discusses the war in iraq and its aftermath. >> my fellow citizens come at this hour, forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, free its people and defend the world from grave danger. ♪ host: at was then president george w. bush 20 years ago today declaring the start of operation iraqi freedom and the start of the u.s. war in iraq. this morning, we want to hear from you, what is the legacy of that conflict and what are the lessons learned and perhaps not learned from the iraq war.

democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you are a republican, dial (202) 748-8001. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. if you are a veteran of the iraq war or summit in your family fought in the war in iraq, i want you to call us at (202) 748-8003. you can use the same line, (202) 748-8003 to send us a text message. if you do so, include your name and where you live. you can find us on facebook, twitter, and on instagram @cspanwj. let's hear more from former president george w. bush again speaking 20 years ago today at

the launch of the war in iraq. [video clip] >> i want americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. the campaign on the harsh area could be longer and more difficult than some predict in helping iraqis achieve a stable and free country it will require our sustained commitment. we come to iraq with respect for its citizens and their civilization and for the religious faith they practice. we have no ambition in iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its people. i know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. millions of americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and the

protection of the innocent. for your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the american people, into cano that forces -- and you can know the forces will become home as soon as their work is done. our nation enters this conflict reluctantly but the purpose is sure. the people and friends and allies will not live at the receipt of an outlaw regime that threatens peace with weapons of mass murder. we will meet that with our error me, air force -- we will meet that with our army, air force, marines. now that conflict has come, the only way to win it is to apply decisive force, and i assure you this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept

no outcome but victory. host: that was former president george w. bush speaking on march 19 2003 announcing u.s. military action in iraq. there is another speech that was very pivotal head of the war in iraq. i will pull up in npr article about that speech. the headline says "20 years ago the u.s. warned of alleged weapons of mass instruction." here is how it starts. there wasn't just one moment that led to the iraq war, but one speech delivered 20 years ago at the united nations which would come to define and undermine the conflict. on february 5, 2003, u.s. secretary of state colin powell sat in front of members of the

human security council here he had been a staunch critic against iraq's authoritarian leader saddam hussein, but with the world watching he made a case for war. let's hear a little bit of that from secretary of state colin powell on february 6, 2003. [video clip] colin powell: every steve knight make today is backed by solid sources. these are not -- every statement i make today is backed i solid sources. i will cite examples. orders were issued to iraq security organizations as well as to saddam hussein's own office to hide all correspondence with the organization of military industrialization. this is the organization that oversees iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. make sure there are no documents

left that would connect you to the omi. we know that his son ordered the removal of all weapons from palace complexes. we know that iraqi government officials and members of the ruling party and scientists have hidden prohibitive items from their homes. other key files have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection. thanks to intelligence they were provided, the inspectors found dramatic confirmation in these reports when they search the home of a iraqi nuclear scientists, they recovered 2000 pages of documents. you see them being brought out of the home and placed in the u.n. hands. some of the material is classified and related to the nuclear program. are the inspectors to search the

house of every government official, every bath party member and every scientist in the country to find the truth to satisfy the demands of the council? our sources tell us that in some cases hard drives of computers at weapons facilities were replaced. who took them, where did they go and what is being hidden and why? yum insert is to hide and keep from the inspectors. -- the only reason is to hide and keep from the inspectors. host: that was former secretary of state colin powell about the start of the iraqi war. we want to know what lessons you think the u.s. should have learned, did or didn't learn. to remind of the phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. if you are a veteran or your member of your family fought in the war, call us at (202) 748-8003. we will get two calls in just a second. before i do, let's go over the cost of thwa in iraq. we will bring up some numbers. nearly 4500 americans a well over 100,000 iraqis were kild. this isrom the council of foreign relations. the cost was $800 billion according t u.s. treasury department. more than one million airmen, soldiers, marines served in iraq. these are just some of the numbers from that war that began 20 years ago today. let's get to your calls.

the first caller is roberts in tuscaloosa, alabama. you are a vet family. tell us more about your personal connection to the work in iraq. caller: a family member of mine was in the war and i work for the board of education in the county. my secretary was also called to the iraq war. about president george w bush, it was all for was said that they had weapons. that's what i hold against colin powell. you took that full soot and went to war and killed so many iraqi citizens and young people.

george bush was the first president in the u.s. supreme court installed him and they allowed him to go. that is what we had the problem with the last president he was installed i the supreme court. now there is hollering about killing kids in ukraine. kids do not have melanin in their skin there but they didn't care about killing them in iraq. a lot of americans are blamed for having george bush go there on falsehood and murder all those people. host: let's go now to broadnax,

virginia. david is calling on the republican line. what are your thoughts about the iraq war? caller: i think about that old saying, careful about what you wish for because you just might get it. since world war ii, we have been unable losing streak in in this -- streak in this regime change. we replaced the shot of a ran has cash of iran has -- rate replaced the shot of a ran -- the shah of iran. at least saddam hussein protected christians.

they were getting rid of chstians and we don't about that. if isis is knocked out, e a government that is to be in or ey get a nuclear weapon andibya could be a breeding ground for more terrorist organizations like al qaeda and the like. afghanistan, we ignored the northern alliance. we also impose our own cultural values on other countries that don't care for them. in afghanistan we could've had the northern alliance as the government. they were fighting on their own. the taliban without help for us,

yet we are putting a professor from maryland as head of government in afghanistan. host: we will have to on to another caller on the independent line. robert is calling from deerfield beach. what are your thoughts? caller: i am actually surprised that america is still talking about why we went to war in iraq. the only reason we went to war was for protection of israel. unfortunately, the leaders and the administration were

convinced. you saw netanyahu try to convince americans that iraq was a threat to the united states. that was all false. iraq was not a threat to the united states or israel. unfortunately, that is the only reason we went to iraq and lost so many people. it was not necessary. we still link victims to propaganda. iran supposedly is a threat to israel.

iran is not a threat to israel or the united states. we have to actually wake up for the protection of the united states and not fall victim and spend trillions of dollars and lose many young people. host: that is robert in deerfield beach, florida. let's go to south carolina. neil is a veteran family. tell us more about your connection to the work in iraq. caller: my son was from the united states marine corps was killed in action december 11, 2006 on a combat mission. we are a gold start family. he believed in what he was doing.

he believed in george bush and he campaigned for him before he went to war he was doing what he wanted to do. we have regrets about losing our son and we suffer every day, but he did what he thought was right for this country and for our values. host: we appreciate the sacrifice of your family. we definitely grieve the loss of your son. i know you said your son believed in what he was doing at the time, but you say you have regrets about losing him. what are your thoughts about the war over all now that it is 20 years passed since it started? caller: my thoughts are this -- we get into these wars. i was in vietnam. i wonder what we accomplished. now we are just getting out of

afghanistan. we shed a lot of blood and tears. overall, just what have we done to promote micro see. all -- to promote democracy? we cannot force our values on people and i wonder just how much we have accomplished with all of these wars we have been in. liz have suffered in every war since the revolution. we fought in the -- families have suffered every war since the revolution. two of my brothers fought in korea. my younger brother and i fought in vietnam. we have been in every conflict. i have two grandchildren, one is a boy and one is a girl who just

went into the marine corps two months ago and are taking aviation training in pensacola. i family has been with every war except for world war i. -- might family has been -- my family has been in every war except for world war i. i wonder what we have accomplished. i have no regrets but i still wonder what we have accomplished. host: we appreciate your call and are so sorry for the loss of your son. let's take a call from michigan. ron is on the democratic line. your thoughts this morning. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and have a son in uniform right now.

as far as what we are doing, we are all wrong. vietnam, we stuck our nose. the cia the french back in and we canwn t line. we want to putin on trial fo crimes. put bush and kennedy on trial for war crimes. what we did in vietnam,000 times worse than what putin is doing in ukraine. i know he is wut we are wrong for g nato down his throat. we complain about afghanistan, wh taliban was crushed, women went to schoo were in universities and we str nose in it, and what did we get, worldwide jihad, never-ending.

put our war criminals on trial and then we will put putin on trial. plain and simple. host: let's go now to boyertown, pennsylvania. dave is a veteran of the war in iraq. where did you serve? caller: i was in the army in the original operation in the spring of 2004, working as an affairs operator and a go-between for coalition forces and leaders and iraqis of all types. host: we appreciate your service . now 20 years later, what are your thoughts about the war and your time serving in iraq during that time? caller: i was in the army for 20 years in various specialties and

capacities. there are negatives about iraq and servicemen who went to various other places. one of the things about someone who spent time involved on the ground is we were involved in an operation that is way bigger than yourself. whatever negatives there are, it is much larger than yourself. you have the bond with your teammates and you are doing something that may not be theoretically right in the aftermath politically or whatever, it is a tight bond. i am glad i got a chance to go to war.

host: are there any lessons learned? if you had a chance to talk to the leaders, what lessons would you hope they learned on what happened 20 years ago during that multiyear war in iraq? caller: i think getting involved in operations like vietnam, think getting involved in operations like vietnam, somalia, afghanistan, iraq where basically they become insurgent wars are counter insurgencies are very complicated. it is like a generational kind of situation and it takes a long-term commitment. when you are dealing with different people and different cultures and ideas, it is hard

to change things. we have problems in our own country with the political parties and different segments of the population getting along. even though theoretically it may be for a good reason, it is very complicated when you get amongst these populations that are very dissimilar to us. i think it is the kind of thing, wars like iraq and afghanistan and vietnam and somalia, there are reasons we went in there, whether is was to prevent the spread of communism, weapons of mass destruction in iraq or smalley a or human aid, they are messy.

