it's because there is a community that has emerged in europe and asia. it's important how it transcends race. in japan and korea, our partners are not white. after charlottesville, there is tremendous disappointment with where the administration has an on racial issues if we suggest anouncer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a by ic ceres service america's cable television companies and is brought to you your cable or satellite provider. on c-span, q&aht

with author thomas ricks. and later, another look at that discussion from "washington journal" about the trump administration's approach to foreign policy. announcer: this week on q&a, author and foreign policy magazine blogger, thomas ricks. host: tom ricks, let up to the time that you started writing churchill and orwell. tom: i was saying a farewell to journalism for myself and becoming a full-time book

writer. i was wondering who would be remembered if any. started with h.l. minkin. i found his style raw. i turned to eb white. style. ose his concerns weren't mine. pearlman. i still don't see why he's funny. hemmingway, blowhard. then i picked up george orwell. his prose style seems contemporary. it feels fresh. ou could take a paragraph out of many of his essays and drop it into today's newspaper, and it would fit right in. i started diving into orwell. why did he feel so fresh and contemporary. him, i was ead of struck, boy, this resonates with our own time. then i began thinking how orwell was paralleled by another hero of mine come winston churchill. such different people in so many

ways, yet they keep coming together on the question on how you preserve individual liberty? i went to my agent and we were talking about writing a book about the vietnam war. i decided after six months of research, i cannot do it without research and interviews. i decided to do a book on churchill and orwell. can you solve that? he said, are you kidding? men only buy books on three world s, the civil war, war ii and hitler, and you've got half of them. e said i could sell that anywhere, go ahead host: how did it come together and how close this book to what you set out to do? tom: this is the book i helped to write, but it is not the book i first set out to write. i sent it out to my long-term editor, six books with him, who i really trust. he read the first draft and sent

me a note saying, i hate it. this is not the book i asked you to write. host: you are finished with the book. turned it in. he's a good editor. he once said to me that he me of david harsherstop because he knew i needed editing appreciative of the editing. i sent him the book and he said, book.his is really not the before i can edit this, you really need to redo the whole thing. weeks pent about four going over his notes to me and his markings on the manuscript. what i loved, i actually put it at the top of my revised wrote angrily in the side margins of the printout, "tom, if you would only defer to the narrative, you could get here." h murder in the first was draft the works were put ahead

of the people. he said you've got to give me people before the books. the second thing he said, chronology is your friend. athema tick book. he said take the story chronologically. o my surprise, it's much easier. i don't have to tell you why i'm telling you something. this is happened and it's interesting. over the course of six months, i revised the book, took down the structure, piled my materials like a housebuilder, sat down with a new blueprint and rebuild the house. scott, my editor, got the revised version after six months and said this is perfect. this is what it wanted. host: you started with a story about winston churchill. why? tom: because i was struck by these two people. they came so close to not being any part of our history.

both orwell and churchill nearly died and that was and will not ask me because these guys, for most of their lives, were failures. it struck me as so human. these are great people who had a great effect on our lives, but they nearly didn't. for most of the time, like most f us, they struggled to be who they wanted to be. and unlike most of us, they succeeded in doing great things. host: what was the story about winston churchill and new york city? tom: churchill in the early 1930's is in new york city trying to recover his fortune by speaking and giving a speaking tour. he had lost a lot of money in the stock market crash. he was on the outs politically with his own party in london. so he was in new york, certain -- he was in new york, crossing avenue, trying to recover

some of his money and looks at the political situation. wrong way, probably, because he's english, crosses fifth avenue, hit by a many yards. his scalp is lacerated, ribs are broken, he could have died. he called it one of the lowest points in his life. great physical pain, really feeling isolated politically, not knowing what his future is. in fact, after that, in 1933 he gets up in the house of commons and gives his first anti-nazi speech saying we cannot live with the nazis. don't think you can. all you are doing is making the outcome harder because they are growing in power. he repeatedly gives speeches saying germany is rearming, fact of the matter is they are rearming. they are building an air force. navy andxpanding their their army. by his , he is mocked

own party. he is treated really mad bypassed by history, a washed up of the d he's kept out abinet despite his own party and the popularity with the people. he called this his wilderness years, which end with the beginning of world war ii when they are forced to bring him into the cabinet. host: the second story is about a personal story about george orwell. tom: he is also an obscure figure. more than churchill. it is interesting that he is a much larger figure for us now than he was in his own time. for most of his life, which was fairly short life. he died at 1950 at age 46. he is a of hus life, mediocre novelist and a fairly minor journalist. he wrote some great essays, politics on the english language, one of the greatest time. of all they're not really appreciated. he's really seen as a tertiary literary scene.

