>> schieffer: welcome back to "face the nation" and we begin with cbs news senior correspondent john miller who has quite an interview tonight on "60 minutes" with mike morell, the recently retired number two official at the c.i.a. john, what strikes me in your interview is just how complex and delicate the c.i.a. sees this effort to armt opposition to assad. morell says we have to give the rebels enough support to force assad to the negotiating table but not enough to destroy syria's army. >> the syrian military and the institutions of the syrian security services to defect al qaeda when sms done. and every day that goes by, every day that goes by, those institutions are eroded. >> schieffer: so, john, here's what strikes me-- this is a war.

things are changing by the minute. is it really realistic to think that you can calibrate the level of support that precisely? >> reporter: you know, that is the question. you've heard about precision strikes with missiles, but how do you do precision strikes with whom you give either money or arms to? and that's just because it wasn't complicated enough, bob? in morell's view, there are four wars going on there. there is the war of the people against the dictator. there is the war of sunnis versus shi'as. there's the war of the proxy war in the shadows of the saudis, versus the iranians for dominance in the region. so the idea of providing arms or support to one side and knowing that you've got the right side, or in the cases that weapons are often traded, they won't end up in the wrong place. you know, he who doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it. we were chasing stinger missiles in afghanistan to fight the

russians and there are 20,000 of those floating around since the fall of the soviet union on their side. it is complicated. >> schieffer: he clearly laid out why the c.i.a. thinks this is so important for the syrian army to be able to crush those forces. listen to this. >> those areas could eventually become the kind of safe haven that could pose a significant threat to us. they don't right now. they pose only a regional threat. but, you know, the places that i'm worried about in terms of the ultimately becoming a safe haif than could pose the kind of threat that al qaeda posed to us pre-9/11 is syria, number one, and number two, afghanistan fthe taliban were to get a grip on that country again. again. >> reporter: so here is a situation where, you know, the question to elicit that answer was basically what keeps you up at night? and the glad we could have fought in afghanistan for 12 years with all of those dollars

and all of that bloodshed, only to find that was to deny al qaeda sanctuary, and they reein syria and maybe afghanistan again is a long way, throw in the additional factor of chemical weapons, and, you know, mike morell and others believe that assad will never give up his chemical weapons. they'll give some back, they'll hide some, and if al qaeda takes over, they could end up with na, too. >> schieffer: reporter, well, thank you so much, john. a reminder, you can see all of john's interview tonight on "60 minutes." joining us now to talk about that and all of the rest of it, peggy noon an, columnist for the "wall street journal." harvard university's david gergen. susan page, who is the washington bureau chief for "usa today." and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. let me just talk just a little bit first about what you just saw. i mean, i find this hard to kind of get my head around, my arms around this idea that you can calibrate aid so precisely that

you can, you know, hurt assad but not destroy the institutions around him. david? >> well, all of us like to believe in fairy tales. i would like to think you can do it and of course we have the best intelligence agency working out there. i think they're doing a superb job. but i think the larger point here is, bob, that we have some sort of moral obligation to the rebels. it was our policy, after all, to remove assad, and we told the rebels we would arm them. we've been very slow at that. and now they feel betrayed by this agreement. >> i think it's worth pointing out that inaction has consequences in a situation like this, too. i was in jordan just recently and talked to refugees. they described a situation where for a year, if you wanted to fight the regime, who did you go to that had the best weapons and the best ammunition? i had jawdists did in that circumstance. there's a competition going on within syria, and the u.s. has not been very effective inng tt.

>> but it's clear from the president's interview this morning on abc that his goal is not to have the rebels succeed. his goal is to control chemical weapons and to make sure that the rebels aren't wiped out. ideally, i guess we try to have some kind of resolution to the civil war. you asked madeleine albright if there was a possibility that what replacedly assad is worse than assad, she said no. a lot of strategists in the u.s. government disagree with that. they think it is possible if you topple assad you don't have control who takes over for him and it could be a worse situation for the united states' strategic interests. >> schieffer: peggy, what does this agreement that the secretary of state and russian foreign minister come up with, how does that impact all of this? do you think this is a good thing? >> well, i gotta tell you, i think your question about how to help is the essential one. i think the most interesting thing that has happened in the past few weeks is that the american people looked at this