there are a lot of bad players in these places. host: we appreciate your call and we thank you for your service. we are talking about the 20 year anniversary of the war in iraq. in march, the war began. less than three months later, george w. bush announced mission accomplished in a speech delivered from an aircraft carrier uss abraham lincoln. let's watch some of that speech. [video clip] >> my fellow americans, major combat operations in iraq have ended and the united states and our allies have prevailed. [cheers and applause]

and now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. in this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. our nation and coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the united states military who achieved it. your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and each other made this day possible. because of you, our nation is more secure. because of you, the tyrant has fallen and iraq is free. [tears and applause]

operation iraqi freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, speed, and boldness the enemy had not expected and the world had not seen before. for distant bases and ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that can destroy an enemy mission strike a single bunker. marines and soldiers charged to baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. you have shown the world the skill and the might of the american armed forces. host: that was then president george w. bush speaking not even three months after the launch of the iraq war after saddam

hussein was taken out quickly. he announced that mission accomplished, but that was may 1, 2003. i am looking at the council of foreign relations timeline of the war in iraq and in 2011 is when final u.s. troops leave iraq. they write that the last u.s. soldiers leave iraq in december 18, 2011, ending the nearly nine year military mission. since 2003, when in one million served in the country. we are talking to you today about the 20 year inverse three of the launch of the war in iraq. we are going to go to phone lines but first i want to bring up responses we are receiving be a text message and on social media. anthony in detroit writes a text

message, bush, cheney, oulton, clinton, pelosi, obama, biden, trump, we have a lot of work criminals to bring to justice. when tammy start that? joseph and fayetteville -- when can we start that? joseph in fayetteville, making the world safe for democracy, such a falsehood. leadership keeps saying places like iran, iraq and mexico want to destroy the united states. served with the north carolina 30th brigade in saddam hussein's hometown. i still have fungus in my toenail from the soil. tom writes on twitter, there was no reason to be in iraq.

and another says 20 years later, what we learned is america does not prosecute its homegrown war criminals. we will bring up one more from facebook, to be quite honest, it is where we lost our way. he spent 28 years trying to build castles out of sand in iraq and afghanistan. we were meant to build democracies, we were meant to be the arsenal of democracy, to arm and vent people who want freedom. we are taking more of your calls. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are eight-member of the -- if you are a veteran who fought in the war or a family member, (202) 748-8003.

bruce is on the line from maryland. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to say that the iraq war was a huge tragedy, but i would also say it was a tragedy that was unavoidable. what happened was saddam hussein very deliberaty aded the impression he had nuclear weaps a nuclear program. e ason he did this was because he was bluffinggast iran. he had just fought a war with iran that ended and he was afraid that iran was still strong enough to conquer iraq. he deliberately created the impression to the rest of the world that he had a nuclear program. he did this as a bluff against iran.

that is the tragedy. it was misunderstanding and misunderstanding that saddam hussein was responsible for. he had no nuclear program but the world could not know that. it saddam hussein did everything he could to create the impression he had a nuclear program and he did it deliberately and for a particular reason. i would also like to say that we talk about hundreds of thousands of people and civilians being killed in iraq. what they failed to mention is that it wasn't the united states who killed them, it was people killing each other in ethnic strife that resulted from the removal of saddam hussein from power. it wasn't the united states directly killing these people. it mischaracterizes the united states to say they were guilty of war crimes.

his people died because of ethnic strife following the fall of saddam hussein. host: let's go to charlestown maryland, iris is on the independent line. caller: i would like you to take the time to look up a couple months before we went to war. i either sought on your station or the news hour where you said this man tried to kill my daddy. this war was fought over revenge and that is it. that is all i have to say. host: rick is in crawfordsville indiana on the republican line. caller: i felt sorry for the people in vietnam.

i lost a few friends. i felt sorry for the army and the people. the united states should keep their business and not worry about other countries and we wouldn't be in this predicament. i can understand that powers get knocked down. everyone is sticking their nose in it. the united states is trying to tell other countries what to do. i think if we mind our own business, we will be fine but if we get attacked we will retaliate. that is all i have to say. god less the soldiers and women who fought in the war and i love them all. host: let's go to the

independent line. ishmael is calling from india apple's -- indianapolis, indiana. caller: thanks for taking my call. you just say quickly that everybody who spoke about the war were right, we got nothing from the wars. what i want to come it is, we need to select the congressman president or authority. the war is devastated the countries and people. we are seeing what is happening in ukraine and everyone is paying the price and just sending a link check.

-- a blank check. voting from state to local to federal elections that this individual coming in is not going to be a and they don't want to wage war. the war is not going to bring anything for the citizens of any country. host: our next caller is brian calling from los angeles on the democratic line. caller: thank you so much and for the good conversation. i want to go to the bigger timeline. in this country today, we are in a place of victimization and that came from this war and in part from 9/11 and if we go back even further, it came back from president reagan and needed a job and worked and led him to

the governorship in california and to the presidency. it was on a platform the government is the solution and is the problem, which is mirrored today. in the late 1990's, we arrogantly thought that we could spread democracy with the point of a gun, and they started to want to go after saddam hussein very openly. obviously 9/11, president bush was put in by the supreme court justice which started our supreme court issues we have today. when this moment came of 9/11 and there was pressure and a young george bush hunting to one of his father and along history and -- wanting to one up his

father and there was bad information put out and they took the stabilization of saddam out of the country. he was a bad man but he was stabilizing region. and we entered the longest and most expensive war in our history. as bad as all of that was, it is very different than what we have today, when you have someone like putin wants to reform the soviet union, who has activated war on social media with the west. that is a whole different matter and unfortunately we are just exhausted. we are traumatized by the war, 9/11, politics, the supreme court etc. it has become very political. we have an obligation in moments we have today with someone like putin. host: we appreciate your comments. let's go to minnesota.

ryan, i understand you are a veteran of the first gulf war. tell us about that experience and how that has shaped your view on the war in iraq. caller: thank you very much for having me on. i was in the first gulf war and got out after 9/11 and was medically retired. i have a wider perspective on specifically iraq but also what is going on in ukraine because my service back in the first gulf war. we have to remember that was essentially a police action and in the first gulf war, the pretext of that was similar to us getting involved in korea and vietnam in the second gulf war and afghanistan. the pretext is always good for

getting into the wars, but a lot of the times it is false pretext we get on and we get sucked in deeper and deeper. in the first gulf war, that set off a chain of events in the middle east. folks in the middle east at taking us. when you look at the iraq war the second time around, the roots of that really go back to the first gulf war and even into the 1980's and the involvement there ticking off a lot of people who ultimately came back on 911 to come back after us. the first both war, though it was based on a pretext of iraq going into kuwait, i think that was, looking back on it, a mistake because it got us sucked into not just a few months long

war but eventually a war that has gone on until today. i know we pulled out of iraq in 2011, but in reality we still had troops there, whether it was advisors, companies, the cia still involved in iraq. what really worries me today is us being involved in what is going on in ukraine. on the text of putin is not a good guy and shouldn't have gone into ukraine, it is a mess, we are on the verge of getting involved in a nuclear war potentially in ukraine and it is really scary. you have every single democrat pushing for this war and most republicans, almost all of them, are pushing for this war except for some brave loan voices.

we have put vladimir putin in a position where he has no way out of this. there is no room for diplomacy. we put out an arrest warrant for the guy and you have biden cheering that. what motivation does that give putin to even engage in diplomacy? it gives him no incentive to do that. this war, when i watch the news and especially the taking down, i am waiting for the trigger that is going to put both the democrats and republicans, just like with both iraq wars, totally behind getting us involved deeper and the per. host: i am going to have to move on but i really appreciate your service and your time with us this morning.

we will go to the next caller, john is calling from milwaukee on the independent line. caller: i hope the gentleman from alabama who was the first person i heard call this morning , he hit it on the head. there is one thing i am imagined if we could have -- we fought in vietnam and iraq for 19 years. we spent all that money killing other people's children when we had decided if we didn't need the war, what could we have spent on children here? we could have built better schools and taking care of our children and we wouldn't have the problems we have today. conservatism is all about conserving what everybody else gets so you have more to steal.

also, both bushes, clarence thomas and roberts were elected by both bushs'gentleman said that was the beginning of the conservative supreme court was dead on. i thank you for listening. you have a good day. host: let's go to arizona now. phil is on the democrat line. caller: one of the previous callers said everything i wanted to say about george bush and the lead up to the iraq war. to me, i could see before bush was elected and what he was talking about when he wanted to go into iraq and i knew it was a

lie. you could see them getting the people ready to go into this war. we lost trillions of dollars, not to mention all the people that were killed. we lost all the soldiers and it was all a lie. that is all i have to say because everybody else has said what i wanted to say leading up to the war and weapons of mass instruction. host: this is an analysis piece written by cnn's national security analyst and he is writing on the 20th anniversary of the war and here is a portion of that analysis under the heading "uncomfortable similarities with russia's invasion today." he writes, the iraq war set a

precedent for unprovoked wars that we see playing out in ukraine today which the russians are already using. at a conference in india, the russian foreign minister sergei lavrov call out what he called a double standard saying, "you believe the united states has the right to declare a threat to its national interest any place on earth, let they did in iraq. this is a chain not resonate much in the west but it does globally where the u.s.-iraq war and the russian war in ukraine are seen by many as wars of choice rather than of necessity." of course, russian president vladimir putin's conduct in the war of ukraine is more brutal than the american war in iraq. also prunes versus are attacking a democratic state -- also

putin's forces are attacking a democratic state. what is underlining the similarities, both wars were started because of false claims. the u.s. war in iraq was launched on the basis that madame had weapons of mass destruction and lint to al qaeda -- linked to al qaeda. most americans believe that saddam hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, even though there was no evidence for this. we are hearing a lot of callers bring up the similarities between the iraq war and russia's invasion of ukraine. that was the cnn national security analyst writing on that. back to the phone lines. logan in dayton, ohio on the independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: thanks for having me on

and i appreciate the callers. people are reflecting deep thinking about what is going on here i am with the green party police -- peace action and are trying to have a movement in there will be ongoing demonstrations. there is a myth about the whole democracy thing. we have in our constitution a clause that says congress will to clear war but we haven't declared war since world war ii and we keep using a resolution to go to war, which has become a blank check. we have been at war for 21 years. the fact is we are currently in war in syria and some aliyah. -- and somalia. biden has ordered strikes and troops and we are deeply involved. in iraq, they have a problem am

head voted -- and have voted to get us out. our advisors are still there and we are still very involved in that region. at the beginning of the war on terrorism, the people of the middle east were supportive of us, and we have wrecked the middle east. i think that was our goal. there is no talk about the oil as the cause of the wars, but iraq and saudi arabia, very heavy in oil and involved in what has gone on their. -- gone on there. this step -- stuff in ukraine is crazy. this war could have been prevented. they could've come to a better understanding.

