against isil as opposed to targeting groups in support of assad regime, that would be a step forward to try to de-conflict this entire conflict zone. so we have concerns about it. be focus for us continues to the fight against isil. if the russians could shift to that fight, it would be in the best interest of everybody.

it would be a step forward as well as. there are risks for miscalculation. that's what we have this memorandum of understanding in place. the russians in particular to try to move this fight forward. the same time, strike some sort of political and diplomatic resolution. lucas, i got to run. >> two of secretary carter's former predecessors appeared on fox news channel and offered a number of criticisms saying that the u.s. needs to do more to destroy the islamic state.

they say we need to treat the islamic state like the war against the taliban and and afghanistan. does he share that sense of urgency? >> diving secretary carter has had a sense of urgency about this himself since he took this job. as he has detailed the you, he to lookn several steps at what is working. look at what is not working. make adjustments to ramp things up whether it is the air campaign, the insertion of the special operations forces. steps we think can further enable local forces to ultimately prevail in this fight.

the secretary has had conversations in the past. i know he's had a good relationship with a long list of people. i know he respects their views on these issues and sought their counsel in a host of different ways since he has taken over this job. he has his own views about what should be happening. he believes the changes we're fight will intensify this and there may be more opportunities to do even more. that's the conversation he just had with his french counterpart. there will be further adjustments and enhancements to this fight. thanks for a much, everyone.

[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] russian president vladimir putin says this is a stab in the back. officials from the u.s. and nato are backing up turkey's claim. moscow says the russian jet never left syrian airspace. president putin says there will be serious consequences for relations. president obama says turkey has a right to defend its territory and airspace and that the incident points to ongoing problems with russia's military operations. c-span will be at the white obama awardsident the highest civilian honor to 17 ebayients including your

and willie mays, singers barbra streisand and james taylor. steven spielberg, and barbara mikulski. .e will take you there live >> american history tv has four days of featured programming. we will take you inside the national world war ii museum in new orleans. starting with the allied invasion of north africa. curators will share the experience including african-americans serving in a segregated military. back at ronald reagan, bill clinton, george h.w. bush, and michael to caucus.

the president and society of the honor guard and to move the unknown soldier. as stories about some of the notable people buried in the cemetery. the special report by morley safer on the five-week battle of the valley with interviews with officers, enlisted men, and the widow of a combat casualty. >> john hinckley shot president reagan and he was not wearing a bulletproof vest. john hinckley was stocking jimmy carter before this. feynman talks about various assassination attempts and physical threats.

>> 16 presidents have faced assassination threats but none directly since ronald reagan. long and it you we talk about kennedy in 1968. and george wallace who was shot and paralyzed for life in 1972. i cover candidates as well as presidents. it's a long list. met with theobama president of france. it this is about an hour. president obama: it has been an

talk to you and we with good times and bad. i want to once again express our deepest condolences to you and all of the people of france for the heinous attacks that took place in paris. we're here today to declare the united states and france stand united in total solidarity to deliver justice to these and to defend our nations. spirit, i welcome you here today. with your understanding, my statement today will be a little longer than usual. i have been traveling and this is an important moment for our

nations and for the world. this barbaric terrorist group, daesh, it cannot be tolerated. it is the unity of purpose that brings us here today. thataid when you came last the french love america. sometimes we are too shy to say so, but we are feeling shy today. americans love france because we dedicate ourselves to the same ideals that all people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. france is our oldest ally. liberate france from fascism.

we are freedom to each other. since the attacks, americans ever called their own visits to paris. we know these places. they are part of our memories woven into the fabric of our lives and our culture. i am very grateful for the french people for the hospitality they have shown me. they welcomed us and our daughters on her first visit to the city of lights. by my bed in the residence is a picture of me and michelle in luxembourg arts, kissing. those of the memories we have of paris. when tragedy struck that evening, our hearts broke, too.

net stadium, concert hall, the restaurants, cafes. we see our own. in the face of the french people, we see ourselves. americans have had candlelight vigils and join together to sing. we have never forgotten how the french people stood with us after 9/11. today, we stand with you. terrorists noted the did not direct their attacks against the french government or military. they focus their violence on the very spirit of france and by extension on all liberal democracies. this is an attack on free and open societies where people come

together to celebrate and saying. targeting venues where people come together from around the world. of nearly 20ens countries including america. this was an attack on the very idea that people of different backgrounds can live together in peace. strike on onely a of the world's great cities, it was its it -- an attack against the world itself. it has lot of the innocent from nigeria to sinai, it is a scourge. that is why for more than a year, the u.s., france, and our coalition have been united in one mission. to defeat their vile ideology.

