general petraeus: no. you want that knowledge of someone who has lived in that world. you could have the best of world if you have a former palestinian-jordanian, michael jordan, first jordan who slammed the first basketball, who then comes to america and studies and goes back and plays pro bowl and has phenomenal arabic and then owns wo delis in new york and businessman and entrepreneur and then drives a limo in his spare time, that's what you want. so he's accomplished in all tasks and been back many times and still employed as an adviser. it's not just translation. it's not just interpretation, it is adviser i think that is hugely important. paul: are you hearing these days or particularly in the last month from interpreters back in iraq or afghanistan that you dealt with about the anxieties they are feeling?

guest: you hear about it -- general betray us: you hear about it. it comes and goes depending on the situation in a country, in an area. obviously we heard a great deal out of mosul tragically when swept in and tate posed this very barbaric extremist form of government and interpretation of islam. certainly i've heard, again, from afghanistan as the security situation has eroded. and so yes, you do hear that. there are other groups also beyond no one left behind. there are a number of very, very wonderful folks who are trying to look after those who we know from when we were there. and it does bubble up and bubble up. and obviously the events of the last week, needless to say, have put this into higher relief than ever before. paul: what do you think is the

implicit or explicit promise to these people when they came to work with us? general petraeus: i don't know if people sat down at the beginnings of this and said if you share risk and get hit by i.e.d.'s from time to time or save omebody's life as matt's interpreter did literally, i don't know how you ended up with a weapon in your hand but ice that you plugged the two taliban that tried to kill him. again, i don't think there was ever an understanding that if you'll do this, we'll get you to the united states or do this. but i think there is an implicit moral obligation to those who, again, share risk. and i think it's very important for the future as well. you know, there's a quote that i have used over the years about veterans that comes from george washington. and i think it's very applicable in this case. because you think about it

here, he, again, was talking about veterans, the willingness for which our young likely to serve in any war no matter justified should be directly proportionally how those veterans were treated in our nation. and you could strike out veterans and say host nation partners, translators, advisors, whatever it may be, because i think we'll reflect back on how did we treat. people from the vietnam era still feel we left individuals behind. i know at the c.i.a. there were host nation partners and there were tributes to them and, again, we left a number of them behind. and i think that sense of having failed in our moral -- gation is very keen from for those from that era and one reason i'm pleased to see

the attention given to this, even though we need a larger number of these special visas and even anthony, again, we need to ensure that the process is as expeditious as possible while making sure every safeguard is bserved. so, again, i think it is both the right thing to do for those with whom we have served in our most recent conflicts. i think it's also the smart thing to do if you think you might end up having to do this somewhere else perhaps not in the same scale, but where individuals are going to have to decide whether or not they are willing to support a u.s. or coalition endeavor and will they take care of us if things turn south. paul: you know, when matt zeller goes to foundations looking for financial support, at the refugee foundation they say they are not refugees, they're veterans.

he goes to veterans, they say they are not veterans but refugees. which do you think they are? general petraeus: you highlighted this earlier they are a veteran in every way except for the legal sense of the term. unfortunately, that is a pretty important term which is why, again, i think you need that special attention to them and why there has to be the special processes for them. i thought it was very important that you highlighted upfront that they, more than anyone want to make sure that those who are able to take advantage of this opportunity are those who are going to come here and become contributing members of society, pillars of communities and obviously the antithesis what it is we are concerned about when it comes to extremists mingling in with various streams of people coming to our country. paul: your time is scarce and we don't want to monopolize it.

can we open the floor? general petraeus: sure we can. paul: ground rules, state your name and affiliation, ask a question, don't make a speech. >> kim dozier at the "daily beast. ." general petraeus: how many host translators did you have? >> at least a dozen and in my time in iraq and afghanistan. many, many times, translators, usually muslim, risk their lives and in some cases saved e from harm. general petraeus: when you got hit, did your translator survive? kim: when we were with a fourth infantry patrol and when we were hit by an al qaeda car bomb, it killed the captain and

his iraqi translator who was serving as a translator for us all. they were closest to the blast as well as my camera crew and four of the soldiers were injured. they are always next to the people taking the most risk and helping us understand the culture. in your case, you can conduct military policy. in my case i can understand what is happening in front of me and report it back to everybody here. but can i ask you a question? beast" er of "the daily and i was with cbs news in baghdad from 2003 to 2006 and hit by a car bomb there and translators were our lifeline in everything we did. my question is, a lot of americans haven't met a muslim, a muslim who served with the military overseas. there is a lot of distrust in the country right now between the various communities.