the united states put to the media and it is outrageous. every story is how bad china and north korea are and the american people need to start realizing we are at war now in the middle east and africa and we as a people, we are being manipulated. host: that was logan in dayton, ohio. logan did mention the authorization from congress to authorize the war in iraq, it is still in play, but there is now an effort underway in congress to repeal the iraq war authorization. here is an article from npr that says, a bill ending iraq war authorizations has cleared a procedural hurdle in the senate and is expected to be taken up

by the chamber for a final vote next week, as in this upcoming week, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the u.s. invasion of iraq. i will skip down. it is an open ended justification that presidents have used to carry out military actions in iraq, allowing congress to reinsert its authority when it comes to where and when to send troops into battle. that bill vote could happen as early as this week to repeal the iraq war authorization 20 years later. let's go back to the phone lines. marriott is calling from fort washington, maryland on the democratic line. caller: good morning c-span and everyone. i so appreciate the callers who know the truth because i agree with you. the vietnam war didn't have to happen. there were peace talks on the

tables. the iraq war was a lie. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to lie to us. there were no weapons of mass destruction. there could have been peace talks, 20 years and they pull out and look at the mess. every time we stick our nose into a country, we ruin it, we devastate it. as far as ukraine, i have no respect for what is going on and giving all that money to ukraine when it is full of racist individuals. look at the money that is being sent and has sent more money into ukraine. russia, there are stories about why putin has done this and it has to do with the united nations and nato and all of that.

when president bush said it was accomplished, i wanted to throw up. he just went into the war to vindicate george bush senior because he did not get saddam hussein then so it was up to george junior to get saddam hussein. you got him and look what happened, nothing. it is a mess over there. all of the middle eastern countries we stuck our nose in is a mess and the people are coming here because they have no choice and i welcome all of them. host: i appreciate your call. our next caller is on the independent line calling from georgia. are you with us? caller: i want to say when 9/11

happened, there are three sides, t's, hours, and the truth. he is always goi f peace when nobody is talking for peace. keep going and doing the me thing. it is not going to happen. it will happen when someone grows up and has a convers about what is going on.

how are you going to help someone else when the veterans are coming home homeless. help hear it before you help somewhere else. where is the war really going? it is all a distraction to keep you focus. and don't pay attention on what is going on behind the curtains. host: we appreciate you being a first time caller. the lyric you are referencing is referencing the 1993 bombing of the world, which is separate from the 9/11 attacks in 2001 after he had passed away. a lot of people get that

confused. let's go to west virginia, clark is calling on the republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. my condolences to all of the veterans and the wounds they carry and loved ones that they lost. we have to go back to the bible. this all is greed and jealousy. i lost a good friend in vietnam. i was a coalminer, mining coal to make the steel and what have you. it took him 20 years and the american people and the governments have made our young men and old men murderers. the bible says they holler peace

and there will be wars and rumors of wars. we must start back and love one another. love is the only thing that is going to stop wars. host: i appreciate your call, clark in west virginia. andres is in ohio. we are ready to hear from you. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to take a little bit of a different path through this partisan bickering, particularly about the war in europe and the war in ukraine. first of all, the u.s. is not at

work today. there may be a remote danger that we might become involved, but as long as the ukrainians are doing the fighting we owe it to this country, we literally owe it to this country to support the ukrainian people. it is not a matter of partisanship, it is a matter of democrats and republicans and the only people that i see that are against this war, which is not a war, against the u.s. to being involved are the minority

know of of the republican party that call themselves republican but they are really fascists. they are part of the national socialist party of the united states. it has attempted a coup already and that party is the one that is causing all the hardship and all the political bickering that is going on in this country. they are the only ones supporting fascism, which comes from russia. host: we appreciate that call. your point is taken. we are going to take one more caller, jean in detroit on the democratic line. caller: first of all, i was

passionately against the war in iraq and i used to call into c-span prior to the intervention every 30 days to say that if we went into iraq it would result in death, destruction, and chaos. and it turned out to be even worse than i thought. first of all, iraq was a sovereign nation, and i felt if they had weapons of mass instruction from the top of iraq to the bottom, what gave us, the united states, the right to go in and attack them? one of your callers earlier said it was about revenge. i remember watching a barbara walters interview with president bush and his wife prior to them going in, early in march 2003, and she pressed him on why he is going in, and he finally blurted

out, that man tried to kill my daddy. i said oh, my gosh, this man is going in for revenge. asas i said earlier, i was agait it. i have proven right. it was destruction and chaos. the other -- was not killing the people but to blame. we had removed the guards that kept the people in check from killing each other. the suit -- sunnis and she has were marrying, but after we went in, they turned against each other because of a power struggle. host: that is going to do it for us this hour. we will take a quick break and then next, tom lobianco joins us

for a discussion on the emerging republican 2024 presidential field. later, we continue our look into the 20 year anniversary of the war in iraq with interbasin pitch, chairman of the board and then a recent fellow with the foundation for democracy. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or

where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word forward. if it happens here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> listening to programs on c-span c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 p.m. eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. she spent, powered by cable. -- cspan, powered by cable. >> if you're injuring book tv, sign up for our newsletter using

the qr code on the screen. book tv, every sunday on c-span two or anytime online at book tv.org is on television for serious readers. ♪ >> c-span out as a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams from u.s. congress. the court, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal online scheduling information for c-span and c-span radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. she's been out -- your front row seat to washington, -- c-span now -- your front row seat to

washington, anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: good morning. we are joined by tom lobianco. he is a political reporter at? -- at yahoo! news and also an author. we will be discussing the emerging republican field for the presidential election. let's start with your latest piece for yahoo! news. you are talking about -- the headline says trump and desantis get ready for battle in the looming primary contest. how is that shaping up? especially since trump is a declared candidate and desantis is not, but they are considered the two front runners. how does that work with only one of them officially in the race? guest: one official third run for president and one book to

her that looked an awful lot like a run for president in the case of ron desantis. the polling has been consistent through the beginning of this brace -- race. trump still has 35% to 45% of the primary electorate at this moment with him, but you still have a lot of people looking for someone else. whether that is a trump 2.0, a desantis type character, a more polished. as my source is like to say, he can complete a sentence. that is desantis. or is it a neo-establishment type like a sununu? not to get too far afield, i do not know is that favored son type thing really works anymore.

and nikki haley and potentially tim scott of south carolina. at this moment, it has been pretty consistent that in this early stage of the 2024 race, it is prompt versus desantis. that is -- could clip on tuesday. but we might have to go through multiple arrests before anything changes. there is a lot of confusion in the field. host: as we are talking about this republican 2024 presidential race, we want to hear from you whether you have a question or just want to make a comment about prompt or -- trump or desantis or nikki haley. guest: there is a guy with

really bad hair from iowa who jumped in. host: while you are thinking, i want to give you the numbers to call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. start calling in with your questions or comments. while we are waiting for phone calls, we are talking about desantis and trump being considered front runners. what are the differences? is it just a style? if so, is that enough to swing a primary? guest: think about have everyone used to make fun of, all those folks on the right used to make fun of obama is leading from behind. that became a tagline. you have trump and desantis

today weird weight flipping roles on issues as they weigh in. last week, we saw desantis get nailed by a lot of other republicans for following trump against ukraine. you have seen trump follow desantis more on issues like "woke" -- this catchall term used on the republican side for cultural wars and racial justice items. you have also seen some flipping , generally flipping between the two. today seem to be attacking each other in terms of, if this was a bush running, do it all be able to check on every issue and know that they checked the boxes. trump's speeches will be dry, --

these stump speeches would be dry and boring and we would not have to follow every one of them, but, two, there would be more continuity. to get back to the question, it is style. you heard in the 2022 midterms from a letter voters in the primaries, certainly the ohio senate primary, i remember right after january 6 in february 20 21, a poll came out asking how many people love donald trump and how many 100 run for president. that number dropped to 68%. that seemed to be the tenor right now. that is why you see somebody like ron desantis being more polished, more controlled, sticking to a disciplined speech, talking about almost

exactly the same things as trump , with the exception of generally sixth and -- january 6 and criminal justice items. classified documents, you do not hear him talking about that. but the republican electorate seems to be looking for the next thing. the question i have and they love the folks i talked with have is whether or not -- and a lot of the folks i talked with is whether or not trump can hold that plurality one year from now when the first votes start being cast. that is a huge question right now. host: let's -- one thing i want to do. you are talking about desantis in iraq, i want to read what he said on ukraine as far as u.s. involvement in uaine.

he says, while the u.s. has many vital national interests, becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between ukraine and russia is not one of them. we have mentioned that that created a lot of blowback from the republican establishment. it is widely considered his first major blunder. do you think that will matter to rank-and-file republicans that he has made this misstep or will it not have much impact? guest: two or three weeks ago, jeb bush kind of endorsed him and then walked it back. there -- and obviously trump's people love to push that ron desantis is an establishment character in the mold of. potentially, that closes the bridge to the establishment. but i do not know.