today, we improved the coalition process. pushed them back from territory. doagreed the nations must even more together. we have supported recent french strikes in syria and will keep stepping up that coordination. the terror threat goes beyond i sold. i will sustain support to root out terrorist networks in africa. the u.s. will continue to quickly share threat information

with france in the wake of paris and with the france and belgium, there is a growing recognition they need to ramp up efforts to prevent the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. i am calling on the european union to implement the agreement that has been in the works to require airlines share passenger information so we can do more to enteringters from undetected. regarding the broader crisis in syria, we agreed that the strikes against the moderate opposition only bolster assad regime whose brutality fuels i sold. russia could play a more

constructive role if it were to shift the focus of its strike to defeating eyeful. isil.eating the best way to bring peace are the principles reaffirmed indiana. and a democratically elected government that can unite the people against terrorism. understand that one of our the strengthons is and resilience of our people. i want to speak directly to the american people. what happened in paris is truly horrific. i understand people worry something similar could happen here. we will continue to do .verything in our power

since 9/11, we have taken extraordinary measures to strengthen security. federal, state, local. they are tireless. there prevented attacks and have saved lives. did it so before paris and they will not stop. they are the best in the world. it's not just our security professionals that will defeat isil we all have a role to play. and how we respond to threats. if they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, they will terrorize us at home.

against soft targets, against innocent people. we cannot and will not succumb to fear. nor can we allow fear to divide us. that is how terrorists when. we cannot give them the victory of changing about how we go about living our lives. the good news is, americans are resilient. we mourned the lives lost at fort hood. the boston marathon. chattanooga. but we did not waver. we have gone the ball games, concerts, and we have gone shopping. men and women continue to go to military recruiting offices. we are vigilant. we take precautions and we go about our business.

our actions have shown that we have too much resolved and too much character. americans will not be terrorized. i say all this because another part of being vigilant, another part of defeating terrorists is upholding the rights and freedoms that identify our great republic's. it includes freedom of religion and includes equality before the law. there have been times in our history when we have failed to uphold our highest ideals. and it has been to our lasting were grad. they must uphold our ideals now. that america is strengthened by people of every

faith and every background. to welcome 30,000 additional syrian refugees over the next two years. here in the united states, refugees go up to up to two years of intense security checks. nobody who set foot in america goes through more screening than refugees. we are prepared to share these tools with france and our european partners. helpumanitarian duty to refugees and our duty to security goes hand in hand. on the statue of liberty, a gift from the people of france. there are words we know so well. give me your tired. your poor.

your huddled masses yearning to be free. that is the spirit that makes us american. that's the spirit that binds us to france. it's the spirit we need today. i want to salute the people of paris for showing the world how to stay strong in the face of terrorism. grieve, going to stadiums to cheer for their ,eams, the crowds gathered including a mother that brought her children. she said to let them see that we should not be afraid. paris.ill always be next week, i will be joining president along and world

leaders in paris for the global climate conference. rebuke to thel terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future. so let's remember that we have faced greater threats to our way of fascism, communism, the first world war. the second. a long cold war. we have prevailed because our way of life is stronger. because we stay united. even as we are relentless in the face of evil, we draw on what is

best in ourselves and the character of our countries. it will be no different this time. make no mistake. isilll win and groups like will lose. we continue to show the world the best of american leadership. god bless the united states of america. mr. president. hollande: ladies and gentlemen. thank barackme to obama for the solidarity he has shown immediately as we found out about the terror attacks. he was the first one to call me. it was very late in france. 2:00 a.m.. the president of the united

, his compassion against the horror. and on that night, he meant to states that the united stood by france. that the help that could be provided to france would have no duty and we had a joined to put our forces together and fight terrorism. forget all of the messages that the american people sent to the french people. many gathering. these candles in places that represent france here in the united states.

an official ceremony. we all felt american on 9/11. and americans felt french. our two people together emerged as one. and thethe same emotion same willingness to fight for freedom. we are not to similar people. we have our own histories and culture and background. but we share the same trust. the same faith in freedom. when france came under attack on is 13th of november, france

considered unique in the world. france came under attack for what it represents and what it stands for. as well as our values and principles. france, theting terrorists are targeting the world. the men and women, most of them young. they share the same passion for life.

my thoughts are with the friends and family of the young american share awho came to moment of culture and enjoy. my thoughts also go to the american band. the culture on that occasion. we are together to bring the same enthusiasm. facing a terror group. they are thriving. and since the beginning of the , they hit many countries. lebanon, kuwait.

russia.egypt, taking down a russian plane. together with president obama, share ourwant to relentless determination to fight terrorism anywhere and everywhere. we are also meeting to tell the world that we will not allow those who want to destroy what we've built, we will not allow them to do it. generation after generation, it will not be to damage the world. france and united states stands

together to bring that response. militarily, it is about destroying daesh wherever they are. it works. and taking back the land we learn to control. we decided in syria and iraq to broaden the scope to strengthen intelligence sharing regarding the targets. the priority is to take back key locations. urgencyso a matter of to close the border between turkey and syria. and prevent terrorists from crossing the border and coming to europe and other places.

and the decision to work together with our partners in all of those on the ground. the aim is to make sure that .hese forces can be supported all countries willing to act militarily to destroy daesh. the security council voted unanimously on friday after being introduced. we provided them with the clear basis to act. they are in the east of the mediterranean. time,day, for the sixth

we have been providing assistance to iraqi fighters. within the framework of the coalition. and myself have strengthened our cooperation. and i would like to commend everything that is being done so that intelligence information can be used. so that it prevents them from doing what they wanted. to somehow spread fear. decisions which

aren't exactly contrary. but we will not give in. ourselves.defend workingically, we are within the framework and i done to agreerk on a timeline that we are able to cease-fire. and it will lead to bashar al-assad's departure. we cannot imagine the syrians getting together, gathering responsibleeader for 300,000 dead in a few years.