do you see a way to use this force of translators who come here who served with u.s. forces to help bridge that gap? and also, there was a lot of heated rhetoric during the campaign. do you think some of the things that were said from comparing islam to a cancer, need to be rolled back and restated and focused just on islamic radicalism and terrorism as opposed to painting the whole religion with that brush? general petraeus: first of all, i do think that individuals like this can help bridge the gap. i would contend that they probably already are in many cases. certainly they do that in certain communities where communities have really welcomed individuals where there were already families and so forth. but clearly, there are a lot of communities, as you say, that just have perceptions, not the reality of contact with those

of another faith, in this case of islam. so i think they can. i think in truth there are many segments of our society that can do that as well and that are attempting to do that. we have the ambassador from iraq is here, somewhere, a great ambassador who's taken risk as well. where is he? thank you. farid is someone we all know well. he went back to iraq. he's got both shiia and sunni blood. brilliantly educated, ph.d., time at m.i.t. and all the est. medi, also, a number of the major diplomats, the minister of foreign affairs and others. you know, this is a kind of individual who knows our country well, knows his country well. i think literally is an ambassador not just in name but

ambassador of his faith, of his country and so forth. and i think we have in many cases in the diplomatic community here individuals who do that exceedingly well. yusef one of the u.a.e. comes to mind. the kuwaiti ambassador. many have worked very, very hard to promote this and i do think in the wake of, look, any campaign that inevitably gets to be fairly partisan and with pretty heated debate and discussion that clarification afterwards is useful and i think we see some of that taking place. as we see clarification of the executive order itself and of going forward, it was great to see secretary mattis immediately start to work on exemptions to this. and my understanding is from the iraqi ambassador that s.i.v.

for iraq and i think the s.i.v. for afghanistan both are now in that exempted category, though i have not seen the actual language on that. so, again, yes is the answer to that, without question, i think. the process of coming together as a country in the wake of an election is the macrocontext and this is the element of that acrocontext. paul: over there. stand up and wait for the microphone. general petraeus: i think we need to have your microphone come to you here. >> my name is mahood with american university. my question is, the war in iraq started like 2003 and actually the withdrawal of the forces completed 2014. so why do we have like translators and interpreters

still behind and still having process to come here to the tates? just mr. trump, and he's been in the office like for 11 or -- general petraeus: no. this is not something you can pin on this administration clearly. i mean, the reason is quite simple. we just haven't done enough. the s.i.v. numbers haven't been adequate. when it comes to afghanistan, i think there are 7,000, roughly, still waiting. i was working with some of those in the senate, in particular. there are some tremendous champions on the hill. senator mccain i think would be foremost among them. and, again, the reason is it took it a long time to get to the s.i.v. legislation and then it has taken a long time to get the numbers up to where they ought to be. and with respect -- you know, we're obviously back into afghanistan in a much more

modest way, certainly, since i was privileged to command 165,000 americans in uniform during the surge. it's under 6,000 or so. although doing a very fine job of enabling the efforts of our iraqi security force partners as they help reconstitute, retrain, reequip, expand and get back into the fight and who are now very much taking the fight to the islamic state and taking away from the islamic state that portion of the caliphate that spread into iraq and had such a terrible pernicious effect. and frankly the way forward in iraq will depend a great deal on the battle -- after the battle. this is about -- never been in doubt the iraqi security forces supported by the u.s. and the coalition would be able to defeat the army that is the islamic state, keeping in mind there are terrorist cells and

also now insurgent elements that have to be dealt with also and could be more difficult in some respects. it's a different type of fight. all those of us who served in iraq, and a number have emphasized this is about the battle after the battle. it's about whether politics can be inclusive or not. in mosul we were successful in building a provincial government that was actually representative of all the different elements in the most diverse human terrain in all of iraq. and governments that was reasonably responsive to all the different elements within the means available. and most importantly guaranteed minority rights, not just majority rule. if that can be re-established, then the prospects are good for raq. if it cannot be, but for the country at large, then you will see fields that will once again be fertile for the planting of the seeds of extremism and the

rise of isis 3.0. and obviously a lot of people are working very, very hard, not just those in uniform. in fact, even more so those in state department and elsewhere to try to help our iraqi partners as the prime minister who by the way stood in the way of retaliatory action, as i understand it, ambassador, when others sought to use this to drive a wedge between the united states and iraq. again, he knows inclusive politics are required. he knows the surge was to bring the fabric of society back together, to bring the sunnis back into that fabric, the sunni arabs, and it was sustained for a good 3 1/2 years after the end of the surge and it was until it was undone by highly sectarian actions targeting sunni arab