at this stage, there are so many machinations along with donors, behind the scenes still happening. i do not know that this closes any doors for him, but that is speaking squarely to that nationalist/populist, hard right base. i do not know that that is necessarily conservative. we know that that term conservativism, whatever it was over the last 60 years or so, but he is speaking to that republican base. he has made a decision that this is his crew, the nationalist/ populist wing of the party. you can get a nice slice of pie just chimed down on that. host: he and trump are fighting

over the same pie? michael is calling from maryland on the independent line. caller: thank you. may you be blessed for what you do. the thing i wanted to tell you real quick if i was born in 1955 . this was when elvis came on the scene. because of that in the radical wave the all have in us, things started to go south right there. it was john f. kennedy who put troops on the ground in vietnam. i failed first grade, not going to school enough because i was afraid of the world. the thing is i graduated with honors from a high school in baltimore county. i did not register for the draft. i was going to get drafted and i probably would've won in vietnam, but the man told me to

take a deep breath because nixon has just signed a 1h and did not have to get drafted. i left -- lost friends in vietnam. the way it divided us. something is wrong. host: i appreciate your comments. you're talking about war, but we were talking more specifically about the 2024 presidential election. patients you might support a republican -- any chance you might support a republican in 2024? guest: i am a registered report can in maryland. i was then baltimore city for 30 years. titrate to bridge the gap between people because we are all one. unless is everyone's to do that -- we have destroyed the iraqi

nation in a big way, like the lady was saying before. i am telling you that i would support the ones who want to get back to the values. trump toxic victim. -- talka a big game. i have been in front of donald trump. he will blow you off eventually, but i try to with in their eyes and see what they are really about. the fascism that has risen, i was watching the old movie "nicholas and alexandria." host: we are going to have to move on, but we appreciate your thoughts. let's go to steve in florida, democratic line.

caller: i am very concerned about the rise of governor ron desantis. he claims he is a free state, but i plan is actions totalitarian. he mandates that prospective colleges students declare their political views. he makes a thinly veiled implication that their funding depends on that. he pulls books from shelves that he claims are "woke" and "cancel culture." i believe people if they woke movement is an attempt to update negative and face on any active social justice or any kind of

justice for any minority. it scares me. that is my comment. host: all right. tom, desantis, not just the war on education, it is the "don't say gay" legislation. what are your thousand about how that plays in a primary but also that your thoughts about how that plays in a primary but also should he become the nominee, does that help or hurt him in trying to defeat joe biden? caller: anybody who comes out of the republican primary at this moment is going to have double pivoting to a metal. -- a middle. you still have to win the center

in the general election. this is the continuing discussion around whether trump will take a war as his running mate this time. that is the latest iteration of the culture war. he does not play written large in the country. let me go back to the first caller. as a native of baltimore county myself, i grew up in lutherville, maryland, it is good to hear from another baltimore in -- baltimorean. the theme he brought up is to me mind-boggling. it is mind-boggling to see that republicans are antiwar 20 years after the iraq war where it was sacrilege to be against it.

what steve said regarding this totalitarian tactics of pulling books from shelves, there is a political price to entry for the nomination, which is what we see desantis doing right now, really trying -- where the key difference is between desantis and trump his action versus words. trump will say that there is going to be some monster protest in downtown new york on tuesday. desantis signs and executive order that says you cannot talk about these books in schools. there is a slice of the republican electorate that likes the performance art.

there is always a measure of performance art, but there is another slice of the electorate is like, that is fun, exciting, we want rallies on twitter but we also want results. there is where you get into this ron desantis book ban. the question then is when you emerge out of that primary electric, how do you tell people in suburban philadelphia that all the books in florida do not have the skin color for rosa parks. she was just a woman who happened to be on the bus. help do you talk about that? you might not be able to if you are desantis or any other candidate. host: kent is in illinois on the republican line. caller: the republican field,

there is going to be quite a few, but it will come down to desantis and trump. your last caller was talking about woke culture and how he thought that was nonsense. i have grandchildren in school. when a kid goes to school, without it, his parents, they want to set it up to where a boy can be mutilated and become a girl. that is not nonsense. that is craziness. desantis has put a finger on it as trump did in the past, but i do not think it will be much of a contest a year from now if things are going the way it is, people will want trump back real bad. he was the one president who kept russia and china from moving on anybody in four years.

that had not happened before. people will look at trump with more pragmatism than in the past and say, hey, this guy is arrogant. his personality is terrible, but he was the most effective president the country has ever had. people will look at that. now they are getting arrested for being when some prostitute while the bidens are stashing money away from the chinese. we look at that was a jaundiced eyes and say, that is no problem. he is a good democrat. let him go. but with trump, they have been after him for 6 years. that will lead in his favor at election time. pompeo, nikki haley, they are

good people but there is none other than that can handle foreign policy the way trump did. a businessman is really what we need. host: appreciate your call. let's let tom respond. foreign policy, is that an edge for trump? guest: 20 -- could be. mike pompeo has been toying with this. there was talk a few months ago that you had this foreign policy field crowded by mike pompeo and nikki haley. i do not know if pompeo is jumping in. you get an interesting reception, more so than some others would be candidates. you see desantis starting to toying with this. i aps recently where they were talking about -- i thought a

piece recently where they were talking about this. his work at gitmo. biden is in the white house in part because he was vp to obama. he was selected because obama did not have foreign policy experience. but what counts as foreign-policy experience anymore? trump elected mike pence, who did have foreign-policy experience from being on house foreign affairs. that is not why they selected him, however. they selected him to bring back old conservatives, those people who had been with ted cruz and did not want to vote for a philanderer. that worked. i do not know. pence has always been good at this. you see a lot of the candidate doing this. if you are skittish on one issue

and you see trump going after desantis on social security and medicare. exit used to be traditionally conservative -- things that used to be traditionally conservative, talking about overhaul. those things, abortion, that is a sticky one for desantis. those are all things where you used to have to check the box. i do not know that you do anymore. but pence can lead into that issue and he is. that helps them. host: but he has not announced yet that he is running. guest: not yet. [laughter] host: carolyn in massachusetts on the independent line. caller: hi. i am a woman, but i will vote trump.

we have learned our lesson. we should have in the investigated more but they gave it to mr. biden, who will probably get us into world war iii. but the wrong can be righted on the following election. make chance -- mike pence does not have a chance cap is a nice guy, but nice guys finish last. i am going to vote donald trump. he has shown that we should have had him here in the first place. we have listened to the deep stay too long. it is still in power. that is all i have to beg saving. -- to say. host: i do not know. callers are often a slice of america and we are not hearing a lot of pro desantis.

guest: on twitter a couple of weeks ago, a security guard came out and stopped pro-trump protesters from going to the desantis book signing. you have done trump rallies. they put us in pence -- pens. he goes up on stage. 8 years of this now. is routine. he is like, these people in the media do not want to talk to you from behind their pen. i am like, all right. folks online, voters, they have ideas. there was real anger at us. it was shocking. that is a tangent. i do not know. in terms of where people are

right now, there -- ron brown skin talks about this a lot, the wind track versus the beer track in the republican populace at this moment. that seems to be the case, certainly looks like the crowd that showed up to this first campaign-e -- style event desantis was doing. trump still has the super fans, kind of an oldness, college football tailgating party thing going on. but that is die down. i was surprised by that. i was wondering yesterday if trump does announce on tuesday, what happens if he cannot pack a rally? 20% of that room was empty. i was surprised. host: next week, he has his

first big rally in texas. let's talk about this news that president trump posted yesterday that he expects to be arrested on tuesday, related to the payments made to stormy daniels. but we have that from trump. here's what pence said, this is a rolling stone article that talks about pence's comments on serious xm. he says, i am taken aback. he told breitbart news saturday morning, "you have a major crime wave in new york. you have literally a democratic party that has dismantled the criminal justice system in that city, undercut the nypd.

and this is what the manhattan das as is their top priority," referring to the district attorney. but we also have some snippets of pence this morning. trump also called for protests. now you are seeing republicans having to decide how they responded to calls for protests, the elephant in the room being january 6. number one, talk about this reaction to trump possibly being arrested. do you think it will be a factor at all in the campaign? guest: boy. i have been struggling with this question for at least a year. multiple impeachments, multiple investigations. i do not know. the way it feels right now, at

this point, there is a hardened plurality of maga voters who are trump loyalists. the question is how big is that crowd? 33%? we talked about this in the piece from last week. there was a great piece in the washington post on why this matters. the trump campaign operation is going to the states trying to set new levels for the four of what it takes to get delegates in the primaries -- the floor of what it takes to get delegates in the primaries and win the nomination. 20% is the floor. if you can hold onto that plurality, fled the field with a

number of people who are reasonable candidates who can hold 5% to 7% and sliced it up, none of them are able to make the floor and he wins and cruises to the nomination. that is the thinking behind this, but so much confusion. we have never had a president arrested before. some sources hit me up and would like, this is a misdemeanor. but we have never had a president arrested for a misdemeanor or a low-level felony. but, again, counterpoint to that. january 6 is historic but still does not make it into every story. it boggles my mind. it is like two years after september 11 and never saying bin laden or 20 hours in

campaign coverage. i do not have a good sense yet. [laughter] host: we will have to keep having you come back. we are a long way from the election. let's take another caller from fort, michigan, -- port huron, michigan. am i saying that correctly? what are your thoughts for tom this morning? host: judging from the last two callers, the republican party is occupied by a bunch of criminal minded, racist, fascist farm animals, my messages to president biden. president biden, if you refuse that al qaeda and aces were in

the u.s. on websites like reddit and those kinds of stations and talking about insurrection and doing political violence in the country, you would marshall all the forces of government to stop them. you would mobilize the fbi, the cia, everybody that has to do is protection. that is your major constitutional duty, to protect the citizens of the u.s. we know the republican party is full of insurrectionists, house republicans, senate republicans. this party is dangerous. they are insurrectionists, terrorists and need to be handled as such. we are in real trouble with that too minded texas governor, all

these people who are fascist, racist, no good criminal minded people trying to project onto the biden family. talk about hunter biden. he is a private citizen. jared kushner was a white house advisor who is now in cahoots with the saudi's for $2 million. they pay him. when are we going to see justice ? i hope they arrest trump tuesday. i hope the racist, fascist confederate wild dogs come out to the public squares and we can see them for what they are -- terrorists. host: your thoughts? guest: he said if it were al qaeda on reddit organizing insurrection, good point.