until close to the end of his life. t the end of his life, he published his first "animal later. d in a few years both are extremely several. "1984", his name, winston. churchill read it twice and and interestingly, o socialist, a real leftist all his life, admired hurchill across the political chasm and wrote, really, he was the only conservative he admired. rwell ever ng o rote and published on his hospital bed and dying was an appreciated review of world war memoirs. so orwell goes off to spain in 936 to see the spanish civil war. the rives, entranced by equality of the spanish

revolution. barcelona, comes back and fights on the frontlines. he comes back a few months later. his wife follows him to spain and barcelona and she whispers changed. erything has you be really careful here. and very soon, he is streetfighting. he thought his anti-stalin is being pursued and eliminated by the people whose side he thought he was on, spanish republican government which is fighting the rebels, the fascist nationalists. orwell goes back to the front, shot through the throat and nearly dies. expects to die when he realizes he's been shot in the throat. said he'd never heard of anybody surviving it. passed usly, the bullet between the windpipe and the then because it was coming in at an angle, it missed

his spine as it went out the back. it did bruise his nerves enough use he temporarily lost the of his right arm and could barely speak for some time. but he survived and, he already had bad lungs, went on smoking the which i think e, aggravated his tuberculosis, died as why i think he a young man. host: who were the two men physically like? tom: opposites. orwell was lanky, about 6'4", 140 pounds, skrauny. byrchill was often described friends as a round little pig. people seeing him in the bath swimming had called him a hippo and i think this was if you ted by the fact churchill loves

his champagne, and wine and good food. he also always wears pale, pink, and urpd underwear pajamas. lying in bed, he must have appeared like a pig smoking cigar. he'd lie in bed smoking cigars to people. alking host: i said as i read this, this is a book about writing. all the other things you have in there, what did you learn about writing from both of them? tom: it is about writing. that's a nice perceptive comment. it is a book about words. the new that -- both of them knew that words matter. both of them as young men had as i ar correspondents had. iraq, i cation going to

went to people from johns hopkins who assigned roles. to know your player and i was assigned the role of him e orwell, just studied there. these are two of the great prose stylists i think of the 20th different. very orwell once said he wanted his as ing style to be as clear a pane of glass. hurchill, if you'd ask him the same question would say, sure, i'll be glass, the stained glass a cathedral window with powerful sunlight pouring blues. the reds and the churchill was a painter. there was a relationship between writing. g and his he has a lovely essay he wrote on painting, and he says, i love the bright colors, the yellows, the oranges and the greens. sincerely sorry for the browns and the grays. in painting, the

great thing about painting is you have to pay attention to the smallest detail while keeping and hole picture in mind, that captures beautifully his approach towards being a war-time leader. into details down but he always had the big strategic picture in mind i read in your book that george orwell sold 50 "1984"? opies of tom: since his death. host: since his death? tom: yeah. popular book when it came out, but one of the at orwell n looking is his career since his death post en one of the great humuscareers in literary history. can't really think of anybody else who comes so close. e goes from being not even mentioned in books about his time written at the time, 1940s in the 1930s and were written at the time, until now, if you read an intellectual in the 20th rope

century, there are things like -- there are sections age of orwell." the feeling of his book "1984" and "animal farm" captured so much the problems of totalitarianism, hitlerism, stalinism, and the basic question of our time that men addressed: how does the conscience and soul survive in a time of government? is there a place for the individual? that's what , churchill said in talking about world war ii on the day it was declared war. war about s is a whether this is the place of the individual or whether the state can tell you what to think and how to behave. orwell, that becomes even more of a theme. do we think about our place in this world, an era where the mind? an reach into your how can we preserve the right to