leaders that gave us -- -- but drift into syria, gained all kind of additional power and resources and sweep back in as an rmy. >> microphone. >> thank you. president of the iraq foundation. first of all, i'd like to ask if in the exemptions people who work for the embassy in baghdad are also included because they are also vulnerable or is it just limited to people who are working with the coalition forces? general petraeus: what does the legislation say on the s.i.v.? i thought it was people who worked for -- i believe that is the case but please look at the language. my understanding was it was. >> my question is, do you believe the recent executive orders and not just the one freezing, if you want, the coming in of refugees and

asylees, do you think it will put people in iraq and presumably in afghanistan but especially in iraq at greater isk inside iraq? other executive orders radicalize even more some people in iraq who could retaliate against iraqis who work with the united states? general petraeus: i think the -- that will depend on the speed of the ironing out what the processes will be. again, there have been halts in the past, occasionally, some of these processes. at the end of the day, though, if you go back and look, we used to have a sign on the operation center -- in fact, you saw it up in mosul, wherever i was privileged to be a commander and there was a question up here that stared us in the face all day long and it was "will this operation or policy create more bad guys than it takes off the

battlefield by its conduct, and if the question to that was -- that it will create more bad guys, then you probably want to pause a bit. again, depending on how quickly this is sorted out, that's a policy that could run afoul of that particular question. paul: in the back. i think you had your hand up before. >> thanks, paul, for your foresight in hosting this event. general. paul: introduction. >> paul o'brien. i was in afghanistan for five years, and i saw over that time, i think the impact of some of your thinking an evolution of how u.s. military, diplomats and development workers worked with the vast majority of muslims, had yet to make their mind up what their future with the united states ought to be and we were going to do everything possible to

align them in all forms of behavior. i saw the soldiers taking them -- on and on and on, no speech. i want to ask the american part of the question. do you think these recent decisions in the executive orders are going to have an impact on u.s. security to the extent that they will help muslims to make their minds up around what relationship they ought to have with the united states? and if so, what should we do differently to assure the security of the united states? general petraeus: again, i think it depends a great deal on how we clarify as we go forward on the speed with which we resolve. what additional steps are required. the logic that's behind all of that. and then frankly at the end of the day the communication of all of that as well. and if that is done in a manner which, again, recognizes that 99.9% probably of most any

faith want to just get along together and provide for themselves and their families and help their kids do a little bit better than they did, then i think we'll be in good shape. >> i'm an infantry officer in the army and now a grad student up in princeton right now. general petraeus: are you, really? >> yes, sir. general petraeus: you might say that again. princeton and the nation service. do you know how tough it is -- how many -- how many serving officers are there in your group at princeton? >> it's just me, sir. general petraeus: yeah. [laughter] got that t-shirt and it's terrific. thanks. i'm delighted. [applause] general petraeus: i hate to take this but when people would

ask me up in mosul or in iraq later on and baghdad, you know, what was it that seemed to give you some insights that helped you as you were grappling with not much guidance from above? the first year we were the occupying authority. we had all power. indeed, i was the sheik of the strongest tribe in northern iraq. and, you know, we're trying to figure out how do we do this and all the rest and when folks would say, is there anything the experienced helped you and i would say doing graduate school at princeton where i learned there are a lot of smart people in the world that don't see the world the same way that i do, that have different beliefs, that have different backgrounds, that have different fundamental assumptions about the state of nature in the absence of overnment. and to get out of your intellectual comfort zone is the, i think, the greatest of

experiences that you can have, especially if you're living what otherwise -- technology is a fairly -- we used to call it he grindstone. you're work withing. your nose is to the grindstone. you don't look up very often and you are living a somewhat cloistered existence. you think you are having debates with your comrades in uniform or what have you but the truth is they are about like this. when you go to princeton you know there are debates like that. my hats off to you first of all selecting that. something people told you like they told me that you were committing professional suicide when you embarked on that course of action. at least for some of us that hasn't always been the case. and then second, congratulations just on getting in. it's terrific. paul: so what do we want to hear from the ivey league cloister? >> just wanted to put in a plug and say thanks to matt zeller. especially no one left behind was instrumental after a four year, four-month fight, my