january 6 versus september 11. it was easier on the member 11 for the country to unite. this was not your neighbor that was throwing fire extinguishers through a building or the capitol -- capitol and smashing cops into the ground all over the place. that is a good point. a couple of weeks ago, i interviewed asa hutchinson, former governor of arkansas, also considering a run for president. he was a prosecutor. we talked about this. he prosecuted weights and promised militia groups in the early 1980's in arkansas.

i was reading through some of the coverage from back then. i am spring of the name, but it was -- i am screwing up the name but it was a white militia group. it was fascinating the corollaries with the oath keepers and pathways. the language of the tactic -- and the proud boys. the language in the tactics. he made a good point. we were prosecuting them. these guys had to be in person to do this. it required a type of colt militia leader, somebody who was charismatic in person was easier to take down. now, you go online and you've got "q." will sommer writes about the qanon movement for daily beast. there is another "q," "r," who

is like jfk junior. different letters of the alphabet. it is harder to pin down. it spreads easier. it is, again, it is still happening. the neo-nazi groups tried to take out a powerplant. this is still happening. host: write what to mention that with -- i want to mention that with trump calling for his supporters to protest and hearing what mike pence told abc news, it says pence did not disavow trump's call for protests, citing that the american people have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble. he said any demonstration should occur peacefully and in a lawful manner. i should note that you wro a book about mike pence.

the name is mike pence and the taking of the white house. we have seen mike pence become very critical but also bounce back and forth. we saw that after january 6 and we are seeing that a bit now, what he said at the gridiron dinner last week versus this weekend. what do you make of mike pence? guest: [laughter] host: do you think he has a chance in 2024? guest: i have been covering him for 12 years. that is the question. what do you make of this guy? it is interesting about the gridiron remarks. we have all been waiting, january 6 was not a peaceful protest. they said they wanted to kill you and got within 04 -- 40 feet

of almost telling you. his counsel testified he was pulling out bibles and reading about daniel in the lion's den. i get chills thinking about that. working the video is hard, but he says 90 scenes, closed-door, no video, white type -- tie, he said that the gridiron, behind the scenes, trump was wrong. yesterday responsibility. -- he has to take responsibility. but you put him on camera he says, i trust these guys to do a peaceful protest when the president says it is time for retribution. it is jarring. what is he going for here? not everybody runs for president to win.

i do not know that he can win. a decade ago, the romney cycle, was probably his window. when he was bridging the divide before -- between tea party evangelicals and the establishment, that probably was his window. but a lot of people run for a number of reasons. you do not always have to expect to win to run. for a lot of these folks, nikki haley, mike pence, mike pompeo, all people who were in the trump administration, it becomes harder for them to talk about their story four years later in 2028. this part of the reason why you see tim scott floating seriously run.

he is still young has not gotten engulfed. he could make a run in 2028. host: evan in georgia, republican line. caller: i have a lot of thoughts. one is that i do not understand why we are always pushing on these betterments about donald trump. one, it looks like they should call it the trump tv news, because that is how they have been talking about it from the morning to the afternoon, about trump, about january 6, about what he did. this guy has been attacked since day 1 since he got in power as president. nobody is talking about the riots when he was elected.

the sum recommend the 30 days that people got killed, the city got burned. they try to attack the white house. today are not talking about that. it looks like january 6, january 6, january 6, it is all in their mind. now they are saying, that is rhetoric. they are worried about protection. everybody can protest. we saw that democratic protesters were violent and nobody said anything. and desantis "dont say gay." i do not want my granddaughter to learn about gays. chicken and that which he draws up. -- she cannot learn that when she grows up.

i never saw that growing up. i am not against it. i have friends who are gay and lesbian, but we have to protect our kids. they are losing everything is closed and the only thing they want to teach them is drag queens, gays, lesbians. they are six years old. come on. we need somebody to get a grip on that and stop this madness. host: any closing thoughts? guest: this candidate cycle, i will be reading children's books. [laughter] that is where we are. partisan politics, rhetoric has already been like this but i have never seen it this enraged. but the antidote to that is what are we actually talking about?

is it actual pornography? i do not know. but i am about to find out. i am going to spend $200 on amazon buying children's books. host: thank you. this is tom lobianco, yahoo! news political reporter. thank you for joining us. we will take a quick break and then continue our look at the war in iraq and its aftermath 20 years later with the chairman of the board of the quincy institute for responsible statecraft and then hussain abdul-hussain, research fellow for the foundation for the defense of democracy. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, texas a&m

professor elizabeth cobbs, author of careless women, talks about the history of feminism in the united states. >> there is this crazy myth that has grown up on the left and right about what feminism is. we are still so divided as a country but what i realized is that finance -- feminism was born in the american revolution. it has driven our history, contributed to economic development, social development. how can we let such an important thing be bandied about without understanding its history? >> elizabeth cobbs tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our app.

♪ >> this year's grand prize winners of the documentary contest are pareen sw from germantown, maryland for their documentary where is my data? watch these documentaries online at studentcam.org. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage. to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are focusing on the war in iraq 20 years since it began. we are joined by andrew bacevich , chairman of the board of the quincy institute for responsible statecraft. the is going to be here to discuss the anniversary of the war in iraq and aftermath. good morning. can you start by telling us what is the quincy institute? is there a political ideology connected with this think tank? guest: thank you for the opportunity to describe quincy. we are a think tank. this city has a plethora of think tanks. we are a start up, a young institution. our purpose is to change the

view of foreign policy. we think u.s. policy has become excessively militarized with too many wars. the wars cost as a lot, cost others a lot. we educate based on the idea of restraint. restraint does not mean pacifism, does not mean disarmed, certainly does not mean isolationism. it means engaging world comprehensively but use force only as a last resort. we are not republican or democratic but trans partisan. host: i wanted to mention that. i was looking at it the least article where you were very clear that you consider yourself a conservative but not necessarily a republican. can you explain?

i am sure a lot of conservatives closely identify with the republican party. guest: i am personally a conservative but not all of my colleagues that the quincy institute are. our personal political perspectives very, but we are one in believing in the importance of change in u.s. policy in favor of an approach that emphasizes military restraint. i am conservative. as far as i can tell, the republican party is the polar opposite of conservativism. after party today represents any identifiable principles whatsoever. i think that conservativism rests on a set of principles. i do not think the purpose of this discussion is to identify them, but i am conservative and i believe in a certain set of truths. i think that those truths are

consistent with the overall perspective of the quincy institute on matters related to foreign policy. host: i want to open the phone lines. you can start calling in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are an iraq war veteran or a family member of a veteran, please call us at (202) 748-8003 . you can start calling now. we'll get to your cause calls in a moment. andrew, i understand you served in the persian gulf, but you are also a gold star parent who lost a son in the iraq war.

can you tell us about your military experience, your experience as a goldstar data and how that has affected your outlook? guest: i do not need to be rude. he will not talk about my son. living with and i consider that private. -- my wife an di consider that private had my war was vietnam. i deployed in 1970. when i got there, the war was already lost. the country was deeply divided as a consequence of the war. in all the years since, i have reflected on the vietnam war as a catastrophe certainly for the vietnamese, but as a catastrophe for our country.

my reflections on vietnam very much inform my views about war today and the proper role of force as a component of u.s. foreign policy and about when it makes sense to use force and to exercise restraint. in many respects, the vietnam experience is what hangs over my outlook on many things. host: i apologize. i meant no disrespect by asking. we honor your right to privacy on that matter. let's go to the phone lines now. our first caller is ed in new york on the democratic line. caller: good morning. first, i was one of three

officers invited for a sunday brunch many years ago. here's my question. it is rather loaded. i have never read any of your books, probably never anything more than a menu. which was the worst, 1943 or trump? and give my regards to msr. -- mrs. b. guest: the reference was to a prominent theologian from the 1940's to the 1960's, somebody who has deeply influenced my outlook on many things. we said this is the younger bush today. this is a 20th anniversary of the beginning of the war to trump.

in my judgment, we pay far more attention to mr. trump than he deserves. dear coming up on the 20th anniversary of the war. -- we are coming up on the 20th anniversary of the work and there is speculation that on tuesday trump will be indicted. if that happens, nobody will talk about iraq, just trump. that is inappropriate. he will turn out to be a relatively insignificant figure in american history, but trum s ism, this right-wing populism that has taken over the republican party, that is significant. by the right-wing populism that we call trumpism is not the creation of trump.

it stems from other factors, not least the iraq war. i would make the argument that if it were not for the iraq war and all the negative consequences, that donald trump would never have been elected. that brings up the george w. bush, president who initiated the invasion 20 years ago, i suspect that that i have never met mr. bush, but i suspect that he is a well-intentioned fellow. he had no qualifications to become president of the united states. he had the bad luck to be president at the time of 9/11. therefore, he was responsible for answering the question to the american people the day after 9/11 what are we going to do now?

the answer he came up with -- and i think he was prompted by assortments like mr. cheney and mr. rumsfeld --, the answer was let's impart upon a global war on terrorism, a deeply flawed idea, and, furthermore, let's prioritize in this war an invasion of iraq to topple saddam hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, who certainly was a vicious dictator, but he did not pose any threat to the united states. mr. bush failed. he felt in his most important -- failed in his most important responsibility, to think through security challenges and make prudent decisions.

i am not claiming i would have been any better. he was put in an awful position i the reality of 9/11, but he failed. host: you mentioned you believe the war in iraq had a direct line to donald trump coming president. can you explain a bit more? c-span.org i do not want to -- caller: i --guest: i do not want to over some the five. divisions in our country are profound and deep-seated, not the product at any one individual or any particular moment, but those divisions have been exacerbated over the past 20 years. contributing to that is the iraq war.

