government-supported service called dbs, in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors of policymaking for all to see, bringing unfiltered congress -- unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing, but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span, it is not partisan coverage of washington and it is provided by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. onday and our spotlight

magazine segment, we will be talking to stephanie savell, who is a smithsonian magazine contributor, who wrote about mapping the u.s. war on terror. now, stephanie, you work with the costs of war project. tell us what that is and how it started. guest: that is right. stephanie: the cost of war project, the idea is to use research to shed light on the hidden or unacknowledged costs of the war on terrorism. it was founded on the 10th anniversary of the u.s. invasion of afghanistan that launched the global war on terror. : you collaborated with a magazine to examine the u.s. role. how did you compile this information? stephanie: it was quite an undertaking. at first i thought it would be a simple mapping process, map

, maybefghanistan, syria a few lesser-known places like the philippines and somalia. it turned into a research odyssey. we combed government databases, onlineed through investigative journalism was a expertsce, we talked to , interviewed journalists, all kinds of different information went into this map. t: what were your challenges in making sure the information you got was correct? how do you make sure the information you are putting in this info graphic is accurate? stephanie: it is a rigorous process. we need to document that least two credible sources for each part of the map we documented. it was quite a challenge. for example, the map shows the u.s. has been engaged in ground

and 2018, those are the years the map focuses on, in 14 different countries. these are places you would think about as being part of the war on terror like iraq and afghanistan, but also places americans never hear about, like molly, cameroon, -- mali, cameroon, tunisia, places where the u.s. military has been on the ground and engaged in usually hunting down suspected terrorists and conducting raids and that kind of thing. the u.s. military is secretive about these activities, so a lot of times these are what are technically called train, advise and assist missions. it is through the really important work of investigative journalists that revealed that between, the line train, advise and assist and

combat is blurry. we were able to document places where this has happened and other cases where things were a little clearer. for example, there were 26 countries where the u.s. military has engaged in counterterror realism -- counterterrorism-related u.s. military exercises. have places where the u.s. is doing a lot of training and counterterrorism, and seven countries in which the u.s. is engaging in air and drone strikes against militant targets. host: on your bap you say there countries engaged 65ough 40 military bases, counterterrorism training, 26

u.s. military exercises, 14 countries where u.s. troops are in combat and seven air and drone strikes. now, with this information, can you tell us what the role of the u.s. military, how they decide what to do in each country, and how you are determining what they are doing inside these countries? stephanie: there are zones of intensity. these are places where we are conducting drone strikes, that kind of thing, engaged in combat operations to seek militant targets. those are the intense zones, and those are the places where this where,rocess -- places this was a process of slough thing, figuring out for investigative journalism which places we could categorize as combat.

the air drone strikes were a little more straightforward, because there are groups like the bureau of investigative journalism dedicated to documenting these kinds of things. the,hen there are all of kind of the backdrop of those zones of intensity. a particularly important category is the 65 countries -- this is what makes the map and compass 80 countries, and that is 40% of countries in the world -- 65 of those countries were doing training in counterterrorism. the u.s. military is engaged in this, training other countries' police and military forces. but also places like the state department, the state department inspectionicle x-ray equipment and border patrol equipment, and it does training and is also involved in a wide

array of what it calls countering violent extremism. these are more soft-power approaches, education, things like that, to get to the root of preventing terrorism. host: i will open the phone lines to our viewers, regional lines, if you are in the eastern (202)tral time zone, call 748-8000, mountain or pacific , andzones, (202) 748-8000 active or retired military, call (202) 748-8002. once again, active or retired military only, we want to hear .rom you on (202) 748-8002 twitter andon

facebook. stephanie, is there any concern this map will affect the war on terror, will this help terrorists by letting them know what is going on around the world, or is this information that is publicly available? information that is publicly available? know, i think the most important thing to think about, what we are trying to do is really get stephanie: the most important thing we were trying to do is get information to the american public and to our lawmakers, but the vast scale of this war, which most americans aren't aware of. that should prompt us to ask urgent questions that are not being asked,, such as, are we really meeting our goals with all this vast, expansive activity? are we making americans safer? a civilians around the world safer? and if not, what could be a more effective way of doing those things? from ron is calling

ferndale, michigan. >> good morning. 1969 marine vietnam vet. i wanted to call on the previous program, but i think the whole problem is our history of terrorism throughout the world and its blowback. this is blowback from what we have done for over 150 years. still, 50 years later, [voice cracking] the people i about killed. i'm sorry. stephanie: i think you are absolutely right. the blowback issue is so important to think about here.