a bit of unity is required. relevant. is directly and also because there are millions of refugees fleeing the bombs. if we were to abandon them, we would the tray what we are. wet is the reason why identify migration and terrorism. today, people are risking their lives. they travel between turkey and greece. roley plays an important

and we must find solutions. so that the refugees can stay close to their country of origin. theeed to make sure that checks are implemented at the border. i will tell him that france can work together if russia concentrated military action on daesh. against isil. commits to a fully political solution in syria. this is what we want to do. countries.ether all those willing to find a political solution. we do not want to exclude anyone, but we want to make sure

that the political solution can eradicate terrorism. week, that is on monday. we will be hosting a conference. i could not imagine this conference would be taking place against such a background. there cannot be any better but to holdsponse the conference in paris where the attacks took place. where we took the right measures in terms of security protections and values. symbol thangreater holding this with 150 heads of state and government. france host sod

many leaders the international community. the climate challenge, working sofind the right agreement we can limit greenhouse gases emitted and make sure our children and grandchildren can simply live. they are also coming to stress for the fight against extremism. islam is becoming dangerous. coming, no them are matter their background to express the same principle and same values.

yes, simply life. the reason why i am very pleased with president obama is that we can succeed. i commend his recent statement the last couple weeks and months and the commitment he has made in the name of the world. it was very important. that that could also be there to face a future we have been facing in history. we will be doing early next that weparis means continue to live as well as and protectlives

our children. france and the united states, given their history and values, , we bothing values urgently duty to act against terrorism. and at the same time, prepare for the future. i am pleased to be with barack obama to send across that message to the entire world. thank you. obama: we have time for a few questions. >> this is a question for both of you. what is your reaction to turkey shooting down a russian plane today? and as the strong nato into a confrontation with russia?

how do you keep this from spiraling out of control? president obama, what does this mean for the prospect of more military coordination with russia? and president hollande, what are the prospects for closer military coordination with russia, given what happened today? president obama: first of all, we are still getting the details of what happened. i expect to be in communications, potentially directly, with the president in the next several days. turkey, like every country, has a right to defend is territory and its airspace. i think it is very important right now for us to make sure

both the russians and the turks are talking to each other. find out exactly what happened, and take measures to discourage any type of escalation. i do think that this points to an ongoing problem with the russian operations. in the sense that they are operating very closely to a turkish border and they are going after moderate opposition that are supported by not only turkey but a wide range of countries. if russia is directing his energies toward isil, some of those conflicts or potentials for mistakes and escalation are less likely to occur. and because underscores the point of us making sure that we move this political track forward as quickly as possible. like president francois hollande, our view from the start has been that russia is welcome to be part of this broad-based coalition that we have set up. there has never been a point in

time in which we sat that we do not want russia or other countries that may have differences with us on a host of other things to avoid working with us against isil. the challenge has been russia's focus on propping up for cheryl assad rather than focusing on isil. i had a conversation with president putin in turkey as i indicated to him at the time, that to the extent they make that strategic shift, focus on the vienna process where they had been instructed to bring the parties together, to try to execute a political transition, that all parties would agree to, and retirement this -- and refocus attention on going after isil, then there is enormous

capacity for us to cooperate. until that happens, it is very difficult. it is difficult because it is their priority to attack the moderate opposition that might be future members of an inclusive syrian government. russia is not going to get the support from us or a range of other members of the coalition. i do think that there is the possibility for operations. the sooner we agree to this political process, the less likely you have the kinds of events that took place, apparently, today. president hollande: the event that took place is a serious one and we can only regretted.

turkey is currently providing all of the information to nato so that we can find out what truly happened, and whether turkey's airspace indeed was entered into. we must prevent an escalation in that would be extremely damaging. the only purpose is to fight against terrorism. this is what we must do, all of us. we, turkey, russia, and what took place like that, means that we must find solutions to the syrian conflict because we can see what the risks are other way. escalation.

i therefore will be traveling to russia this week because we have this resolution of the security council. it does show that we must take action against terrorism. that has been voted unanimously. and the broadest possible coalition. then i will ask president clinton -- vladimir putin, what i have told them a number of times already. to stand strong against isis, against terrorism. those who are threatening us, they are threatening the russians. like france that was targeted over the last few days, we must coordinate ourselves, cooperate. we're all acting against isis and we are part of the political process, one that must lead to this. and we all know what the outcomes of the solution art moore or not. the charles de gaulle aircraft carrier is in the southern mediterranean. we're all acting against isis

and we are part of the political process, one that must lead to this. and we all know what the outcomes of the solution art moore or not. the charles de gaulle aircraft carrier is in the southern mediterranean. there are also some russian forces, and are agreed that we must share our intelligence, so we can act in coordination. we must not keep it to ourselves. it is already the case and we will continue to do so. >> mr. president, the americans

have some special forces in syria, beyond the words of what is happening. are you going to send some special forces to syria? you going to do some ground intervention there? beyond the emotion that we can feel here, beyond these beautiful statements, for more than a year we have heard all of you saying that this is necessary in syria. can you in here, in front of us, tell us a specific date for a time to go? president hollande: i will not provide you with a date.