perceive? right to and that becomes the key theme "1984." at one point, his hero, winston says, if you can four fingers held up and say, i see four fing rz, liberty,e beginning of the right for an individual to perceive and determine for themselves what the facts of the are, not to have the government tell you what the facts are. you go about doing the book? id you have to travel to places? there's not much video at all on orwell. we couldn't find any. vanishing are photographs of him. but cripts have been found i don't think the actual recordings themselves. host: he worked at the bbc? tom: he spent time at the bbc trying to help the war effort. a war rejected for being

correspondent. they said we won't send you overseas because your lungs are too bad. he tried to help and joined the home guard, kind of the guard, and he went to work writing propaganda for the bbc. he hated the job at the bbc. i don't think he was that good at it. good speaking a voice. bureaucracy of it. bbc were gs at the held in room 101, which in a ittle bit of humor, he makes 1984, and itroom in where ut, room 101 is our greatest fears are realized. for him, it was rats for orwell. rats eatatened to have

his face off, and that is when he gives up and said you can my lover before you take me and i'll agree to anything you tell me is the truth. 129, you have a paragraph that was well wrote and i'll read it because it idea of what he sounded like in words. his is his comments on nevil chamberlain. chamberlain's opponents -- this s orwell writing -- professed to see him in a dark and wiley - as a dark and englandplotting to sell to hitler, but it is far likely stupid old merely a man doing his best, according to very dim lights. it's difficult to understand the of his policy, his failure to grasp any of the courses that were open to him did the massive people he not want to pay the price, either of peace or at war. such a t last line is great line.

he did not want to pay the price of either peace or war, and it's true, very insightful. all too often a problem in politics and policy. judged chamberlain a little bit more harshly. chamberlain himself thought he was a great man and i judged him dayicularly because on that world war ii began in europe, war britain entered the september 3, 1939. gave a l got up and war,rful speech, about the the war of the individual, in an talitarian iving to chamberlain got up nd gave the most selfish speech. all my dreams are shattered. it's not about you, chamberlain,

it's about western civilization world, which is what churchill said, which is how world, are and the especially how england was to have churchill on hand and have over in may 1984. host: there's a lot of little you about nt to ask and this is one of them. when you're writing about "1984" you refer to ministry, the truth government, but this struck me, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. you go down and refer to the department of the ministry of peace. reason why i ask you that is we have now an institute of peace in this country, in this town. what's that all about? is that 1984 coming true? om: no, i take a far more benevolent view of our institute of peace. there's a good motivation behind

it, which is the u.s. government spent so much money on war, preparation for war and our defense, and not so diloam diplomacy and ways of finding peace. in u.s. army has more people its military bands than the state department has in the service. we just so out-spend ourselves defense. which doesn't even help us on our defense. i think our military would be stronger if we cut spending, then we'd have to think rather than just spend. host: you have a quote in there. it from another book but i want to ask you to expound on it. met with joseph kennedy, who was the ambassador britain, and he says to wife after they had met at yde park, quote, i never want s-o-b again as long

as i live. resignation and get him out of there. what is that about? tom: she told him, you're for the weekend. get him on a train to new york. what it's about is joseph father of john f. united in 1939 was a states ambassador to england. and some people thought he was pro-fascist. sympathetic to the germans and absolutely believed that they would beat england. came back and he said to some reporters, that democracy up, trying to move on and he went to roosevelt and almost certainly told him that and in was going to lose sign a peace treaty with germany, which is actually what aristocrats and

conservatives of england thought. and roosevelt was having none other. he had just kept kennedy, i england to keep him from coming back and running against roosevelt for president 1940. once roosevelt was reelected, he had no use for kennedy and out of his world and basically banned him from politics. host: who is general brook? allen brook was hurchill's closest military advisor. a man of some talent but not i think, who simultaneously admired church while d grew to hate him working with him. he loved him and he loathed him, i think. he was exacerbated by churchill's behavior. found him kind of a modelling sometimes.