potential action, looked to some degree at what was going on in syria, and thought assad is bad. and the people who are up against him seem bad. and the president is saying we're going to do a strike. we're not going to knock over the bad guy, and we are not going to hurt or help too much the other bad guys. it all seemed like a big-- a big confusion, the kind of confusion america gets in now and then and nothing good happens from the moment they jump in. on the agreement itself, oh, my goodness. i think-- i think everybody's relieved that the u.s. right now is not striking syria. i think there's just a lot of widespread relief on that. we will see how the agreement that has avoided that, least temporarily, works out. doesn't look to me like anything but a time saver and ultimately an agreement that probably keeps

mr. assad in power, lets a lot of time goes by, lets the subject shift, lets it all disappear. >> schieffer: you know what i'm glad about? i'm glad that after the president said we're going to do something, that he then would-- might have to go back to the world and say, "oh, i'm sorry, i promised you i was going to do, this but i can't do it because the congress won't let me do it." i think that is the worst possible place of all. maybe he should have drawn the red line. maybe she shouldn't. but he did, and after that to have the president of the united states not be able to follow through, i think is the-- would put this country in an extremely dangerous place. >> i couldn't agree more with that. and i think all of us around the table devoutly hope that a peaceful resolution comes about here, that this all works. and if it does, president obama and his team do deserve a lot of credit. but i think there's also-- i'm not among the optimists. i'm among the pessimists.

this agreement depend upon the good faith of the two lyingest s.o.b.s on the face of the planet. in the world view, assad is awe butcher and putin is a thug. and we're going to depend on their good faith? beyond that, there's a question of how toothless this deal is. there is nothing here that promises if he violates-- there's a good chance he will hide his stuff-- that force will follow. let's go back to tbob. if senator levin truly believes that the threat of force is what's going to make this drive this, then it's time for the president to go back to the congress and get an authorization now. for the use of force if this fails. that would put some real teeth into this. >> but i think the biggest lesson we've learned from this whole episode is the incredible reluctance of americans to get engaged in more military action. i mean be this was a surprise that-- the intensity of the opposition in congress and among the american public was a surprise to the white house. a surprise to the leadership

both democratic and republican on the hill. and we saw this new coalition emerge of liberals in the democratic party and libertarian republicans who are-- who were going to succeed in blocking what both the president and their own leadership told them they ought to do. that is an error we're going to be living with for some time. >> but it was americans on the ground even more than liberal left democrats, or libertarian republicans. it was americans on the ground who started emailing and calling their congressmen with things like-- congressmen were saying i got 632 calls. 612 were against action. that tells you something. that tells you something very big is bubbling up in america. interestingly, it used to be washington used to be the moderating force on american impulses. in this case, i think rather historically, america was the moderating force on washington's impulses looking for action. very interesting. >> yes, but this is what diplomacy look likes from a

position of weakness. the russians gave a lifeline. the president was noon the verge of action. he was on the verge of historic humiliation. they gave him a lifeline, and it's come with russian rules. their proxy is more secure in power. he can go on committing atrocities without gassing people because he's perfectly capable of doing that, and russia gains tremendous influence in the region. so i don't think anyone can view this-- this is avoiding disaster. it's not a victory in that region. there's a serious regional challenge going on and an anti-western alliance that the united states is not very effectively opposing right now. and you can't oppose it just by focusing on chemical weapons. there are other issues at stake here. >> schieffer: david? >> i was going to say there is-- i'm pessimistic about this agreement for the obvious raensz i stated. i do think there's an argument on the other side which one has to listen to at least, and that is we have-- by not going in with force, we are going to get an agreement that will eliminate

at least 50% or so of his chemical weapons, that he's not going to use chemical weapons again because the russians won't let him. they've got their credibility on the line. that the-- over time, his position will be weakened, and it strengthens us in other parts the middle east. that's the argument. i don't buy it. but i think we should be aware there is an argument out there. >> schieffer: let's take a quick break here. we're going to have a lot more to talk about this. we'll be back in just a second.