there is research that shows there are more terrorist groups in the world than there were before 9/11, there are more recruits to those groups because of u.s. militarism abroad. in a lot of ways i think it really fuels recruitment to these kinds of groups, and people react very strongly against american bombs and american military being used, oftentimes in what seems like against civilians in these places. : john is calling from hot park.s national john, where are you today? >> i am in arkansas. was: i thought hot springs in arkansas. what do you have for us, john?

>> i heard a report today that hasunited states military almost 900 military bases around the world and 130 countries. there is only 219 countries in the world and we have military bases in 130 of them. spend $700 billion this year buying more airplanes and bombs and whatever. people calling a lot of times when you have a subject here on health care, why don't we have the same kind of health care they have in norway or finland or whatever, but they don't have to support a huge military-industrial complex like we do. we want to be police men of the world. if we would spend less money on this and more money here at home, where we needed, i think the world would -- where we need it. i think the world would be a better place.

stephanie: thank you for bringing that up. you are totally right. we have over 800 bases all around the world, the 40 countries on the map that show the bases, just to clarify, are countries that may have multiple bases. these are the ones we have documented as explicitly being documented on the war on terror. your other point i want to address, which is, our research at the cost of war project has shown since 2001, we have spent $5.9 trillion on the war on terrorism. $5.9 trillion, right? the military will say that they have spent a certain amount on the war on terror, but they are only looking at a particular portion of funding for this, called the overseas contingency operations. and we say you have to take a much broader view. you have to think about, for example, care for all the veterans that are coming back

from the post-9/11 wars, and the fact they are going to be needing care through their lifetime. so we included estimates of that care through their lifetimes and that 5.9 trillion dollars. we include things like interest on the debt. most of this war has been paid for by borrowing, we have essentially put it on a credit card. so we are going to be owing, if you and if we stopped paying for the war right now, we will know $8 trillion just in interest .lone on this war by the 2050s there are ways this war is increasing the military-based budget, that is something you mentioned. there are things that get incorporated into the annual costs of the military that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for this war, so we include an estimate of that as well. taken altogether through the end of fiscal 2019, we have spent and will spend almost $6 trillion on this war.

host: let's go to our calling from long beach, california. al is alice calling from long beach, california. is calling from long beach, california. military 1963 to 1966. we need to take care of our own people. stephanie: i think there is momentum in congress right now, people that would agree with you. we have been encouraged to see commerce members invoking the war powers resolution to have a say, a greater say in the war on terrorism and how it is playing out, people who say they want more oversight and accountability for these actions. so i think there are a growing number of lawmakers who would agree with you and who are

taking action against the inertia that has taking that that has taken shape around this war, this endless war. i speak to high school classes and students in the high school classes were not even born in 2001 when we started this war. so i think it is high time for us to be having real debates about whether these actions are meeting our goals and if not, what is a better grand plan for dealing with the issue of terrorism? shouldn't we be thinking about the fact that there are other, far more dangerous risks to american security, some could argue, such as climate change? st: now, stephanie, president some ofs vowed to end these forever wars. where has he been successful and unsuccessful? and also, is there a country or conflict where we can say america's effort on the war on

terror has been unqualifiedly successful? guest: i don't think we can say that at all. know, i think president trump has been talking about withdrawing from syria and negotiating peace with the taliban in afghanistan. those are, you know, it is a good thing to think about winding down this war. i think, you know, president trump could be more thoughtful but ihow to go about it, think what the real issue is is that in places like, for example, somalia, there have been dozens of drone strikes so that isear, against the al-shabaab militant group there. . africa, weike west are seeing far more -- the u.s. of a huge base in niger in west