i have a lot of sympathy for brook but i think he failed in one key way. not have a basic strategic understanding of the war. example, he really oesn't get why we need to help russia, why the west, america need to help h, russia and to persuade stalin to war. the whereas churchill absolutely nderstands that having russia on our side, on the allied side in the war is essential, as is the g the americans into also nd i think he understands that russia basically won world war ii. elements in the american victory, the allied ii, as a n world war ook i recently read said british stubbornness, american industry, and russian blood and i think we in the west tend to

forget how much more of the world russia carried in war ii than anybody in the west did. >> i don't think it's in the people did many russia lose in world war ii. 20 i think the estimate is million. host: how many did the british lose. tom: i don't know off the top of and the americans were about 500,000. host: you have a chapter of declinel and britain in say riumph, and you tensions strained his relationship with his allies. were ishged by europe. sometimes he took his time to respond to the prime minister's in part, ecause, because he was a sick man. british he later ambassador to paris complained to his wife in a letter in april that british policy was, uote, handcuffed to an

obstinate old cripple, end quote. president roosevelt. that was because the distance was growing between them, they ere going to win the war and own the world in effect. you've spent a lot of time talking about the attitude of british, towards the british towards americans. some background. tom: it strikes me as almost tragedy. k brittin and america come magnificent way. i don't think there's another example in history of allies closely uite so together. attitude is very condescending. their attitude at the beginning s the americans are our little brothers, we'll educate them. we've been at war for several years. fight tell them how to it. the american attitude is, you guys have been losing several years. what do we have to learn from a losers?

but they worked together. they followed this plan. invade ly, they do northern europe. sort of you find this tragic moment when the british realized in sort of august and 1944, the americans don't need us anymore. fougthought -- and that in a ad hoped played world, the greeks for the romans educating these barbarian militaristic, raising them and teaching them. the americans said, basically, off. woe don't need you anymore, and we're running this war. and they found that the americans sometimes didn't even british advice. they just said this is what's happen. this is what we're going to do 1945. n '44 and early host: i want to go back to the

writing, starting with you, you said earlier this is the sixth book. very briefly, tell us the books that you've written and i'll read them off. general's american military command from world war ii to today. that was 2012. that book? tom: i'd actually probably go in he opposite direction from the beginning. host: making the core? tom: it was inspired by covering marines in somalia. i was walking down the street with a young marine, and i said able as a you corporal to play acting squad leader? old. 19 years we wouldn't let you run the xerox machine alone in my office. camp. boot okay, i'll go to paris island and see what happened there. marines d one group of through boot camp. host: a soldier's duty and novel in 2001. covering a nce hearing, and the senate chiefs to me he didn't

believe to be true but felt it duty to do so, that we'd months. oznia in six i thought how often soldier's duty to superiors could be at subordnance. what is a soldier's duty? the novel is a meditation on is. a soldier's duty my least successful book, and not so smart, 's the one you look out for, my favorite review was the person reading a novel by tom ricks is like watching michael jackson play baseball. you know he's good at something, but it's not that. "fiasco" was 2006. tom: that was a big become for me. my life. hanged it's a look at the first couple and ars at the war in iraq i began at the time when the bush administration was still nsisting everything was going well, pay no attention to those reporters, then it was just an attempt to say here's what

happened. and here's how it's happening, and here's why people don't war. and this some people tried to talk me out "fiasco" and said it was too strong of a word and write the i want to book that's in me. the only good reason to write a book is because you want to get this is the book i needed to write. to my surprise, it became a no. bestseller and enabled me to move on from daily journalism. pullitser ou get the for fiasco. tom: no, i was a finalist. two, though. tom: i was on two pullitser at the wall street journal and the washington post. the gamble is a look at the next phase of the iraq war, especially the surge under petraeus, and i was very skeptical saying, i'm going to cover what happens here. i was surprised. i think under petraeus, america succeeded tactically, really insurgency, gave

iraqi politics, but for reasons for both the iraq and americans, didn't take advantage of that continued. the war host: i have a blog here, something you did for foreign listed the you eight worst generals in your history. i'm going to name them, starting with the eighth worst. horatio gates, and rose from bull run. sixth, george mcclelan from the civil war. westmoreland, no. 5. tommy franks no. 4. from world war ii and world war one and the kraen war. an british old, revolutionary. arthur. as mac why the worst general in history