>> schieffer: and we're back, and we're talking about the only story to really talk about in washington this sunday, and that is this agreement that the

russians and the american secretary of state have put together. you know, somebody told me, michael, that they're talking about doing in a matter of weeks what from a practical standpoint could take years. i mean, the united states is still trying to destroy the chemical weapons that it had at one point. this is just not an easy thing technically to do. >> i think it's very-- it's likely to be an uncertain, long-term outcome here. we're not going to get something decisive, as secretary of state albright said in this case. i think it does take it's use of american force pretty much off the table. americans were not willing to endorse the use of force when it was the president created a crisis situation with people being gassed on august 21. i don't think that they're going to undertake force because there's an indecisive inspection process in a difficult war zone. so i think-- i think it's in the president's interest to assert

that the use of force is still on the table, but i think it's very unlikely now. >> i think he has now set a precedent for himself. there's a value in going to congress, which congress didn't expect in this case. it's been so long since the president went to congress for authorization. he set a standard for himself. here's one question-- has he set a standard that future presidents will need to abide by? will future presidents now-- will there be an expectation they will go to congress in a situation like this and ask for authorization before they're moving ahead? >> we're luck we avoid the point where congress voted and if it had votedly the idea down. the president either would have done it without their authorization or not done in in accordance with their views. that had implications for the american presidency down the road. i'm very grateful we didn't get to that point. as for a precedent, i don't think this sets a precedent with regard to congress. the precedent it sets is probably with regard to other things, like the middle east.

>> i think there's a precedent here for the president, this president, not necessarily for successors. i don't think he can now take action against iran without going to congress and that's a very important distinction that the iranians will surely notice. but i want to go back to this, michael. the way to put teeth back in this is have the democrats and the republicans are saying this is such a good deal but we need to keep force on the table to put their money where their mouth is and vote now to authorize force. that would send a signal to assad that the united states is united on this. and it's not simply a rhetorical ploy. >> i'd love to see that happen-- >> the american people-- >> i'd like to see that particularly in relation to iran. right now, they see a conflicted superpower that was unwilling to make a decision to take force. i think the congress could help with that. but i think the president, because of this, if thing stay the way they are, is entering a danger zone.

if you look at kennedy and khrushchev in 1961, where khrushchev took kennedy's measure and thought he was weak at that summit in vienna. you had almost immediately the construction of the berlin wall, and sending missiles to cuba. people these kind of crises. if they sense weakness, whether it's iran, whether it's russia, whether it's north korea, you could see syria's reo see serios here. >> schieffer: why is it in russia's interest for syria flotto have cems? >> i think they don't want the attention. assad is their client. this has been bad for assad, fomented opposition to his regime generally. if they remove the threat of chemical weapons, i think the

rest of the world is going to say there's a terrible civil war going on there, it's terrible for the syrian people, we're not going to do very much about it. >> bob, forbe policy experts say in part russia is concerned about chemical weapons getting in wrong hands and being used against them and their own people back home. but the larger issue here, as they say, is russia's strongest interest is to keep assad in power. that gives them a big voice in the middle east. he is giving up not very much, his chemical weapons capacity. in turn they're going to cut side deals with him to arm him more fully. and now the international community, in order to enforce this deal, has to work through assad. they have legitimatized him as the place you go to get cooperation and that's why it's going to be hard to armt rebels. if we start arming the rebels and assad says if you start arming the other side we're not going to give up our weapons. >> he used chemical weapons and improved his job security. that's not a particularly good message to other dictators. >> that is the message that will be out there, too.