because it may be as soon as possible. that is one of the requirements. but at the same time let me allow -- on a to underline something. there is a new mindset now. the crisis in syria has been ongoing for four years. four years. there are probably more than 300,000 deaths. and this is not just relevant to the countries of the region who are hosting the refugees, it is relevant to the rest of the world now. and those who believe that we could wait some more, and that in any case it is far away, these are lies. we have an influx of refugees that the terrorists, the risk is

everywhere. we must therefore act. you also asked me what we were going to do, what more we were going to do. we will intensify the strikes. we will have more specific targets to make sure that the resources and supplies are cut off. including command centers, the trucks carrying oil, their trading centers where they plan terror attacks. we will continue and we will put our strikes at the heart of the

cities where they are. france will not intervene militarily on the ground. it is for the local forces to do so. we have been supporting them for a number of months. we will continue to do so. we will do the job on the ground after our strikes that will enable to do so. we will take our responsibilities regarding that support absolutely necessary. president obama: i have a couple of broader comments against isil. as was are the indicated, we have taken thousands of strikes, thousands of high school writers, including top commanders and leaders off the battlefield. we have squeezed their supply lines. we have empowered and armed local groups that are pushing against them including most recently providing training and assistance to the iraqi government. as they prepare to retake places

like ramadi that have been overrun. we have seen some success, but the question now is how can we accelerate it? even before the tragedy in paris i had gathered together my national security forces raided had been a year, to review what had worked, what had not. and had put together a plan to accelerate and advance the pressure that we can place on isil. we intend to execute on those plans but we also think as francois said that there may be new openness on the part of other coalition members to help

resource and provide additional assistance both to the coalition as a whole and to local forces on the ground. with respect to mr. assad, we have to let the process play itself out. it is our best opportunity. the notion that there would be an immediate date in advance of us getting a broad agreement on the political process and the details, i think does not make sense. as soon as we have a framework for political transition, potentially a new constitution, elections, i think it is in the context that we can start looking at mr. assad choosing not to run and potentially seeing a new syria emerge. but it will be hard. we should not be under any illusions.

syria has broken down. it began to break down the it began to break down the moment that mr. assad started killing indiscriminately his own people. isil was able to move in in part because of a thorough rejection on the part of many syrians of the assad regime. a power vacuum emerged. it is going to be a difficult, long, methodical process to bring back together various

factions within syria to maintain a syrian state and institutions, and to create the kind of stability that allows people to start coming together and rebuilding their lives. but it is possible. and the urgency that we have seen, even before paris out of countries like russia shows that they recognize they cannot be there too long and ultimately win a military battle successfully. olivia knox. >> thank you. mr. president, can you tell us if the russian plane did breach turkish airspace? and how concerned are you that there would be expanded coalition interest action? when it comes to threatening the corporation, having taken months or weeks ago that they would have prevented the attacks? president obama: we do not have all the information yet.

i do not want to comment on the specifics and we will be gathering all that information. we expect the turks to provide information. i'm sure the russians will have some information. we will be able to confirm what happened in part through our own intelligence and our own tracking of that area. as françois indicated, my top priority is going to be to ensure that this does not escalate. and hopefully this is a moment in which all parties can step back and make a determination as to how their interests are best served. the russians had several hundred people of their own killed by isil. the flow of foreign fighters out of russian areas into syria poses an enormous long-term threat to russian territory.

there is a potential convergence of interests between the various parties. it requires us working with them to make the kind of strategic shift that is necessary, at frankly that i talked about for five years now. it requires recognition that the existing structure cannot gain legitimacy to stop the war. and until you stop the war you will have a vacuum in which these kinds of terrorist organizations can operate more effectively. let me say one last name, because i tracked the question you posed to president ollanta hollande about what could or could not have been prevented. all of our intelligence personnel, across the united states, across the atlantic

worked tirelessly to disrupt plots and prevent terrorist attacks. the vast majority of their successes in disrupting plots are not advertised. you never hear about them. if it were not for the dedication of those intelligence and law enforcement and military professionals this would be a much more dangerous world. you have to be careful about speculating what if could have and would have in a situation like this. it is hard. you have eight individuals with light weapons. that is a hard thing to track. what is true is that we can do a better job coordinating between countries. i have been talking to our european partners for quite some time now about the need for

better intelligence sharing, passenger name records, working to ensure when people enter into europe, particularly now, that the information across various borders is shared on a timely basis and you have biometric information and other technologies. you can make it more accurate. it does not mean it will be 100% foolproof, but will be better on those fronts. one of the challenges has been, frankly, in the past several years that legal concerns about privacy and civil liberties, which are entirely legitimate, i do not think that those can be ignored.