arthur was a blowhard. he manipulated journalism to standing politically and made it difficult for presidents to deal with him. he was insubordinant to three roosevelt,residents, truman. because subordination of the military to political authority, tocivilian authority, is key how this country is run and he challenged it so often, i think the most dangerous general we've ever had. ost: here is some video from general tommy franks. after we listen to, i want to now why you put him on your list at no. 4. >> this is an incredibly precise military operation. i think you seen time and time again, military targets fall while the civilian infrastructure remains in place.

it is the same with civilian lives. my experience is that the people of iraq will welcome their liberation. to be sure march 30, 2003, right after the war started. covering i remember that. why franks? soldier, and iod think probably a decent man. don't know his personal life at all. but franks was essentially a attalion commander wearing a general's stars. he was purely tactical. no strategic understanding. and he had grown up in an which ment in the army did a great job of training, but educating. so we had this very well trained equipped army in the 1980s of the in the first part

century. the generals came out of the system uneducated. westmoreland who prided himself on never having gone to any military schools paratrooper school and cooks and baker school. the first job -- of a general to think, to war. tand his people like marshal, george arshall, world war ii, matthewridgeway in the korean his war very well. franks did not understand his war. he didn't understand what he was doing or how he was doing it. he thought the job after what happens after you invade was else's job. his job was tactical victory, not strategic victory. he knew how to fight a battle not how to win a war and i think in that way, franks ypified the problems of the modern u.s. military. host: how hard is it to be honest about the united states military when you want access to

write your books? i have a pretty callous attitude about this. people talk to you not because they ant to, but because have to. and i've actually seen this happen repeatedly. writing "fiasco", i'd set up a separate interview with a division commander in iraq. to be chief of staff in the army. at the time, he was i think on the staff. he was over at the pentagon, and i've read a lot of materials. 35,000 pages of documents. emails, lot of general's and people had given me. up with an interview apparently, eral, rumsfeld's office heard about it and told him to cancel it. said fine, you have every right not to talk to me. chapter, as m the

what i did every person in the book. here's what i wrote about you. the general know, is standing in my office with a stack of documents wanting to talk. he wasn't talking to me because to. ted he talked to me i think because he said, okay, rick has said all i think i have to talk to him. to his credit, when i wrote my book "the gamble," he was actually more open with me and than wasng of his time his boss, general petraeus. host: back to churchill and orwell. a man named christopher hitchins you referred to a number of book, back in 1993, he was talking about orwell. ask you why he -- from your opinion or reading, why he as so infatuated with orwell and was he right? george you like about orwell? well, i think he really ould follow logic and honesty to the full conclusion.

he would not be deflected by the someone. might offend i thought he put up a good show for the left in his life for the great en it was in difficulty because people were pressed very hard to say, look, left, you must support the soviet union because it's endangered and circled by fascism. you must not criticize it in public, even if you have your doubts. that would be stupid and would be giving up the thing that makes me radical in the first place, which was the right to think for myself. host: agree? agree. tally i'm still in awe of christopher hitchins. this is key to me about orwell and churchill that christopher on, the put his finger willingness to criticize your own side, your own team in is not a formula for friendship. but i think it is key to being

ntellectually honest, to have principles and to act on those rinciples, not only in dealing with political opponents, but also with political allies and saying, no, i disagree with you here's why. and so i find myself these days apply, as i look around america, the people i ind myself paying attention to especially in this era of the rump presidency and such great division, i'm finding myself paying attention to people willing to criticize their own i'm seeing this specially is in the antitrump conservatives who i think are conservatives. atlantic, g of the couple of people at the washington post, jennifer ruth marcus, charles hammer at fox, brett stephens, former wall street now new york times.