>> schieffer: going back to peggy's point that the people really rose up and let-- and let their elected officials know that they really wanted no part of that. and that is the way this country operates, and it's a good thing. but, you know, i think back to the strong isolationism that gripped this country before world war ii, and there are people that just wanted america to withdraw from the world, and they just kind of looked the other way while hitler was doing what he was doing. that turned out not to be such a good idea, when you come right down to it. of course america did become involveinvolved and had we not,k the world would have been on the verge of a new dark age. so does congress also have an obligation sometime to educate its constituents when they don't necessarily agree? i remember asking several congressmen along the way here at this table, can you ever see an issue where it's-- you think it's so important that you would go against 90% of the people in

your district? >> as i recall, when the martial plan was first proposed in the truman administration, the gallup poll found there was only 17% support for it. and there was a bipartisan coalition that went to work to turn that around. and they did. >> seems like another era, doesn't it, both parties working together to educate the american people to change their point of view, not just to poll and figure out how to appeal to them. it sounds pretty old fashioned. >> historically depressing a little bit. franklin roosevelt was one of the great communicators and ruthless communicators in american history. he did not persuade the american people to enter world war ii. it was pearl harbor that did that. it was deeply unpopular in 1940 to send u.s. troops abroad. and that does mean sometimes the president and the congress to be credible in the world like important regions in the middle east may have to defy their own constituents and say there are important national interests here and that need to be

reinforced. >> yeah, but this was also a story about specifics. the american people were looking at the middle east and thinking we're snake bit. they're look at iraq and afghanistan. they are looking at syria and thinking if we strike, we could become enmeshed in a war. is this man the, the president, a war president? they're worried about the culture, their infrastructure, their economy, their children don't have jobs, which means they don't develop the human habits of constructive lives. americans got i think looked at this syria case very specifically and voted no. >> peggy, i think most of all they thought we just got out of two wars, two long wars. we never thought iraq and afghanistan would go on as long and cost as much as it did, and i think that is a shadow that hangs over syria. >> schieffer: it's exact let's shadow that hung over the united states in the dawes before world war ii. we had just come out of world war i. nobody was quite sure why we had gone there, and we weren't quite

sure what the results were. >> we also have the shadow of libya. we tried to go something there and it didn't work out. >> schieffer: what happens now? let's say who will be the impact of all this on what's ahead for the president? because there are some other things coming up this fall in washington, among other things, the country is broke. we've got to figure out something about our debt crisis. i guess immigration is just something that was a good idea but i have-- my sense of it that has just gone away, that will never happen now, immigration reform any of kind. susan. >> and health care cups in two weeks, the haefort affordable care act goes goeffect when these changes open for business pup know, we have a new-- tomorrow we'll be publishing a "usa today"/pew research center poll on this, it shows while republicans have failed to repeal obamacare, they made it difficult to succeed. opposition to the law is as high as it's ever been. for the first time in the history of this poll, republicans are preferred when it comes to dealing with health

care. and only half of americans understand that there are going to be exchanges available, subsidies for lower income americans. you talked about an education effort needed on an issue like syria. there's a big education effort needed -- >> do you think anything is going to come together here, michael? >> i think this is a second term on the edge right now, and an uphill battle on both budget issues. their main positive issues like gun control or climate change are off the map. health care implementation is going to be a huge issue in america. and it could have some real rocky road ahead. and the president right now, as far as approval ratings, is about why george w. bush was in his second term. there are warning signs for the midterm election. there are warning signs for his broader agenda. i think it's a serious moment for the president. >> schieffer: 20 seconds. >> what could rescue him is the republicans could overplay their hand and try to shut downtown government or have us go into default over obamacare. that would help him a lot.

>> schieffer: we have to stp there stop there. thanks to all of you. we'll be back. cln

>> schieffer: well, that round it up for us today. we hope you'll tune into "cbs this morning" tomorrow morning for the very latest on the syrian crise. as for us, we'll be right here next sunday on "face the nation." hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center.

hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.

[ male announcer ] staying warm and dry has never been our priority. our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship. now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today.

captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> announcer: the following is a paid presentation for the nutribullet, brought to you by nutribullet, llc. [♪...] >> ...my muscle aches, my backaches really started to decrease significantly in one week. >> the first night that i actually used the nutribullet, i actually slept really well. that was exciting. that was phenomenal. >> the bad cholesterol, which was 290, went down to 190. >> the changes that i saw in myself and my family were just amazing. >> announcer: join these people and thousands just like them and discover a machine that finally has the power to take years off the way you look and feel. learn from nutrition expert and bestselling author david wolfe, who speaks to sold-out audiences around the world, why he calls this the most significant discovery of his lifetime. introducing the nutribullet, the superfood nutrition extractor.