those are part of the values that make us who we are, and that we have to adhere to. but i think that this is a reminder that this is a dangerous world. and rooting out small bands of terrorist groups who maintain good operational security and are using modern technologies in ways that are hard to track , that is a tough job. we are all going to the pool our resources more effectively together than we have in the past. i think when the president goes back to europe his leadership and the leadership of other presidents and prime ministers around this issue is going to be as important as anything we do.

president hollande: allowing to go back to what daesh truly is. it is an organization, a terrorist group and a territory in iraq in syria, killing, and they want to enforce rules that dishonor humanity. this is what daesh is doing there. this is what they are trying to do in other countries everywhere. and then we have to deal with the networks that are being used in terror attacks.

we know the dreadful plan was prepared in syria, and then organized in a number of countries. and there were some a accomplices in france. those who committed the act of war. if we want to tackle terrorism, we must act not on this not only to destroy where they are in syria and iraq, but we must also dismantle and destroyed the networks. how can we proceed?

first of all, militarily intensifying our strikes, by taking back to these territories, supporting the troops on the ground. making sure that the to territorial integrity is approved. this is what we can do. and then when it comes to protective measures to protect our territory and our people, this is what i announced in france, and this is what we have to do to and eradicate these networks and all of these accomplices. some of them just arrived. others have been there for a long time. they are not necessarily identified as a threat. it is therefore necessary that we strengthen cooperation in terms of intelligence. the paris attacks generated a lot of emotion, but that is not enough.

compassion, solidarity, and i take note of it. but we must act, and for a number of days now i have been trying to convince all the countries who can act to do so. i met with david cameron yesterday. he announced that he would take a number of measures to his parliament. that is important. today i am here with barack obama so that we can act with greater intensity and coherence as well. tomorrow i will be meeting german chancellor angela merkel that european countries including germany can face up to the responsibility, in terms of military intelligence and police

cooperation and maybe more. i will also travel to moscow, so that russia can take action against daesh. and then, i will receive the head of the italian government. i will also have the opportunity to talk to all the european leaders, as it will be held on sunday. it is all of that, getting together, and enabling us to implement coordination, cooperation, and action so that we can act on isil, and the network. it is my strength which will enable us to succeed.

that strength which will enable us to succeed. >> both of you have talked about coordination cooperation. does it mean that a single coalition which you mentioned last week is gone? is it conceivable to help the russians and the americans to work together under a single command? and then you said you could not put a date on his departure. this funding that mean that his departure is not a preamble or prerequisite for the future of syria? president hollande: regarding the coalition of the international community, i believe that was approved by all of the security council enables us to say that now the entire world is committed to fighting against daesh. and then, and this is what i will check when i travel to moscow, we need one single goal, that is, to tackle terrorism and

and fight against daesh militarily. i believe we can have some critical operation and coordination militarily. at the same time we have to be clear what it comes to the political solution. and we cane said, repeat it. and cnn are already working with all of the countries, even though they do not have the same sense that turkey -- the united states, france, all of those who must find a solution.

we must work on this. the transition where the sheer all aside plays no role, he has been the problem, so he cannot be the solution. president obama: we have a coalition of 65 countries who have been active in pushing back against isil for quite some time. france has been a central part of that coalition. as have european countries, arab countries, countries as far-flung as australia and countries in southeast asia are part of that coalition. russia right now is a coalition of two. iran and russia supporting bashir al-assad. given russia's military capabilities, and given the influence they have on the assad regime, them cooperating would be enormously helpful in

bringing about resolution of the civil war in syria, and allow us all to refocus our attention on isil. but i think it is important to remember that you have a global coalition organized. russia is the outlier. we hope that they refocus their attention on what is the most substantial threat, and that they serve as a constructive partner. and if and when they do, it will make it easier for us to go after isil. although i think it is important to recognize the kind of airstrikes they are carrying

out, just like the kinds of airstrikes we are carrying out , to bolster local fighting are not sufficient to the work that we do to bolster local fighting forces. cutting off supply lines, financing, oil, reducing the flow of foreign partiers -- fighters, the intelligent work that is to be done, all of that is something that we are doing now. they can supplement. but that is going to be a process that involves hard, methodical work. it is not going to be something that happens just because suddenly we take a few more airstrikes. and that is the kind of hard work that i know france is prepared to do. united states prepared to do. and perhaps russia will be as well. thank you very much.

