podcasts. c-span is available at the apple store. download it for free today or visit c-spannow. your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. >> c-span is unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. hael

o'hanlon -- welcome back. we are joined by michael o'hanlon. we will talk about the collapse of the assad regime in syria. give us a context of the origin of the conflict. it goes back to the arab spring and the rubble movement but then it reached a stalemate in recent years. guest: if anything, the assad regime, he has won the war because he reestablished most of the country. the central corridor where most of the main cities are located in syria, starting with aleppo and ending in damascus, he had control of all that. the exceptions to the rule were primarily in the northeast which is largely desert where our

friends, the kurdish groups were in control. that never made turkey happy. turkey has a kurdish population and also a kurdish insurgent movement. that has been a complex relationship. in the northwest, there were remnants of the more extreme this sunni movements, isis, al qaeda, centered around the city to the north of aleppo. that is where groups established a small form of government and control and a military industry of a population of maybe a couple million over a period of years. i didn't really sense the strength that movement was developing. worst people were soup -- most people were surprised by what happened.

that popular resistance existed in the northwest to complement the kurdish rebels or movement in the northeast. and some small movements here and there with tiny pockets of land in the south. that all came together in the last few weeks as president assad's supporters lost their way and ability to help him and his regime started to just dissolve before our eyes. host: what do we know about the leader of the organization that now is holding damascus, essentially and seems to be leading most of that country? what do we know about the leader? guest: we know three big things and they push and pull in opposite directions. one is that he is obviously an effective military leader. managed to pull together a coalition in the way that for 13 years come close in 30 has now

claimed to be a moderate in the sense that he will protect and preserve minority rights and women's rights and not go down the path of sharia law or the capricious beheadings and heinous of tragedies that isis was known for. he has established a form of governance in the north that seems to back up his claims that he has moderated and wants to lead the coalition. that claim perhaps is part of what explains his success because other insurgent groups were willing to cooperate with him in overthrowing a regime rather than fight each other which has often been the case in the syrian civil war. we will see if that sinews. we know he is a very effective battlefield leader. he is a more moderate governor or military leader and we know

he has extremist routes but claims to be moving away from those. host: that group does have a terrorist designation from the united states. do you think it is too soon to lift that? you think that should stay in place and what does that mean if that doesn't nation in place? guest: my instinct would be now to remove it provided we see behavior in the next few days and weeks and months that is consistent with the claim that he really has moderated and will be an inclusive leader and will use violence sparingly and legally. if he holds up his promises then i think we should raise the -- erase the terrorist designation. as the u.s. government's folks people have said, actions speak louder than words.

at see what they can establish with whatever the government is now creating and make sure they live up to their promises. host: here artment a secretary of state lincoln's ement. it says, this transition process should lead to credible, usive and nonsectarian governance that meets transparency and accountability. the syrian people will decide the future of syria. they shouldin from external interference. the united states will recognize and support a feature in syria government that results from this process. we stand prepared to lend all appropriate supports all of syria's diverse communities and constituencies. michael o'hanlon, that sounds good but he is only going to be an office for a few more weeks. what are we expecting from the trump administration? guest: it is a good point, but

even if he were going to be in office longer, it would be hard to deliver on the nice words. and they are nice words but the fact that we are going to just let the syrians resolve this on their own is correct at one level but they are going to need help rebuilding the country. you are going to have to make a choice, at what point do you consider a new government inclusive enough and confident enough that it merits are support and maybe even our financial support. that is a big decision. you have to put the principles out there and watch what happens in practice. and let's all remember how bad of a track record we as americans have of building democracies out of civil wars. be it vietnam, iraq and afghanistan. and i would underscore a warning of something that we got wrong

in iraq, we pushed too soon for early elections, thinking that elections equal democracy equals inclusivity. it is not true. democracy is minority rights protections, restraint and checks and balances on a ruling party which ideally should not be based just on sectarian identity. let's not re-create the mistakes were in iraq. host: we are talking about the fall of the assad regime in syria. if you like to join the conversation with michael o'hanlon, call us, republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. you mentioned the arms group -- armed groups in in syria still fighting. there are turkish forces, kurdish forces, isis and others. what does this mean for a united

syria going forward? will they all have to lay down their arms and with a be willing to do that? guest: i don't know if they should lay down their arms but come together against a central army. they need some sense that their protection will be assured. so having them played on the arms too soon just like to early elections. for jolani he has to prove himself as a fair leader for everyone. they are going to be punitive. those who are decision-makers and those who authorized the bombing of civilian populations during the civil war and the people who authorized chemical weapons use, the perpetrator number one, president assad is

gone and out of the country, but there will be top level of leadership likely to be put on trial and probably put in jail. that needs to be done with some restraint and leniency if you are going to reach out to those from the assad regime. the christians and the alice sites were the ones that work with assad. jolani needs to create the right level of justice toward the previous regime. host: israel expands or in syria, extensive attacks at the volatility in the goal is preventing rebel access to weapons. the syrian military has been decimated by israel at this point and the navy is completely

gone. how do you see this? they have come under criticism from arab neighbors about it being opportunity to send this being a land grab. how do you see this? guest: it depends on which action we are talking about. i think a future syrian state has a right to a military and even though israel has the right to be nervous based on history, there is no reason to think that this group that overthrew president assad will perpetuate the policies of hezbollah. israel should not presume that a future syrian government will do the same thing. i have sympathy for israel wanted to get rid of chemical weapons it can find and to patrol and protect the region of north around the golan heights where israel is concerned about the potential for extremist groups to take root to take