there's a bunch of them. and the core of their response to trump has been this guy is a conservative. doesn't have the raditional qualities of a conservative, which is supporting alues, the rule of law. america, a real support and adherence to the constitution for generally, a support institutions. trump is none of those things. following orwell's favoring that we think about political don't call trump a conservative. host: here's another man you book, malcolm mother edge on the firing line buckley. >> i think you could say that tedious books t ever written have had very large including, at basis, i would say churchill's memoirs,

because i don't think that them, this ly read particular sort of rhetoric a little while. they become very unreal. somehow accepted as a great document and put it on their shelves. publishers make more money i of unread books than read books. book to be a good written about him. who kind of invented the talking head in tv. that's a good example of it. it's glib, and it's not true. churchill. d it's striking, as i'm knocked tour,d the country on book how many people read and reread churchill. churchill wrote 15 million words his lifetime. you could spend the rest of your life reading nothing but churchill. i think he's wrong particularly interesting 's because he was involved in editing churchill for the and printing i think

it was the fourth or fifth churchill was on the decline. the last two volumes were not good and may have tainted mugger edge's view of him. have been, they would very much at odds. hitchens constantly denounced teresa. winston churchill, december 26, 1941, in front of pearl harbor. an englishman, midst makes o your this experience one of the most life,g and thrilling in my which is already long and has not been entirely uneventful. wish, i wish indeed, that i mother, whose memory

cherish across the veil of years could have been here to see. way, i cannot help but my father hadt if been american and my mother the other stead of way around, i might have got here on my own. [laughter] that how important was speech? tom: i think very important. it was a winning speech. overcame a lot of american istrust of the british, generally, and of churchill, personally. there have been discussions fdr's cabinet of about whether churchill was a drunk, whether he was really incompetent guy, and i think this speech was very broadened and also the american congress and overwhelmed a lot of middle isolationism, and helped

roosevelt consolidate the behind the get it war. host: why didn't winston fdr's funeral? tom: that's a really good question. two reasons. e of their friendship, i think while intense, had been a friendship of war. they were not natural friends. comrades, ot natural but war brought them together, and churchill had to behave for himself. ly ometimes in world war ii to suck up to roosevelt. churchill was a monologuist. dominated the dinner table. hurchill never waited on anybody. with roosevelt, he went and brought him his drinks. churchill spent a lot of time living in the white house uring world war ii, wandering around in his bath robe or sometimes naked in the hallway. here were some moments of war-time comradeship, for

talking tourchill is fdr in the oval office when they tolbrook has fallen, which is a total shock. support trips in western egypt had tens of thousands of troops and months of supplies. no reason to surrender. churchill was shocked and humiliated. told this in the office by fdr, and fdr's response is what can we do to help? was, we 's response need tanks. he calls marshall and says, can you get tanks. to take them back to some of the divisions training on them and that's hard to do. and marshall does. host: you write a lot about the british empire. churchill have any idea he was going to lose it through ii? d war tom: i think churchill must be suspected that the british was a lost thing.

like it. he was an imperialist. imperialism was good bringing education and infrastructure to the third world. downside of itthe as much as orwell did. if you look at british economic history, it's pretty clear that the economy had peaked in about 1885. they did not have the ability to hold on to an empire and history was against them. they didn't understand how much history was against them when at a summit meeting that he thought vietnam should from french control. the french and the british shotted him down. and i he was right, think it would have saved this if he hadlot of agony let vietnam free. host: what did fdr think about empire. sh tom: he thought it was time to let it good. it was anticolonial.

war, the future of india, he rather fronthandedly churchill how to handle india, and churchill wrote a which he then , wisely put aside, and then wrote ne of these sort of diplomatic notes. thank you for your interesting comments. supposedly,ivately, said, yes, we have an india problem, because we didn't kill our indians like you did. host: so you click daily reporting. where do you live now? tom: i live full time on an in maine year round. i love it. i kind of enjoy the winters almost more than the summers. i kind of feel invaded during the summer. there. he winter up a lot of my friends in maine are too busy with the tourist trade on, or lobstering in the summer, to spend much time find the g, so i

winter a very social time there, getting together, talking about dinners. ng potluck off ly, living on an isled the coast of the united states is about as close as i'd like to country right now. i don't know where this country is going. i never thought in my life that a real civil war was possibility. i'm not talking about a set-piece battle for the war, but i think for the first time it's life, i think possible we may see sustained political violence in this like acts ings against federal judges or state refusing federal control, things like that. host: if you were to recommend book or a first book that someone could start on with churchill and george orwell, what would they be? tom: for churchill, i'd "my early life." it is just a spritely autobiography.