>> we will be showing the white house news conference again at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c van. c-span2, experiences while imprisoned in iran. experiences of president george bush. obama will award the presidential medal of freedom to 17 people. it is the highest civilian honor, and some recipients include former baseball players. barbra streisand, james taylor, stephen siegel -- spielberg. ceremony ath the live at five a eastern here on c-span.

earlier today, the u.s. defense department confirmed that turkey did warn russian fighter pilot several times before firing on aircraft near the border. the incident was the top focus at a briefing held earlier today at the pentagon. this is about 50 minutes. thank you for taking the time to join me here today, especially before the holidays. i will start with today's news. the turkish government announced two f-16s engaged to russian su 24's and one russian aircraft was shot down. the russian ministry of defense has announced an investigation into the crash.

it does not involve operation in heron result. our combat operations against iso-continues. continues. indigenous ground forces continue to consolidate gains. we are seeing the impact, and that's what i want to talk about today. go ahead and bring up the map. , in addition to , engineern all axes teams have made significant contributions to the fight. teamsexplosives ordnance continue to destroy ied's, including the detonation of a factory, which destroyed 60 ied's.

this is a notable fact in our recent analysis. of isilate that only 5% 's work is effective. vetted syrian opposition forces and new forces began offense of operations to seize two areas last friday. after a tough fight, these forces successfully sees both towns. it is important because it is the first successful offensive operation since it june along the line. it also included members of the new syrian forces.

isil iso-lost these towns and the ability to use them. i want to show you this video. about the isil weapon of choice. we struck a bridge and ramadi which had been the primary route attacksisil to send against forces. isil can no longer use this road. role thevideo craze --

video please.

col. warren: that is an amazing depiction of the accuracy we are capable of here, and also terrain denial. terrainan example of denial. isil longer be able to use that againsto send vbieds our forces. the second is from operation title wave strike against the .llicit oil system of isil november 22, we conducted a near two areas in

syria. that strike destroyed 283 oil tanker trucks. as we did on the first strike against tanker trucks, we conducted a leaflet drop ahead of time to warn civilian drivers to leave the area before that strike. this second video. this is about three minutes long.

anotherren: again, example of the type of accuracy we are capable of. to close out my remarks. late last week, russia issued a statement and a video of a claim

they attacked and destroyed 500 isil fuel tankers. we took a look at those reports and saw the video, and the battle damage assessment they issued seems to be exaggerated. more than likely the russian attack did not produce results they claim it produced. finally, before we go to questions, i want to remind you who isil is and how ruthless they are. on november 18, iragi reinforces in ramadi observed 22 civilians trying to get away from the fighting. the e civilians neared isif,, isil opened fire and they the a little boy in stomach. they were able to evacuate the civilians, stabilize the boy, and transport him to the hospital.

it appeared from the reports using thewas civilians as bait to get the isif to come out. remarks but i my will take your questions. a question about that shootdown of the russian plane. seeu.s. personnel hear or any aspect of that sequence of events? were there any additional incidents involving the shootdown of russian aircraft today? so, there were no u.s. personnel in the vicinity of this incident, so we did not

observe it in any way. we had seen reports in the local here and on social media of a second incident involving a russian helicopter, but we can't confirm that yet. we are working to get confirmation of that. in light of what today, could you explain to us in more detail that are ins. f-15s turkey. i know they are requested to be there to protect airspace, but are they flying daily patrols or only taking off when they are called upon? were in a situation like the turkish pilots found themselves in today, what are the rules of engagement? f-15s -- theree are f-15s, as you know, in

turkey. some are conducting ground attack operations against isil in iraq and syria. others are assisting the turks with some of their combat troll duties. the of the f-15s were in vicinity of this incident when it took place, and so it had nothing to do with it. ofill not detail the rules engagement for our f-15s. this is information that others would like to know, so we want to keep it to ourselves so we don't get tested. patrolling.t obviously, it is a very large an f-15 can't be everywhere at once. the situation with russia happened rapidly, incursion, contact, and the actual incident itself. at 15's inno

-- f-15s in the area. this is something that took place between the russians and the turks. the understanding with the russians and the skies over syria and communication set up with the russians, with that apply to the border of turkey if u.s. warplanes were flying there? col. warren: there are some lines there. reporter: did you -- is it true

, butyou would have seen it you did track it on your radars, able to observe the radar the , and given that, do you believe it was in turkish airspace? certainly we have radars and other acquisition capabilities in place, and we are able to track all of the aircraft in those areas. still gathering all the facts and looking at the details. remote of these more regions and mountainous areas, whatever the altitude is, it's often difficult to know exactly where a border is. i don't have a good answer for

you yet. we are still analyzing all of our data to determine it. you look at map overlays, there will be a line there to indicate where the border is, but the thickness of that line can make a difference. it does in this case. at theident happened border. that much i can tell you. beyond that, we are still trying to collect and sift through the data. reporter: you said you have the ability to track all aircraft in the region, so correct that you attract this russian flight on your radars and would have also track the turkish f-16s, is that correct? that is correct. we have situational awareness in the skies completely. you said that the u.s. didn't see the incident, but what did the u.s. hear.

the turks are claiming that they issued 10 warnings within a five minute time span, does the u.s. confirm that? the border, but it sounds like it could have been on either side of the border at any moment as it was flying through that narrow stretch of turkey that descends down into syria? has the u.s. been able to confirm that one of the russian airman was killed, and was the other one rescued by u.s. helicopters? does the u.s. know that? col. warren: we don't know the status of the two downed russian pilots. again, we have observed local media, social media, etc., but we do not -- we are not in a position to confirm one way or another. we just don't know.