violence against israel. a temporary occupation of some of those areas i think is understandable and i would not resize israel for that. host: and is up first -- ed is in new jersey. caller: i noticed that the guest didn't mention the u.s. presence in the north of syria and i believe that reports are that they are taking the syrian allele. my think -- syrian oil. my thinking is one of the reasons that the assad regime has fallen is the u.s. is stealing from those people. his existence was dependent upon his ability to compromise and get the support of others. he faced an uphill climb the fact that he held on as long as

he has was commendable. comments on how the united states has played an important role in the demise of assad. guest: it is important to get that on the table. there are a to the thousand u.s. troops in that area. i think we have been happy to see the kurds take the oil we are not taking the oil. we have been for governance in the north and east where they had no ability to provide it. i mostly agree with your point about the importance of the u.s. troops but i don't think they have been stealing from assad. they have been allowing the kurds to have the resources to run that part of the country. as to whether assad was an inclusive leader, there may have been a day they thought he was the least bad kind of option for syria. people like john kerry and hillary clinton met with him

before the arab spring began and hope that he could become a more reform oriented president and i think he proved that he is not the way he has governed the country and admittedly when there is a civil war you're going to fight for survival but darrell bombing civilian populations and up to a half million people died and more than 10 million people displaced , most because of the regime, this has been despicable. there is nothing about assad that merits in the sadness on our part that he is gone. but he turned into a monster and the only reason he stayed in power so long was because hezbollah as well as iran and russia helped him do so. it wasn't because he had the notion that he was inclusive and benign. i think alawites and christians may have thought that because a feared what a sunni majority government would do to them. so most of the resistance groups

are sunnis and it will be a challenge for them coming into power that they don't oppress the alawites and the christian communities. it is one thing to make sure they are fair to the minority groups that are now going to be at their mercy, so to speak. host: we will put on the screen a timeline of the u.s. involvement in syria so we get an idea. ptember 2014 was the first s. military intervention in syria with airstrikes against the islamic state. late 2015 the u.s. ground troops first ensyri theigoal was to help the kurdish fighters defeat the islamic state. december 2018, top announces his intention to withdraw troops om syria but the plans often within a year. this is when defense secretary james mattis resigned in protest

and today, 900 troops are still in the country. michael o'hanlon, what you see as the united states top priority militarily in syria? guest: that is a good timeline but i would add one piece which comes before 2014 which is that we started to look for ways to support opposition groups who were rising up in insurrection against president assad, but were very restraint and how we did that. president obama thought it might be better to keep american hands largely out and maybe save our powder so to speak for a new syrian regime. there was enough expectation that assad would fall and he didn't have a lot of money and only had minority support in the country. our role in the early period was in some ways counterproductive. we encouraged insurrection and promised help to the rebels but never delivered. that is part of why they stayed in such disarray, several dozen

groups formed in those periods and didn't do a good job of coordinating or cooperating with each other. so in terms of our priorities now, the number one priority has to be to prevent iran from reestablishing actions to hezbollah in lebanon and right up there with that priority is making sure that in isis or al qaeda from the government does not take hold in damascus and wind up being extremist in behavior. if we get another government like the taliban that would be bad for the people of syria but so far they don't seem intent on cooperating with al qaeda in carrying out airstrikes against the united states so maybe we have reached a live and let live relationship with them. you can imagine a relatively extremist government in syria establishing that same understanding with the united

states. but the preference is a moderate, progressive, inclusive , non-islamist government that allows all faiths, muslim, christian, sunni as well as alawite, freedom of expression and religion. to go back to your question, that is not a crucial american national security interest. it is more of a human rights concern, pro-democracy concern. the top two security interests are preventing iran from reestablishing a land bridge to hezbollah in lebanon and also making sure that an extremist violent terrorist group does not take sanctuary or power inside the new syria. host: john in the faller ville, michigan, independent. good morning. caller: i was wondering with what is happening in gaza and

lebanon and syria, can you tell the american public about the greater israel project and how many more people have to die for israel to achieve their goals. guest: i will say this that i understand after the unbelievable tragedy of october 7, 2020 three why israel had to take very stern measures. but i do think israel has been indiscriminate in the use of a large weapons inside of gaza and i think some of the casualties that have ensued could have been prevented and should have been prevented and i would also say and you and i may agree more strongly that there needs to be a vision for a future palestinian state. that has been of the heart of u.s. policy for a generation going back to the first president bush, going back to 1948 and the creation of israel.

it has not been something that prime minister netanyahu has pursued with any kind of conviction or sincerity inside of israel. even now they have essentially decimated the previous political structure in gaza for understandable reasons. israel has not shown any particular interest in creating a vision for a future palestinian state and i think that is too bad. i hope the trump administration will try to persuade israel that they need that kind of a vision because there really is no alternative. unfortunately i am afraid many israeli friends don't agree with what i just said and would rather not create a palestinian state and don't believe it would be free of the influence of groups like hamas. i understand the concerns but this is the way to allow the future palestinian state to develop and still keep israel secure. easy for me to say here in washington, i understand but [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

>>