africa. so we see this war not winding down at all but actually ramping even look atnot the forever war, because even if we were to withdraw from afghanistan and completely from syria, we have to look at this in its entirety and really think about what we are doing and why. host: let's talk to jim, who is calling from pocatello, idaho. jim, good morning. yes, thank you for taking my call. states has never started wars. they always going to support the countries that fought. and we had two parties that were on the same team except for supporting the socialist dictators, and the other ones supporting the people in the country itself, and maybe they can get something done. thank you. iest: uh, yeah, you know,

don't know how to quite answer your comment other than to say, um, you know, i think politicians often will say, "oh, this time this war will be quick and effective and cheap." part of what we are trying to do at the costs of war project essay that is never the case. it is never quick and cheap to go to war. host: what would you say would be the most effective way for the united states to combat global terrorists? guest: we have studies that show it is far more effective to address the grievances that underlie and fuel terrorist treated as a two problem that can be addressed with a military solution. so things like policing, that is one way, historically, and it has been shown to be more effective than military solutions.

political solution to general, things like development and humanitarian some and addressing the heart of why these, you know, militant groups would have the recruiting power that they do in many of these impoverished places, in places where people are, you know, feeling politically and economically marginalized. host: let's go to david, who is calling from tyler, texas. david, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, my comment on these never-ending wars is you hear all of these things about war profiteers, the establishment, the democrats getting richer and richer. and it never is. if we can figure out how to spend $17 trillion in the middle somejust because they got oil, why can't we spend that kind of money in south america, where we cannot have these border crossings like we are having? industrialize south

america on this money that we are wasting on these never-ending wars? and that, you know -- what i want to respond to is your point about war profiteering. plus in thebillion annual pentagon budget, right, over half of that, over $300 the topplus goes to five military contracting, defense contracting companies. that theirompanies ceo's alone are making hundreds of millions of dollars. they are profiting off of the business of war. n, who is's talk to do calling from jacksonville, florida, and don is a member of the military.

don, good morning. don, are you there? caller: yes, i am here. can you hear me? host: yes, we can hear you now. go ahead. caller: i just want to know where she is getting her expertise, from sitting at a desk? those people died for their country, and she is complaining about what we are doing. i don't understand it. guest: yeah, i understand where you are coming from. researchers,our and we built on a network of 50 scholars from not just around the u.s., but we had some global contributors as well, and we really see ourselves as working in service of policies that will benefit americans and others around the world. so we are very much thinking for example, and experiencest their

affected by these wars, and we really want to make we areat, you know, if going to send people to make the ultimate sacrifice and risk their lives for these kinds of goals, let's make sure those goals are worth it. host: let's talk to karen, who is calling from lexington, north carolina. karen, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i think the young lady is doing a job. she is extremely educated in her field, and that guy who called was just being a jerk, i guess. but i did have one question. i am a patriot all the way. i love my country. but i don't quite understand why we always have to be the policeman of the world. guest: yes, i think there, you know, there are a lot of people these days who are saying, um,

that it certainly is, when it comes to terrorism, um, what happens if we go over to, you know, over there, to a country abroad, and we are supposedly trying to fight terrorism before it comes to our country, but then we get involved in these really complicated and messy political situations that are far over our heads in terms of, you know, what -- it is not just about fighting terrorism, it becomes about a whole host of other things, and that becomes really complicated and difficult and makes a lot of people wonder why we are there in the first place. host: what has been congress' response to this information or to president trump's statement that he wants to end some of these forever wars? there --ah, i think,

there are a lot of people who are interested in maintaining the forever wars. contractors defense have a role to play in the lobbying around this issue. but i think there are some especially new members of the house, and old, like representative barbara lee in california, and ro khanna, who ,s a new member of the house they are really building the momentum around this issue of taking a hard look at these wars and ending these wars. and i think we would do well to support those efforts. host: let's talk to malcolm, who is calling from east greene, new york. malcolm, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is this -- what percent of the terrorist attacks originate overseas largely, and what, versus the percent that

originate domestically? guest: yeah, thank you. caller: and the second point, i have a comment. comments emphasizing the war on terrorism forgetlmingly, we perhaps equally dangerous problem to our society is climate change. i think that is a very good point. thank you. guest: thank you. ez,h, i think that -- oh, ge i am forgetting what you said originally, but i was going to talk about, i am sorry, your first part. yeah, i think the climate change part is really important, theuse the, you know, military is also a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. we have a paper coming out