back to relative locations of aircraft and things like that, we need a little time to work that out. you just have to give us a little time to analyze these things. these things aren't always as clean as they are in the movies. it is the data that has to be collected and sorted through. we need some time for that. we still do not have it yet. it is not information that we have. radio, we were able to hear every thing that was going on. thatter: can you confirm there were 10 warnings issued by the turkish pilots to the russian pilots? the turks claim the russians did not respond. can you confirm that? yes, i can confirm that. is the feeling of the

u.s. military that the russians were deliberately in turkish airspace? that they are routinely buzzing this area to stir things up? a this the third time that russian aircraft would have orached turkish airspace have there been a additional ones that have not yet been reported? unfortunately, i'm not tracking at that level of detail. let me go back to my earlier statement. this is turkey and russia. this is their incident. our focus is on isil. year,er: earlier in the secretary carter was pretty

forward in terms of his feeling buzzing turkish airspace. itseems like the russians knew what was at stake if they continue to do that. are you asking me if i knew what the russians knew? reporter: i'm asking you what the feeling is in terms of the u.s. military and russia's actions and terms of routinely going into turkish airspace. the u.s. military's feeling is that our mission is to fight isil in syria and iraq, at least that's the feeling here. you said that the f-15s are not

anduded with the russians they are operating under --opean command rather than what would happen if russian u.s. aircraft were intercepting jets crossing the turkish border? with the action be the same? col. warren: -- those aircraft when they are conducting that mission are not under our control. do you have concern that russian aircraft will theinue to cross turkish border?

we are concerned when the russians are conducting any activities that aren't focused on isil. the russians have made claims of destroying 500 trucks, that we don't believe they destroyed. they have said publicly that .heir goal is to fight isil their actions however have not shown anything like that. only a fraction of their a tax have been against isil -- attacks have been against isil targets. so we are concerned when the russians of don't do what they say they are going to do, right? they have said that they are here to fight terrorism, but the russians have routinely now demonstrated that their goal is prolong thend

bashar al-assad regime. the majority of their strikes have been strikes that are a direct benefit to the bashar al-assad regime. it is the regime in our view that is the problem here. al-assad regime that has brought suffering and misery to the syrian people, which in turn has led to the growth of isil itself. it is the whole reason we are here. so, yes. reporter: i have three questions for you. two of them are things you wanted to talk about. one of them might not be. you can just barrel through them. you said twice now that russian exaggerated the effects of this attack on the fuel trucks claiming 500. can you give us an idea of the order of magnitude of the exaggeration. how many fuel trucks were destroyed by russian aircraft?

second, you have talked about the imprecision of the russian airstrikes and civilian casualties, some human rights groups put out some numbers recently in the hundreds of civilian casualties. do you have any sort of way to quantify the number of civilian casualties caused by russian airstrikes? and my last question is that you ittioned at 30,000 feet that is not always easy to know where you are, so are there any alternative procedures that could be used in an air incursion like this, such as escorting the plane out of the airspace as opposed to taking the action of shooting it down? col. warren: on how exaggerated are the russian claims regarding the trucks, we did not go to the

effort to count, a detailed battle damage assessment. media that was the the russians put out. by looking at that video, unless the russians are counting flattened tires and chip ain't, it is simply impossible that they were able to destroy 500 trucks. imprecisely using the and dumb bombs they use. you saw that light that was coming down, the ir target which helps. russians are not using any of that. they are using old-fashioned mid-20th century technology and accuracy to sling led around the battlefield. there is no way that you are able to destroy 500 trucks. my guess is that it is an exaggeration, under 100.

is possibly seen upwards of 1000 civilian casually's caused by the russians. this is not our account. these are counts we have observed from her to parties, nongovernmental organizations. we think those counts are probably fairly accurate, including over 100 kids, so again this is a sloppy military work. this is the reckless and irresponsible imprecise and frankly uncaring approach to operations in syria that the russians have taken on. are a range of alternatives available to aircraft in the air. escorting is one. there is a whole range of intercepting and things that could be done, but again -- .roadly speaking

obviously, this is a decision that got made and is a matter for the turks to talk about. more on the planes. based on what you saw on the , where in the region did this incident take place? is it where syrian kurds are known to be operating or any member of the syrian air coalition, and if so, does the u.s. have an obligation to protect those forces? col. warren: we have seen the russians already strike forces that are moderate syrian opposition forces. we have seen them do this, and it flies directly in the face of

what they said they would do. they have said they were here to help fight i sold -- isil. in fact they are striking moderate syrian opposition groups. we have made it clear on our thegations to protect directly,t we touched that we trained, and that hasn't changed. anye is no -- there weren't kind of partnered forces, the or sorian forces, the 100 we have trained, they were not where this all happened. reporter: any initial specifics on where that happened? we know exactly where it came from. everybody has announced that.

the incident happened in -- province. if a country's territorial airspace extends 12 miles from its border, shouldn't the russian aircraft have avoided going into that buffer zone? all aircraft should respect the sovereignty of nations around them, absolutely. reporter: it shouldn't be a matter of the plane flying next to the border. it should have avoided the border, shouldn't it? the international protocols and standards and norms are well established and well known by all players. -- allely, everyone nations should work within those international norms. are called they

international norms, established for all nations. there is no reason for aircraft to be flying where they shouldn't. reporter: did the russian aircraft issue a mayday call? col. warren: unknown. reporter: i was wondering if you could tell us what kind of theraft were performing strikes in the videos you showed us, and if they were american aircraft, if you are able to say, the bridge and fuel trucks? the fuel truck strikes were all-american strikes, a-10s and specter gunships. different vantage points, there was also a uav flying there.