the war was conceived by, and this is a generalization, conceived by elites in washington within the bush administration and leaders outside the bush administration who made claims about what an easy victory in iraq they expected and what it would produce in terms of benefits for the u.s., the people of iraq and the world. none of those benefits came about. what we ended up with was a very long, very dirty, very costly war. i think it laid down the curtain on the post-cold war moment. i talk about the brief period of time, a decade plus, when the

u.s. that it was in charge, that history had ended, that we were an indispensable nation, that we had a military that was unstoppable. the iraq war demolished that. in doing so, i would argue it contributed to the alienation of tens of millions of our fellow citizens who to this day are angry. for the people who elected donal bottom a disaster. host: let's go now to oxford, connecticut, kwraepbltd -- andy is on the republican line. caller: i'm were like you.

i have been a conservative all my life enough to have voted for dwight d. eisenhower in 1956. i didn't become a republican until 16 years ago to give me an opportunity to vote in the primaries. i voted against donald trump twice in the primaries but voted for him twice. he was not elected because of the iraq war but the democrats ran the only opponent who could not beat him. i hate war as much as anyone. i go back to the way i felt about bob mcnamara how he nick manied and dimed the pentagon and sent thousands to die in a war for no reason. i had grandchildren who died in ukraine. i hate everything going on and i would like to listen to the rest of your comments. host: any reaction, andrew?

guest: i'm not going to defend hillary clinton. i didn't vote for trump for president or hillary clinton. i voted for the green candidate. i share the view that hillary's candidacy which came about for all reasons partly related to gender and her last name and her resume that she was just ill chosen and the fact that she feels the nominee basically the door for trump was halfway open nominating hillary clinton pushed it open the rest of the way. i like ike. i think that it would be wrong for us to hold up president eisenhower as the model conservative. there are many things he did as president that i think i would find objectionable. let's just cite turning loose

the c.i.a. in iran and guatamala, in cuba and so on. that said, in many respects, he was aligned with what we believe in the quincy institute today. that is to say, somebody who had profound experience with war as supreme commander in europe in world war ii, was exceedingly wary about the dangers of war and costs of war, about the danger of allowing the united states to become, in its thinking, excessively militarized. all of us would do well to reread his farewell address from jeanine 71 in which he warns about the influence of the military industrial complex.

that is where that phrase comes from. and where he says the only antidote to the military industrial complex is citizens who are alert, informed, and attentive and speaking as a conservative one of my great concerns today is i don't believe we have a citizenship that is alert, informed and attentive to many of our fellow citizens are distracted by trivia. as a matter of fact, i think the whole trump story has become trivia. host: up next we have debra in st. petersburg, florida, on the independent line. caller: i have been an independent, a democrat and now a republican.

i would like to agree totally with your current guest about not being interventionist in these wars. i would have a question for your guest for a moment and a couple comments. i'm wondering if you have read the book by florida governor ron desantis. guest: no, ma'am. i have not. host: do you want to ask a more direct question? oh, she is already gone. let me go to one more caller, chris is in boston, massachusetts, on the democratic line. you are on, chris. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm sure your guest is familiar with the remarks of the late senator fritz hollings when he stated in 2004 that, quote, iraq

was invaded to secure israel and everybody knows it. end of quote. i wonder if your guest has any comments on the observations. thanks. i will take my answer offline. guest: well, i don't think everybody knows that. i think the claim is a vast over simpi simplification. let me be clear. there is an israel lobby and there are powerful forces in american politics that work to tilt u.s. policies that are favorable to israel and contribute to the security of israel. that is legitimate but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. that said, i think it is way wrong to claim that the iraq war

had anything substantially to do with israel. why did the iraq war occur? complex question. no definitive answer i think is possible. my own answer stems from the fact that -- first of all, that the 9/11 attacks humiliated mr. bush and his administration and put them in a position where they felt impelled to undertake some kind of decisive action to push back against the evidence that they were manifestly incompetent in allowing 9/11 to happen. so they needed to do something and do it very big. i think that the big thing they came up with was an ambitious project to try to i will use the term in quotes fix the greater middle east.

the middle east had been a thorn in our side at least as far back as the iran hostage crisis of the jimmy carter administration. since that time, the united states had been trying to find a way to use its power, particularly military power, to bring stability to the region and to enhance american influence in the region. and 9/11 seemed to create an opportunity to go do that in a big way. and the bush administration persuaded itself recklessly, wrongly, that invading iraq, overthrowing hussein would set the table to enable the united states to bring stability and or democracy and our american clout to the rest of the region. that was built on the fact that

it would be short and we would win decisively and cheaply and that was bizarrely wrong. so we got an unnecessary war that was protracted and costly. host: i want to ask you the american enterprise institute which is a center-right think tank last year a senior fellow wrote a piece that was pretty critical of the quincy institute and said it was supporting overly broad definitions of foreign policy restraint. he said that groups like the quincy institute and its supporters quote american globalism is a cover for imperialism and neoliberalism. implement your response -- i want your response to that criticism that calls for restraint have been overly broad

and could destabilize countries across the globe. guest: hmmm. well, i would think i would say to him and he and i have tangled a little bit, what i would say to proffer brands -- professor brands let's examine the consequence of u.s. policy since the carter doctrine of 1980. most americans have forgotten initiated the project of using american military power to bring stability to the middle east and to enhance our influence. well, here we are years later and let's look at the middle east. is it stable? no. have we enhanced our influence? no. have we spent a couple of trillion dollars? yes. have we lost many thousands of american soldiers' lives with tens of thousands wounded and

suffering the consequence of war? so, it seems to me that he has a tough case it make. and i don't find it particularly persuasive. now the backdrop of this little tiff between me and proffer brands in any judgment he is a proponent of global privacy based on superior military power. that the big vision that we must be the global leader and the indispensable nation and maintain military dominance. that is his image. the quincy institute says we don't agree. we believe restraint offers the possibility of serving the well-being of the american people more effectively. this is an argument without end.

but i could tell you that he is wrong and i'm right but we will continue. host: up next we have brad in savannah, georgia a veteran of the iraq war. tells about where you served and when. caller: oh, many times. i was there during the invasion, then i got to go back to do part two then i got to two a half year of clean-up after the fact. i was serving in the military, i got to fight in bosnia, kosovo, iraq parts one, two and two and a half. so if you tack all the policy out of it and that is bad on itself, just the execution of everything that happened there

from the invasion part one, the anniversary of what we are talking about, until our leaving was a nightmare. there was no plan, no coherent plan. if your guest can talk about -- bob woodward wrote a book called state of denial and it took me a month and a half to get through it because i would get through a chapter and throw it across the living room. it is infuriating how much people don't know about how poorly this thing happened. i'm not saying that the outcome could have been were improved over what it was, but we certainly did not have a plan and what little plan we did have was executed so poorly and on the cheap that you can't be shocked at the result. and there should be some accountability for those involved in that. host: all right, brad, we appreciate your service and your

call. what are your thoughts on that, andrew? guest: brad has firsthand experience that i don't and i won't disagree with him. my own study of the world -- not my experience in the war -- does suggest that at the level of the white house and pentagon and of the united states central command, which was headquarters responsible for planning and conducting the war, there were a set of assumptions about how the war woulden fold that -- would unfold that turned out to be remarkably naive, astonishingly naive. and when those assumptions turned out to be false, the leadership of the -- the civilian and military leadership never managed to catch up, never

managed to undertake the proper corrective action to get things back on track. now, there will be some who would argue, probably professor brands that we referred to, would argue that the so-called surge directed by david patraeus, that that turned the war around and brought us to the cusp of victory. i think that is nonsense because once the surge ended the insurgency ended and we ended up with the iraq that we have that is not like anything that we thought we would get. but the caller, i think, is absolutely correct. the failures of planning and execution at the top of our civilian and military leadership were profound.

host: we have john in hunting done, west virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning, andy. it was a hot mess in 2003 when i went and i didn't agree with it. i was serving and didn't think it was right. it was a hot mess by bush. i want to go back to there's a storm -- to desert storm because i know i was in the service then and we were getting ready to go and it was cut off. i believe general powell saying maybe that is not a good idea and cut the cord on that with bush 42. i would like to know how you think that would have changed things if we took care of it then because they were waiting

for us in baghdad, the people of iraq. there was no terrorists in iraq. he took care of his enemies as well which came to be our future enemies. so i'm hoping you are saying it caused to trump to prevail, but i disagree with that. i think it was basically incorrect policies and look at the democratic policies today which is a global mess. i can't believe i'm sitting here as a soldier and my own country being overrun by who knows what. i hope trump and pompeii will come back again in 2024. host: your thoughts, andrew. guest: well, maybe i'm too old and too cynical, but it seems to me to be inappropriate to blame

the difficulties that the country faces now on one party or the other. it seems to me that the blame can be widely shared. and it is not simply the two parties, it is the mind-set that has prevailed in our politics, a mindset expressed by media reporting, expressed in the writing of many academics. the point there is that the problem is deep-seated and if we just elect so and so to be president next time things will be fixed i think is a delusion. host: i want to thank you for joining us and talking and sharing your thoughts and to remind those at home that you do have your own book, right?

you wrote a book? yes. guest: i have written several books. the one that i would recommend to your viewers actually came out a few years ago america's war for the greater middle east somebody titled the military history. it talks about the iraq war and its failures. it also talks about the other military undertakings that preceded iraq and followed iraq it try to give an overall picture of how deeply flawed u.s.a. involvement in the region has been going all the way back to the carter doctrine of 1980. host: we just showed the cover of "paths of dissent" chairman of the board of the quincy institute for responsible statecraft. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will take a quick break

and then come back with hussain abdul-hussain a research fellow with the foundation for defense of democracies. we will continue our discussion on the 20th anniversary of the start of the war in iraq. we will be right back. >> on mash 19, 1979 americans for the first time were able to watch live coverage of the u.s. house of reference on c-span. to mark that shop our c-span 4th anniversary sale at shap shop.org save 15% on all c-span products including apparel, accessories, home decor and books. there's something for everybody and it helps support our nonprofit operations.