i really enjoy it. i've read it twice and i think time.ed it more the second orwell is a bit more difficult. my favorite book by orwell is "homage toccatalonnia" his ccount to the spanish civil war. for someone new to orwell, i would recommend reading of the english language" which is one of the best things written about and about writing. nd, in fact, when i hire researchers or interns, one of my requirements is don't come to ork until you've read two hings: woerl's -- orwell's politics of the english language and the elements of style. both in the same evening but they're two essential pieces of how to think write intelligently, nonfiction especially, on the history of politics. can't resist. here is some video, only 30 12, 1994. rom january

see if you recognize this person. i don't think there's anything really classifiable if you really want it. amazed at how much out. tion you can find i public stuff in the paper nuclear uests for weapon refiled by u.s. commanders in the field. despite what you hear about bad i'm ary media relations, surprised by how much commanders in the field will talk to you on you will tanding that be careful with how you use the information. tom: i apparently recognize him, because i who it is still have the shirt. host: when you were that age back in 1994, did you think you ould do what you've done, and have you done everything you've planned on doing as a writer? everything ospect, appears inevitable. i loved to write

and i always loved language. no, i had no idea. i actually asked myself this question in an essay i wrote a couple of years ago that the new yorker put online. i found the personal experience with the iraq war was very hard on my family too. and at the end, i discuss my ourney and kind of recovering from the war. i asked myself, would i do it all over again? my answer, honestly, was no, had i known what that experience would be like. profound depression, losing committing ple suicide. concluded, nonetheless, it s what i went through, and that's who i am now. kept from uote i somebody, and i can't remember our scars. we are you know, wear your scars proudly. that's who you are. the other ng out side, i found myself oddly happy

these days, and grateful these for the life i have. on my boat in t the bay in the summertime. to me, that is the -- every of ible way, the opposite iraq. i'll leave it at that. host: so when you look back on what did you learn yourself that you didn't know the research?rted tom: i learned that just because you've written five books and have been new york times bestsellers, that writing the next book isn't going to be easy. is different. in some ways, every book is like a child. they're all different and you have to spend a lot of time with them to figure out who they are. i love writing, though. i love the process of writing. reading. process of i love sitting in my rocking chair in the afternoons in the maine with the

snow outside going through some new book i've just gotten. office on the island of maine thinks i have a amazing because i get about a become a day and i'm always ordering used books world. und the i just enjoy the whole process. this life on a little island where you walk into the post office and my wife atl walk in and they'll look her, and see if she checks the box, and they'll say nothing for you, mary. tom has something. do you write, the physical location, and how do you do it? tom: i live in a beautiful old house. only time in my life i actually in. the house i lived it was built in 1812 by a sea captain. in the attic ce and my dog comes up and sits with me, and i usually start early in the morning. time, it's dark, and i answer my email every 20 or 30 web sites.

i file my blog file for that day magazine. policy i have a blog called "the best defense." writing. start usually, i have books i've gone through, just finished. a pen in my hand, underlining. becomes my intellectual capital, how to think about this. look at page 220. that book? maybe i should get a copy of those letters or note to myself, on going to those archives. and i find a book grows out of topsy proposal like until i finally have a first draft. host: how many books did you book? o write this tom: several hundred, and not as many as i read for the generals. measured, it was 36 feet of books as well as a ot of trips to the army archives in pennsylvania. for this, several hundred there's acause i know shelf in my basement where all my books go. we have a very dry basement so doesn't kill the books but

there's a shelf about the size of this structure here and those all the churchill orwell books i read. ost: you mentioned iraq and covering it, depression and all of that, but you grew up in afghanistan, among other places. did that happen? tom: i grew up in afghanistan two years, 1969 to 1971. it was peace time. it was a lovely country and i enjoyed it. my parents were basically irresponsible. they had six kids. i knocked all around afghanistan by myself. 15. s 13, 14, host: you were there by yourself? om: i was in cabbo with my parents. they were busy, my older brother was giving them a lot of trouble and go ld hop on busses nock around, travel with friends, go to pakistan, go to a books. e there to buy i picked up pretty good street farcy and could talk to people enjoyed it. y