some of those shots that were zoomed out where you could see the target area, all the trucks ,ined up in the shape of a d that was from a uav that was observing. then we switch to actual gun camera footage. in some cases, a bomb would have been from an a-10. when you saw the machine gunfire, that could have been a 10 or c-130 specter gunships. strike, i would have to look. i did not check what type of aircraft. again, on the fuel tanker strikes. it looked from the video that they were targeting specific trucks, instead of targeting them en masse. can you talk about what the plan is with that?

is that a designed to send a message, or is it meant to block other trucks>? ? why target only one, when you could target them all if you wanted to? col. warren: they did target all of them. that is how the video comes out. hoursise it would be long. we were just looking for the good shots. it is about precision, right? it's not a movie where you fly along and strafe and the trucks blow up. they struck each truck or groups of two or three. it is a machine gun, so there is a certain area aspect to it. the gunfire isn't laserguided to ballistics will cause the rounds to move a little bit in the air, strikendividual truck,

that, move strike, move strike. so the goal was to move every truck therapy they ran out of ammunition before they were able to do that, but the desire was to destroy every single truck there. trucks werew many destroyed in the end, what percentage? destroyed in283 this attack, 116 in the first one, grand total of 499 trucks destroyed. change of subject, if i could. there are claims and accusations that information and intelligence provided by u.s. military in iraq is being by officials at centcom to make it appear that the u.s. progress is better than it is. are any u.s. military commanders

in iraq believe that the information and until they are providing to centcom has been altered or misrepresented in any way? thanks for that. this is an ongoing investigation, so we have to moderate our words. the commanders here rely on intelligence, it is an intelligence driven operation. faith in the intelligence professionals who support us here on the ground. thorough, veryry thoughtful, and very detailed intelligence to us. intelligence is not an exact science. there are judgments that have to be made on every single bit of intelligence we receive. it comes in two different sources, and often two different sources will say two different things that have to be resolved, so it is important to remember that this is not an exact

science. we hear enter and rely heavily on the intelligence professionals who support us. ,hey are from a wide variety u.s. army military intelligence, all the different services, and other agencies as well. , ihink the commanders here am safe in saying that the commanders are comfortable with the intelligence that they receive to support their operational decisions. reporter: the accusations are that this information coming out of iraq has been manipulated by officials there at centcom. that is a heck of a lot different than judgment or a close call. col. warren: obviously, echelons above us here in iraq, i know the intelligence professionals were contacting -- collecting

and processing it here. they are moving that information up the chain of command. what happens after that, the inspector general is looking at that. we will have to see how that plays out. reporter: if you could go back to what you started talking about at the beginning, the south around ramadi and all that. the kurds talked about making it effective use of the weapons they got from the germans against the vbieds. themyou been working around the area to stopping the vbied's, is there any thought to forces till missiles -- tow missiles.

? we just did another -4's, soa t fours -- at the iragi security forces are putting these weapons systems to great use. additionally, they have learned how to identify these truck .ombs the enemy will take a vehicle, bolt on extra pieces of metal ofund it, stop it full explosives, and they will try to anve it into the flank of isif formation. working, butwas the iraq's security forces have adapted. they've learned to recognize these trucks and how the enemy

is employing them. most importantly, they have learned to counter them, both through intelligence collection and through direct action. right now the at-4 is what is needed. ishing larger like a tow needed, really. examplethis is a great -- there is this vbied piece. i hope i did not skip over it. effectiveness is 5%, so that means 95% of the vbied'sd is sending against isif forces are ineffective. 95% ineffective, and that is because of several things. one, the isif has gotten better dealing with them. aboute have gotten better finding them from the air and able to strike them.

three, we have been very deliberate in our efforts to find and destroy their vbied factories. you've heard me talk about the idea of attacking their industrial base. we went after their oil, a strategic, longer-term impact strike. it won't necessarily make something change tomorrow, but it will make something change downstream. factories, weied are seeing the impact. on there fewer vbied's battlefield. when they come out, they are not well made. they are easier for us to kill, or for the isif to kill. we saw several of them get stuck washe mud, and why isil trying to get them out of the mud, they would detonate. we list the strike nevers. i didn't -- strike numbers.

we did not do that today. i did that for a reason. they do not tell the whole story. we have seen these vbied's effectiveness drop by 95%, 95% ineffective. send civiliansem out as an effort to bait forces. we have also seen the reduction in a number of personnel at checkpoints, and maybe that gives us an idea that everything might not be good as it could be -land, so were starting to see changes in the way they operate. it does not mean this is over. we are a long way from over. what it does mean is that the isif and the air campaign in our view is beginning to gain traction. it goes back to that operationalizing of the entire battlefield. was a long answer to your