hit the code on the right now through thursday. this week on the snap networks the house and senate are back with the house working on the parents bill of rights legislation the senate continuing debate to repeal authorization for the use of military force against iraq. the senate will have hearings on president biden's budget for fiscal year 2024 and testimony from secretary of state and treasury secretary and chair of the joint chiefs of staff. on wednesday we have the c.e.o. of on the plan to increase the cost of the kraoeupblt and then we have the house energy and commerce on privacy and data security practices the

platform's impact on kids and relationship with the chinese communist party. watch this week live on the c-span networks or c-span now and go to c-span.org for scheduling information or stream video. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." we are joined by hussain abdul-hussain. he is a research fellow with the foundation for defense of democracies and we are continuing our discussion marking the 20th anniversary of start of the war in iraq. good morning, hussein. guest: thanks for having me on. host: absolutely. talk about your personal background because you have direct ties to iraq in the region. can you tell us more about that?

guest: absolutely. i'm half lebanese and half iraqi and spent my first 10 years in iraq, went to elementary school there. i grew up in baghdad, where saddam was the leader and we were tape out to the streets to clear for him and praise him all the time and it was certainly a republic of fear that we were living in. some time in the 1980's we had to leave iraq because my dad had served in the military in the war against iran so we left to my mother's country, lebanon where i stayed until the u.s. state troopers took down the saddam statue and that was the first time i got to visitamily in iraq after 21 years in lebanon. host: you are a research fellow

and what is the purpose of the mission of this think tank and does it have a political ideology or point of view? guest: we are nonpartisan in washington and we are focused on foreign policy and defense policy of the united states. we are nonpartisan. and we don't view we are connected to domestic policies. host: we will be taking calls and questions so you can start calling in now. again the numbers are 202-742-8,000. for 202-748-8001, for 202-748-8002. if you are in iraq -- an iraq war veteran or a family that had a member of the family that

fought in the iraq war call 202-748-8003. you can start now and we will get to your questions and comments momentarily. tell us about your views on the war and have they evolved over the past 20 years? guest: i supported the war. the war gave me gift of freedom. if saddam had stayed in power i wouldn't be sitting here and couldn't write using my name. even though i lived in lebanon his intelligence had long arms and hunted us down. my ability to go to iraq and visit the tombs of my grandparents we got from the iraq war. i supported the war.

i was part of the debate at the time. i think the thinking here in washington is america was going to replicate its experiments in germany and south korea and japan and they all showed we could use the u.s. military power and build democracy. did we do that in iraq? certainly not. is iraq as bad as under saddam? certainly, yes. so we maybe tried to get germany out of iraq but we get turkey or egypt. things are slightly better but they are not where we expected them to be. that is the nature of war, any war that any state fights. host: what do you make of -- of course, there's a lot of debate on the justification for the war, the weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, the fact that some of the justifications for the

war turned out to not be accurate or true, has that affect the your outlook or do you still have the outlook of the ends justifying the means? . if we play this scenario to the end and find w.m.d.'s we still have to find out how to manage for iraq. so whatever the excuse the timing of the war would be something else. the w.m.d.' that we couldn't find in iraq, that was a washington domestic debate. at the time i was still in the middle east and what i heard was operation iraqi freedom and i certainly jumped on that and my cuss conditions and -- my cousins and family and everybody jumped on that so it was not an issue of whether it was w.m.d. allegation or not. to us it was an opportunity of a power coming to overthrow them.

host: you in 2010 wrote and op-ed in "new york times" called a vote of thanks and i found it very interesting because you talked about what it was like to vote in iraq prior to the overthrow of saddam hussein. you talked about an october 2002 vote versus after the war and it implemented new elections. can you tell us -- a lot of americans don't know what it is like to vote in a manner under a brutal dictatorship. with was it like pre and post saddam hussein? guest: just to give you an idea, in 2002 that election saddam won with 100% result and that is telling you the whole story. at the time i was a journalist working in beirut and i got a

call from the embassy of iraq in lebanon and they said you have to come vote and they knew air force journalist so they asked for coverage and i went there, i asked the photographer to show up. he came late and i had voted already. when he showed up he said why didn't you wait for me to take your picture as you voted. i said i'm sorry, here you can you can vote again. so during the process of voting you could see that everyone is scared and even though they offered us to vote in secret, no one would want to vote in secret. they knew it would be an offense punishable by law in lebanon or iraq. so, it was a scary act. compare this to 2010, i just showed up, proved that i was of iraqi origin and voted for a candidate of my choice and this is still going on.

iraq voted last october and formed a government a few months ago. so compare bad iraqis have -- compare what they have now to 2002 and there's a huge difference. host: we'll take a call from mesquite, texas. caller: do you believe that when we went into the war in iraq what was our reason to be there or do you think we had an outcome planned? because i'm a vietnam veteran and unfortunately i remember hamburger hill and the problem i have is the fact that what we lost and how we sacrificed men there and then gave it back.

that's what we did and that's what we have done in every war all the way through to afghanistan. host: all right. what is your answer to his question? guest: thank you for your service first of all. way want to say, it is true that some wars did not go the way that we in the united states wanted. but there are other wars that really went the way that everyone wanted. so, shortly before the iraq war we fought a war in kuwait that went the right direction and it still support. we still have troops there. you can walk down the street and you will see people celebrating americans. so we gave them the freedom from saddam hussein by rejecting his forces. after the kuwait we fought in kosovo. talk to any kosovo they have

posters of american presidents. they fly american flags almost everywhere. so not every war goes wrong like what happened to america in vietnam and iraq. when we went to war in iraq, the thinking was that we weren't trying to give iraqis a chance like everybody else like we did in germany, south korea, kuwait and like what happened to us. our founding fathers got support from the europeans for us to get a fighting chance to get our independence from the british. so, nations love one another and tend it support -- free nations stand for freedom everywhere. that is the basic thinking then some politics got attached to it unfortunately. host: on the line the democratic line from independence, oregon, dan. what is your question or

comment? caller: i want to ask a question. he seems to know a lot about the middle east. i spent a couple of years there, desert storm, dessert shield. how many innocent iraqis were killed when bush used [inaudible] on downtown baghdad. guest: i think you are talking about the underground and that was an unfortunate hit. i'm not sure what was there at the time. i was younger at the time. i followed the news. there were reports that the saddam hussein's republican guard were stashing weapons there or they were commanding from there. and this is not something that is alien to saddam or many forces. we know any fight from win residential neighborhoods and hide there, the iraqi, saddam

hussein's command was hiding there. i, like most, i did lose people in these wars. i lost an uncle right after the war and i lost him to looting and two dear friends to assassination that is not connected to the iraq war. it was an unfortunate incident. host: now in navau, illinois tom the republican line. caller: thank you. i ve just a few facts that pele always forget. when saddam hussn s a student of adolf hitler he h came in and the first thing he was elected he came in and killed 150 of his political opponents. he invaded kuwait, iran.

he believed himself that he had nuclear bombs because nobody could tell him anything he didn't want to hear. he was a mad man and where would we be if he was still there? maybe he would have gotten a nuclear bomb. he did awful things to the country. he modeled his country off adolf hitler. what were we supposed to do in world war ii? make a negotiation with hitler? no. he was an insane individual and we gave him freedom and the middle east is a better place because he was dropping kids out of helicopters in front of their parents. he was a despicable individual. i don't understand this thinking. thank you. host: your thoughts. guest: i will just add a few comments. first of all, he was not elected. he took over power by force.

second, he killed his cousin and his childhood friend in a helicopter crash presumably because he got jealous of him. he also killed his son in law and he was willing to kill his grandchildren if not for his wife who begged limit not to. so i agree saddam hussein was a horrible human being and we are lucky to have gotten rid of him. host: we go to raleigh, north carolina, bob on the democratic line. caller: hussein, i wouldn't disagree with anything you say. but do you think the european press said that 1.2 million innocent civilians died and how do you feel about the torture programs that were initiated on the detainees? guest: i'm not sure about the numbers. what i know and it is unfortunate that the very day i

came to life there were wars in the middle east. my family kept on running. we escaped saddam it lebanon and survived and then the iraq war started again. so, the numbers are just -- cheap mounting with the u.s. and memes and that is really un unfortunate. this is the case that is going on offense there. i'm not sure whether we can stop it. but i think that america can play a huge role and in the necessarily military. we can remain engaged in that part of the world to mitigate the numbers of casualties and deaths that are happening in iraq. host: i want to read a little bit from the associated press about the number of troops that remain in iraq today. it says the roughly 2500 u.s. troops are largely in military

installations in baghdad and north and why it is far from the 170,000 u.s. forces in iraq at the peak of the war in 2007 officials say the limited but continued troop phrefrl is critical as a show of commitment to the region and hedge against iranian influence and weapons traffic being. do you think tend u.s. presence is necessary and how are iraqi people receiving that continued u.s. presence today. guest: great question. to start with, the presence in iraq is by request of an elected iraqi government so that is totally different from the first intervention in iraq. second, i have to say it does not always have to be military presence even though this presence is essential right now in iraq. but in december of 2011,

december 18, when we completed our troop withdrawal from iraq, december 19 the prime minister sent his attacks to besiege the house of the vice president on bogus charges of terrorism. so, what has happened is when we disengage from iraq the balance between the sunna and shia gets altered and led to the reappearance of isis and even though at the time i remember everyone was advising for the u.s. to keep a residual force. so we left iraq in december of 2011, we came back in june of 2014 as isis reformed itself. so keeping our engagement and keeping this force i think the iraqis want it and i think it is doing miracles and it is very important for the national