linguist just came to the united states in late november, 2016. and they were instrumental in making that happen. my question to you, sir, is, one, if they meet the requirements, why should there be a cap of numbers on the s.i.v. programs? if we have this out there for them and they qualify, why are we capping the number? general petraeus: yeah. >> and i participated in a panel on refugees and spoke specifically about s.i.v.'s at princeton in the fall and i couldn't tell you the number of vietnam veterans that were in the crowd that came up and talked to me about the moral injury that they still deal with today, thinking about leaving their comrades behind. how could we potentially program this in the future planning for the military if we go into a large-scale war where we need these people, how could we make that happen so it's part of the planning process like phase four, phase five? thank you, sir. general petraeus: first, obviously i don't know what was in the minds of the architects

of this program of the legislation and why the cap was -- why there is a cap or why it was what it was. i can surmise that at the end of the day, if you really -- if you're really forthright about government, government rations certain activities. if it doesn't then costs are endless and so forth and i suspect there's some of that kind of thinking that went on here. that if we open it up too wide, the next thing every afghan will be here because they will all claimed to have worked -- there will be some logic in the mind of some staffer. that's all i can surmise. again, i should note, you know, when the translator i had in haiti -- and i asked him, where do you want to be five, 10 years from now? i'm completing my term. i put my heart and soul in this. it was a tour where i'd sleep in the op center at night. and people didn't think it was very violent.

we were launching ops all the time. i was the guy that launched the q.r.f. and, you know, i wanted him to say, i want to be the mayor of port-au-prince, i want to be the president of haiti. he said, i want to be an merican. i said, it struck me. we didn't go to haiti to allow everybody to come to america. we went to haiti to improve the conditions in that country so in fact they wouldn't be getting on rickety boats to come to america. again, there may be some of that if we're just honest with each other about that. and the truth is, i suspect that certainly a large number, if not the majority of the translators, interpreters, would have loved to be able to stay in their own country where their families are. bringing them here is one thing. ultimately a lot of them will have to bring their parents here because they're in harm's way and having to move around constantly and everything else. but they don't speak english the way our translators do. they didn't spend years listening to americans and immerse themselves in our

culture and have that same kind of shared experience that binds them with a subset of our population. so i suspect, again, there's some of that. again, that's also to program in the future planning, you're almost saying we are not going to do well enough that they will be able to stay in their country. so perhaps that is prudent. perhaps there should be a branch plan or something like that if we're honest with ourselves. but at the end of the day we want to go into that thinking we are going to help this country improve the situation and they will be able to prosper. in fact, they will be able to do even better as a result of having worked with us because they will have these great language skills. they'll know how to navigate our bureaucracy and business world and everything else. so i guess those are the thoughts in the back of that. paul: last question. can't give up the opportunity to have you advise congress about what should be in the no one left behind act if they

have one. general petraeus: actually, i think what they should do is sit down with the head of no one left behind who you know is giving up everything else he's doing and doing this full time and i think could give them a really nuanced understanding of where -- what's the appropriate role of our government in helping those that come here? again, we don't want to do everything for them. we want to do enough to help them survive to prosper. again, we don't want to be providing everything, but what is that minimum essential support that is necessary? what is the responsibility? what is the moral obligation? how should that manifest itself in the assistance that we provide to them? and i think, again, no one can speak about that better than those who are doing this, again, full time, and a number of others who are engaged in this as well. and then undoubtedly, let's hear from some of the different interpreters, the terps,

translators and others, by the way, not just who also had to come here because of the risk that they incurred by soldiering alongside us for a number of years. and let's remember that our son was a lieutenant on the ground in afghanistan, and i remember him talking about the bond he had with his interpreter. and this guy had been doing this for five or six straight years and had sort of lost count of the number of i.e.d. strikes his vehicle had encountered. just kept doing it, providing for his family, away from his family a lot because they were living -- you don't want to be in the neighborhood where you're actually your family lives and so forth and so on. so the hardships that he was enduring were very much comparable to those of our soldiers who are deployed away from loved ones in harm's way risking it all together and knowing that they can always count on that individual on

their right and left even when that individual is an interpreter. and so we're very pleased to see some of those individuals here. more importantly really pleased to see everyone else who's here because that reflects the kind of interest in what is a very important obligation that we have and that we must meet. thanks, paul. paul: we're going to have to do a quick change of scenery. please don't leave your seat unless you have a desperate need to do so. please join me in thanking eneral petraeus. [applause]