on that, too. do to your earlier point, i not know the exact percentage, but it is certainly the case that in terms of the large majority of terrorist incidents in the united states have been at the hands of, you know, white supremacist kinds of groups. so maybe we are looking in the wrong places for how to prevent these kinds of attacks. host: let's go to bill, who is calling from columbus, ohio. bill is a former member of the military. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. say you ared to missing the whole point of what we have to be over there defending ourselves, is because these people actually want to kill us. we havees, so, i think, a paper that shows that in this war, since 2001, half a million people have died directly stcause of this war, in ju

iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. we are hoping to extend our tally in the coming year to a more global look. but that includes u.s. soldiers, and that includes civilians, a lot of civilians in these war zones. we are thinking about lives lost, we need to take those into account as well and think about the fact that those are just the people who have died directly because of, bullets, andbs and then you take into account all of the indirectness, right, the ways that people died because of being displaced from their homes and having their infrastructure taken down, having sewage and hospitals decimated. so that -- what we say is that that leads to several times as many more indirect deaths as direct us, so you are talking

about, at this point, millions of people who have died as a result of these wars. host: let's talk to tony, who is calling from san jose, new mexico. tony is also a former member of the military. tony, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? guest: good morning. i just want to thank you for bringing up, talking about climate change, for me, it is a you or ierrorism, yet or anybody on this earth, basically if we are not a politician or a president or our food and poison supply, we would be charged with the message terrorism. we have $21 trillion that was missing from the last audit of all of the military. wey are talking about, uh, need to go over there because

they are killing people. how about our own country is killing our own citizens by allowing this poison and domestic terrorism? and the prosecutors -- you brought up war profiteering. oil isgest consumer of our military, so of course we need to go over and get more oil , so the vicious cycle just continues. -- well, we asked have a commander in chief that gives away the location of submarines, never served one day in the service because of alleged "bone spurs," so we just need to wake up. this is not a democrat or republican problem, this is an american problem. host: go ahead. go ahead, stephanie. guest: yeah, absolutely, this is

a nonpartisan issue for sure. i think that this is an issue that democrats and republicans alike can really come together on in terms of a lot of different reasons to end these wars. our caller is absolutely right about the fact that the u.s. military is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. there are huge numbers of, you know, a huge amount of pollution that is happening because of all of theu know, military planes and equipment that is using oil, so that is really something to think about. host: we would like to thank stephanie savell, costs of war project codirector at brown university and contributor to smithsonian magazine america on war, mapping the u.s. war on

>> this weekend on c-span sunday at 6:30 p.m., historians, authors and community activists discuss islamophobia, anti-semitism and white supremacy. at 9:00, president george h w bush -- president george w. bush and a former defense secretary talk about governing and 9:00rship on "book tv" at p.m. on afterwords, author yours on his book, love enemies. "american history tv" 4:30 p.m. eastern, condoleezza rice on the changing role of u.s. democracy in foreign policy over the last 100 years. watch this weekend on the c-span networks. >> it is important that our congress can sort of come together and focus on having -- passing policy and legislation that is meaningful and important

to the people and that they dismiss the petty politics and come together and protect the american people and do their job. high school students from the senate youth program talk about their experience spending a week in washington. >> you may be a different party and have different views, we are all here because we want to make a better world for ourselves and generations after us. >> right now our young people are very inspiring, and we are passionate about our ideals and seeing all the delegates this week, i have confidence in us that we could and come together to reach a consensus that is educated and crosses party lines. isone thing i can say especially as i look around me at richer leaders and so many fellow members of this rising generation is we are all so involved and we care so much. so if one incredible thing has

come from all of this, we are all awake. announcer 1: sunday night 8:00 eastern onto a day -- on humid day -- q and a. announcer 2: a panel of scholars and authors focused on the roots, methods and impact of spreading hate. the council on american islamic relations hosted the event last month. [applause] >> thank you. president,governor, also forgot to mention a story. i used to work here at metro state university. [applause] and i loved every minute that i was here. tois a difficult decision