interest of the united states. host: there was a caller that did mention the abuses that did happen, u.s. troops towards iraqi detainees or soldiers that were prisoners of war. how is that perceived as missteps on justification of war but bad behavior that happened from u.s. troops during the war? guest: it was unfortunate and when you have a population of 130,000 troops which was the number of u.s. troops at the time, you expect to have some issues like this. i think that the only silver line something that the perpetrators were brought to justice and served sentences and all of this happened because the u.s. media brought this to attention. so, you could see democracy at its best. the mediaen covered it, the

justice played a part. there is not something that most people are used to. or they just disappear and no one is taken to court. unfortunately these things happen but it is very fortunate that the perpetrators served sentences in prison. host: we have a text emergency from mike in key port, new jersey. he wants to ask any comment to the amount of depleted uranium are you familiar with those issues? guest: i'm not familiar with those issues but what i know is usaid and for the agencies are involved at many levels with the government of iraq. we are still helping iraqis trying to build their education system and trying to combat climate change. iraqis are facing a huge

shortage of water. so, all of these issues we are engaged with the iraqi government in trying to help them there. >> are still refugees that were freed during the time of isis that still live in tents and refugee camps. i'm not sure about this but i know we are engaged on hoping iraqis on so many levels. host: mark in fort lauderdale, florida, wanted me to make sure i ask you what are your thoughts on the war in ukraine? guest: uh, the ukrainians are standing up to defend their country, to fight for their independence and freedom. and all free nations around the world withstanding up to help them. and this is exactly like how the other european forces have helped the founding farthers of this country and their freedom. americans fought for freedom from the british. the ukrainians are fighting for

the freedom of putin's forces. host: we will go back to the phone lines. austin in college station, texas, is a veteran of the war in iraq. tell us about your service over there. caller: my service over there, i was in a combat role. but what i would like to say is it is great and all that we got rid of somebody who is a terrible person but the c.i.a. knew who saddam hussein was but we helped implement him in iraq and i feel for the speaker and i'm glad that he is in a better situation with soldiers killed in iraq didn't justify that. just saying saddam hussein is a terrible person but it is based off of a lie. personally i'm glad that your

family is getting out but no one was ever held accountable and that feels a fact that you cannot take away. host: we appreciate your service. guest: absolutely, thank you for your service, austin. what i have to say about this is, it is true we were fighting in iraq, but this was not only a war in iraq and about iraq. we know for a fact that we engaged terrorists with al qaeda who came to fight troops in iraq. if you believe former chief of staff he told congress in june of 2014 that iran killed at least 1,000 u.s. service men and women in iraq. so there were many wars that got entabled inside of ---en tabled in iraq and we won many of those wars.

we eventually defeated isis. these are many wars. people like me were fortunate that we got through saddam but other wars were involved. and thank you for your service for fighting in iraq. host: let's go to canton, michigan, nazair is on the independent line. caller: thank you. i have a question for mr. hussain abdul-hussain. i believe the united states made a mistake going in there, but the outcome of that that saddam hussein was removed from power is a good thing. the bigger mistake the united states made is they didn't stay long enough. they should have done what they did in japan, stay until a

secular democracy was established in japan. shortly after the administrator, his term was over, his term was over, the u.s. started pulling back and letting the mullahs take over and that is what we have. even though iraq is not as islamic as iran but it is pretty much in the control of the mullah. do you think they should have stayed long enough to have a solid foundation for a secular democracy in iraq? thank you. guest: you are absolutely correct. waorbld have left a residual force in 2011 instead of having to wage war again and keeping the residual war. if you look at japan, south

korea and germany it has been 83 years since the conclusion of the second world war and we have bases and in south korea we didn't get from fighting the war in korea to democracy on the spot. we fought in the early 1950's. south korea only became a democracy starting in 1987. so they take time. i'm not advocating to take 40 years from iraq but for 20 years down the road we are in a better position than when saddam was there. if we keep the force and stay engageded, 20 years down the road iraq will be a much better country and stronger ally and free ally of the united states. host: we know you are a journalist and we have talked about this. i want to bring up some video. there is from thursday. there was a discussion on the 20th anniversary of the war in iraq and this is a senior fellow

who discusses the cost and toll of the iraq war. >> it stphraoeubgs it was horrendous. as justin mentioned if you throw in contractors about 8300 americans died. if you throw in the cost for care of veterans the total bill is like to be over $3 trillion. 30,000 wounded and you think of those with ptsd and suicides. for both iraq and afghanistan both is about 30,000 each. in terms of iraqis 50,000 or more less died in terms of security forces. the estimates of number of dead civilians run between 200,000 which is kind of a starting point from a group the iraqi body count which tried to have confirmation in terms of killing and they said in a sectarian war if you kill people you don't

carry them to the local coroner to be counted. that is a horrendous toll. appear estimate of up to 9 million displaced at least at some point, 2 million refugees driven from home runs, many christians and others who went to syria and ended up finding themselves in another civil war. host: do you think the american media did a good job in real time of helping people understand the toll of this war that was happening on the other side of the glob? guest: to appear extent, yes. if you were here in 2006 and 2007 you would see suicide bombings and i.e.d.'s covered and they were being covered all the time. i think was this like the

speaker is saying was this our fault that all of these people got killed and displaced? look at syria. we haven't touched syria. it has even more victims, more displaced, much more than iraq even though syria suffered in 2012. so that is seven or eight years after iraq. so, war is going on as we speak in the middle east. i think that the media at a certain point maybe there was fatigue and we stopped covering and that probably forced the u.s. to stop being engaged. but that doesn't mean that war stops there and it doesn't mean that war doesn't need the u.s. to be there to help mitigate the results. host: i know we have tacked already about the false pretense of wins of mass destruction and your thought is that still doesn't remove other justification for the war, but when it comes to journal and the

media what do you think the lessons should be learned as far as the media's initial covering, parroting what we know now was not true about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in rack? guest: my issue with the media as a journalist is so many times we tend to follow what people want to hear. we don't try to get what is actually happening. for example, we know a proven user of w.m.d. allegation. he used chemical weapons it kill syrians in damascus. this barely got any coverage. that is because there's no interest. whereas there are other issues we blow them out of proportion. so, most. time media tends to put on the front page what they think will get them the biggest number of eyeballs.

i think why this is ok but we should practice more of going and probing and asking and investigating. i think this would have helped the whole issue much better than the iraq war. host: cody is calling from west palm beach, florida on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call and c-span thank you. where do you project in terms of like -- i'm sorry, my dog is barking -- where do you project from a journalistic standpoint a future of iraq the birthplace of civilization. you have endured the british empire and ussr. now the united states. what is the future 1234 -- future? guest: thank you. i would not put the united states on par with the previous

empires pause the others came and wanted to rule and treated iraq as part of the empire. we didn't send settlers there and we tried to help the government set up a government and education system. in my experience where iraq is today is better than 20 years ago. i have friends going around with their lives in baghdad peacefully. improvement is happening. it is painstakingly slow. we probably want it to go faster. but i think that iraq is on the right track. it is not going as fast as we want but it is on the right track and i think we should raimann gauged it make sure it keeps on improving. host: next on the line from chagrin, falls, ohio, steve is

calling on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i will cut it the case. how a country can decide whether they want to invade another country is not their choice. that was the problem with the second iraq war. but the -- that goes all the way to all the searching that was ambiguous with the predicate and based on a lie the second iraq war. the first iraq war sanctioned by the united nations because saddam hussein invaded iraq. that was the right war, right reason, a good reason, a true reason. now, maybe they didn't end it properly because saddam hussein was a war criminal.

they should have completed the task back in the 1990's. then you would have how many extra years you think you can rebuild after a country is destroyed. so i think the main point here, the lesson, pay attention -- the united nations has a say here and the veteran was right. when you predicate a war on a lie you are in trouble. thank you. guest: good morning to you, steve. i agree, the united nations plays a role. but the thing with the united nations most of the time they are toothless and don't have any muscle and even though they had a set of sanctions on saddam, saddam went on doing his business like a regular take tarot -- were more ruthless than regular. so these things are tricky and don't always rely on winning consensus from the international community but from the u.s.

so, without 9/11, the afghanistan war and some success that showed during the early months and years of afghanistan i don't think that the second iraq war would have been possible. so, these things i agree with you in retrospect it is easier to decide which was a better war, but at the time -- and during when things were unfolding i don't think that we could have guessed where things would have been going. host: let's go to adio in orlando, florida, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things i would like to discuss. in the early 1980's the c.i.a. installed saddam hussein as their leader to fight against

taliban. but they knew he was a crazy guy. i'm not defending him. but everybody knows that iraq with saddam hussein was one of the most stable countries in the world after the iraqi war. from the 1990's he inviolated kuwait and the united states wanted to get his oil. however, one of the investigators went in there and was a spy and said was a spy for the c.i.a. and identified saddam hussein as no weapons of mass destruction in the early 1990's and in the later portion of

2000. i want to ask mr. hussein the question here. what makes his way of democracy the better way of what saddam hussein did? thank you. guest: thank you if i get your question correctly, what makes us a better democracy than saddam hugh s&p? i think we are a much better democracy. i don't think he even claimed to have a democracy. but to go back to your point only chemical weapons it is true we didn't find w.m.d.'s in 2003, but we have government documents that saddam in 1987 used chemical weapons on the kurds. two days ago was the anniversary and we have the assistant secretary of state signed a document that says we know saddam was using mustard gas on the kurds.

so we know he used these weapons. maybe he has run out of them and maybe he has used them and our hid them or destroyed them. he kicks out inspectors, he pretended as if he had w.m.d.'s. so he was tricking iran and us but all of this didn't come out of nowhere. we didn't just invent that he might have had w.m.d.'s. he had them for a time. he had the nuclear reactor in 1981. by the time we went in he didn't have them. fine. that was by assessment. but for a long time saddam hussein did have chemical weapons and did try to get nuclear weapons. host: we want to thank you for joining us this morning. this is hussain abdul-hussain, a research fellow with the

foundation for defense of democracies. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have been talking about the 20th anniversary of the start of the war in iraq and its aftermath. we appreciate you joining us. that is it for "washington journal." we be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. have a great day.