and afghans back then before ecades of war had ripped up their society were extraordinarily hospitable. especially, to someone who was interested in paying attention, and i loved of the history of alexander the great in afghanistan, and i'd go to those spots and hike them. one of the things that actually aught me later on being a writer is whenever possible, breathe the air and walk the soil of what you're writing about. it is so illuminating to battlefield and think, okay, that looks a little bit different now. in a iting about a battle book, i try to go to that in lefield at the season which the battle was fought. foliage is mple, the going to be far different in gettysburg in july than it will be in february. have about three minutes left and i want to ask you about the end of the life and orwell.

how long did both of them live, die? w did they tom: churchill lived too long. too young. 1950 ofied at age 46 in tuberculosis. of as also a heavy smoker unfiltered cigarettes and that couldn't have helped. to the throat didn't help. churchill i say lived too long. very old man,5, a strokes, and eral seen several of his children actually. i was intrigued by this, that when i finished this book, just thinking andort of helping me, i wrote a play, a play, in which churchill meets orwell in heaven, and i publisher put- my it online as sort of an extra i had to people, and

one about this, and at point, churchill is having brandy, orwell is having a beer. died ill says, i wish i'd after 1940. that was my great year. and it's true, that churchill had that one great year in all of his life, 1940, which was magnificent. you're going to have a good year, saving western year. ation is a good in that year, he gives all his famous speeches, we will fight beaches, this was their finest hour. collective his peeches, churchill's greatest speeches, there are none in 1943. ar ii after the next memorable speech he gives in europe in 1945, it was because it was so bad. host: where can people read that play? tom: it is online.

if you just look up churchill and orwell in heaven, people can it. host: and what about tom ricks what is it. book, tom: i've been wrong about every book i thought i was going to do. i thought i was going to write vietnam war. spent six months doing research this is our least understood war. i'd love to write this book but it's not the book i can do right now. so i don't know quite. thought about writing about grant and sherman, two of my favorite generals and also two writers. so i saw that there was one on amazon and before i picked it it at aid if he begins shiloh, i'm not going to write this book because that's exactly what i would do. up and it begins in shiloh. and i read the rest of the book exactly the is book i would have written. it's a good book, but it's been done. biography. ed in i'm very worried about where this country is going. right now is writing

trump-era politics books. if i can find a way to reach out beyond that and talk about are, i'm and who we interested in that. i've actually thought, if me, who would o the parallel americans be to and my l and orwell answer was martin luther king and beared ruston. fascinating than the public martin luther king. ruston is at one point a comunist, a homosexual. movement ivil rights strategist, and later he plays a liberation the gay movement, what an american life. he fascinates me. the relationship with king me. ates maybe king and hoover. book, but i ing great the now, how fbi is, it's important to history the fbi, in our

played an important role in american politics. host: name of the book is orwell, the fight for freedom. our guest has been a winner of pullitser prize and lots of other things. thank you very much. tom: you're welcome. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] liked this q&a, here are some others you might enjoy.

interview with christopher hitchens who talks about his career as a writer while also sharing his views on religion, politics, and international affairs. there is also canned a small art. she writes about the actions of instant churchill. in her book, "hero of the empire." you will find those interviews online at c-span.org. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, bloomberg news white house reporter discusses the week ahead of the white house. rick talks about centrist candidates in 2018. and usa today's kevin johnson

and the cost of protecting the president and his family. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, monday morning. during the discussion. >> the british parliament is in recess. minister's questions will not be seen tonight. instead, we will show you a discussion on threats posed by north korea followed by a discussion from washington journal about the trump administration's approach to foreign policy. and later, a look at how private prisons operate in the u.s. challengesook at the posed by north korea and its attempt to become a nuclear power. we will hear from former government officials discussing policies from the u.s. and how the administration has responded so far. this is an hour and 15 minutes.